94% OF YOU BELIEVE DIANA WAS MURDERED

I havent read all 850 pages of Lord Stevens report yet, does it explain the 20.7% concentration of carbon monoxide in Henri Paul's blood?

I havent read all 850 pages of Lord Stevens report yet, does it explain the 20.7% concentration of carbon monoxide in Henri Paul's blood?

The following notes make the situation explicitly clear;

1. On the morning on which Henri Paul was killed, an autopsy was carried out by Professor Dominique Lecompte.

2. It was carried out in front of Commander Mules.

3. 5 samples of blood were allegedly taken from Paul's body, and, according to Commander Mules they were all processed and dealt with in precisely the same way

4. 2 of those samples were sent off to different laboratories for testing, and the remaining 3 were kept at the Institute where the autopsy was carried out.

5. The two samples tested both allegedly showed identical and excessive samples of Alcohol. One of those same samples was also tested for Carbon Monoxide and showed a level of 20.7% Although it was said in the report made at the time that the unused remains of the samples actually tested would be stored and preserved, it was eventually claimed during recent court proceedings initiated in Paris by Mr. Al Fayed that in fact there is nothing left of those two samples. Accordingly, there have been no DNA tests on the two samples which were used as the basis for the Alcohol levelsand as the basis for the allegation that Paul was drunk.

6. The authorities and the Lord Stevens team have failed to come up with any credible explanation for the level of 20.7% Carbon Monoxide level found in the sample of blood which was not only tested for Alcohol but also for Carbon Monoxide. All the international experts retained by Mr.Al Fayed, as well as, so we are told, those retained by the police accept that Henri Paul could not have had that level of Carbon Monoxide. It is a level consistent more with someone who died in a fire or committed suicide as a result of inhaling exhaust fumes and drinking. That is why virtually every expert who has been involved say that it is most unlikely that this blood could have come from Henri Paul.

7. Three unused and untested samples of blood allegedly taken from Henri Pauls body on the night of 31 August should still remain.

8. However, in the recent Paris Court proceeding, Professor Lecompte has now confirmed on oath and under examination that in fact she only took three samples of blood from Henri Paul's body on 31 August. Commander Mules supervised the process. Why did the record books made under his supervision show 5 samples if only 3 were taken from Henri Paul, and where did the other two come from? No one has been able to explain this. Were these additional ones the two that were sent off for testing and which not only showed the high Alcohol level but also the impossibly high Carbon Monoxide level. If Henri Paul had actually had that combination of Alcohol and Carbon Monoxide level, he could not have stood, let alone drive Professor Lecompte is now the subject of an official criminal investigation in France by the Brigade Criminelle on the instruction of the supervising judge.

9. The three unused samples which were never sent for testing probably did come from Henri Paul. These are probably the three which Professor Lecompte now confirms she took. It is one of those samples which has been tested for DNA which is why the tests show that it almost certainly came from Henri Paul. The ones sent in 1997 for Alcohol testing do not now exist and have never been tested for DNA. The BBC documentary has fallen into the trap deliberately set by those involved in the cover up. NO BLOOD EVER USED FOR ALCOHOL TESTING HAS EVER BEEN DNA TESTED. WHATEVER WAS LEFT OVER FROM THAT BLOOD HAS BEEN DESTROYED SO THAT IT CANNOT BE NOW TESTED FOR DNA.

10. A further sample of blood was taken from Henri Paul's body 4 days later (on 4 September 1997) in front of the French investigating Judge, Herve Stephan. This was sent off to Dr. Pepin,the same toxicologist who had carried out the original Alcohol/Carbon Monoxide test, and who in fact owned the laboratory. Apart from the 4 day time difference, this blood sample was taken using a different method and taken from a from a completely different part of the body. Top International experts agree that, under those circumstances, no one should have obtained a closely similar or identical Alcohol reading to the blood taken on 31 August, 2007. But amazingly, the person to whom they were sent, the self same Dr. Pepin, allegedly obtained an almost identical figure. Even more incredible is the fact that the unused remains of that blood also allegedly no longer exist and so cannot be tested for Henri Paul's DNA!!!

11. Mules is also wrong when he claims that the process of taking the blood and labelling it was all done correctly. The samples allegedly all taken at the same time from Henri Paul are, we now know, in different sorts of bottles, some have typed labels and some have handwritten labels. There is even evidence of someone else's name having been scratched out on one and Henri Paul's name written in.

12. Detailed analysis by independent experts show many other reasons for believing that the blood tested is most unlikely to have come from Henri Paul. WHAT IS CERTAIN IS THAT NO ONE, AND CERTAINLY THE BBC DOCUMENTARY WHICH HAS EITHER BEEN VERY NAÏVE OR COMPLICIT IN THE ONGOING COVER UP CAN BE RIGHT WHEN THEY SAY THAT THERE IS ANY LINK BETWEEN THE BLOOD TESTED FOR Alcohol AND THE BLOOD WHICH HAS NOW BEEN TESTED FOR DNA!

13. As far as the speed of the car goes, it has been claimed that Henri Paul was driving at 100 mph. This is utterly and provably untrue. Scotland yard have acknowledged that it was in fact travelling at about 60mph at the time of the crash.

14. Incredibly, none of the eyewitnesses (at least 13 in number) to the crash have been seen or interviewed as part of the Stevens' investigation, and no one has been able to trace the two missing cars and at least one motorbike which went into the tunnel at the same time as Henri Paul but have never been seen since.

This is what Mohamed al Fayed has to say......

Quote:

6. The authorities and the Lord Stevens team have failed to come up with any credible explanation for the level of 20.7% Carbon Monoxide level found in the sample of blood which was not only tested for Alcohol but also for Carbon Monoxide. All the international experts retained by Mr.Al Fayed, as well as, so we are told, those retained by the police accept that Henri Paul could not have had that level of Carbon Monoxide. It is a level consistent more with someone who died in a fire or committed suicide as a result of inhaling exhaust fumes and drinking. That is why virtually every expert who has been involved say that it is most unlikely that this blood could have come from Henri Paul.

The investigators for the Lord Stevens report cooperated and exchanged information with al Fayed's investigators. Does anyone know what the Stevens report concluded about the carbon monoxide issue?

Carboxyhemoglobin

Levels of carbon monoxide bound in the blood can be determined by measuring carboxyhemoglobin; carboxyhemoglobin is a stable complex of carbon monoxide and hemoglobin that forms in red blood cells. Carbon monoxide is produced normally in the body, establishing a low background carboxyhemoglobin saturation. Carbon monoxide also functions as a neurotransmitter. Normal carboxyhemoglobin levels in an average person are less than 5%, whereas cigarette smokers (two packs/day) may have levels up to 9%.[13]

Serious toxicity is often associated with carboxyhemoglobin levels above 25%, and the risk of fatality is high with levels over 70%. Although, no consistent dose response relationship has been found between carboxyhemoglobin levels and clinical effects.[14] Therefore carboxyhemoglobin levels are more guides to exposure levels than effects as they do not reliably predict clinical course or short or long term outcome.[15]

Quote:

Carboxyhemoglobin

Levels of carbon monoxide bound in the blood can be determined by measuring carboxyhemoglobin; carboxyhemoglobin is a stable complex of carbon monoxide and hemoglobin that forms in red blood cells. Carbon monoxide is produced normally in the body, establishing a low background carboxyhemoglobin saturation. Carbon monoxide also functions as a neurotransmitter. Normal carboxyhemoglobin levels in an average person are less than 5%, whereas cigarette smokers (two packs/day) may have levels up to 9%.[13]

Serious toxicity is often associated with carboxyhemoglobin levels above 25%, and the risk of fatality is high with levels over 70%. Although, no consistent dose response relationship has been found between carboxyhemoglobin levels and clinical effects.[14] Therefore carboxyhemoglobin levels are more guides to exposure levels than effects as they do not reliably predict clinical course or short or long term outcome.[15]

from Wiki

it's less straight-line than I'd remembered

9% as the "low background level" for a 2-pack a day smoker? Setanta could have been close to 20% without ever being in a road underpass.

Quote:

Serious toxicity is often associated with carboxyhemoglobin levels above 25%, and the risk of fatality is high with levels over 70%. Although, no consistent dose response relationship has been found between carboxyhemoglobin levels and clinical effects.[14] Therefore carboxyhemoglobin levels are more guides to exposure levels than effects as they do not reliably predict clinical course or short or long term outcome.[15]

10 years ago Diana died. Neither crying or celebrating will change things. Life goes on though, for some. Right now we have a very nasty serial killer "cleaning the streets" in Ipswich here in the UK. A rather more pressing situation for the police & the public to get their heads around

most interested in the poll results

seems you mostly think it was an accident

yet the title of this thread was taken from the daily express who did their own poll, suggesting that 94% of people thought it "more than" an accident.

Plus the Daily Express isnt exactly the most reliable source of data even on the English... and I'm practicing my understatements here.

The tone of this entire thread seems to infer that all British people read the Sun, and other such cr*p. What's more, you're assuming that we all believe every single word.

Please credit some of us with a bit more intelligence.