Run-up to the inquest into Diana's death

[blackdaisies]

trevor reese does say he was told he was not wearing a seatbelt, and that he was glad of it because it meant he was doing his job. they don't wear them so they can move around. so that is ONE true fact in the report, but he also says he didn't smell liquer on hendy paul did not appear to be drunk and appeared to be just as he was that morning, so he only says he's shocked by the findings of the french report.

i don't believe the report, don't believe he was drunk, and think it's crap, but since a lot of snub noses think it's vital to read, i'm reading it. i didn't prove they weren't wearing seat belts with my research, but as far as i'm concerned i found something better by reading trevor reese's statement saying henri paul didn't appear to be drunk.

http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0003/21/lkl.00.html

the report in the first 10 pages (i'll have to download it again because is deleted it when i thought it was the 2004 report) says they did not find the white fiat and i think they also said they did not find the white fiat driver also. so the guy that was found burned to death in his car who owned the white fiat who was the photographer who normally stalked diana who was reportedly in the area at the time of the accident and was expected to be in the area, was not considered found to be the white fiat driver or was not the car used in this incident.

praise the french! what great findings and congratulations to britain who followed up to be even dumber on this finding! hallalujah! if i could only be as dumb as they think the public is, but i guess some are because of all the attacks of the anti murder theories, not conspiracy, murder is still murder regardless of what name you try to shun in under.

so no i have 2 false statements in the report that cannot be ignored in a investigation of false reports. this makes 2 mistatements of investigated incidents that were left out of the investigation all within the first 10 pages.

so now i'll suffer and download it again and read 10 or 20 more and report each finding i get that can't be true.

 

[ysbel]

A lot of it - the sentences marked with IMHO are my own interpretations of the findings in the report. You can find the basic information from which I formed my opinion in the chapter about the ring and the question if Diana selected it herself and if it was an engagement ring (chapter one). The report says IMHO while Diana may have looked into a window of the jeweler in Monte Carlo and liked one, she did not select a ring herself. But the fact that she talked with Burrell about a forthcoming gift of a ring showed me that she realized that Dodi would give her one. Then she talked to friends about not wanting to get married.

The staff of the Ritz tell that Dodi was looking for a ring he could not describe but knew where it had been placed in the shop window in Monte Carlo and they were ordered to search for it. The info about the sizing of the ring etc. by the jeweler is IMHO rubbish - no ring really was selected and it wasn't sized for Diana. Ritz-staff tells that Mohammed al-Fayed wanted information and prices on all the rings his son had selected - taking such a vivid interest in the selection of a ring (while Dodi seems to have looked for a gift, not necessarily a ring) told me that it was Mohammed who was really interested in a symbol for a closer relationship, not Dodi and it was him who decided on how much money there is to spend. Eg Claude Roulet recalling on page 40/41 that after Dodi had told him to look for the ring, he phoned Mohammed and got his orders from Mohammed to do what Dodi wanted.

A lot of the things reported about the situation at the Ritz before they took off for their last ride, especially the orders the security team seem to have gotten, show IMHO the enormous influence of Mohammed al-Fayed and that Dodi was so fed up with the situation that he overruled his father's orders. (in chapter thirteen). Diana's friend Lucia Flecha de Lima tells from the last video of Diana at the Ritz that the princess herself was unhappy and appeared stressed.

All these statements gave me the above mentioned ideas. You can find the statements in the report in chapters one and thirteen. Hope this helps.

Thanks Jo. I've read the chapter about the ring - it looked like al-Fayed told the jeweler to tell one story at the begining but then he changed it later. I haven't gotten to chapter 13 though.

My impresssion was that Dodi was the type of guy whose ego would have been stroked by dating someone like Diana and several reports that I read indicated that he enjoyed the publicity whereas Diana didn't. So I didn't get the idea that he was necessarily co-erced into dating Diana. That may change though when I read Chapter 13.

 

[blackdaisies]

here's the link to the white fiat death story.

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=5727

what i really don't understand is since princess diana made so much revenue for england, why someone would complain about the price of the investigation for her murder and why complete the investigation when they really weren't done yet since they had information about the white fiat driver and witnesses proof of henri paul not being drunk?

and the accident itself may not every be proven because they refuse to let it, but the actions afterwards were what actually killed her and why aren't they investigating that and recreating how long it would normally take to rescue someone? THEY SHOULD HAVE RECREATED THE RESCUE.

i'm going to ask some local people who does that kind of work in my area how long it takes them in accidents to get them out of the vehicle and to the hospital. they have a lot of spindly roads and hollows plus it is a rural area with lots of trees to run into, which is very common and has even killed many drivers, so it is very dangerous driving in this area. they also have something called "the jaws of life" which they use to remove people who have been in accidents if they can't get into the car. my cousin was taken to nashville tn, u.s.a. via helicoptor after they removed him from his vehicle and took him where he could get adiquate (forgot how to spell it) medical help. he was lucky to be alive with head injuries and all. he lived but lost a few teeth.

so i know there is better options because they have saved lives more than they have lost and they are very far away from the correct medical facilities needed for emergency operations. this accident was in a city not far from a hospital, so that is part of my main reason i think they did not do their job.

 

[Skydragon]

trevor reese does say he was told he was not wearing a seatbelt, and that he was glad of it because it meant he was doing his job. they don't wear them so they can move around. so that is ONE true fact in the report, ...i found something better by reading trevor reese's statement saying henri paul didn't appear to be drunk.

Trevor Rees Jones, tried to put his seatbelt on when he realised they might crash. Quite normal behavior IMO, I have done it myself and although you still get a mighty wallop, there is a chance you will survive. Many people on drugs or alcohol appear to be fine, but their reflexes are seriously impaired.

i'm going to ask some local people who does that kind of work in my area how long it takes them in accidents to get them out of the vehicle and to the hospital. they have a lot of spindly roads and hollows plus it is a rural area with lots of trees to run into, which is very common

Amazing, they can replicate exactly the roads, traffic conditions, the different approach to seizures etc, etc, etc. Tell them to thoroughly read a real report first, won't you!

 

[Jo of Palatine]

i don't believe the report, don't believe he was drunk, and think it's crap, but since a lot of snub noses think it's vital to read, i'm reading it. i didn't prove they weren't wearing seat belts with my research, but as far as i'm concerned i found something better by reading trevor reese's statement saying henri paul didn't appear to be drunk.

There are people who don't appear to be drunk because they are used to. While they can react perfectly normal on doing normal things they cannot control a car in difficult circumstances. That's an established fact - so much that here in Germany, if you are caught by the police and don't appear drunk on driving while a blood test proves that you were, you are punished harder because you are considered to be a "seasoned drunk-driver". So much for that statement. And please, think about it: why should he confess to have had a suspicion that Paul was drunk when that could made him responsible for allowing Paul to drive? I in his position of course would lie! And tell exactly what he told.

the report in the first 10 pages (i'll have to download it again because is deleted it when i thought it was the 2004 report) says they did not find the white fiat and i think they also said they did not find the white fiat driver also. so the guy that was found burned to death in his car who owned the white fiat who was the photographer who normally stalked diana who was reportedly in the area at the time of the accident and was expected to be in the area, was not considered found to be the white fiat driver or was not the car used in this incident.

Please read the report. It clearly states that there is no proof at all that James Andason was in Paris apart from his telling so in a situation when he wanted to sell a book idea with him as a witness. All other proof (eg his creditcard statements, the fact that he was in Corsica the next day etc.) show that he couldn't have been there at that time. No one saw him, he doesn't appear on any pictures of that night, the times and places when he used his credit cards show that he was somewhere else. How could anybody have fabricated that without leaving traces?

so no i have 2 false statements in the report that cannot be ignored in a investigation of false reports. this makes 2 mistatements of investigated incidents that were left out of the investigation all within the first 10 pages.

so now i'll suffer and download it again and read 10 or 20 more and report each finding i get that can't be true.

As I said, these are not two false statements. But you'll find quite some of these in the report when it comes to people dependant on Al-Fayed and their statements!

As for this poor Andasons's death: I'm convinced as well that this stinks. But I believe that Al-Fayed or a relative from Dodi's mother's side (the arms dealer-connection) is responsible. I can well imagine that these people believed Andanson to have had a hand in Dodi's death and either killed him or told him they would endanger his son (who has been a young race driver then) and this caused him to take his own life. Just my opinion. But it's for me far more believable that Al-Fayed would take action against a person he believed responsible than this person kill himself for no obvious reason. Just think about it!

 

[Jo of Palatine]

i'm going to ask some local people who does that kind of work in my area how long it takes them in accidents to get them out of the vehicle and to the hospital.

Maybe you should ask them if using helicopters is an option by night. Here in Europe, it isn't.

 

[blackdaisies]

What makes Andanson's precise itinerary the night of the fatal crash so vital is this: He owned and drove a white Fiat Uno. The car was repainted shortly after the Aug. 31, 1997 Alma tunnel crash, and was sold by Andanson in October 1997. And, although the official report of the French authorities investigating the crash concluded that Andanson's car was not involved in the crash, French forensic reports made available to {The Express} told a very different story.
One report in the files of Judge Herve Stephan, the chief investigating magistrate in the Diana-Dodi crash probe, described the tests on Andanson's Fiat: "The comparative analysis of the infrared spectra characterizing the vehicle's original paint, reference Bianco 210, and the trace on the side-view mirror of the Mercedes shows that their absorption bands are identical." In laymen's terms, the paint scratches from the Fiat found on the side-view mirror of the Mercedes were identical to the paint samples taken from the matching spot on Andanson's Fiat.
The report continued: "The comparative analysis between the infrared spectra characterizing the black polymer taken from the vehicle's fender, and the trace taken from the door of the Mercedes, show that their absorption bands are identical." In short, despite the French investigators' endorsement of Andanson's alibi, the forensic tests strongly suggested that his car may have been {the} white Fiat Uno involved in the fatal crash.

this story was written "By Jeffrey Steinberg
Executive Intelligence Review - July 7, 2000 ", so if the release of the article is really from "executive intelligence review", it must have some relevance. that is why i believe it, but i think you make a good point that fayed was very angry with a lot of people and resources to do exactly what you say, which is to kill out of retaliation for the death of his son. he has the means and motives to do just that, but i believe andenson was there.

i don't disagree at all with what you are saying, but the government also lied about a lot things, so you can't trust the report any better than you can trust al fayed.

the level of alcohal in henry paul's system and the drugs used were so high that it would be imossible to stand sober or even walk at all, so that is the reason why i question that he was drunk, plus witnesses who say no alcohol was smelled. you can't hide the smell of alcohol.

 

[blackdaisies]

Maybe you should ask them if using helicopters is an option by night. Here in Europe, it isn't.

in europe i don't know the law, but in the u.s. it was night time when they took my cousin to nashville from his accident, so they obviosly do fly at night at least in america. if you own a scanner, you hear "life flight" (that is what they are called here) whenever there is a serious accident, but that is here.

 

[Iluvbertie]

blackdaisies,

Have you read the report in full yet.

Please note - it is no point in asking your friends in the US about making the type of rescue used in this case because the French have a different approach to that type of rescue so what would happen in the US wouldn't happen in France anyway.

The French do things differently - got that part.

As for Henri Paul's drinking - remember that the Stephens report tested the blood sample for DNA and proved it was his and he was only two times over the French legal limit - I know people who walk quite steadily up to four times over the limit here (our limit is .05), my own brother included. As he was a regular drinker he could appear sober drinking a lot more than people who only drink occasionally. Who actually smelt his breath to say that he didn't smell of alcohol?

You do give interesting links - tabloids, New World Order sites and not Rumour Mill - don't you ever assess the reliability of the site in question? There very names tells you something about them - rumours are not proven facts - therefore the site is unreliable and you can't take the word of anything on it as fact, regardless of its purported origin - you need to see the report in a reputable site or paper.

In an earlier post you told me not to believe everything I read in the press, but that is certainly more reliable than believing anything on the internet as the press does have national laws which mean that they have to publish at least with a grain of truth whereas on the internet you can publish a complete lie about someone and no-one is held responsible. (I will give you an example that has affected my own family recently - there is a site whose name I have forgotten where the author writes lies about people and on this site he accused my brother and his friend of saying comments about the Rugby League competition at a particular game, except for the fact that my brother and his friend were at a completely different game and could prove it as they were on national radio at the time. Did this person apologise when his error was pointed out - no - he laughed and said tough see what lies I come up with next about you and yours). Don't believe things written on the internet without doing a reliablity assessment of the site first, just as you would with any printed text - ask questions such as, who is the author, what is known about the author, were they friends or enemies of the person/country/party/religion etc they are writing about, when was the site created, when was the site last updated, where is the corroborating evidence, what is the contradictory evidence. Asking these questions will lead you to trust far, far less of the gossip on the internet.

 

[sassie]

in europe i don't know the law, but in the u.s. it was night time when they took my cousin to nashville from his accident, so they obviosly do fly at night at least in america. if you own a scanner, you hear "life flight" (that is what they are called here) whenever there is a serious accident, but that is here.

But, in Europe, as Jo pointed out, helicopters at night are not an option. France is in Europe. Paris is in France. The accident happened in Paris. How much clearer can that be?

 

[blackdaisies]

But, in Europe, as Jo pointed out, helicopters at night are not an option. France is in Europe. Paris is in France. The accident happened in Paris. How much clearer can that be?

i can also ask what the time would be without a life flight and if they drove to the hospital in an ambulance. it was 1 hour and 20 minutes before by the time the ambulance got there that they finally got to the hospital. she was the easiest to remove and should have been the first to leave to the hospital. this makes it suspicious that they did not do their job properly. that is also the reason the photographers were let go because it was the time span to the hospital that caused her death and not their involvement. at least that was the belief of the french courts, but none of the questions of emergency workers were tested, and they have only documented what was said by them as to why they took so much time.

 

[Elspeth]

blackdaisies, do you understand the difference between SAMU ambulances and the sort they have in the USA?

 

[blackdaisies]

You do give interesting links - tabloids, New World Order sites and not Rumour Mill - don't you ever assess the reliability of the site in question? There very names tells you something about them - rumours are not proven facts - therefore the site is unreliable and you can't take the word of anything on it as fact, regardless of its purported origin - you need to see the report in a reputable site or paper.

In an earlier post you told me not to believe everything I read in the press, but that is certainly more reliable than believing anything on the internet as the press does have national laws which mean that they have to publish at least with a grain of truth whereas on the internet you can publish a complete lie about someone and no-one is held responsible. (I will give you an example that has affected my own family recently - there is a site whose name I have forgotten where the author writes lies about people and on this site he accused my brother and his friend of saying comments about the Rugby League competition at a particular game, except for the fact that my brother and his friend were at a completely different game and could prove it as they were on national radio at the time. Did this person apologise when his error was pointed out - no - he laughed and said tough see what lies I come up with next about you and yours). Don't believe things written on the internet without doing a reliablity assessment of the site first, just as you would with any printed text - ask questions such as, who is the author, what is known about the author, were they friends or enemies of the person/country/party/religion etc they are writing about, when was the site created, when was the site last updated, where is the corroborating evidence, what is the contradictory evidence. Asking these questions will lead you to trust far, far less of the gossip on the internet.

the means of those types of websites are to analyze what the government could be lieing about and with what sources they have telling them this. that doesn't mean they are inaccurate or lieing because they are conspiracy type topics that are mostly discussed. that is what they were created for and there is freedom of speech against the government who does hide truths from it's people. there is no reason to complain about those kind of websites. how many times has the enquirer been right about a lot of people? i don't believe in six foot grasshoppers or the yeddi, but some of their articles do come out to be true, just like those of the conspiracy resesarch for government matters.

in your years of experience with the law think about this how ever old you are, which mine is mostly from the city of detroit,michigan, u.s.a. for my younger years, we have seen and heard things like cops robbing old ladies in broad daylight and consistently proven being involved in crack houses and prostitutes houses. it was a very bad neighborhood in those days and getting worse now. i live in a small town were some of the same things still go on, so its possible even in france in europe that the government is equally capable in being involved in much worse crimes especially in matters of spies, politics, and a lot of nasty business for the royal familly. i think you must live in protected territory to believe even though there are tons of inconsistencies, that the government is always right. i disagree with that.

when there are inconsistencies of records, because now suddenly they have decided he was only 2 times over the limit, where before it was constantly said it was 3, another inconsitency that could have been bent for their purpose, it is questionable since they made a first mistake that there could be others. they are the govenment and i don't blindly follow every word they say, but i am a law abiding person and has not in the best ability ever broken any laws. i would question any inovolvement being that none of those things make sense for how they happened and why, so this accident is not in my opinion an accident for those reasons. i think there are too many inconsistancies and too many poeple changing their stories for this theory to ever be acceptable.

 

[Skydragon]

that is also the reason the photographers were let go because it was the time span to the hospital that caused her death and not their involvement. at least that was the belief of the french courts,

The belief of the French courts was that Henri Paul was drunk and crashed the car containing Diana, Dodi, Trevor and himself at high speed into an immovable object. As Henri Paul, Dodi and Diana had chosen not to put their seatbelts on, they all suffered unsurvivable injuries!
As simple as that!

 

[sassie]

i can also ask what the time would be without a life flight and if they drove to the hospital in an ambulance. it was 1 hour and 20 minutes before by the time the ambulance got there that they finally got to the hospital. she was the easiest to remove and should have been the first to leave to the hospital. this makes it suspicious that they did not do their job properly. that is also the reason the photographers were let go because it was the time span to the hospital that caused her death and not their involvement. at least that was the belief of the french courts, but none of the questions of emergency workers were tested, and they have only documented what was said by them as to why they took so much time.

That is not the opinion of the French courts. It took nearly an hour to remove Diana from the car, because her foot was trapped and her arm was broken-and no rescue team in this world is going to be aggressive with a patient with an obvious upper extremity fracture, and other injuries that are difficult to assess while they are in the trapped postion in the car. Diana was bleeding internally from a tear in the artery of her heart, and it could not be even assessed, much les repaired, until they could safely remove her from the car-and without immediate surgery, the chances were nil that she would have survived. In other words, it was a lost cause while she was still in the car.

What would you have had them do? Yank her forcefully out of the car without consideration for her injuries?

From the Alma tunnel to the hospital, it took 26 minutes. 26 minutes is not an hour and 20 minutes.

The photographers were let go because it was concluded that they did not violate the Good Samaritan law, which was the only basis for detaining them. While they contributed to the events leading up to the accident, they did not cause the crash. That responsibility lies firmly on Henri Paul's shoulders. By drinking and speeding, he put himself and his passengers in a risky situation that he could not ultimately handle, lost control of the car and crashed. Period.

 

[blackdaisies]

blackdaisies, do you understand the difference between SAMU ambulances and the sort they have in the USA?

does that mean french ambulances are inefficient to ours? i think by now all use equally effective amulances and if not, then the third world type ambulances should be removed from such a rich govenments use at hospitals.

i'll check to find out if france has defective equipment, but that can be another incident where france might hide all things disagreeing with them.

 

[Elspeth]

does that mean french ambulances are inefficient to ours?

No, it doesn't. It means that unlike American ambulances, which are mostly just for fast transportation to the nearest hospital, SAMU vehicles are pretty much hospitals on wheels. A person in a SAMU ambulance is as good as being in hospital already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAMU

You're assuming other countries do things the same way as in America, which isn't a good assumption. If you didn't know that the French ambulances are equipped as mobile emergency rooms, you haven't been doing nearly such thorough research as you seem to think you have.

 

[blackdaisies]

That is not the opinion of the French courts. It took nearly an hour to remove Diana from the car, because her foot was trapped and her arm was broken-and no rescue team in this world is going to be aggressive with a patient with an obvious upper extremity fracture, and other injuries that are difficult to assess while they are in the trapped postion in the car. Diana was bleeding internally from a tear in the artery of her heart, and it could not be even assessed, much les repaired, until they could safely remove her from the car-and without immediate surgery, the chances were nil that she would have survived. In other words, it was a lost cause while she was still in the car.

What would you have had them do? Yank her forcefully out of the car without consideration for her injuries?

From the Alma tunnel to the hospital, it took 26 minutes. 26 minutes is not an hour and 20 minutes.

The photographers were let go because it was concluded that they did not violate the Good Samaritan law, which was the only basis for detaining them. While they contributed to the events leading up to the accident, they did not cause the crash. That responsibility lies firmly on Henri Paul's shoulders. By drinking and speeding, he put himself and his passengers in a risky situation that he could not ultimately handle, lost control of the car and crashed. Period.

they arrived at the scene at 12:40 by the report, so it was an hour and 20 minutes before they removed her from the car and drove her to the hospital.

a good samaritan does not create bad traffic accidents and then photograph those who died in it, so there are other violations they could have been sighted for but why when they didn't care. why would they not care? more room for speculation and inconsitencies where they might normally have been arrested and charged.

they have tools to remove people and are trained within time limits on how to do this. they have saws and other things to cut her out, but i don't know what the report says on this, but there were public statments that say she was not cut out of the car and it was also not the special cars for that it was bullet proof so that made it easier. and just because the report says different doesn't mean i'm wrong because they could have been trying to hide negligence on their part at the most is why they would lie. the two most closely next to her, by her side and in front were quickly declared dead, so why the delay in removing her. they had to wait to remove trevor jones, but no one else. so it still is fishy no matter how you say it happened.

 

[sassie]

does that mean french ambulances are inefficient to ours?

No. SAMU ambulances have an excellent reputation and service record. They are just operated differently than American ambulances. An operating theatre on wheels, so to speak. Doesn't make them wrong, just makes them different.

i'll check to find out if france has defective equipment, but that can be another incident where france might hide all things disagreeing with them.

A good search of the Internet will, I am sure, provide you with whatever 'evidence' (and I use that term loosely) you require to support any theory you come up with.

 

[blackdaisies]

No, it doesn't. It means that unlike American ambulances, which are mostly just for fast transportation to the nearest hospital, SAMU vehicles are pretty much hospitals on wheels. A person in a SAMU ambulance is as good as being in hospital already.

all ambulances have the same eqiupment. they are emergency saving transportation with trained medical drivers plus they have access to a doctor to advise them on all cases.

that just makes it even more suspicious that they had the supposed ability to do more, but she still didn't make it.

 

[ysbel]

The Good Samaritan law just means that a person at the scene of an accident has to call for help.

Initially it was thought that the photographers just stood around taking pictures and nobody called for help but later it was found that one of the photographers had called Paris's version of 911 to report the accident and the other reporters saw the call. That was all that was required of them under the Good Samaritan law.

 

[blackdaisies]

A good search of the Internet will, I am sure, provide you with whatever 'evidence' (and I use that term loosely) you require to support any theory you come up with.

a good search in govenment released propaganda working for the royal family would be a better and more accurate search?

 

[ysbel]

all ambulances have the same eqiupment. they are emergency saving transportation with trained medical drivers plus they have access to a doctor to advise them on all cases.

that just makes it even more suspicious that they had the supposed ability to do more, but she still didn't make it.

American ambulances don't carry a doctor in the ambulance with them. French ambulances carry an emergency doctor and an entire medical team.

Diana suffered a severe injury to the main artery going to her heart. That artery pumps the largest amount of blood in the body. If a person is bleeding from this artery, the loss of blood is overwhelming and the medical staff have truly little time to save the patient. If the team had to cut her out of the car before they could treat her, the time it took to cut her out of the car lost precious minutes while she was bleeding.

 

[blackdaisies]

The Good Samaritan law just means that a person at the scene of an accident has to call for help.

Initially it was thought that the photographers just stood around taking pictures and nobody called for help but later it was found that one of the photographers had called Paris's version of 911 to report the accident and the other reporters saw the call. That was all that was required of them under the Good Samaritan law.

it was 50/50 responsibility that the accident was created by the photographers who were chasing them. they were equally guilty of traffic violations of speeding and being part of the cause in a terrible traffic incident killing 3 people. there are laws in france to prosecute people like this if the court chose to use them, so why didn't they? because they wanted her dead could be the only reason.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

this story was written "By Jeffrey Steinberg
Executive Intelligence Review - July 7, 2000 ", so if the release of the article is really from "executive intelligence review", it must have some relevance. that is why i believe it, but i think you make a good point that fayed was very angry with a lot of people and resources to do exactly what you say, which is to kill out of retaliation for the death of his son. he has the means and motives to do just that, but i believe andenson was there.

i don't disagree at all with what you are saying, but the government also lied about a lot things, so you can't trust the report any better than you can trust al fayed.

the level of alcohal in henry paul's system and the drugs used were so high that it would be imossible to stand sober or even walk at all, so that is the reason why i question that he was drunk, plus witnesses who say no alcohol was smelled. you can't hide the smell of alcohol.

Of course you can. Pastis? No problem, if you chew aniseseeds... And that's one of the real problems. To smell Cognac, eg you have to kiss that person! There are alot of alcoholic beverages who don't smell at all. Believe me - I'm into this business for more than 20 years, so should know.
Maybe it's difficult to understand for an American but the way alcoholic beverages are produced for the European and the American market is different. Americans tend to prefer lower percentages of alcohol in their drinks or mix the tasty stuff with neutral tasting alcohols (eg an "American Blended Whiskey " is a blend of whiskey with so called neutral spirits (tasteless, smellless) while a "Blended Scotch Whisky" is a blend of Malt and Grain whisky, both aromatic and "smelly". But strangely enough the more smelly the alcohol is on drinking it, the less you can recognize it later on.
So just believe me, okay? It is possible what the report says.

As for the report about the Fiat. The report is very clear about the fact that they could neither prove nor disprove it but that circumstancial evidence (eg the way the car was maintained, the fac that is was't destroyed but sold to a car seller who could provide the car for investigation etc.) pointed of the innocense of Mr. Andanson. Especially as the "new" repaint was certainly added before the accident took place. And that the car wasn't insured at the time of the accident, so it was dangerous to use it at all. And why should Andanson have used it in the first place? It was already a wreck, it was not reliable and it was traceble to him.... No man in his right mind working for the Secret Service would be sooo stupid! So many questions and they all point to the conclusion that this was not the car that was used.

 

[sassie]

they arrived at the scene at 12:40 by the report, so it was an hour and 20 minutes before they removed her from the car and drove her to the hospital.

Exactly. It took them nearly an hour to cut her free. That leaves approx. 26 minutes for the drive from the tunnel to the hospital.

a good samaritan does not create bad traffic accidents and then photograph those who died in it, so there are other violations they could have been sighted for but why when they didn't care. why would they not care? more room for speculation and inconsitencies where they might normally have been arrested and charged.

Really? What else can they have been charged with, under French law? Please clarify. They didn't impede the rescue attempt. They took pictures. There was no law against that. It was ghoulish, not illegal.

they have tools to remove people and are trained within time limits on how to do this. they have saws and other things to cut her out, but i don't know what the report says on this, but there were public statments that say she was not cut out of the car and it was also not the special cars for that it was bullet proof so that made it easier. and just because the report says different doesn't mean i'm wrong because they could have been trying to hide negligence on their part at the most is why they would lie. the two most closely next to her, by her side and in front were quickly declared dead, so why the delay in removing her. they had to wait to remove trevor jones, but no one else. so it still is fishy no matter how you say it happened.

Have you ever had to cut anyone out of a car? I have, and an hour is a minimal time. It very often takes much longer. You cannot be aggressive when extracting someone from a car, which adds to the removal time. Especially, as I already stated, someone with an upper extremity fracture and other injuries that could not be physically assessed until they were free of the car. Diana's blood pressure was also dropping during that time, which indicated internal bleeding, so they would have been even more careful in extracting her.

Again, I ask, what would you have had them do? Yank her forcefully out of the car, regardless of her injuries?

There are NO public statements that say she was not cut out of the car-beyond those that also say she was walking around, which are patently implausible, since no one is capable of walking around while they are suffering from exsaguination.

 

[sassie]

it was 50/50 responsibility that the accident was created by the photographers who were chasing them. they were equally guilty of traffic violations of speeding and being part of the cause in a terrible traffic incident killing 3 people. there are laws in france to prosecute people like this if the court chose to use them, so why didn't they? because they wanted her dead could be the only reason.

Why would the photographers want her dead? She was a moneymaker for them.

 

[blackdaisies]

American ambulances don't carry a doctor in the ambulance with them. French ambulances carry an emergency doctor and an entire medical team.

Diana suffered a severe injury to the main artery going to her heart. That artery pumps the largest amount of blood in the body. If a person is bleeding from this artery, the loss of blood is overwhelming and the medical staff have truly little time to save the patient. If the team had to cut her out of the car before they could treat her, the time it took to cut her out of the car lost precious minutes while she was bleeding.

american ambulances carry telephone equipment where they can have access to speak to a doctor if needed and have that as well as good equipment. i did not say a doctor was in the ambulance, i said they had access for help from a doctor and by those means.

and her injuries still probably could have been dealt with sooner and that is what could have saved her life. there is no one questioning the time span and no one agreeing with it either. that is still room for speculation.

 

[blackdaisies]

Why would the photographers want her dead? She was a moneymaker for them.

that probably wasn't their only job. many were associated with m16s, but their is no proof of that and they have found m16 association from henri paul who was her driver. everyone around her was a snitch to them or was working underground for them. government would hide any information on this because they have their identities to save.

 

[sassie]

it was 50/50 responsibility that the accident was created by the photographers who were chasing them.

Nonsense. There was no reason for speed at all, beyond Dodi's reckless encouragement and Henri Paul's even more reckless judgement. A camera is not a gun. They could have driven sedately to the apartment, smiled for the cameras, and walked inside without mishap. If Henri Paul had not speeded, the photographers would not have given chase. Henri Paul created the situation-a situation which he lost control of.