From: bern.boergeenreclame@planet.nl
"rich" schreef in bericht
news:4jQFj.6545$6R1.2564@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
{snip} Still some live in this NG!
> This is what you said
> "Monday Fayed will testify. Let's hope he will not run away before Monday.
> He
> could claim that the Coroner is biased or he could come with another lame
> excuse."
>
> So, according to you, if MAF had not appeared you would have accused him
> of running away, yet when Lecompte, Pepin & co. refuse to appear, they are
> not running away.
Indeed, because they are not in the UK but in France. Fayed is/was in the
UK. If he hadn't testified, he would have run away. Spot the difference. It
is al a matter of jurisdiction and several French citizens who live in
France, who played a role in the French investigations refused to be bullied
by Mansfield and learned friends. Fayed wants to live in the UK, he wants to
become a UK citizen but he doesn't want to pay taxes. That is why he only
visits Britain, but lives in Monaco. BTW, did you ever read the DTI report
about Fayed? He was exposed as a liar and he never challenged the report,
which says enough.
Anyway, Fayed testified and it turned out that about 89.2% of all people was
against him. He was the only person in the world who knows what happened and
people who refuse to are part of the conspiracy. Fayed's testimony was
pathetic, but a few conspiracy nuts still believe him. Let's hope the Jury
will show common sense.
>> Since they live in another country, no UK autorithy can force the to
>> testify.
>
> I'm sure we are all well aware of that.
>
>> The late Coroner Burgess warned for this problem and
>> alt.conspiracy.princess-diana's legal eagle (who was an expert in ALL
>> fields) called him an idiot. But it is a real problem. Why does the UK
>> state organise Inquests about events that happened abroad?
>
> To try and establish how they died.
>
>> It is obvious the UK authorities cannot force forgeiners living abroad to
>> testify. If foreign authorities don't coporate what use can an UK Inquest
>> have? This whole procedure only applies in cases when a body is returned
>> to the UK. Why no Inquests when UK citizins, who died a violent dead, are
>> buried outside the UK?
>
> Because the body is not in th UK.
I understand that this is the law as it stands. The question I tried to
raise is why one should conduct an Inquest when one knows that it will be
likely that important witnesses will not appear. It doesn't make much sense
to me, especially in this case. Fayed went through the French court system
and he went even to the European Court. He came a cropper.
>> Furthermore, the French authorities investigated the accident, Fayed was
>> legally represented, he appealed time after time, he even went to the
>> Court in Strasbourg and he came a cropper.
>>
>>>> He could claim that the Coroner is biased or he could come with another
>>>> lame excuse.
>>>
>>> What is Lecompte's lame excuse?
>>
>> He testified in France, I assume he felt that that testimony was enough.
>
> You assume.
Since we don't any statement from this person we have to assume, don't we?
>>>> If he'll testify the international press will have a field day. All
>>>> Fayed's accusations will be addressed and he will be asked to back them
>>>> up. Since the only evidence he can provide is his own vivid
>>>> imagination, his "opponent's" lawyers will have a field day too.
>>>> They'll grill him, at least that is what they should do.
>>>
>>
>> [snip"the "blame the French part]
>
[snip]
> There is not a shred of credible or reliable evidence to show that HP was
> drunk, or that it was his blood, or that the blood samples had not been
> mixed with.the blood of somebody else.
Mixed with the blood of somebody else? Conspiracy nonsense again.
>> As to be expected, the conspiracy theorist turn to the French
>> investigation.
>
> Eh?
>
>> Errors were made, some people didn't perform as well as they should have
>> done,
>
> You assume.
>
>> but all this doesn't prove there was a conspiracy.
>
> No it doesn't - it just knocks a massive hole in the drunk driver theory.
> It can also be argued that it suggests something more sinister than
> incompetence.
Argued by conspiracy theorists, one should add. As I said, there is not a
shred of evidence to even suggest that there was a conspiracy. Why hasn't
Fayed come up with something?
>> If there had been a conspiracy, the conspirators would haven't been so
>> sloppy.
>
> Another assumption by you.
>
>> According to the conspiracy theorists they managed to orchestrated an
>> extremely complicated murder. Surely they wouldn't have the mistakes that
>> were made.
>
> Shit happens. Lansdale got photographed in Dealy Plaza, films of WTC7
> collapsing in 6 seconds have now been seen by millions, etc. etc.
Ah, conspiracy theorising at it worst! Link everything together and you have
what you are looking for.
>> The real question the conspiracy theorists haven't answered is how did
>> the alleged murders know that the car would leave from the back of the
>> Ritz and would pass the Alma underpass. Not even Fayed disputes the fact
>> that the plan to leave from the back was cooked up minutes before the
>> four people actually left. So how could the murders have organised their
>> plans in the space of only a few minutes?
>
> It was not cooked up "minutes before the four people actually left". IIRC
> from the testimony, it was at least an hour or mybe two before that?
No, it wasn't, re-read the transcripts. Still, even two hours is far too
short to organise a conspiracy that involves the SAMU, the Parquet, the
Police etc. It is simply impossible.
>>> The only evidence of HP drinking at all is the bar bills showing he had
>>> ordered two 50 mil measures of Ricard.
>>
>> A fact the Fayed organisation lied about!
> Macnamara lied on a US tv programme but he did see to it that the receipt
> was given to the french investigators.
He lied about it. The bar tender didn't tell porkies. That is what happened
and that is why the receipt was turned over. Furthermore, the Fayed
organisation didn't come up with the conspiracy story until February 1998.
Before that date several of Fayed's employees told a totally different
story. Pressed to clarify these inconsistencies Fayed told the Inquest that
he didn't know what these people told the press. Do you really believe that
Fayed, who has a record of changing history and polishing up his past,
doesn't know what his press people tell the world? The pregnancy story
emerged several years later, probably after someone told Fayed that
embalmment hides a pregnancy. The real conspiracy has been exposed during
the Inquest. Fayed invented the whole story and changed it on several
occasions.
[snip]
> Smoking does not hide the smell of alcohol. Nobody said he smelled of
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
