Diana Inquest: The French Cover-Up

By John Morgan

Diana Inquest: The French Cover-Up is the gripping story of how a culture of corruption and cover-up was endemic throughout the investigation into the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed.
This is the third volume of a four-part series on the 2008 inquest into the 1997 deaths in Paris. It tracks the French investigation right from the initial minutes after the crash inside the Alma Tunnel through to the conclusion of the investigation by Judge Stéphan two years later, in September 1999.
The culture of cover-up that surrounded the early investigations into the crash is revealed in striking detail - for example, the thorough cleansing of the crash scene within several hours of the crash.
The French Cover-Up includes explosive new evidence from within the British police investigation - evidence that has never previously been revealed to the British or international public.
Using witness and documentary evidence - including what was heard during the 2008 inquest into the deaths - this volume also reveals that Henri Paul, the driver of the Mercedes S280, was not drunk. A thorough analysis of the evidence shows that the driver's autopsy test results were actually taken from blood samples that belonged to a different body.
Diana Inquest opens up the reader's understanding to the incredible lengths that the French authorities went to - to frame a dead, defenceless, sober and innocent driver for the deaths of Diana and Dodi.
This book reveals the major difficulties faced by the inquest jury - showing how substantial portions of the most critical witness and documentary evidence were withheld from their eyes and ears.
It shows that the culture of corruption and cover-up did not just relate to the French investigation, but carried through to the British Paget inquiry and finally also to the conduct of the 2008 British inquest. This eventually resulted in a seriously flawed verdict in one of the most important jury inquests of our modern era.

• Language: English
• Publisher: John Morgan
• Release date: Oct 23, 2015
• ISBN: 9781311454164

Book preview

ParisLondonFCKindle

DIANA INQUEST

The Untold Story

PART 3:

THE FRENCH COVER-UP

John Morgan

Copyright © 2010, 2013, 2015 John Morgan

Published in Australia by Shining Bright Publishing

Cover Picture:

Cleaning truck filmed in the Alma Tunnel early on Sunday morning, 31 August 1997

Cover image reproduced from film footage in 2003 Psychology News documentary: Diana: The Night She Died.

eBook Design by Acepub

John Morgan’s Investigation Website:

www.princessdianadeaththeevidence.weebly.com

Diana Inquest: The Untold Story

Is dedicated

To

Diana, Princess of Wales

And

Dodi Fayed

Killed in a mindless tragedy

The crash in the Alma Tunnel, Paris, at 12.23 a.m., 31 August 1997

And

To those few in their and Henri Paul’s families

Who have had the courage to fight for the truth to come out

Who have been confronted with an unconscionable travesty of justice

Known as the official investigations

That commenced in Paris immediately after the crash

That concluded at 4.33 p.m. on 7 April 2008 in London’s Royal Courts of Justice

Other Volumes In This Series

Part 1: Diana Inquest: The Untold Story (2009)

Covers pre-crash events in the Ritz Hotel, the final journey and what happened in the Alma Tunnel

Part 2: Diana Inquest: How & Why Did Diana Die? (2009)

Covers possible motives for assassination and post-crash medical treatment of Princess Diana – including mistreatment in the ambulance

Part 4: Diana Inquest: The British Cover-Up (2011)

Covers the post-death treatment of Princess Diana – including the embalmings and autopsies carried out in both France and the UK and the post-crash cover-up by UK authorities, including the Queen

Part 5: Diana Inquest: Who Killed Princess Diana? (2012)

Covers the involvement of MI6 and senior British royals in the assassinations of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed

Part 6: Diana Inquest: Corruption at Scotland Yard (2013)

Exposes one of the biggest cover-ups in Scotland Yard history – it uncovers police corruption on a scale that should shock most members of the British public

Diana Inquest: The Documents the Jury Never Saw (2010)

Reproduces hundreds of key documents from within the British Paget investigation – all documents that the inquest jury were prevented from seeing

Paris-London Connection: The Assassination of Princess Diana (2012)

A short, easy-to read, fast-moving synopsis of the complete story of the events, including the lead-up, the crash and the ensuing cover-up – based on the Diana Inquest series

How They Murdered Princess Diana: The Shocking Truth (2014)

A narrative abridgement of the Diana Inquest series. This is the most complete single volume account of the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed yet written.

Other Books by John Morgan

Cover-Up of a Royal Murder: Hundreds of Errors in the Paget Report (2007)

Alan Power Exposed: Hundreds of Errors in The Princess Diana Conspiracy (2013)

Flying Free: A Journey from Fundamentalism to Freedom (2005)

John Morgan’s Investigation Website:

www.princessdianadeaththeevidence.weebly.com

Table of Contents

Preface

The Witnesses Not Heard

The Lawyers & Representation

The Organisations

The Experts

Table of Official Reports

Introduction

SECTION ONE: WAS HENRI PAUL DRUNK?

Timeline of Events

1: 1st Autopsy: August 31

Who Was Present?

Choice of Pathologist

Choice of Police Officer

Role of Mulès

Incorrect Body Number

Incorrect Body Measurements

Autopsy Documentation

Body Identification

Suppression of Photos

Sample Method

Sample Quantity

Two Identical Batches

Quantity Requested

Quantity Taken

Quantity Received

Sample Labelling

Label Descriptions

Ricordel – 1 September 1997

Pépin – 1 September 1997

Pépin – 4 September 1997

Pépin – Urine

Blood Sample Labels Table

Additional Issues

Sample Sealing

Blood Sample Source

Photo Evidence

Disclosure of Source

Other Autopsies

Lecomte’s Conclusions

Conclusions – 1st Autopsy

2: 2nd Autopsy: September

Effect of Delay

Circumstances

Who Was Present?

Police Reports

Photo Evidence

Body Identification

Samples Taken

Sample Labels

Sample Source

Extraction Method

Conclusions – 2nd Autopsy

3: Alcohol Test Results

3A: 1st Autopsy Tests

Ricordel Test: September 1, 9.44 a.m.

Pépin Tests: from September 1, 1.19 p.m.

Vitreous Humour Test

Additional Testing: 2005

Conclusions – 1st Autopsy Testing

3B: Pépin’s Test Results

2nd Autopsy Result

Alterations to Results

Results Analysis

3C: Other Issues

Liver Sample

4: CDT Testing

Timeline of Events

Timing Issues

Sample Sealing

Result of Test

Validity of the Result

Ethyl Glucuronide

Conclusions - CDT

5: Henri’s Relationship with Alcohol

Witness Evidence

Work Colleagues

Family & Friends

Other Witnesses

Drugs Prescribed

Tolerance to Alcohol

Did Henri Drink and Drive?

Effect of Alcohol on Driving

6: Drugs

Drugs Prescribed

Drugs Dispensed

Office and Apartment Searches

Drug Detection

Prozac

Tiapride

Noctamide

Aotal

Zentel

Table of Drugs

Conclusions - Drugs

7: Carbon Monoxide

Timeline of Events

7A: 1st Autopsy: 20.7%

Initial Suppression of Results

Display of Symptoms

Carbon Monoxide with Alcohol

Possible Explanations

Interfering Material

Airbags

Exhaust Fumes

Another Body

Carbon Monoxide Poisoning

7B: 2nd Autopsy: 12.8%

Effect of Smoking

Was Henri Paul a Heavy Smoker?

7C: Conclusions

Unauthorised Testing

Lack of French Cooperation

Conclusions – Carbon Monoxide

8: Chain of Custody

First Autopsy

Second Autopsy

Conclusions – Chain of Custody

9: DNA Testing

Timeline of Events

French Testing

British Testing

Which Samples were DNA Tested?

Destruction and Disappearance of Samples

Liver Sample

Chain of Custody

Conclusions – DNA

10: Conclusions: Autopsies and Toxicology

Stéphan v Henri’s Parents

Restriction of Information

Issues Regarding Lecomte & Pépin

Forrest’s Conclusions

Other Conclusions

SECTION TWO: ACTIONS OF THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES

Timeline of Events

11: Pre-Crash Actions

12: Actions In the Tunnel

Early Presence

Role of Maud Coujard

Role of the Brigade Criminelle

Crash Scene Lighting

Tyre Marks

Debris

Arrest of the Paparazzi: 12.40 a.m.

Clean-Up and Reopening

13: Treatment of Witnesses

Brian Anderson

Gary Hunter

Georges Dauzonne

Jack Firestone

Joanna Luz

Thierry Rocher

Clifford Gooroovadoo

Kez Wingfield

François Levistre

Jean Peyret

The Paparazzi

James Huth

Gaëlle L’Hostis

Brenda Wells

Souad Moufakkir

Jean & Gisèle Paul

Conclusion

14: Other Actions

Henri Paul’s BAC Announcement

White Fiat Uno Search

Timeline of Events

Control of Photos

Destruction of Evidence

Photos

White Fiat Uno

15: Investigative Issues

Secrecy

Was The French Investigation Adequate?

Witnesses

Fleeing Vehicles

Mobile Phone Calls

Stéphan-Police Relationship

Henri Paul’s Finances

Henri Paul’s Medical File

Conclusion

Final Investigation Report

16: Relationship with the UK

French-British Interaction

Hold-Up in Body Transfer

Rees Movements

Timeline of Events

Jason Fraser

Relationship with the Inquest

Evidence Withheld

General Attitude

SECTION THREE: FURTHER ISSUES

17: Mercedes S280

Post-Crash Inspections

Stolen: April 1997

Conclusions

18: Route CCTV, Speed Camera and Photos

CCTV Cameras

Speed Camera

Route Photos

19: Conclusion

Appendix 2

List of Other Autopsies

Appendix 3

Pépin Letter: 28 March 2006

Appendix 4

Questions to Pépin: March 2006

Bibliography

Author Information

Notes

Preface

At 12.23 a.m. on 31 August 1997 Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Fayed died as the result of a horror car crash in the Alma Tunnel in Paris.

The question is: Was it simply a tragic accident or was it an orchestrated assassination?

Parts 1 and 2 of this four volume series have already covered the events that led up to the climactic crash, the events in the Alma Tunnel and the issues relating to the medical treatment of Princess Diana.

This current volume, Part 3, and the coming Part 4 will address the post-crash events and specifically deal with the actions of authorities in both France and the UK.

Was the Alma crash followed by a huge inter-governmental cover-up? This volume assesses the events that took place in France following the crash and in doing so, draws some shocking conclusions.

Because the death of Diana, Princess of Wales occurred on French soil, it was inevitable that – if this was an assassination – the French government would have had to play a huge role in any ensuing cover-up, and that is precisely what the facts, included in this volume, reveal.

It was decided at a very early stage – probably even before the crash took place – that culpability would fall on the drunk driver of the Mercedes, Henri Paul, or the pursuing paparazzi, or both. It was principally the role of the French authorities to ensure that that is what happened.

Consequently, the conclusion of the two year French investigation was that the crash was a tragic accident caused by the driver of the Mercedes S280 who was both drunk and speeding. The British investigation concluded in December 2006, arriving at an almost identical finding.

It was not until the facts were tested in front of a jury at the 2007-8 inquest that this finding was officially challenged: the jury found that the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed were no longer the result of a simple tragic accident, but were due to unlawful killing by the driver of the Mercedes and following vehicles.

Although this was still a flawed verdict – the facts shown in these volumes have revealed that the crash was orchestrated – it was far removed from the findings of lengthy investigations by both the French and British police.

The question is: Why? Why was it that the police in both nations were able to conduct thorough investigations over a period of years, but still arrive at a severely flawed conclusion?

This is the issue that is directly addressed in the remaining two volumes – Parts 3 and 4 – of this series on the Diana inquest.

This current volume will track the French investigation right from the initial minutes after the crash inside the Alma Tunnel through to the conclusion of the investigation by Judge Stéphan two years later, in September 1999.

How is it that the French judge, with the full resources of the elite Paris Brigade Criminelle behind him, could arrive at such a seriously flawed verdict after 24 months of painstaking investigation? Why conclude that it was an accident, when all the evidence consistently pointed to staged crash, murder, assassination?

Included in this analysis of the French cover-up is the evidence relating to the two autopsies and toxicological testing conducted on the body of Henri Paul. That is possibly the most complex section of this entire case, yet it opens up the reader’s understanding to the lengths that the French authorities were prepared to go – framing a dead, defenceless, sober and innocent driver for these deaths, right from within hours of the crash occurring.

As with other aspects of the case covered in earlier volumes, the jury had at best one arm tied behind its back and substantial portions of critical evidence were withheld. When it comes to the autopsies of Henri Paul, not only did the jury not hear from the two most important witnesses – Professor Dominique Lecomte and Dr Gilbert Pépin – but also their police statements, which the inquest coroner Scott Baker had, were not read out.

It is from this position that the jury were expected to make meaningful deliberations to arrive at an informed verdict. The further that these volumes progress, the more one realises how ridiculous their situation was – and how, despite the seriousness of this case, the very concept of this jury arriving at an informed verdict was a joke.

At stake was justice for the occupants of the Mercedes S280, but stopping that from happening was a judge¹ who prevented substantial areas of evidence from being heard² and was every bit as involved in the cover-up of events as was the French judge described in this volume.

During the writing of this volume I have been provided with access to material from persons involved in the investigation. For obvious reasons, these individuals wish to remain anonymous.

Extensive witness lists shown at the start of Part 1 have not been included in this book in an effort to save space. All witnesses mentioned in Part 3 have been included in the index, and of course are also mentioned in the lists in Part 1.³

I have deliberately included verbatim inquest testimony in this book – it reveals the words of the witnesses themselves as they describe what they saw or heard.

Diana Inquest: The Untold Story has drawn heavily on the information – 7,000 pages of transcripts and other evidence – that are publicly available on the official inquest website: www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk All quotes through this book have been fully referenced, and I encourage readers to look up the website for the full transcript of any particular piece of witness evidence they need to view in its complete context.

Points to assist with the reading of Diana Inquest and accessing evidence:

Transcript quotes have been referenced through the book as follows:

Example:

Claude Garrec, Henri Paul’s Closest Friend: 31 Jan 08: 124.15:

Hough: Q. Did he have any ambition to become the head of security?

A. No

Claude Garrec = Witness name

Henri Paul’s Closest Friend = Witness’ position or relevance

31 Jan 08 = Date of testimony at the inquest

124 = Page number – note that page numbers appear at the bottom of each page on the inquest website transcripts

15 = Line number on the page

Hough = Lawyer doing the questioning – there is a list of lawyers and who they represent near the front of this book

Q = Statement made by the lawyer or questioner

A = Statement made by the witness or answerer

The official inquest website contains a large number of significant items of evidence: photos, documents, letters and so on. It is important to note that none of this evidence is stored in numerical or subject order – the easiest way to locate these items is by scrolling down the evidence list looking for the specific reference number you are seeking. The reference numbers, which always begin with the prefix code INQ, will often be found in the footnotes throughout this book.

The website also has several interesting and useful videos that are available for viewing by the public. These are also not as easy to access as the transcripts. To reach the videos – some of which are referred to in this book – click on Evidence, then click on any date on the calendar, then scroll down or up until you come to an item of evidence that is obviously a video. When you click on that item, a page will open up that will give you access to all of the videos on the website.

Throughout this book underlining of words or phrases has been used as a means of emphasising certain points, unless otherwise stated.

Jury Didn’t Hear appears in bold before:

Any evidence that was not heard during the inquest

Written documents from the Coroner not seen by the jury.

Jury Not Present appears in bold before any statement made in court where the jury wasn’t present.

Acknowledgements are included in Parts 1 and 6.

Word usage:

Autopsy or post-mortem are synonymous – autopsy is generally used in France, whereas post-mortem is generally used in the UK.

KP = Kensington Palace, Diana’s home.

Sapeurs-Pompiers = Paris Fire Service

BAC = Blood Alcohol Concentration

Cours la Reine, Cours Albert 1er, Avenue de New York and Voie Georges Pompidou are all names for the same riverside expressway that runs into the Alma tunnel. The parallel service road is also known as Cours Albert 1er.

The Witnesses Not Heard

Parts 1 and 2 included lists of 158 witnesses not heard at the inquest. The following 18 witnesses should be added to that number, giving a new total of 176.⁴

table1table2table3

The Lawyers & Representation

lawyer

The Organisations

ora1ora2

The Experts

exp1exp2

Table of Official Reports

During the ten years between the crash and the inquest more than 40 official reports – listed below – have been compiled, in connection with the two autopsies of Henri Paul. The jury were not shown, and did not have access to, all of these reports – only parts of some of the reports that were deemed relevant by the Coroner, Lord Justice Scott Baker.

toa1toa2

Introduction

From Friday 22 August to Saturday 30 August 1997 Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed enjoyed a holiday cruise aboard the Jonikal in the Mediterranean.

Following the conclusion of the cruise on Saturday the 30th, the couple flew to Paris, landing at Le Bourget airport at 3.20 p.m. Through that afternoon and evening Diana and Dodi visited the Villa Windsor, the Ritz Hotel and Dodi’s apartment, near the Arc de Triomphe.

At around 10 p.m. the couple arrived back at the Ritz Hotel where they had a private dinner in the Imperial Suite. After midnight, Diana and Dodi, accompanied by Dodi’s bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones, left the hotel in a Mercedes S280 – their intention was to return to Dodi’s apartment.

The couple never completed that final short journey. Instead their westbound Mercedes became involved in a major crash inside the Alma Tunnel.³⁰ Dodi and the driver both died at the scene. Princess Diana and Rees-Jones both survived³¹, but the Princess was pronounced dead at la Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, 3½ hours after the crash.

The driver of that ill-fated Mercedes was the Ritz Hotel’s Acting Head of Security, Henri Paul.

Over the years, two major police investigations – French and British – have drawn the conclusion that Henri Paul was drunk at the wheel of the Mercedes on that night.

At the 2007-8 inquest the jury concluded: The crash was caused or contributed to by the impairment of the judgement of the driver of the Mercedes through alcohol.³²

These conclusions – the police investigations and the inquest – were based on the results from blood tests taken during two autopsies conducted on Henri Paul’s body in the days following the crash.

We have already – in Part 1 – seen very extensive witness, expert and CCTV evidence showing that Henri Paul was not drunk at the Ritz Hotel during the hours and minutes leading up to the moment when he assumed control of the Mercedes.

There are therefore two very significant questions:

Why is there such a conflict between the results of the blood tests – that show Henri Paul to be three times the legal French blood alcohol limit (see later) – and the witness, expert and CCTV evidence (revealed in Part 1)?

Could the conclusions of two major police investigations – France in 1999, UK in 2006 – and the inquest jury (2008) all be wrong?

SECTION ONE:

WAS HENRI PAUL DRUNK?

³³

Coroner: Summing Up: 1 Apr 08: 58.12:

You may think that if what was going on was a conspiracy to manufacture false results, then perhaps those individuals would have taken rather more care over the documentation than they seem to have done.

Important Note:

The evidence in this section revolves primarily around two autopsies conducted within a 5 day period³⁴ at the Paris IML³⁵ on the body of Henri Paul.

It is very significant that no employees from the IML were heard from at the inquest. Only two IML employees have ever been interviewed by the police. They are:

Dominique Lecomte, Head of the IML, who carried out the first autopsy on 31 August 1997 – her statement was taken by the British police. Lecomte’s statement was not read out at the inquest and the main contents of it have never been made public.³⁶

Yves Andrieu, an IML identifier, who was interviewed in February 2007 as part of a later French investigation. Andrieu’s statement was not read out at the inquest and none of it has ever been made public.

From the IML, autopsy samples were despatched to two destinations – the Paris Police Toxicology Laboratory and the independent ToxLab Laboratory.³⁷ It is significant that no employees from the Police or ToxLab laboratories were heard from at this inquest. Only one person from these two organisations has ever provided their account to the police. That individual was toxicologist, Dr Gilbert Pépin, from ToxLab – he was interviewed and also provided written responses to questions from the British police. Pépin’s interview and written communications were not read out at the inquest and the main contents of them have never been made public.³⁸

During the compilation of this volume, I have been unofficially given copies of the statements and evidence from Professor Lecomte, Yves Andrieu and Dr Pépin. This information has assisted in providing a fuller picture of the events that occurred at the IML and ToxLab during the days following the crash.

The publication of this book will mark the first time that the evidence from these critical witnesses has ever been made available to the public.

A detailed analysis of these accounts, other documentary and witness evidence from within the British and French investigations and large volumes of evidence from the inquest and the Paget Report, has enabled a scenario of the events that occurred to be carefully pieced together....

From the crash scene in the Alma Tunnel – L’Institut Médico-Legal de Paris – the Paris Institute of Forensic Medicine. At this location, two separate autopsies were conducted on Henri’s body – the first at approximately 8 a.m. on August 31, and the second after 5 p.m. on 4 September 1997.

Timeline of Events

1997

Aug 31 - 12.23 a.m.: Crash in Alma Tunnel. Mercedes S280 driver, Henri Paul, dies on impact.

8.20 a.m.: 1st autopsy conducted by Dominique Lecomte at Paris IML

Completion of Form 13A showing autopsy samples taken

Sep 1 - Blood Sample 1³⁹ picked up from IML by Ricordel⁴⁰ or a staff member

Official autopsy report completed by Lecomte

Completion of Form 12A showing autopsy samples taken

9.44 a.m.: Ricordel carries out first blood alcohol test

9.52 a.m.: Ricordel carries out second blood alcohol test

Ricordel blood alcohol test reported – 1.87 g/L

11.38 a.m.: Public Prosecutor requests Pépin by fax to test blood alcohol⁴¹

Pépin gets Blood Sample 2 picked up from the IML

1.19 p.m.: Pépin carries out blood alcohol test – 1.74 g/L

Pépin reports his blood alcohol test result to the Public Prosecutor

3.37 p.m.: Pépin commences unauthorised toxicological testing⁴²

Press release from Paris Public Prosecutor’s office announces Henri Paul was drunk at the wheel – 1.75 g/L

Sep 2 - Judge Stéphan is appointed examining magistrate of the French investigation

Professor Vanezis and John Macnamara arrive in Paris

Vanezis suggests to the French investigation that a 2nd independent autopsy be conducted – this is refused

Sep 3 - Search of Henri Paul’s apartment uncovers 1 bottle of champagne and ¼ of a bottle of Martini⁴³

Pépin receives request from Stéphan to carry out toxicological testing on the 1st autopsy samples and report by Sep 5

Sep 4 - Nine 1st autopsy samples are collected from the IML by Pépin’s technician

Pépin officially conducts toxicology testing on Blood Sample 3⁴⁴

5.00 p.m.: 2nd autopsy conducted at IML by Campana in presence of Judge Stéphan – concludes at 5.45 p.m.

Sep 5 - Pépin carries out tests on the 2nd autopsy blood sample⁴⁵, except for carbon monoxide⁴⁶

Vanezis returns to the UK, unaware of the 2nd autopsy

Deadline for Pépin to report on 1st autopsy toxicological results is missed

Sep 6 - Saturday

Sep 7 - Sunday

Sep 8 - Stéphan asks Lecomte to provide clear information regarding the sample source in the 1st autopsy

Sep 9 - 2nd police search of Henri’s apartment uncovers 18 bottles containing alcohol⁴⁷

Pépin officially carries out carbon monoxide testing on 2nd autopsy blood sample

Lecomte report states that 1st autopsy blood samples came from the "left haemothorax⁴⁸ area"

Pépin provides 1st autopsy toxicological report 4 days late

Pépin report reveals carbon monoxide level on 1st autopsy blood is 20.7%

Pépin provides 2nd autopsy toxicological report – this reveals a carbon monoxide level of 12.8%

Sep 10 - Printed date on CDT⁴⁹ test analysis report

Sep 11 - Stéphan orders Pépin and Dumestre-Toulet to conduct CDT testing

Sep 13 - Saturday

Sep 14 - Sunday

Sep 15 - Posting of blood sample from Pépin to Dumestre-Toulet⁵⁰

Sep 16 - 10 a.m. Dumestre-Toulet receives blood sample

Afternoon: CDT testing carried out – Dumestre-Toulet

Sep 17 - CDT report signed by Pépin & Dumestre-Toulet

Sep 19 - La Poste France item despatched from Paris – the docket is later signed as received by Dumestre-Toulet

Sep 20 - Deadline for completion of CDT report

Sep 21 - Sunday

Sep 23 - CDT report received by the Clerk of the Court, Laurence Maire

Nov 12 - Al Fayed experts discover high carbon monoxide level in a meeting with French lawyers

Dec - Oliver and Vanezis apply for a meeting with Lecomte and Pépin – this is declined

1998

Jun 19 - Stéphan appoints Lecomte and Pépin to investigate the high carbon monoxide levels⁵¹

Sep - Ricordel’s alcohol tested Blood Sample 1 is destroyed

Oct 16 - Lecomte and Pépin publish report stating that the high carbon monoxide levels were produced from the Mercedes airbags at the time of the crash

Nov 17 - Joint experts report refutes airbags as an explanation for the elevated carbon monoxide level

1999

Feb - UK experts make an application for a judicial confrontation with Lecomte and Pépin to discuss the elevated carbon monoxide – this is refused

2000

Lecomte destroys histologic liver sample

2001

Dec 20 - Offer from experts to assist with DNA testing – this is declined

2005

Feb 3 - Judge Bellancourt⁵² issues Commission Rogatoire for DNA testing to be carried out on Henri Paul’s blood samples

Feb 10 - French police visit ToxLab – they take Blood Sample 3 and the liver sample from the 1st autopsy

Mar 9 - 2nd autopsy Blood Sample 1 given to Operation Paget from the IML

Lecomte states to Paget that 1st autopsy blood sample source was heart

Mar 31 - Professor Doutrempuich in Bordeaux reports DNA match from Blood Sample 3 1st autopsy to Gisèle Paul

Apr 25 - Dr Pascal in Nantes reports DNA match from Blood Sample 3 and liver 1st autopsy to Gisèle Paul

Dec - Professor de Mazancourt in Paris reports DNA match from Blood Sample 3 1st autopsy to Gisèle Paul

2006

May 31 - Lecomte states to Paget that 1st autopsy blood sample source was left haemothorax area

1: 1st Autopsy: August 31

The first autopsy on Henri Paul’s body was conducted by Professor Dominique Lecomte at around 8.20 a.m. on 31 August 1997 – approximately 8 hours after the crash. The evidence of Professor Lecomte was not heard at the inquest.⁵³

At this autopsy, the French police were represented by Jean-Claude Mulès.

Jean-Claude Mulès, Commander Brigade Criminelle: 5 Feb 08: 14.7:

Hilliard: Q. Were any other post-mortem examinations carried out at the Institute that day, the Sunday?

A. No, it was a Sunday.

Q. So do I understand you correctly, that you are saying that the only post-mortem examination that was carried out was in respect of Mr Henri Paul?

A. Yes. It was.

Prof Dominique Lecomte, Pathologist and Head of IML, Paris: 9 Mar 05 Statement: Jury Didn’t Hear:

"Question: Is it usual to do an autopsy on a Sunday?

Answer: Certainly. We are on duty 24 hours a day and it does happen that we do autopsies at night.

Question: Were there any other autopsies that day?

Answer: I was on duty that day and I do not remember doing another one."⁵⁴

Prof Dominique Lecomte: 31 May 06 Statement: Jury Didn’t Hear:

That day, only one autopsy was conducted at the IML, because it was a Sunday, and it was that of Henri Paul.⁵⁵

Comment: Lecomte, who conducted the autopsy, confirmed in March 2005 that a Sunday autopsy is usual, but a year later stated: only one autopsy was conducted ... because it was a Sunday.

Who Was Present?

Given that there were a large amount of errors made in the conduct of this autopsy – see later – the identity of those present takes on increased significance.

Prof Dominique Lecomte, Pathologist and Head of IML, Paris: 31 Aug 97 Report read out 22 Jan 08: 2.12:

I carried out my assignment in Paris on 31st August 1997 with technical assistance.

Prof Dominique Lecomte, Pathologist and Head of IML, Paris: 9 Mar 05 Statement: Jury Didn’t Hear:

"Question: Who was present at the time of the autopsy on the body of Henri Paul?

Answer: Apart from myself and my assistant, there were the photographer from the criminal identification department and the Criminal Investigation Police officer already mentioned [Mulès]."⁵⁶

Prof Dominique Lecomte: 31 May 06 Statement: Jury Didn’t Hear:

I was assisted at the autopsy by Commandant Mulès from the Paris Brigade Criminelle and a representative from the Identitee Judiciaire who’s name I do not have, and who took photographs.... At the end of the autopsy these samples were put away by the chief identificateur.... The chief ‘identificateur’, Mr Chevrier, retired a few years ago and has since died.⁵⁷⁵⁸

Prof Dominique Lecomte: 16 Feb 07 Statement: Jury Didn’t Hear:

M. Andrieu was the identifier, commonly referred to as the operating room boy. This is a technician there to help with the autopsy....

Jean-Claude Mulès, Commander Brigade Criminelle, Paris: 5 Feb 08: 13.23:

Hilliard: Q. Who was present when [the autopsy] happened?

A. I cannot remember exactly. Obviously I was there because I had to be there to tell the professor about the circumstances about the accident. Also there was obviously the photographer of the Judicial Identity Service who was there to take photographs all along the operation.

Jean-Claude Mulès: 19 Jul 06 Paget Report Description of Statement: Jury Didn’t Hear:

[Mulès] stated that present during the autopsy of Henri Paul, in addition to himself, were Professor Lecomte, the ‘Identificateur’, Mr Chevriers, who is now deceased, and finally the police photographer whose identity he could not recall.⁵⁹

Yves Andrieu, IML Identifier: 19 Feb 07 Statement: Jury Didn’t Hear:

"It was I who acted as identifier at this autopsy.... I was called out very early in the morning of the autopsy by an identifier colleague who asked me to come as quickly as possible, without saying what it was about.

"I arrived at about 7 a.m. (instead of 7.30 a.m.). Mme. Lecomte was already there with the night staff. I learnt what had happened (the accident) because I was not yet aware of it....

"There was also an officer from the National Police Criminal Investigation Division present as well as a representative from the Criminal Records Office. Since it was the weekend, there could not have been either the Chief Identifier or a senior identifier present....

On his return, the Chief carried out his check.... At that time, the Chief Identifier was M. Chevrier.⁶⁰

Prof Robert Forrest, Expert Inquest Toxicologist, UK: 21 Jan 08: 169.22:

Keen: Q. The other person who was there was Commander Mulès?

A. Yes. There would presumably have been some technicians present. Professor Lecomte describes doing the procedure with technical assistance. I understand from – I believe I have read in the papers⁶¹ that one of the technicians has died – at least one has died since – so it clearly is not available to the court.

Q. I think the great misfortune is that the technician who is supposed to have labelled the bottles is now deceased.

A. Yes.

At 22 Jan 08: 34.24: Keen: Q. Professor Lecomte is the key to so many of the mysteries that you have alluded to?

A. And Commandant Mulès and anyone else who was there at the time, and I don't know if it was just Professor Lecomte, Commandant Mulès and the deceased technician.

Prof Peter Vanezis, Expert Forensic Pathologist, UK: Sep 97 Report: Jury Didn’t Hear:

It is the usual practice in suspicious death cases, as in this case, that it is noted to whom the pathologist handed the samples in order to maintain [the samples’] integrity throughout the investigation.

Profs Eisenmenger, Krompecher, Mangin: 20 Dec 01 Experts Joint Report: Jury Didn’t Hear:

The [Lecomte 1 Sep 97] report does not mention ... the names of the persons who took part in them, even as observers.

Important Note: It is critical to understand that Lecomte’s 1 September 1997 report of the autopsy has never been made public – just a 10 line summary is included in the Paget Report on page 261 and one page out of 13 pages appears on the inquest website.⁶²

Therefore, to establish the content of what is arguably the most significant document relating to this autopsy – Lecomte’s own initial report – the inquest jury would have had to piece together information from experts’ reports and statements made by lawyers and witnesses at the inquest.

In this context, it is very significant that Lecomte was not only not cross-examined at the inquest, but also her reports and statement taken by Operation Paget were not read out.⁶³⁶⁴

Comment: With regard to personnel present, there are two problems in Lecomte’s 1 September 1997 report:

There is no list of the people involved in the conduct of the autopsy operations, including the person to whom the samples were passed

There is no list of observers at the autopsy.

Based on the evidence the jury heard, there were only two named people who were present and are still living – they are Lecomte and Mulès.

It is therefore incredible that the jury never got to hear the evidence of the identificateur who states that he was present – Yves Andrieu.

The general evidence suggests that people – in addition to Lecomte and Mulès – would, should or could have been there:

Lecomte: there was technical assistance

Lecomte: myself and my assistant, there were the [police] photographer ... and ... [Mulès]

Lecomte: " these samples were put away by the chief ‘identificateur’⁶⁵ ... Mr Chevrier"

Lecomte: M. Andrieu was the identifier ... there to help with the autopsy

Mulès: there was obviously the photographer of the Judicial Identity Service⁶⁶

Mulès: present ... [was] the ‘Identificateur’, Mr Chevriers, who is now deceased

Andrieu: it was I who acted as identifier at this autopsy ... there was also an officer from the National Police Criminal Investigation Division present as well as a representative from the Criminal Records Office

Vanezis: the person to whom the pathologist handed the samples

Forrest: there would presumably have been some technicians

Joint Experts: the persons who took part ... even as observers.

In summary, it appears that at a minimum there should have been at least two technicians (one being a sample handler), a police photographer and possibly an observer. That comes to, including Lecomte and Mulès, at least five people – of which only two were named at the inquest.⁶⁷

The evidence from Lecomte, Andrieu and Mulès’ statements – none of which were heard by the jury – indicates that the attendance at this particular autopsy was slimmed down to just 4 people: Lecomte, Mulès, the identifier – Chevriers or Andrieu – and the anonymous police photographer.⁶⁸

This slimmed down version would fit this case, if it was presumed that Lecomte had premeditated sinister intentions. In other words, if Lecomte intended this to be a dodgy autopsy – as later evidence will indicate was the case – then she would not have wanted any extra witnesses.

Why has the police photographer never been named? Why have police statements never been taken from him and why was he not heard from at the inquest?

There is a major conflict over the identity of the identificateur, or identifier, at this 1st autopsy:

Lecomte: at the end of the autopsy these samples were put away by the chief ‘identificateur’ ... Mr Chevrier – 31 May 06

Mulès: present during the autopsy ... [was] the ‘Identificateur’, Mr Chevriers – 19 Jul 06

Lecomte: M. Andrieu was the identifier ... there to help with the autopsy – 16 Feb 07

Andrieu: it was I who acted as identifier at this autopsy – 19 Feb 07.

So, Lecomte, Mulès and Andrieu all state that they were present and Andrieu claims to have been the identifier, Mulès claims that Chevrier was and Lecomte has had a bet each way: in 2006 she said Chevrier and in 2007 she said Andrieu.

And not one of these four accounts was heard by the jury.

What the jury did hear was:

Keen stated that "the technician who is supposed to have labelled the [sample] bottles⁶⁹ is now deceased"

Forrest said that the deceased’s evidence clearly is not available to the court.

So which is true? Was the identifier Chevrier or Andrieu?

There are several points:

Andrieu’s name appears at the top of a key form associated with this autopsy – see later evidence regarding Form 13A. Andrieu said in his statement: My name is displayed ... so that I could be paid.⁷⁰

As this book progresses it will be shown that both Lecomte and Mulès have lied to cover up the true course of events.

Andrieu’s identity was withheld from the inquest jury⁷¹, he was not called to provide evidence and his statement was not read out.

During the progression of this chapter it will become apparent that this autopsy – conducted by Lecomte – was severely flawed and dodgy. It therefore became convenient at the inquest that one of the main witnesses to the 1st autopsy – the identifier, who had never been interviewed by the police – was already deceased and unable to be cross-examined.

It is significant that Chevrier was never named as the identifier present at this 1st autopsy until after he had died – he died on 29 July 2005 and he was first named by Lecomte in June 2006 and then by Mulès in July 2006. By that stage, Chevrier was no longer in a position to challenge their evidence.⁷²

Although Lecomte – in June 2006 – named Chevrier as the identifier present, just 8 months later – on 16 February 2007 – she had changed this to Andrieu. I suggest that it is no coincidence that Lecomte’s change of evidence occurred just 3 days before Andrieu himself was interviewed for the first time, on 19 February 2007.

Prior to Chevrier’s death in 2005, neither Lecomte nor Mulès had named anyone as the identifier present. After Chevrier’s death, it then became convenient for Lecomte and Mulès to both name Chevrier as the identifier, and that is what they did in their 2006 statements. It was only when Lecomte understood that Andrieu was actually about to be interviewed, that she realised her account needed to change to fit the evidence – that is when Lecomte finally named Andrieu as the identifier.

The balance of the evidence – documentary and witness – indicates that it was Andrieu who was present in the identifier role at the Lecomte autopsy.

The questions though, are:

Why was Chevrier not interviewed by the French police?

Why was Andrieu’s first and only statement not taken until 10 years after the crash?

Why was Andrieu’s role and evidence completely withheld from the inquest jury?

It is interesting that although it was suggested at the inquest that Chevrier⁷³ was the identifier, he still remained anonymous to the jury.⁷⁴

Choice of Pathologist

It will be suggested later in this volume that a critical factor in what Parts 1 and 2 have revealed to be a thoroughly planned operation⁷⁵, included pinning culpability for the crash on the driver, Henri Paul – by proving that he was drunk behind the wheel on the night. For this to occur, it would have been imperative that the people who conducted, and were present at, the Henri Paul autopsy – carried out within hours of the crash – were carefully chosen.

Maud Coujard, Deputy Public Prosecutor: 15 Nov 06 Statement: Jury Didn’t Hear:

I would not be able to tell you why it was Mrs Lecomte that was tasked to deal with the examination of the bodies and the autopsy that was ordered.... It is possible that she left her number at the Police headquarters.... To my recollection this choice was not made to the detriment of the other doctors [who could have done the examinations], but probably because she was on call and therefore easier to contact.⁷⁶

Yves Andrieu, IML Identifier: 19 Feb 07 Statement: Jury Didn’t Hear:

The Prosecutor’s Offices in our region have a list of on-call forensic scientists and use this to summon a qualified physician.⁷⁷

Comment: Coujard and Andrieu appear to be the only people who were ever asked to comment on this subject and notably:

the jury never got to hear what either had to say; and

they have provided conflicting evidence.

Coujard has indicated that there was not a clear system for choosing which pathologist would conduct a specific autopsy – particularly not for a death that occurred late at night in the middle of a weekend.

Andrieu appears to have stated the exact opposite: the Prosecutor’s Office uses a list of on-call forensic scientists.

I suggest that common sense comes into play here: it is logical that there would be an on-call list or roster of pathologists who could conduct urgent autopsies. Whether Lecomte, who was the Head of the IML, would even figure on that list is debatable. The list of autopsies conducted in that week – see Other Autopsies at the end of this chapter – reveals that there were 45 other autopsies and Lecomte did not conduct any of them.

In her position as IML Head, Dominique Lecomte would have probably been in a position to choose to conduct a particular autopsy, if she needed to. In other words, in a particular case Lecomte would have had the power to override any existing system.

Coujard’s account indicates that Lecomte may have done that by leaving her number at the police headquarters or by ensuring she was the pathologist on call at the time of the crash.

Choice of Police Officer

Lecomte specifically requested the presence of Mulès at the autopsy.

Jean-Claude Mulès, Commander Brigade Criminelle, Paris: 5 Feb 08: 47.24:

Keen: Q. Do I understand, Mr Mulès, that you had previous experience of attending autopsies at IML in the course of your duties in the Brigade Criminelle?

A. I was even an expert of post-mortem examinations because I did more than 500 during all my job, my career.

Q. So you are familiar with the protocols that should be followed at IML during an autopsy. Is that right?

A. Yes, that is right.

Q. You attended at about 8 a.m. on 31st August 1997 when Professor Lecomte was performing an autopsy at IML?

A. Professor Lecomte ignored that I had been appointed to be there at the IML, and she even called the headquarters to ask for me being present and assisting her because we had been working for so many years together that she wanted me to assist her.

Jean-Claude Mulès: Paget Report Description of Statement: Jury Didn’t Hear:

"Commandant Mulès said that Professor Lecomte had specifically requested that he ... be present during the autopsy because of his experience and professionalism and because they had worked together on important cases on many previous occasions. He stated that normally in the case of fatal road traffic crashes it would be the job of one of the Judicial Police accident investigators to assist the Professor during autopsy. However, in this case he believed that a decision was made at a high level to have [Mulès] assist the Professor because of his experience and expertise⁷⁸."⁷⁹

Maud Coujard, Deputy Public Prosecutor, Paris: 20 Nov 07: 46.5:

Burnett: Q. Do you know Major Mulès?

A. Yes, I do believe so, yes.

Q. He had spent 23 years with the Brigade and he had never investigated a road traffic incident. Did you know that?

A. Yes, but I answered concerning myself, not on behalf of Mr Mulès.

Comment: This evidence indicates that not only did Lecomte have control over which pathologist would conduct this critical autopsy, but she was also able to manipulate senior police to ensure that she had the particular officer whom she wanted to be present.

The fact that Lecomte went to the trouble of making sure that Mulès was the officer present at the autopsy indicates that she had a reason for wanting him there.

Lecomte never appeared at the inquest, but Mulès provides two reasons:

because we [Lecomte and Mulès] had been working for so many years together

because of [Mulès’] experience and professionalism.

During his cross-examination of Maud Coujard, Burnett revealed the extent of Mulès’ experience – he had never previously investigated any road traffic incident.

Mulès himself states that it was not normal procedure for him to be there – it would be the job of one of the Judicial Police accident investigators.⁸⁰

Why didn’t Lecomte just stick with normal procedure?

Was there another reason for Lecomte to particularly have Mulès present at Henri Paul’s autopsy?

It is possible that the true answer may lie in the evidence already presented in Part 1 and other evidence yet to be revealed in later sections of this volume.

Mulès has been intricately involved in the inept French investigation, right through from the initial work done in the post-crash hours in the Alma Tunnel.

The investigative failures that can be directly attributed to Mulès include:⁸¹

the complete failure to investigate Henri Paul’s missing 3 hours

the failure to investigate the identities of the pursuing motorbikes on the final journey

the confusion over the allocation of property inside the Mercedes after the crash

the bungled search for a white Fiat Uno

the flawed investigation of James Andanson

the invisible research into Henri Paul’s finances.⁸²

The reality is that Mulès has played a critical role in the cover-up of events regarding Princess Diana’s death.

It could be that if Lecomte needed a policeman present who would assist her in the conduct of a premeditated, flawed autopsy⁸³, then Mulès would have been the ideal choice.

Role of Mulès

Prof Robert Forrest, Expert Inquest Toxicologist, UK: 21 Jan 08: 20.3:

Hilliard: Q. Police Officer Mulès, you were aware, described organising the transportation of Mr Paul's body from the crash scene to the IML on 31st August 1997. You were aware of that?

A. Correct, yes.

Q. I think you were aware that Mr Mulès said that he was present at the post-mortem examination of Henri Paul on 31st August and the earlier external examination of Dodi Al Fayed. Is that right?

A. Yes.

Jean-Claude Mulès, Commander Brigade Criminelle, Paris: 5 Feb 08: 48.15:

Keen: Q. I think because of other urgent duties that you had that day, you were actually called away before the conclusion of the autopsy. Is that right?

A. The post mortem, the autopsy, had been totally completed. The only operations which had to remain were to – I do not want to be too rude – but were for the bodies to become visible.

At 53.14: Keen: Q. [In your Paget statement] you are saying that it was also your job to assist Lecomte during the autopsy with whatever she required of you and to write a statement at the conclusion of it.

A. The procedure makes the fact that if there is a police officer assisting at autopsies, what we call in France an assistant in attendance to a medical examination, then at the end there is a report being made by this police officer which is putting on a piece of paper the conclusions which have been reached by the doctor, by the practitioner.⁸⁴

Comment: The Operation Paget statement of evidence taken from Mulès on 19 July 2006 has the following rider attached to it:

It was decided by DCS Douglas and DCI Hodges that no formal witness statement would be obtained from Mulès and that questions would be put to him in order to gather information only. This would be achieved by questions being put to him by the interviewing officers and by DS Easton who is a fluent French speaker, translating and making a contemporaneous record of the replies. A subsequent report would then be made by the interviewing officers from the contemporaneous record of replies.⁸⁵

This procedure, which appears to be unique to Mulès, has meant that:

Mulès’ evidence may not have been taken under oath or affirmation

Mulès’ statement does not show the actual words he spoke, but instead a third person report. Mulès was present at Operation Paget for a three day period⁸⁶, but his statement has been condensed down to just 3½ A4 pages.

No reason has been given by Paget to explain why this procedure was undertaken with the evidence from Mulès.

I suggest that there are two possibilities that could explain why this approach was taken:

Mulès may have acquiesced to providing evidence only with the proviso that it was not under oath

Operation Paget was not comfortable with the nature or content of the evidence that Mulès provided – so they decided to effectively censor it.

When one considers that about 18 months later Mulès did provide evidence under oath to the British inquest, it would seem that option (a) is unlikely.

Incorrect Body Number

Prof Robert Forrest, Expert Inquest Toxicologist, UK: 21 Jan 08: 20.15:

Hilliard: Q. [Mulès] said that he had mixed up the numbers that were attributed to the bodies – I think you were aware of that –

A. Yes.

Q. – the numbers being 2146 and 2147.

A. Yes, 2147 being M Paul.

Q. Is this right, that photographs of them at the IML show Mr Dodi Al Fayed labelled as 2146 and Henri Paul as 2147.

A. Yes, I can certainly quite clearly recall the photograph of Monsieur Paul with 2147 on it.

At 22 Jan 08: 5.12: Keen: Q. The French statement which was prepared and signed off by Commander Mulès ... at 08.20 [a.m.] hours on 31st August 1997.... He refers to an examination on the body of Henri Paul, IML reference 2146.

A. Yes.

Q. I believe that during an interview with Paget some years later, he indicated that he might have been in error with regard to that number.

A. I think it's pretty clear he was.

....Q. A statement by Commander Mulès at 06.45 [a.m.] hours on 31st August. He is referring here to the forensic examination or observations on the body of Dodi Al Fayed.

A. Yes.

Q.... He advises that Dodi was registered at the IML under the reference 2147.

A. Yes.

....Q. I think, as we saw in your evidence, later blood samples [from Henri Paul] are recorded under a number 2147.

A. Yes, correct.

Jean-Claude Mulès, Commander Brigade Criminelle, Paris: 5 Feb 08: 9.7:

When you work for the Criminal Brigade, what you write, you do and what you do, you write.

At 9.20: Hilliard: Q. Were the bodies of Mr Al Fayed and Henri Paul given identification numbers?

A. Yes, but before we go any further, I have to specify that there was a mistake in numbers that I made myself, which I rectified afterwards.

Q. Can you help us now with the numbers that each of them was actually given? Don’t worry about mistakes, but as far as you are concerned, what was the number that was given to Henri Paul?

A. I have to find it. Yes, I think that 2146 and 2147 were inversed – 2146 being the number of identification of the body.

Q. 2146 and 2147, so those are the two numbers that we need to worry about. Is that right?

A. I have to check once more but ... 2146 is Mr Henri Paul, but Dodi Al Fayed, I do not think I have it. Yes, because Mrs Lecomte, the professor at the Institute of Forensic Medicine, used the number 2146 for Mr Al Fayed and it had been allocated to Mr Henri Paul.

Q. I am getting very confused, Mr Mulès. Could you just tell me, if there was a tag on the body of Mr Henri Paul – well, was there a tag on his body?

A. Yes, there was, but I made a mistake.

Q. Don’t worry about the mistake. What was the number on the tag?

A. For Mr Paul it was 2147 and for Mr Al Fayed it was 2146 – well, looking at the documents that have been shown to me ten years later.

....Q. You have also told us that you had made a mistake about his number, is that right, in your paperwork?

A. Yes, but it was rectified right away and there was no consequence of that.

Q. But just so that we understand: you originally wrote down, is this right, that Mr Dodi Al Fayed was reference number 2147 and that Mr Henri Paul had been 2146?

A. Yes, that is correct.

Q. You have explained that you made a mistake in saying that. Is that right?

A. Yes, you know, once again, the context in which I was working was a difficult one. You know, when you write something, it is always possible to make a mistake. It is only human. Anyway, I realised that I had made a mistake very quickly and I notified even the authorities of that mistake.

....Q. So that is the document, Mr Mulès – is this right – in which you simply have the numbers the wrong way round, you say?

A. Yes, exactly.

Q. There are, in fact, as I think you know, photographs of each body, Mr Al Fayed and Mr Paul’s, with the numbers the different way round, the way that you say in fact they were.

A. Exactly.

Jean-Claude Mulès: Paget Record of Interview read out 17 Mar 08: 150.20:

"Mulès said that he could confirm the body number for Henri Paul was 2147 and the body number for Dodi Al Fayed was 2146. He accepted that he had made an administrative error on one of these documents⁸⁷ and that this again had been because of preloaded templates on their computer system and because of the pressure of work and tiredness."

Comment: The correct body numbers were: Henri Paul – 2147; Dodi Fayed – 2146.

Mulès provides conflicting evidence on who made the error:

he initially volunteers without being asked: there was a mistake in numbers that I made myself

he next states: Mrs Lecomte ... used the number 2146 for Mr Al Fayed and it had been allocated to Mr Henri Paul

then in his following sentence he says: I made a mistake.⁸⁸

The documentary evidence indicates that the mistake was made by Mulès as the incorrect numbers are on documents completed by him.

In this context, it is significant to realise that the same person who mixed up the body numbers, Mulès, was also responsible for identifying Henri Paul’s body – see Body Identification later.

Incorrect Body Measurements

There are differing recordings of Henri Paul’s height and weight measurements at the time of this first autopsy.

Prof Robert Forrest, Expert Inquest Toxicologist, UK: 21 Jan 08: 23.17:

Hilliard: Q. The body, [the Lecomte 1 Sep 97 autopsy report, p3] says, is that of a middle-aged man bearing a label worded as follows: height 1 metre 72, weight 73 kg, Institute of Forensic Medicine, Paris, no 2147. Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. If we just turn on to page 12, that’s a body map of Mr Paul. Is that right?

A. Correct.

Q. We can just make it out. Bottom middle, can you see 2147? So that’s his number, but then underneath do you see 76 kg as opposed to the 73 kg we have at the start of the report. Is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Then I think you are aware that Police Officer Mulès recorded Henri Paul’s weight as 76 kilograms, not 73 –

A. Yes.

Q. – and his height as 1.67 metres, not 1.72.

A. Yes.

Prof Richard Shepherd, Expert Inquest Pathologist, UK: 22 Jan 08: 122.15:

Hilliard: Q. You say this [in joint experts report 17 Jul 07]: Discrepancies in height, weight and IML numbers.... Between the various forms and documents and between Professor Lecomte and Major Mulès show a poor system of recording and reproducing these simple facts, assuming no other reason for the discrepancies. Is that still your view?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Tell us about measuring height at post mortem please.

A.... When a height is taken, it should be recorded accurately, and it is usually taken, certainly in my experience, in the presence of both the police officers and the pathologist, and the two will record it at the same time.

Prof Peter Vanezis, Expert Forensic Pathologist, UK: 30 Jan 08: 79.7:

Keen: Q. There is variation in measurements of body weight, height and various other things. What you and Professor Shepherd say there [in the joint experts report 10 Aug 07] ... is that: While neither of these errors appears of itself serious, together with other errors in the reports, they indicate weaknesses in documentation of simple facts, assuming no other explanation.

A. That’s quite right.

Jean-Claude Mulès, Commander Brigade Criminelle, Paris: 5 Feb 08: 15.2:

Hilliard: Q. We have seen in the document that you completed that you had recorded Mr Henri Paul’s height as 1.67 metres and his weight as 76 kilograms....

A. It is done by the person in charge at the Institute of Forensic Medicine when he or she receives the body. He weighs it, measures it and gives it its identification number.

Q. I just want you to look at two parts of the [1 Sep 97] report that Professor Lecomte completed.... She said: The body is that of a middle-aged man bearing a label worded as follows: height 1 metre 72, weight 73 kilograms, Institute of Forensic Medicine Paris, number 2147. Then she drew a little chart of the injuries that Mr Henri Paul had. At the bottom of that she wrote the number 2147 and underneath it 76 kg.

A. Maybe she made a mistake when she transcribed the weight that was on the label.

Q. Right. I just want to know, can you shed any light other than the possibility that she has made a mistake for those discrepancies, those differences of heights and weights?

A. No, I have no explanation. Maybe you should ask her.

Q. I think we may not be hearing from her, you see, Mr Mulès, so we have to ask you.

A. Yes, I know because she is concerned by two cases still in France. But maybe she just made a mistake – she did not read properly what was on the label. You know, it is a mistake of a few kilos or a few centimetres.

At 49.16: Keen: Q. One of the oddities that we have here, Mr Mulès, is that the weight and height which you recorded from the label for the body undergoing the autopsy was a weight of 76 kilograms and a height of 176 centimetres⁸⁹, while the weight and the height which Professor Lecomte claims to have taken from a label or from the body undergoing the autopsy was 73 kilograms and 172 centimetres. Yet I think you tell us that these figures come from the same labels, or should do. Is that right?

A. What I can explain now is that the staff member from the IML, the handler, I would say, he is first weighing and taking the height of the body, but then it is re-measured