XPost: alt.talk.royalty   
   From: bern.boergeenreclame@planet.nl   
      
   "banana"  schreef in bericht   
   news:J8ManJAOx3pFFw0i@borve.demon.co.uk...   
      
   [snip]   
      
   > If I were MAF's counsel, I would urge the jurors (if a jury is   
   > appointed) to be sceptical about any so-called evidence that they do not   
   > actually see and hear a witness give, in front of their own eyes and   
   > ears - a procedure which, as I am sure you know, allows jurors   
   > themselves to question a witness if they so wish.   
      
   For once you give sound advice. Let's cross-examine Fayed. His conspiracy   
   theory was partly based on the assertion that 1) Henri Paul's blood samples   
   were switched and 2) that Diana was pregnant with his grandchild. Because 1)   
   and 2) turned out to be utter fabrications by Fayed, he went into silent   
   mode by claiming that Lord Stevens' report was garbage and that he is the   
   only one in the world who really knows what happened. If ALL the forensic   
   evidence available shows that Fayed made up his claims, why trust him? The   
   Stevens' report shows clearly that Fayed has no shred of evidence to support   
   his claims. Fayed now concentrates on procedural matters, but he hasn't   
   countered, as far as I know, the contents of the report. Or are we to   
   believe that Fayed will pull some enormous rabbit out of the hat during the   
   inquest proper?   
      
   >Let them watch Robert   
   > Fellowes, Richard Spearman, 'Prince' Philip Glucksburg, torturer   
   > Nicholas Langman, etc., and judge for themselves whether these scumbags   
   > are telling the truth or lying. Let them hear Fellowes's relatives say   
   > he was in England with them, and ditto.   
      
   And on what basis should these witnesses be called? (BTW, if you were   
   counsel to Fayed and you would use the word "scumbags", you would be   
   reprimanded.) Where is the evidence, Neil? If it were up to you even the   
   Pope should be called, but there is a real world.   
      
   > Brown-nosers like Mark Lawson and Mick Hume may say it's all over, but   
   > it's hardly started!   
      
   No doubt Fayed will start all kind of procedural appeals after the verdict   
   and no doubt they will take a long time, giving Fayed ample media coverage   
   to shout "I am the only one who knows what really happened". If you mean   
   this "it's hardly started", you are right. But the outcome of the Inquest   
   will be crystal clear. After a time consuming, money consuming procedure,   
   the English Coroner will rubberstamp the results of the French   
   investigation. UNLESS of course, Fayed buys the Jury. One shouldn't forget   
   that this man bought MP's, so he cannot be trusted.   
      
   B. B.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)