External links

Site information

Hearing transcripts

22 January 2008 - Afternoon session

15 (2.10 pm)
16 (Jury present)
19 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Do you prefer to sit or stand?
20 A. I think I prefer to sit, please, sir.
21 Questions from MR HILLIARD
22 MR HILLIARD: I think it's actually Professor Richard
23 Shepherd; is that right?
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. Professor, I think you have written a number of reports.


1 If we just deal with those first of all: a joint report
2 with Professor Vanezis signed by you on 10th August of
3 last year; is that right?
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. And then the most recent report you have written is one
6 dated 14th January of this year?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. Can you start, please, by telling us your occupation?
9 A. I am a Home Office pathologist. I am Professor of
10 Forensic Medicine at the City University, a senior
11 lecturer at St George's University of London and
12 an honorary consultant in forensic medicine at the Royal
13 Liverpool Hospital Trust.
14 Q. I think over the years you have conducted hundreds, no
15 doubt thousands, I expect, of post-mortem examinations?
16 A. Thousands.
17 Q. Now, I want to ask you, first of all, some questions,
18 please, about the post-mortem examination that
19 Professor Lecomte carried out on the body of Henri Paul
20 on 31st August 1997; all right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Is this right, that photographs were taken during that
23 procedure, indeed before it started, I think?
24 A. Yes, they were.
25 Q. In those photographs, do they show Mr Paul with


1 an identifying tag, a band, with the number 2147?
2 A. Yes, they do. Of course I have no way of knowing that
3 it's Mr Paul. There is a body, a male body, with that
4 band on it that I have been informed is the body of
5 Mr Paul.
6 Q. All right. "2147" on the band is clearly visible?
7 A. "2147" is initially present on his wrist and is later
8 present on his ankle.
9 Q. Have you seen photographs of Mr Dodi Al Fayed with the
10 number 2146?
11 A. I was shown some and produced a very short report that
12 actually didn't mention saying that I had seen those
13 photographs, but I didn't retain them and I can't recall
14 that numbering.
15 Q. All right. We can deal with that with somebody else.
16 So far as Mr Henri Paul was concerned, I think there
17 were about 40 photographs; is that right?
18 A. Yes, there were three films, some of which were blank,
19 but three films showing the photographs from the
20 external and internal examinations.
21 Q. So far as those examinations were concerned, did the
22 photographs appear to confirm what it was
23 Professor Lecomte had said she had seen?
24 A. Yes, that's correct.
25 Q. I will come on to the question of samples and so on in


1 a moment or two. So far as the question of the
2 post-mortem examination itself was concerned, what she
3 had looked at and so on --
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. -- do you have any difficulties or problems with that?
6 A. No. As far as I could see, she examined all the areas
7 of the body that she said she had examined. She did
8 them in a systematic and professional manner.
9 Q. Then so far, please, as blood sampling is concerned --
10 you have been in court during the evidence of
11 Professor Forrest?
12 A. Yes, I have.
13 Q. I am not going to go through all of that and duplicate
14 it with you, but as you know, there is an issue about
15 the provenance of blood samples, if they came from
16 Henri Paul, were they cardiac blood --
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. -- or had they come from the chest cavity, but there is
19 a further consideration, isn't there, which I think you
20 identified when you looked closely at the photographs
21 taken at the examination on the 31st?
22 A. Yes, that's correct.
23 Q. Does it come to this -- and amplify obviously if you
24 want to -- that before the examination of Henri Paul
25 began, at, I think, a time when he was face down in the


1 mortuary, a number of sample bottles could be seen which
2 were empty?
3 A. That is correct. It appeared to me as though a number
4 of sample bottles had been laid out in order and in
5 patterns ready for use during that examination. One
6 group of sample bottles was a group of eight small glass
7 bottles.
8 Q. Did they look, so far as you could tell, like the ones
9 that there were photographs of in Dr Pepin's report in
10 due course?
11 A. Yes, they didn't have the white lid on the top, but as
12 far as I could tell, they were the sort of bottles that
13 I would expect to have been used and they appear to be
14 the type of bottle seen in Dr Pepin's photographs.
15 Q. Face down at first, and then, is this right, there is
16 a time when you were able to see that before any
17 incision had been made to his chest, such as would have
18 enabled somebody to take either cardiac blood or blood
19 from the chest cavity --
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. -- but before there was any incision to the chest, were
22 you able to see that there was an incision to the back
23 of the neck?
24 A. Yes, there was. There were some injuries to
25 Henri Paul's neck, and these were examined by means of


1 an incision that ran down the back of his neck and is
2 shown in the photographs.
3 Q. Was there an obvious quantity of blood there?
4 A. Yes. Within the photographs it was quite easy to see
5 that there was a significant pool of blood at the site
6 of the incision that had been made, and indeed
7 Professor Lecomte records the fact that there was blood
8 at that site in her report.
9 Q. What happened, so far as the empty bottles were
10 concerned, so far as you could see from the photographs,
11 after that incision but before any incision had been
12 made to the chest?
13 A. It's possible to see on the photographs -- and perhaps
14 I should say this was pre-digital, so they are the old
15 slide film, so one can follow a progress through by
16 looking at the sequence in which the photographs are
17 taken. I believe it will give you an idea of the
18 sequence of events that took place that is reliable.
19 One can see that, once Monsieur Paul had been turned
20 onto his back ready for the proper examination that
21 would have opened his chest, two of the small glass
22 bottles can be seen. One is clearly identifiable and
23 I believe contains blood; one is slightly hidden by
24 a tap, but I believe that in the end there are two small
25 glass bottles containing blood before the chest of


1 Mr Henri Paul was opened.
2 Q. If blood had been taken from there, would there have
3 been any risk of contamination with fatty material or
4 bone marrow from that area?
5 A. Yes, there is the risk of -- caused by the fracture and
6 the injuries to the neck that were present. There is
7 also the risk caused by actually incising through the
8 skin to examine that area. So there are two possible
9 sources of contamination.
10 Q. As between cardiac blood, blood from the chest cavity,
11 blood from the neck and, obviously then taken some days
12 later, femoral blood, is there any preference?
13 A. I think we heard Professor Forrest say quite clearly on
14 several occasions that femoral blood is the blood that
15 they believe to be best, ideally femoral vein blood, but
16 when one is performing post-mortem examinations on
17 individuals who have been injured, who have bled as
18 a result of those injuries, sometimes the samples may be
19 sub-optimal and one will have to take samples from other
20 than perfect sites. The key, though, is to ensure that
21 that is recorded and passed on to the toxicologists so
22 that they are aware of the site from which the samples
23 were taken.
24 Q. Suppose blood is taken from the neck and then in due
25 course another site in the post-mortem examination


1 becomes available for blood --
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. -- subject to the question, as you say, of making it
4 plain in whatever blood is submitted where it has come
5 from, is there any obligation to keep the first blood?
6 Do you see what I mean?
7 A. No. In other circumstances, in cases where I have
8 performed a post-mortem examination on someone, let us
9 say, who has received stab wounds to the chest, it's
10 essential to retain blood in those circumstances. I may
11 retain blood from the haemothorax as I proceed through
12 my post-mortem examination, but if I am then
13 subsequently able to obtain blood from the femoral
14 region, I will discard the blood from the haemothorax as
15 being less useful to the toxicologist.
16 So you will take a sample early and possibly discard
17 it, but if there is no blood, as may sometimes happen
18 where haemorrhage has been extensive, you may have to
19 rely on the first sample or samples that you take.
20 Q. As you say, making it plain where the sample that you do
21 use, where that has come from?
22 A. Indeed. That is the key.
23 Q. Right. Staying with photographs for the moment, as you
24 know it is said that Dr Campana took the femoral blood
25 on 4th September.


1 A. Yes.
2 Q. There are photographs, is this right, said to be taken
3 on that occasion?
4 A. There are photographs of Henri Paul clearly after the
5 first post-mortem examination in that the incisions that
6 were made on his body that have been sewn up by the
7 staff at IML were clearly visible, and it was my
8 understanding that they were taken at the time and under
9 the orders of the judge who was present.
10 Q. The photographs, in fact, have a date on them, is this
11 right, of 5th September?
12 A. That is my understanding, yes.
13 Q. But do they show the area of Scarpa's Triangle on
14 Henri Paul?
15 A. They do.
16 Q. Is there no sign of any dissection to that area?
17 A. No, there is not.
18 Q. So if that procedure happened on 4th September, as is
19 said, if that dissection happened on 4th September, the
20 photographs couldn't have been taken on the 5th because
21 they don't show what happened on the 4th.
22 A. Exactly. Clearly Dr Campana has made incisions at the
23 tops of the fronts of both legs. These incisions would
24 have been present and they are not seen in the
25 photographs that are dated the 5th, so clearly there is


1 a discrepancy somewhere in either the dating of the
2 photographs or the date that the samples were taken.
3 Q. So far as taking blood from that area is concerned, how
4 easy or difficult is it to ensure that you would only be
5 taking blood from the artery as opposed to the vein or
6 vice versa?
7 A. The two blood vessels at that point in the body run side
8 by side. The artery is quite a thick-walled vessel and
9 is relatively easily identified. The vein is very
10 thin-walled and it's technically quite difficult to
11 dissect one from the other with ease. So it is quite
12 technically difficult to ensure that you only receive
13 blood from the vein or only receive blood from the
14 artery, and in general practice one tends to receive
15 a mixture of arterial and veinous blood in a sample
16 taken at those points.
17 Q. I want to turn, please, to -- do you have the joint
18 report that you completed with Professor Vanezis? It's
19 page 5 of 12, if that helps you.
20 A. Thank you.
21 Q. You there deal with some comments so far as the
22 post-mortem examination was concerned on 31st August; is
23 that right?
24 A. Yes, that's correct.
25 Q. By that time I think you had only seen colour


1 photocopies. You have now seen glossy images; is that
2 right?
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. You point out first of all that what you can see in
5 those photographs appears to correlate with the diagram
6 that we have seen made by Professor Lecomte and the
7 injuries that she describes in her report.
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. You then say this -- and when I have just read it out,
10 if you agree with it, could you just then go on to deal
11 with the question of measuring heights at post-mortem
12 examinations? Do you remember that Professor Forrest
13 mentioned that?
14 A. Indeed.
15 Q. You say this:
16 "Discrepancies in height, weight and IML
17 numbers ..."
18 That's the 2146/2147 discrepancy in Police
19 Officer Mules' statement; yes.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. So those discrepancies, you say, "... between the
22 various forms and documents and between
23 Professor Lecomte and Major Mules show a poor system of
24 recording and reproducing these simple facts, assuming
25 no other reason for the discrepancies".


1 Is that still your view?
2 A. Yes, it is.
3 Q. Tell us about measuring height at post mortem please.
4 A. The height at a post mortem is measured using
5 effectively a stick with -- it's a special stick with
6 a base that the feet or the heels are placed against.
7 It is a length marked off in centimetres or inches or
8 both and then there is a slide. It's the sort of thing
9 perhaps one might remember seeing in your doctor's
10 waiting room, but instead of being on the floor and
11 moving up and down, we have it freestanding because
12 clearly we have to measure the bodies lying down.
13 There is always some variation in the height. We
14 don't pretend that they are accurate to a centimetre.
15 So we will get a height that we accept, simply because
16 moving the head or the presence of rigor mortis and some
17 bending of the knees or some or many artefacts that are
18 present on the body may alter the height slightly.
19 However, when a height is taken, it should be
20 recorded accurately, and it is usually taken, certainly
21 in my experience, in the presence of both the police
22 officers and the pathologist, and the two will record it
23 at the same time.
24 Q. Just this on the question of the photographs: they show
25 one body in the room; is that right?


1 A. Yes. I visited IML on one occasion. It's my
2 understanding that the rooms that are used for these
3 examinations have one post-mortem table, and my --
4 I should say that I don't know whether the photographs
5 are in that particular room or not, but that is my
6 understanding. As far as I can determine from
7 considering all of the photographs, there isn't another
8 body within that room.
9 Q. Turning over the page to your 6 of 12, you say this:
10 "The exact site of sampling of the blood specimens
11 taken on 31st August 1997 must be in doubt."
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. You went on to say:
14 "At the time of this report [so August of 2007],
15 although it appears most likely that all of the blood
16 samples were taken from the haemothorax, most probably
17 from the left side ..."
18 A. That was understanding at the time.
19 Q. That was then?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Of course, since then, as you say, you have looked at
22 the photographs and -- you have just dealt with it
23 now -- the question of the neck incision and then the
24 two bottles of blood.
25 A. Yes, having considered those photographs, clearly the


1 haemothorax and that site become possibilities.
2 Q. You say:
3 "The exact number of blood samples taken on
4 31st August 1997 is also in doubt."
5 We have looked at the documentation that deals with
6 that when we dealt with the topic with
7 Professor Forrest.
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. You go on to say, as you have already said, that it
10 should be clearly indicated where samples have come
11 from.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. You say:
14 "There appears to be a general lack of clarity about
15 sampling, labelling and documentation of the samples
16 taken on 31st August 1997."
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. You say that Professor Lecomte said that -- and you
19 quote:
20 "'Exhibiting is a not an issue for the medical
21 examiner', whereas Major Mules had said that that should
22 have been his job to seal the exhibits, but he said
23 Professor Lecomte didn't follow this protocol and
24 insisted on overall control herself."
25 A. Yes.


1 Q. So there is that discrepancy between the two of them?
2 A. And I take that simply from statements that they have
3 made.
4 Q. Yes. Then you go on to say this:
5 "The samples taken on 4th September 1997 have been
6 labelled and documented with much greater care."
7 A. Yes, they have.
8 Q. As you know, that was Professor Forrest's view, and it's
9 also yours, is it?
10 A. Yes. It's quite clear -- the people that were present,
11 the way the incisions were made, the documentation
12 associated with them and how they were handled is quite
13 clearly documented. There still seems to be a mistake
14 in the sense that the labels still say "cardiac blood",
15 but at least other components are quite clearly and
16 obviously documented.
17 Q. Yes. Then just two last matters. You have a section
18 again, your page 6 of 12, headed "Alcohol abuse". Do
19 you see that?
20 A. Yes, I do.
21 Q. You say this:
22 "Chronic ...", and that means over a period of time;
23 is that right?
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. "Chronic alcohol abuse will commonly result in visible


1 changes to the liver."
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. "However, it's recognised that not all chronic alcohol
4 abusers have gross naked-eye evidence of a fatty liver."
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. By "gross naked-eye evidence", you mean what you could
7 see with your own eyes, not using a microscope; is that
8 right?
9 A. That's correct; what you can simply see at the time of
10 the post-mortem examination.
11 Q. So what that comes to is this: there might be nothing
12 that you could see with your naked eye, even though
13 somebody was in fact somebody who had abused alcohol
14 over time?
15 A. Yes, that's correct. If one sees the changes, one can
16 make the inference. In the absence of changes, the
17 alcohol abuse may or may not be present. You simply
18 cannot say that it is not from that gross appearance
19 alone.
20 Q. Yes. You then say:
21 "Histological examination could have provided
22 evidence of chronic alcohol abuse."
23 Is that right?
24 A. That's correct. There are changes that can be
25 identified when one is looking at the cells under the


1 microscope that are clearly not visible by looking at
2 the liver in the post-mortem room.
3 Q. By that you mean, what, if you take a slice or section
4 of the liver and look at it in that way?
5 A. Yes, it's processed through the histo-pathology
6 laboratory and then very thin slices are cut, and it
7 enables us to look at the individual cells, the cell
8 patterns, the types of cells that are present within
9 a section, and to understand what is happening at
10 a cellular level rather than just at a gross level,
11 a macroscopic level, looking at the liver in the
12 mortuary.
13 Q. Is this right, as you understand it, that nobody has
14 conducted that exercise?
15 A. I understand that Professor Lecomte retained tissue for
16 a period of time, but this tissue was then disposed of.
17 Q. And the period of time for which it was retained?
18 A. I believe it was three years.
19 Q. I just want to ask you, please, because you have dealt
20 with it in your report in some detail, about the
21 question of signs of possible pregnancy so far as the
22 Princess of Wales is concerned.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. I will take this shortly because we heard evidence from
25 Dr Chapman which wasn't the subject of dispute. You,


1 I think, have seen his report of his post-mortem
2 examination; is that right?
3 A. I have.
4 Q. You have seen his comments both in his report and in the
5 evidence he gave about signs that he would or wouldn't
6 expect to see at different times; is that right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Are you in agreement with what he said?
9 A. In very broad terms I am in agreement with what he says,
10 yes.
11 Q. (Pause) These are available, if anybody else wants to
12 see them. I will not hand them around at the moment.
13 Lieutenant Bourgois -- he is the person who took the
14 photographs for Dr Campana's procedure -- he certainly
15 says that he took the photographs on 5th September.
16 I have just looked, and I am in error and it may be you
17 are or I may have led you into it, but certainly if one
18 looks at the photographs themselves -- will you take
19 this from me? If anybody else needs to, they can see
20 them -- there doesn't appear to be a date on the
21 photographs themselves. He certainly said that he took
22 them on the 5th and he may be right or wrong about that.
23 A. I understand. So there is no date actually on the
24 photographs themselves?
25 Q. There doesn't appear to be. If there is any issue about


1 that, we will come back to it in due course, but
2 I obviously don't want to pass them round at the moment.
3 A. I forget how exactly I had phrased it, but I knew there
4 was a discrepancy in the dates that had been given.
5 MR HILLIARD: Absolutely right. Thank you very much,
6 Professor.
8 MR MANSFIELD: No, thank you.
10 Questions from MR KEEN
11 MR KEEN: Good afternoon, Professor Shepherd. My name is
12 Richard Keen. I am counsel for the parents of the late
13 Henri Paul, of which you may already be aware.
14 A. I am.
15 Q. Just one or two points. On the question of Dr Campana's
16 examination, it has just been highlighted that,
17 according to Police Lieutenant Bourgois, he attended at
18 ILM on 5th September 1997 --
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. -- and took photographs of a body which did not exhibit
21 signs of the incisions made according to Dr Campana's
22 report.
23 A. I could see -- I would need to refresh my memory again,
24 but my recollection is that there were no incisions in
25 the area that is in this court being referred to as


1 "Scarpa's Triangle".
2 Q. Despite that, the records produced by the French
3 authorities with regard to Dr Campana's autopsy or
4 post-mortem examination purported to show that that
5 examination was performed the day before the
6 photographs, namely on 4th September.
7 A. Certainly that's my understanding from the judge and
8 from Dr Campana, that it was 4th September, at 5 o'clock
9 in the afternoon, if my memory serves me correctly, that
10 this examination was performed.
11 Q. Thereafter, a number of blood samples were produced,
12 attributed to that examination by Dr Campana.
13 A. Yes, there were two, I think, one from each side.
14 Q. But the ones that were produced were actually labelled
15 as "cardiac blood", namely blood taken from the heart?
16 A. Once again my memory is -- I could refresh it from the
17 photographs -- but it says "cardiac blood", one sample
18 has "FD" and one has "FG", "femoral droit" and "femoral
19 gauche", presumably labelled upon them, but I still
20 believe that the label itself says "cardiac blood",
21 "sang cardiac".
22 Q. Coming back to the blood samples taken or not taken on
23 31st August 1997, Professor, you very recently reported,
24 I think at your own initiative, on 14th January, that
25 having had an opportunity to examine photographs in


1 a little more detail, perhaps clearer photographs, you
2 had identified that there was, in the photographs,
3 a body which had not yet had a chest incision which
4 would be a necessary prerequisite for haemothorax blood
5 being taken in the manner described by
6 Professor Lecomte.
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. In those photographs you identified at least one and
9 potentially two glass storage jars or --
10 A. Yes, two small blood sample jars is how I would describe
11 them.
12 Q. At least one of which you clearly saw contained blood
13 and the other potentially contained blood?
14 A. It's my belief that both contained blood, but others
15 would need to see the photographs to be satisfied
16 themselves that there are two bottles containing blood
17 rather than just one.
18 Q. Thank you, Professor.
19 Now, I think you were present while
20 Professor Forrest gave his evidence.
21 A. Yes, I was.
22 Q. Therefore you are aware -- and I will not take time over
23 it -- as to the various speculations as to where the
24 blood might have been taken from?
25 A. Yes, I am.


1 Q. I think three were mentioned: syringe used on the body
2 before an incision?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Blood being taken from the back of the neck or the blood
5 being from another body?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Now, whichever of those is right or wrong or whether it
8 be some other speculative source, the fact is that if
9 you are right in identifying these sample bottles in the
10 photograph, then on any view the account which has been
11 repeatedly given by Professor Lecomte with regard to the
12 post mortem on 31st August 1997 cannot, on the face of
13 it, be true and accurate?
14 A. It's certainly -- in that she has not mentioned
15 retaining samples at the site, if only to mention them
16 to say that she took them and then disposed of them, it
17 is incomplete in that sense. There are certainly
18 inaccuracies elsewhere within the report above and
19 beyond the problems with the blood samples.
20 Q. I appreciate there may be many and I think we rehearsed
21 them with Professor Forrest and I would not take you
22 back through them all. The point remains this: that
23 there are samples present before the incision in the
24 chest of which Professor Lecomte has never made any
25 mention whatsoever?


1 A. That is right, and that is why I felt it was so
2 important, having noted them, to bring them to the
3 attention of this court.
4 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: There are quite a lot of
5 questions. It would nice to have the answers of
6 Professor Lecomte too.
7 A. Yes, sir.
8 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We may never have them.
9 MR KEEN: Can I come on to the question of liver?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. At page 6 of the agreed report, you note that a liver
12 sample having been taken, an histological examination
13 would have been more likely to have detected if fatty
14 changes --
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. -- and other features of alcohol abuse were present.
17 A. That is so.
18 Q. So if you wanted to check for any evidence of alcohol
19 abuse, you have the liver and you can subject it to that
20 sort of examination?
21 A. Indeed. In my understanding it was available. The
22 timeframe, I understand, is three years. Exactly
23 whether it was three years or not I don't know, but it
24 was available for certainly a number of years for that
25 examination.


1 Q. The information we have, Professor Shepherd -- and this
2 may not have been drawn to your attention by the
3 French -- is that the liver sample in the possession of
4 Dr Pepin was handed over to the French police on
5 9th March 2005 --
6 A. Yes. I am sorry, could I interrupt you for one second?
7 The sample that, as a pathologist, I would be interested
8 in is the sample that Professor Lecomte took at the
9 mortuary and placed separately in a fixative solution.
10 The sample given to Dr Pepin would have been of no value
11 at all in this examination. It would have been a fresh
12 piece of tissue which would have deteriorated over time.
13 Q. So what we are looking at is a situation in which
14 a fresh piece of tissue was preserved at the mortuary,
15 but never subjected to this histological examination?
16 A. Professor Lecomte records that she retained a number of
17 samples from different organs, as would be expected, as
18 is standard practice, and that these, as I understand
19 it, were retained correctly in fixative material for
20 a period of approximately three years and then they were
21 disposed of. The sample for Dr Pepin doesn't contain
22 the formalin because he wishes to do the other tests
23 upon it.
24 Q. I understand. The reason I raised the point with you,
25 Professor, is this: that the liver which was taken from


1 Dr Pepin in March 2005 was then capable of being subject
2 to DNA analysis.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. But we seem to be back in the situation where one
5 specimen is subjected to DNA analysis, but another
6 specimen would or would not have been available for
7 analysis in respect of alcohol abuse or alcohol use.
8 A. It certainly is the case for -- for tissues to be looked
9 at under the microscope, they do need to be preserved in
10 formalin or certainly chilled, but freezing them causes
11 damage. So in order to be able to see the cells, to
12 identify the features that would have been of value, we
13 really needed the tissue that had been preserved in the
14 mortuary in the formalin solution.
15 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Once preserved, are they any use
16 for DNA analysis?
17 A. They can be used for DNA analysis, sir, but because we
18 take samples and keep them in different ways, it's
19 because that preserves them optimally for that
20 particular route. So I can understand that the sample
21 that Dr Pepin had would have been no value or is
22 unlikely to have been any value to look at under the
23 microscope, but the DNA contained within it -- of course
24 it involves breaking up the cells and extracting it --
25 it would have been or would have retained a value for


1 that test.
2 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: But the sample retained by
3 Professor Lecomte might have been of some use for a DNA
4 analysis?
5 A. It is possible to recover DNA from formalin-fixed
6 material.
7 MR KEEN: Thank you, Professor.
8 So, in a sense, we are in a similar situation to
9 that which we find ourselves in with regard to the blood
10 samples. We seem to have parallel samples. One set are
11 subject to DNA analysis and another set are subject to
12 toxicological examination?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. We don't seem to get the crossover?
15 A. I am not aware of any crossover in these samples.
16 MR KEEN: Thank you, Professor. No further questions.
17 MR CROXFORD: No, thank you, sir.
19 Questions from MR MACLEOD
20 MR MACLEOD: Just three matters, Professor. First of all,
21 can I ask you questions concerning the labels which were
22 attached to the body which we believe was Henri Paul's?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. First of all, I think it's correct that two labels were
25 attached to his naked body.


1 A. There was, in fact, only one label. Initially it was
2 attached -- in the first of the three films, it could be
3 seen attached to one of his wrists. I can't immediately
4 remember which one. But in the second and third of the
5 films, it is seen attached to his ankle, and it is,
6 I believe, on his ankle that Professor Lecomte describes
7 it being attached.
8 Q. That bears the numeral 2147?
9 A. It does indeed. It's a big blue label with a
10 large number written upon it.
11 Q. That is the point I wanted to establish. It's not
12 a small tag that's difficult to see?
13 A. No.
14 Q. It is readily and obviously visible on first glance at
15 the naked body?
16 A. It is.
17 Q. Secondly, could I ask you a question arising from your
18 eagle-eyed observation of the two bottles of blood which
19 has only come to everyone's attention comparatively
20 recently? I want to ask you a question from your
21 experience and expertise relating to what
22 Professor Lecomte's account has been in relation to
23 whether five or three blood samples were taken.
24 If I could ask you and the members of the jury,
25 first of all, to turn to page 13 in this bundle -- do


1 you have this loose-leaf bundle in front of you,
2 Professor?
3 A. Not apparently. I have my own papers, but I am not
4 aware of any that were left. Is this the same bundle
5 that Professor Forrest had?
6 Q. It was, yes.
7 A. I do have that here.
8 Q. I can probably put it up on the screen.
9 A. I do not have the A documents here, but I do have
10 the ...
11 Q. I will just hand you the A documents. (Handed) If you
12 have the documents there, I will not put them on the
13 screen.
14 A. Yes, I have it on the screen and here.
15 Q. But at page 13 -- this is the document numbered "D789/1"
16 at the top right-hand corner.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. -- this is the document dated 31st August relating to
19 Professor Lecomte's collection of samples from the body.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Now, on that document, she has recorded that five blood
22 samples were collected.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Then turning over the page to page 14, there is
25 a similar type of document, "UK485" in the right-hand


1 corner, again recording samples taken at
2 Professor Lecomte's autopsy on 31st August, but this
3 sheet was completed, looking at the top left-hand
4 corner, on 1st September 1997. Do you have it?
5 A. Is this 14A?
6 Q. It should be 14.
7 A. The top of 14, I do not have a date. I am sorry, I do
8 apologise. Slightly down the page it says "Sheet
9 completed 1/9/97". I have that.
10 Q. That again records the number of blood samples collected
11 as five.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. We know that the judge made a request to
14 Professor Lecomte to clarify the position as to from
15 where those blood samples were collected.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. We can see the result of that at page 15 on
18 9th September. Professor Lecomte says:
19 "The blood was taken from the left haemothorax
20 area."
21 Then further down the paragraph of her additional
22 report:
23 "In total five bottles of blood were taken from the
24 same area, the left haemothorax."
25 A. Yes.


1 Q. From your experience, working as a pathologist, is it
2 possible that in determining the number of samples that
3 she took at the post mortem on 31st August, when she was
4 asked to review that post mortem and indicate the sites
5 from which the blood samples were taken, she, as
6 a pathologist, may have referred back to the documentary
7 record or records that were kept of the number of
8 samples taken?
9 A. It is certainly possible that she would not have
10 necessarily held in her mind the number of samples
11 taken. I simply can't say whether or not she would.
12 But I could conceive, if she has had a busy week in
13 between, that when one is taking samples every day, one
14 may forget exactly the number of samples that were
15 taken. Even in what might be termed an unusual or
16 special case, one might not be certain.
17 Q. Yes, and I am only exploring this with you, Professor,
18 because we may not have the benefit of
19 Professor Lecomte's account --
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. -- and you know what it is like to be a busy
22 pathologist.
23 MR KEEN: With respect, sir, if I could correct my learned
24 friend, we do have the benefit of one account, which was
25 the account Professor Lecomte gave to Mr Bellancourt


1 upon his investigation, and she explains the five rather
2 differently.
3 MR MACLEOD: I will go on to further accounts just to
4 illustrate the point and so that the jury have the range
5 of possible scenarios that may have occurred.
6 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Does this really help us?
7 MR MACLEOD: I think it does, sir, yes.
8 When Professor Lecomte was interviewed by officers
9 from Operation Paget in May 2006, and this
10 discrepancy -- namely we know that only three samples
11 were submitted for toxicological or blood analysis, one
12 to Professor Ricordel --
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. -- and two to Dr Pepin -- she indicated at that stage,
15 given that knowledge, that she only thought she took
16 three samples of blood from the chest cavity and
17 proffered as a possible explanation the other two
18 samples coming from Dr Campana's subsequent autopsy; are
19 you with me so far?
20 A. Yes, just.
21 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: If we are not going to get to
22 the bottom of this, what's the point of looking at
23 speculative possibilities? The only person who is
24 really going to be able to help is Professor Lecomte.
25 MR MACLEOD: If we have some possibilities -- I just think


1 it may be relevant for the jury's consideration to have
2 another possible and realistic --
3 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I am pretty doubtful about this.
4 We have to try and keep it simple.
5 MR MACLEOD: Yes. There is just one more question.
6 Having spotted two additional blood samples taken in
7 glass bottles, as a result of your most recent
8 examination of the photographs, is it possible that the
9 five that were recorded on 31st August were the two that
10 were seen by you recently before the chest cavity was
11 opened, supplemented by three more after the chest
12 cavity was opened?
13 A. It is certainly a possibility. I mean it is
14 speculation, but the two forms 12A and 13A reproduced in
15 the other documents are different, and in addition they
16 contain -- both note that a sample of bile has been
17 taken that I can find appears nowhere else in any other
18 record. So there are significant doubts about all of
19 these aspects. And the sampling sites and the
20 variations on sampling sites is something that has to be
21 speculation. I simply can't provide any certain
22 evidence on it.
23 Q. Of course not. Now the final point I want to ask you
24 about is: we have heard questions about the comparison
25 of labels on the plastic container which might contain


1 a glass bottle.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. In your review of the photographs of the post mortem, is
4 it clear that around the table, ready to receive
5 samples, were not only glass bottles of the type you
6 have already described, but also a number of plastic
7 containers sitting in white-topped lids?
8 A. Yes, they were, and some were used to submit the samples
9 of organs to Dr Pepin, and one of them, I would
10 anticipate, would have been the correct size in which to
11 place the sealed and completed blood sample that
12 Dr Ricordel had.
13 Q. So in other words what was happening, as is apparent
14 from the photographs, is that the collected sample would
15 be put in a glass bottle and the glass bottle put inside
16 a plastic container with a white lid?
17 A. That is a deduction that one makes from hearing what
18 Professor Ricordel says. His description would fit with
19 that, but there is no photographic record. Certainly it
20 would be my experience that when one takes a small glass
21 bottle, it is not unusual to place it into a larger firm
22 plastic bottle, sometimes with cotton wool top and
23 bottom to protect it. A number of samples, of course,
24 went into the bigger pot off to Dr Pepin, but it would
25 be a reasonable thing to send a single bottle in one of


1 these plastic containers.
2 Q. Relating to the other containers visible in the
3 photographs, is it right you can see the plastic pail,
4 the bucket?
5 A. Yes, you can.
6 Q. A number of other in-store plastic utensils of various
7 descriptions?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And it's right, I think, that the plastic beakers,
10 buckets and tubs are the stock-in-trade of a pathologist
11 in the laboratory?
12 A. Yes, the mortuary appeared, as I would anticipate, to
13 have been laid out with all the necessary samples and
14 containers, ready for the post mortem that was just
15 about to be performed.
16 Q. A disparaging remark was made about a square plastic tub
17 as if it were an ice-cream tub. Were you able to
18 identify that in the photographs?
19 A. I am not able to identify the make of the tub.
20 Q. I think that might have been a barristerial flourish.
21 A. I would accept that is the same shape and size, but
22 there are many other manufacturers of tubs that size.
23 Q. Do the photographs show a tub of that description
24 containing eight containers each with a white cap?
25 A. That is the photograph taken by Dr Pepin at his


1 laboratory. All I can say is there is an oblong
2 container in the background at the mortuary that looks
3 as though it is quite likely to be the container that we
4 later see in the photograph taken by Dr Pepin.
5 Q. If that was used as a convenient container to store the
6 samples which were collected, would that be a sensible
7 thing to do?
8 A. It would be a very sensible way to contain all of the
9 samples or a group of the samples taken at
10 a post mortem.
11 MR MACLEOD: That's all I would ask. Thank you.
12 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you very much indeed,
13 Professor. That's all we require and I am grateful to
14 you for all the help you have given in the case.
15 A. I am grateful.
16 (The witness withdrew)
17 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: That, I think, concludes the live
18 evidence today; is that right?
19 MR BURNETT: That is right, sir.
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We have a statement from
21 Father Parsons to read and also a statement from
22 Dr Lipsedge to read. For both of those I have made the
23 appropriate announcement that they were considered by me
24 to be uncontroversial and there have been no
25 representations made.


1 MR BURNETT: My learned friend, Mr Hough, will read
2 Father Parsons' statement and then I will read
3 Dr Lipsedge's.
5 MR HOUGH: Sir, this is the statement of Father Anthony
6 Leonard Parsons, [INQ0006597 - read out in court]. Sir, as you may recall,
7 this priest was referred to by Mr Burrell in his
8 evidence on 14th January at pages 48 to 49 in relation
9 to inquiries about a marriage involving Hasnat Khan.
10 I will omit a number of irrelevant paragraphs which
11 others can take up if necessary, but there are some
12 paragraphs of the statement which are truly irrelevant.
13 The statement is dated 22nd September 2004 and reads as
14 follows.
16 MR HOUGH: "I am a Carmelite priest of St Joseph's Priory,
17 Austenwood Common. In 1995 I was a deacon at Our Lady
18 of Mount Carmel and St Simon Stock on Church Street in
19 Kensington and I was ordained as a priest in Glasgow in
20 December 1995. I then remained at the Priory in
21 Kensington until 1999, when I moved to Glasgow.
22 "I first met a man I now know to be Paul Burrell,
23 the butler to the Princess of Wales, in Easter 1996.
24 I had met his wife, Marie, that year and their eldest
25 son, Alex. Paul Burrell came to the Kensington church


1 that Easter to see his son participate in the service as
2 an altar server.
3 "As local parishioners, the Burrells invited me to
4 their home at the barracks near Kensington Palace. From
5 then on they used to invite me to their home once in a
6 while and we would talk generally about faith and
7 spiritual matters. I would consider them as friends.
8 Although I did not know him that well and I wasn't what
9 I would call a confidant, I was later made aware that
10 Paul Burrell mentioned me in his book. Usually Marie
11 would invite me to the home and Paul Burrell was around.
12 They were a welcoming family.
13 "It was one evening in 1997 that I was again invited
14 round to their home. This was nothing out of the
15 ordinary. I think that Marie was there on that evening
16 and possibly also her mother, but I can't be sure. We
17 just nattered.
18 "At some point during the course of the evening,
19 Paul Burrell asked me, 'Is it possible for a Muslim to
20 marry a non-Catholic in a Catholic Church?' I am not
21 sure whether Marie or anyone else was there when
22 Paul Burrell asked me this. I answered that I was 'not
23 sure, I would find out from the powers that be if you
24 want me to'. Paul Burrell said 'Yes'. I believe that
25 Paul implicated the Princess and would appreciate my


1 discretion in this inquiry. He said something along the
2 lines of 'Obviously I would appreciate your discretion'
3 and the sentiment I understood was that this was
4 connected in some way to the Princess of Wales.
5 "I have been asked when this conversation took
6 place. I am not sure exactly when Paul Burrell asked me
7 this question, but I never followed through with it
8 because it was around the time of the Princess of
9 Wales's death. I have been asked if there is any way
10 I would remember when this conversation took place, but
11 I never kept a diary. Furthermore, I never thought much
12 about this. I did not know who the Princess of Wales
13 was having a relationship with. I have been told by
14 DS Easton that in August 1997 the Princess of Wales was
15 reported in the press to be having a relationship with
16 Dodi Al Fayed; would I have made the connection? If
17 I had known about this, I could have made the
18 connection, but I never paid much attention to reports
19 into the private lives of the Royal Family recorded in
20 the papers.
21 "I never met the Princess of Wales. Sometime ago,
22 rumours abounded that the Princess of Wales used to
23 attend the Kensington Priory. To my knowledge she did
24 attend a baptism in our church, but this was before
25 I joined the community at Kensington. I never saw her


1 and I am pretty sure that one of the Brothers would have
2 mentioned it if she had been seen at the Priory. This
3 rumour did, however, attract a lot of tourists.
4 "With regards to the question that Paul Burrell
5 asked, I recall this at the time as having meant whether
6 a non-Catholic and a Muslim could use a Catholic Church
7 as a place to be married. The matter was never
8 discussed again. Certainly I am aware that in the
9 countryside, Catholics and Anglicans sometimes use the
10 same premises for worship. Also, I know that in order
11 for a Catholic to marry someone from the Church of
12 England, a permission has to be sought. I remember
13 I mentioned the theory in passing with my Carmelite
14 Brothers, but I certainly did not mention the provenance
15 of the question posed. The question was passed over and
16 simply laughed off.
17 "If I had wanted to find out whether marriage under
18 these circumstances was a possibility, I would have
19 needed to approach the Bishop or members of his Marriage
20 Tribunal at the Diocese of Westminster."
21 Then there are some paragraphs dealing with
22 irrelevant matters:
23 "The last time I saw Paul Burrell was shortly before
24 his publicised trial. He came to see me to ask me
25 whether his solicitors could come and ask me questions


1 and that I could be completely open with them. When
2 Paul Burrell's solicitor came to see me, the issue about
3 the possibility of marriage between a Muslim and
4 a non-Catholic came up in conversation. He asked me if
5 I could place the date when this was asked and I could
6 not. I have thought long and hard, but I am unable to
7 give any precise date for this conversation."
8 Thank you, sir.
9 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you. Now we have the
10 statement of Dr Lipsedge. Members of the jury, this has
11 relevance in relation to a witness you will be hearing
12 tomorrow, Trevor Rees, the bodyguard.
13 Statement of DR MAURICE STANLEY LIPSEDGE (read)
14 MR BURNETT: Sir, this is the statement of Dr Maurice
15 Stanley Lipsedge, which was made before the examining
16 magistrate, Marie-Christine Devidal, in Paris on
17 4th May 1998.
18 In answer to questions that the jury, sir, will be
19 familiar with about name and place of birth and so
20 forth, the witness replied:
21 "My name is Maurice Stanley Lipsedge, born
22 Birkenhead, United Kingdom.
23 "Occupation: psychiatrist.
24 "Address: Guy's Hospital, London.
25 "I am not related to the parties by blood or by


1 marriage or employed by them."
2 Then:
3 "Having required him to swear to tell the truth, the
4 whole truth and nothing but the truth, I took a
5 statement from him."
6 Sir, those are the words of Madame Devidal. Then he
7 continues:
8 "In answer to question: I saw Trevor Rees-Jones
9 three times, at the suggestion of his boss's doctor, who
10 sent him to me. I saw him on 3rd November 1997, when
11 I went to his workplace, in my surgery on 6th February,
12 1998 and again at his workplace on 23rd February 1998.
13 "At the first meeting, Trevor Rees-Jones was still
14 very weak physically and very tired, but when I saw him
15 on the next two occasions, his general health was
16 obviously much improved and he seemed to have regained
17 his physical equilibrium. He is an exceptionally strong
18 person who has not suffered from depression or
19 post-traumatic stress since the accident. He sustained
20 severe head injuries and it is quite common for this to
21 cause major problems with memory. These are of two
22 types: post-traumatic amnesia, which starts from the
23 impact and covers a relatively long period, lasting
24 throughout the period of unconsciousness immediately
25 after the impact plus with several more days or even


1 several weeks of amnesia, and retrograde amnesia, which
2 covers the period immediately before the impact. The
3 length of the retrograde amnesia can vary considerably.
4 If the post-traumatic amnesia is very long, there is
5 generally retrograde amnesia for a certain period.
6 "In this case, Trevor Rees-Jones remembers getting
7 into the Mercedes in the Rue Cambon and the car driving
8 off. He remembers nothing after that.
9 "In answer to question: in view of the time that has
10 elapsed, the chances of him recovering his memory are
11 very slight. A few snatches might come back to him, but
12 his memories are not at all reliable because even for
13 him it is impossible to tell if these are genuine
14 memories or reconstructions of events from information
15 he might have had later, dreams or imagination."
16 Then Mme Devidal says:
17 "Having read this statement through, the witness
18 confirmed and signed it with me and the Clerk of the
19 Court", again in a form that the jury is very familiar
20 with.
21 Sir, that's Dr Lipsedge's statement. Sir, that's
22 the end of the evidence for today.
23 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Well, the good news is we finish
24 a bit early today, members of the jury. I am afraid the
25 bad news is that we have Mr Murrell, we hope, on the


1 videolink from Nigeria tomorrow morning at 9.30, so
2 I hope you won't find it too inconvenient to start half
3 an hour earlier tomorrow morning. We want to finish his
4 evidence by 10 o'clock because then we want to continue
5 for the rest of the day with Trevor Rees-Jones. So 9.30
6 tomorrow.
7 (3.10 pm)
8 (The court adjourned until 9.30 am on
9 Wednesday, 23rd January 2008)


3 PROFESSOR ROBERT FORREST (continued) ............. 1
5 Questions from MR KEEN (continued) ........ 1
7 Questions from MR MACLEOD ................. 50
9 Further questions from MR HILLIARD ........ 98
11 Further questions from MR KEEN ............ 109
13 PROFESSOR RICHARD SHEPHERD (sworn) ............... 112
15 Questions from MR HILLIARD ................ 112
17 Questions from MR KEEN .................... 130
19 Questions from MR MACLEOD ................. 137
21 Statement of FATHER ANTHONY LEONARD .............. 147
22 PARSONS (read)
24 Statement of DR MAURICE STANLEY .................. 151
25 LIPSEDGE (read)


<< Back