External links

Site information

Hearing transcripts

21 January 2008 - Morning session

1 Monday, 21st January 2008
2 (10.00 am)
3 (Jury present)
4 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Hilliard, before we begin, two
5 matters. First of all, on 15th January, it was reported
6 on ITN's 6.30 pm news programme that "The Coroner told
7 Mr Burrell that basically the documents he brought with
8 him were a load of rubbish". I would like to set the
9 record straight. I neither said nor intimated any such
10 thing. What I said was that I had reviewed the
11 documents and none was relevant to the inquests. I wish
12 to remind members of the media that they have
13 a responsibility in law accurately to report these
14 proceedings.
15 The second matter is we have Dr Forrest giving
16 evidence today, and I think I should make it clear what
17 the position is, as I understand it, with regard to
18 Dr Pepin and Madame Lecomte.
19 As far as Dr Pepin is concerned, he has indicated
20 that he is not prepared to attend to give evidence on
21 the day requested or on any other day, and it is
22 understood that the reason behind that is outstanding
23 current proceedings in France. I have sent a letter of
24 request to the French authorities asking for him to be
25 compelled to attend.


1 As far as Madame Lecomte is concerned, we have been
2 told that she is not prepared to attend on the day for
3 which her attendance is sought, but it's unclear whether
4 that includes "or any other day", although it may be,
5 I don't know, that the position is likely to be the same
6 as that for Dr Pepin. We await our answer to further
7 inquiries.
8 I thought it would be helpful that particularly the
9 interested persons should be aware of what the position
10 is, as we understand it, up to date.
11 MR HILLIARD: Thank you.
13 Professor Forrest.
15 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Professor, as you are likely to
16 be there for some time, please sit down if you would
17 prefer to give your evidence seated.
18 A. Thank you, sir.
19 Questions from MR HILLIARD
20 MR HILLIARD: Are you Professor Robert Forrest?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Professor Forrest, I think that you have prepared
23 a number of reports that deal with toxicology issues
24 with respect to these proceedings; is that right?
25 A. I have.


1 Q. Those reports include a joint report that you prepared
2 in July of last year along with three other experts; is
3 that right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Those being a Professor Vanezis, who I think had
6 originally been instructed of Mr Mohamed Al Fayed; is
7 that right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Then two other experts, Professor Johnston and
10 Professor Oliver, who were instructed on behalf of the
11 family of Henri Paul.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. So that joint report in July of last year. Then the
14 reports you prepared culminated, I think, in one as
15 recent as 20th January of this year, so the weekend.
16 A. Correct, yes.
17 Q. Do you copies of those reports with you or available to
18 you?
19 A. I have copies of my report of 20th January. The others
20 are on my laptop.
21 Q. I just want to run through your background with you.
22 I have it in your statement and I think it will
23 probably be quicker if I just deal with it from that.
24 I think you are a registered medical practitioner,
25 a chartered chemist, a registered analytical chemist,


1 a registered toxicologist, a European clinical chemist
2 and a State-registered clinical scientist?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. You hold the degrees of Bachelor of Science in
5 Pharmacology, Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery
6 and Master of Laws?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. You are a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians of
9 London and Edinburgh, a fellow of the Royal College of
10 Pathologists, a fellow of the Royal Society of
11 Chemistry, a fellow of the Forensic Science Society and
12 a fellow of the Faculty of Legal and Forensic Medicine?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. I think until you retired from the National Health
15 Service on 31st July 2007, you held the post of
16 consultant in clinical chemistry and forensic toxicology
17 to the Central Sheffield Teaching Hospital's NHS
18 Foundation Trust?
19 A. As with so many other trusts the name has changed. It
20 is now Sheffield -- or was then Sheffield Teaching
21 Hospitals Foundation NHS Trust at the time of my
22 retirement.
23 Q. I think now you are in independent practice in the
24 general areas of forensic and medical toxicology and
25 chemistry; is that right?


1 A. Yes.
2 Q. I think you continue to hold the post of Honorary
3 Professor of Forensic Chemistry at the University of
4 Sheffield; is that right?
5 A. Correct, yes.
6 Q. So far as your experience is concerned, would it be
7 right to say that you have considerable experience in
8 giving evidence in court in matters relating to
9 toxicology, including the misuse and use of drugs and
10 alcohol?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Is this right, that over the last 20 years you have
13 assisted in the investigation of over 16,000 cases of
14 sudden death where toxicological issues have arisen?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Now you were asked, as every expert is, as to whether
17 there are any possible conflicts of interest you might
18 have.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. You mentioned in your statement two matters; one
21 relating to a consultancy that you have with a company
22 called Eurofins --
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. -- and the other with the fact that you are a visiting
25 professor at Glasgow Caledonian University; is that


1 right?
2 A. Well, the visiting professor post at Glasgow Caledonian
3 University is on hold for the moment for reasons which
4 I am sure you may lead me to.
5 Q. Yes.
6 A. The contract with Eurofins again is on hold until the
7 completion of this inquest. I mean the completion, not
8 me giving evidence, again for reasons that you may take
9 me to.
10 Q. Yes. Can you just tell us what it was that you reported
11 about your connection with Eurofins and with Glasgow
12 Caledonian University? You can take it very shortly.
13 A. Yes. Very shortly, I was informed by Julie Evans, the
14 forensic director for the UK for Eurofins, that
15 Eurofins, which is a multinational company, has
16 a financial interest in ToxLab, the laboratory in Paris
17 headed by Dr Gilbert Pepin, where the principal analyses
18 in respect of the investigation of the death of Monsieur
19 Henri Paul were carried out.
20 After discussion with Ms Evans and with the
21 Operation Paget team, it was -- and I have no problem
22 with this -- decided that it was inappropriate for me to
23 progress that relationship until after the completion of
24 the inquests.
25 As far as my relationship with Glasgow Caledonian


1 University is concerned, Glasgow Caledonian University
2 has a forensic investigation unit within the department
3 which carries out, among other work, DNA analyses.
4 I understand that they have carried out DNA analyses for
5 the Forensic Institute, which is directed by
6 Professor Allan Jamieson, and Professor Jamieson has
7 provided, I understand, reports to assist the inquest at
8 the request of the properly interested parties.
9 Again, it was -- I certainly felt that I did not
10 want to progress my relationship with Glasgow Caledonian
11 University, which was going to progress after I retired
12 until the completion of this inquest. Before I retired
13 I had provided consultancy over a number of years about
14 the development of the forensic investigation and
15 forensic science courses at Glasgow Caledonian
16 University on a consultancy basis, with the fees for
17 that consultancy going to my then employer, Sheffield
18 Teaching hospitals NHS Trust.
19 Q. Then you were the consultant toxicologist to the
20 Metropolitan Police's Operation Paget investigation; is
21 that right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Is the position this: that you received no direct
24 payment from the Metropolitan Police Service in
25 connection with work for this investigation?


1 A. Correct. The arrangement was that I would inform my
2 secretary or my secretary would keep a record of time
3 spent on the investigation. I don't know whether this
4 was done or not, but eventually the accounts department
5 at the Trust should have raised an invoice for my time
6 with the Metropolitan Police Service. I claimed my
7 expenses from the NHS at the usual rates for
8 a consultant employed by the NHS.
9 Q. So you received your salary and expenses from your
10 employers at normal NHS rates?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Then they would recover the cost of your time and
13 expenses from the Metropolitan Police; is that right?
14 A. That is what should have happened. Whether or not
15 an invoice was actually sent to the Metropolitan Police,
16 I do not know.
17 Q. I expect it was.
18 Now, you are familiar, is this right, with a large
19 number of witness statements and documentary exhibits
20 that have been made or come into existence over the
21 years as regards the toxicological issues that relate to
22 Mr Henri Paul?
23 A. Yes, I have a filing cabinet literally full of documents
24 at home and I have over 800 documents on the hard disk
25 of my computer.


1 Q. Most of those, would this be right to say -- although by
2 no means exclusively -- are from the French
3 investigation dossier?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. I am going to go through with you -- we will take it
6 quite slowly -- the history of events about the taking
7 of samples, the results of analyses and so on, before
8 asking you to comment about them.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. The reasons for that are two-fold. It's obviously
11 convenient for us to have an overview from somebody, and
12 that person is you, and as you heard this morning, there
13 is a doubt about whether or not we will hear from
14 Dr Pepin --
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. -- the French toxicologist, and from Professor Lecomte,
17 who was the French pathologist.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. You are aware of that?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. As we go through this exercise, there is a little bundle
22 of documents that I am going to hand out now, including
23 a summary chart at the front.
24 MR KEEN: I wonder if, before those are handed out, sir,
25 I might make some observations. I have just been handed


1 this bundle a few moments ago, sir, and clearly it
2 contains some original documentation prepared by
3 Dr Pepin and by Professor Lecomte.
4 No doubt it's useful that we have that in one place,
5 and indeed that the jury have it, and I would anticipate
6 taking the jury to quite a substantial quantity of
7 documentation, but the first three pages are actually
8 an extract appendix, appendix J from the Paget report.
9 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I have what I think may be
10 a different bundle of documents.
11 MR KEEN: Of course summaries may be of some assistance. My
12 only concern is that these should be understood to be
13 summaries of other evidence to be given by Dr Pepin and
14 Professor Lecomte, because if you go to the first page,
15 sir -- and obviously this was prepared for the Paget
16 Metropolitan Police reports. I understand why it's in
17 this form -- it says:
18 "Summary of toxicological results. Samples taken at
19 autopsy of Henri Paul, 31 August 1997 by
20 Professor Lecomte."
21 Pausing there, there is a very real issue as to what
22 samples were taken and were not taken by
23 Professor Lecomte -- and I see the witness himself
24 nodding -- and therefore if this is put in front of the
25 jury, and I have no objection, it should be explained


1 that the heading originates from the Paget report and,
2 as we go through the evidence, they should bear in mind
3 that that heading may not be accurate at all.
4 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: That is obviously an important
5 point, Mr Keen. The jury have heard what you say.
6 Essentially what we are trying to do is to get this
7 witness's in the most simple comprehensible form for
8 everybody to understand.
9 MR KEEN: As I have said in the past, I have no objection to
10 the jury having the documents. It will be far easier
11 for them to follow the evidence. It's just in case --
12 because this heading has been taken straight out of the
13 Paget report, it's in a form that I don't think any
14 party would consider appropriate. As long as that
15 caveat is there, I have no further objection.
16 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Hilliard, do the jury have
17 this bundle or will this be simply for your assistance
18 with the witness?
19 MR HILLIARD: No, they are to have the bundle and then the
20 separate sheet. I accept entirely what my learned
21 friend Mr Keen says about that and, had I had a moment,
22 I would have gone on to say it myself. I agree with
23 what he says.
25 (Handed)


1 It may be at some point easier if these documents
2 are put into a small hardback file, otherwise I know
3 what happens, the top and bottom ones get severed.
4 MR HILLIARD: Yes, it may well be, and we can certainly
5 envisage that the jury may get further documents in due
6 course. They are just treasury-tagged for the moment.
7 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We will get a file for you in due
8 course.
9 MR HILLIARD: Professor Forrest, we have mentioned
10 Professor Lecomte and Dr Pepin. If we turn to page 77
11 in the bundle, at the back of one of his reports that we
12 are going to look at, Dr Pepin has a section that's
13 headed "Recognised qualifications of the expert G [for
14 Gilbert] Pepin".
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. He points out that he is one of two approved court
17 experts in the areas of pharmacology and toxicology;
18 yes?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. That he had been elected vice-president of the French
21 Society of Analytical Toxicology in 1997.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Then has a section that deals with quality controls, in
24 particular we can see alcohol.
25 A. Yes.


1 Q. "For three years the laboratory has been participating
2 in the blood/alcohol quality controls organised for the
3 whole of Europe by the Finnish company Lab Quality."
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. "On the basis of the results, the laboratory has been
6 accredited for blood alcohol level analysis and
7 assessment."
8 Then:
9 "Medicinal drugs and narcotics. National Reference
10 Laboratory for three years, designated under the
11 European Community's quality control programme and
12 reviewed annually in the light of quality control
13 results."
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Then:
16 "Medicinal drugs and narcotics in the blood", a
17 German accreditation.
18 Then:
19 "Medicinal drugs or narcotics in the hair. The
20 laboratory participates in quality controls for drugs in
21 the hair and has been accredited as a reference
22 laboratory by the Society of Hair Testing."
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Then:
25 "Experience in forensic toxicology: over 2,000


1 expert opinions on autopsy samples for the judicial
2 authorities since 1986."
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Now, in the course of your work, as it were, for this
5 case, if I can call it that, you met with Dr Pepin; is
6 that right?
7 A. I did, I did.
8 Q. But apart from that, was he somebody that you, as
9 an expert in the field, had heard of before?
10 A. Yes, I had. He had published a number of papers in
11 a variety of journals, usually together with colleagues,
12 for example with Dr Galliard, and Marc Deveaux, on
13 a variety of topics, including hair analysis and general
14 toxicology, including toxicology techniques.
15 He was certainly a person I had heard of before my
16 involvement with Operation Paget and I had read and
17 found useful some of his papers. He doesn't normally go
18 to international meetings, at least Anglophone
19 international meetings.
20 Q. Another matter just by way of background. I want to
21 deal with, so we have it in mind, just a summary of
22 evidence we may hear about medication that had been
23 prescribed to Henri Paul; all right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Now I think you are aware that Dr Melo had said that she


1 had prescribed him Prozac, the anti-depressant, at his
2 request --
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. -- and something called Noctamide for insomnia.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And that he had said that he was worried that he was
7 becoming dependent on alcohol and had said that on
8 occasions he would drink at home and outside the social
9 context.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. I think you are aware that she had also prescribed him
12 something called Aotal, also known as Acamprosate.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. What does that do?
15 A. It's a drug which is used to help persons who have
16 become abstinent from alcohol maintain abstinence. It's
17 not a drug like Antabuse, otherwise known as Disulfirim,
18 which gives you an unpleasant adverse reaction to
19 alcohol if you drink it. It is a drug which is supposed
20 to work by reducing your desire to consume alcohol if
21 you have had a drinking problem and you have become
22 abstinent.
23 How shall I put it? It's use in clinical practice,
24 certainly in the UK, is not extensive, but it may be
25 helpful for some patients. If one is -- well, I think


1 it goes without saying that a problem drinking is
2 a condition which is difficult to treat and it is a drug
3 which does seem to help some patients once they have
4 been able to stop drinking.
5 Q. In addition to the Aotal/Acamprosate, she also
6 prescribed something called Tiapride, which she said
7 would act to prevent somebody dwelling on things, and
8 she felt that that would help him overcome his personal
9 problems?
10 A. Yes. Tiapride isn't available in the UK. It's in the
11 same chemical group as a drug called Supiride, which is
12 available in the UK. Tiapride is a drug which is
13 described as being a drug which reduces anxiety.
14 Q. She said that sometimes he would not take his medication
15 so that he could drink in reasonable quantities. That's
16 what she reported.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Then the other piece of evidence that we will hear:
19 after his death, Henri Paul's death, I think you are
20 aware that an empty packet of Aotal/Acamprosate was
21 found in a waste basket in his office.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Precisely when that got there and, as it were, when the
24 packet had been finished and become empty, we don't
25 know.


1 A. Yes.
2 Q. All right. Then if you turn, please, to page 5 of your
3 report, paragraph 19. You just deal with some general
4 matters that I dare say we ought to have in mind when we
5 are considering the analyses that were carried out in
6 this case. Can you help us with those considerations,
7 please?
8 A. Yes. What I have actually written, might be -- the best
9 thing I could probably do is to read it out and, if
10 required, put a gloss on it.
11 Q. Bear in mind a note is being taken, so not too quickly.
12 A. Yes.
13 "It is a truism that the interpretation of
14 toxicological analyses depends on the provenance and
15 quality of the samples submitted for analysis. No
16 matter how good the analyses, unless the correct samples
17 in the correct tubes, accurately labelled, and stored
18 and transported under the correct conditions before the
19 toxicological analyses are carried out, even the data
20 generated by the most sophisticated of laboratories can
21 be difficult to interpret."
22 One can put that succinctly by using the piece of --
23 the acronym common in the computer industry, which is
24 overstated in this case, I believe, but which makes the
25 point very clearly: GIGO, "garbage in, garbage out".


1 Unless you have good-quality samples of known
2 provenance, it is very difficult to draw accurate
3 conclusions from the samples.
4 If the samples are of known provenance and are of
5 a --
6 Q. By "provenance" you mean where they have come from?
7 A. Yes, ie the right patient.
8 If the samples are of a lower quality, for example
9 not collected under ideal circumstances, then one can
10 draw conclusions from the samples, from the analysis of
11 the samples, but the results have got to be taken in
12 context and never in isolation.
13 Q. Right. Your paragraph 20, does what you have added
14 there really cover that?
15 A. Yes. I go on to say:
16 "In any case, the interpretation of toxicological
17 analyses collected after death require great care in
18 their interpretation. It is not correct to take the
19 nihilistic view that such data cannot be interpreted,
20 but as with all laboratory data related to analysis on
21 samples obtained from human subjects, the data generated
22 by the analyses has to be interpreted in context, that
23 is to say with knowledge of the circumstances in which
24 the samples have been collected and, where samples have
25 been collected from the deceased with as much


1 information about the deceased, the events leading up to
2 the death and the way in which the samples were
3 collected."
4 Q. Right. That really speaks for itself, doesn't it?
5 A. It does. The bottom line is that the interpretation of
6 the samples is only as good as the samples themselves.
7 It doesn't matter how sophisticated your analyses are,
8 if you don't have the good material to work with, you
9 have to qualify the interpretation of the data that your
10 laboratory generates.
11 Q. Right. Now, with respect to the collection of samples
12 from Henri Paul's body, you point out in your report
13 that the sequence of events starts after the body had
14 been brought to the Medical Legal Institute, or the
15 "IML", as it was known; is that right?
16 A. Yes, I specifically make that point because in the
17 course of this investigation I was told that, in fact,
18 it is, in France, not at all uncommon for no post-mortem
19 examination to be carried out on the deceased driver,
20 but it may be that at the scene blood samples are taken,
21 either by a SAMU doctor, one of the emergency doctors,
22 or by another doctor instructed by an examining
23 magistrate, and those are the only samples which the
24 toxicology laboratory may have. To the best of my
25 knowledge, from all the papers I have seen, that wasn't


1 the case here.
2 Q. So in the case of Henri Paul, the collection of samples,
3 as you say, begins at the IML and Police Officer Mules,
4 you were aware, described organising the transportation
5 of Mr Paul's body from the crash scene to the IML on
6 31st August 1997; you were aware of that?
7 A. Correct, yes.
8 Q. I think you were aware that Mr Mules said that he was
9 present at the post-mortem examination of Henri Paul on
10 31st August --
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. -- and the earlier external examination of
13 Dodi Al Fayed; is that right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. But he said that he had mixed up the numbers that were
16 attributed to the bodies -- I think you were aware of
17 that --
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. -- the numbers being 2146 and 2147.
20 A. Yes, 2147 being M Paul.
21 Q. Is this right, that photographs of them at the IML show
22 Mr Dodi Al Fayed labelled as 2146 and Henri Paul as
23 2147.
24 A. Yes, I can certainly quite clearly recall the photograph
25 of Monsieur Paul with "2147" on it.


1 Q. Now, on 31st August 1997, I think the State prosecutor
2 at the Paris Regional Court gave some instructions to
3 Professor Lecomte; is that right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. If we turn to page 2 of our bundle, so this is the big
6 page numbers, bottom right -- I should say page 1 is
7 just the cover sheet for her report. Then page 2 we
8 have this:
9 "I, the undersigned, Professor Dominique Lecomte,
10 forensic scientist, pathologist and professor of
11 forensic medicine at the Institute of Forensic Medicine,
12 an expert appointed by the Supreme Court, appointed by
13 order of the State Prosecutor ...", we can see the
14 details, "... in the following form ...", and I will
15 read it out slowly so we can see what her task was:
16 "Instructions for post mortem -- first section.
17 "The State Prosecutor at the Paris Regional Court as
18 part of the investigation by the Paris Brigade
19 Criminelle ..."
20 It says:
21 "Given the requirement to establish as a matter of
22 urgency the circumstances and causes of the death of
23 Henri Paul, born 3/7/56 in Lorient,
24 "Requires Professor Lecomte, an expert on the list
25 of the Paris Court of Appeal, to carry out a full


1 post-mortem on the body stored at the Institute of
2 Forensic Medicine in order to establish the
3 circumstances and causes of death and to look for any
4 evidence of foul play; to provide a detailed description
5 of the body; to carry out any radioscopic examinations
6 that would help establish the facts and, if applicable,
7 to take x-rays or photographs;
8 "To produce to the officer of the Judicial Police
9 any projectile or other object that may be found in the
10 body in order that it may be sealed as an exhibit ..."
11 Then this:
12 "... and to take samples of blood and, if necessary,
13 of the internal organs, in two identical batches.
14 "Having carried out the tasks described above,
15 a report shall be produced by the said expert,
16 certifying the contents thereof true and accurate."
17 There is the date, 31st August 1997, and the
18 State Prosecutor. Yes?
19 A. Yes. Could I add a very short gloss to that?
20 Q. Yes, of course.
21 A. Dr Pepin explained to me that the requirement to take
22 samples in two identical batches is a reflection of the
23 French system of criminal investigation. If a dispute
24 arises when a court-appointed expert has carried out
25 an analysis of the first batch, a counter-analysis by


1 another court-appointed expert can be carried out on the
2 second identical batch of samples in order to produce
3 a result which -- so as to assist the court and to
4 resolve any discrepancies between the two sets of
5 results.
6 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: But the results would only be as
7 good as the sampling procedures.
8 A. Indeed -- I am sorry, I nearly called you "my Lord".
9 Indeed, your Honour -- sorry, sir.
10 MR HILLIARD: Not many left to choose from!
11 A. I am sorry, sir.
12 Q. Right. If we look briefly at the report. If you turn
13 over, please, to page 3.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. I think we hit an issue really straightaway, don't we?
16 A. Indeed.
17 Q. "The body", it says, "is that of a middle-aged man
18 bearing a label worded as follows: height 1 metre 72,
19 weight 73 kg, Institute of Forensic Medicine, Paris, no
20 2147". Do you see that?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. If we just turn on to page 12, that's a body map of
23 Mr Paul; is that right?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. We can just make it out. Bottom middle, can you see


1 "2147"? So that's his number, but then underneath do
2 you see "76 kg" --
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. -- as opposed to the 73 kg we have at the start of the
5 report; is that right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Then I think you are aware that Police Officer Mules
8 recorded Henri Paul's weight as 76 kilograms, not 73 --
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. -- and his weight as 1.67 metres, not 1.72.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Right. We can see, at page 3, it deals with the
13 external examination of the body.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. That continues, doesn't it, into page 4?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. We can see, for example, there fractures to the right
18 leg; do you see that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Then she deals, at page 5 and onwards, with, as it were,
21 the internal examination once the body has been opened.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. It details those internal examinations on through
24 page 6; do you see that?
25 A. Yes.


1 Q. Do you see the bottom of page 6, dealing with the
2 thoracic region? So that's the chest, isn't it?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. There is very significant -- she says haemorrhagic
5 effusion, so that's bleeding, is it, on the right and
6 the left side?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. If we turn on, please, to page 7, can you just explain
9 these for us? It may be relevant. Can you see towards
10 the bottom of that page, there is a passage "At costal
11 level ..."
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Then she deals with fractures. Can you translate that
14 for us? What's going on there?
15 A. Basically what she is saying is that there are a variety
16 of fractures of the ribs on the right side, running from
17 the second through to the ninth rib, and also some more
18 posterior, nearer the back, fractures of those ribs, and
19 there are also fractures of the ribs on the left-hand
20 side.
21 She also described a fracture of the left collar
22 bone, clavicle, and she also says that the sternum, the
23 bony structure on the front of the chest that we can all
24 feel on our own chests, is not fractured.
25 Q. We will come back to that later, but in your view, may


1 the rib fractures be relevant?
2 A. I believe that they may be relevant, and perhaps --
3 Q. We will come back to it. That's why we need to bear
4 that in mind at the moment.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. All right. At the top of page 8, just to note in
7 passing that she explains that some of the stomach
8 contents were removed for toxicological examination; is
9 that right?
10 A. Yes. Light brown liquid, about 20 millilitres, 20 cc,
11 four teaspoonfuls, being removed for toxicological
12 examination. She describes it as being aqueous, in
13 other words watery, and not like, let us say, porridge.
14 Q. Then turn on, please, to page 10. It says this:
15 "Samples of blood, urine, the organs and histology
16 samples were taken for possible further examination."
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Just help us. What are histology samples?
19 A. That's for examination under the microscope, after the
20 samples have been processed and then sectioned very
21 thinly and put on to slides. It would be normal in the
22 UK, where a possible homicide was being investigated, to
23 take samples for histology. That is a direction which
24 is recorded in the major investigation manual produced
25 by what used to be called the National Crime Faculty and


1 is now Centrex. I am sure Professor Shepherd could
2 expand on that if he were asked to.
3 Q. Then page 11 deals with conclusions, in particular
4 number 1:
5 "No lesions to the organs, notably the heart or
6 brain, suggesting a pre-existing condition."
7 A. That's obviously very important in a car crash. You
8 want to make sure that somebody hasn't had, for example,
9 a heart attack or a stroke immediately before the crash.
10 Q. Right. As it were, that would be then responsible for
11 the death, rather than the crash?
12 A. Correct, or it might -- if it wasn't responsible for the
13 death, it might result in an incapacitation of the
14 driver.
15 Q. Yes. Then she explains that the injuries found are
16 primarily traumatic in nature; is that right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. They were all consistent with having been involved in
19 a car crash?
20 A. Yes -- well, yes. One could say that "primarily
21 traumatic" is perhaps -- the word "primarily" is
22 unnecessary.
23 Q. She says:
24 "I certify that I personally carried out the tasks
25 assigned to me and that the contents of this report are


1 true and accurate."
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. It's signed by her and dated 1st September 1997; is that
4 right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Then there is the -- we have looked at it already --
7 body map, and consistent with the written descriptions
8 of trauma. There they are marked on the picture; is
9 that right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. We known then that she had been asked to conduct the
12 examination and to take samples, and we have then got,
13 is this right, at our pages 13 and 14 of the bundle, two
14 documents that purport to deal with person 2147.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. But they are not consistent with each other; is that
17 right?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. If we look at the first one -- this is a translation,
20 isn't it?
21 A. It is.
22 Q. This is the translated version.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And "TN", translator's note, at the top -- and we will
25 try and see if we can get the original document on


1 screen later, or if it's possible to do it now --
2 I suspect it won't be -- but translator's note, there is
3 a handwritten note on the French document, it says,
4 beginning with the letters "ANDR".
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. It says that the rest is illegible.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. But I think that has been, is this right, reported as
9 perhaps "A-N-D-R-I-E-U-X" or "A-N-D-R-E-U-X", no "I".
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. So that writing in handwriting; yes?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Then "Prefecture of Police, Police Directorate,
14 Institute of Forensic Medicine. Expert: Dr Lecomte.
15 IML number: 2147." Then in the "Body Of" section,
16 I think -- but we will look at it -- I think the
17 original reads "X, male", So "X" on the face of it for
18 "unknown".
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. "X male", which is scored through, and then the word
21 "Paul"; is that right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. "Post mortem of 31 August 1997. Regional court: Paris."
24 Then:
25 "Blood: 5.


1 "Organs: 4.
2 "Urine: 1.
3 "Bile: 1.
4 "Vitreous humour: 1."
5 Pausing there, what's the "vitreous humour"?
6 A. It's also referred at one point to -- as "aqueous
7 humour", which is probably wrong. "Vitreous humour" is
8 the fluid inside the eyeball, behind the iris, actually
9 inside the globe of the eye. It's called "vitreous
10 humour" -- that means basically a glassy body fluid --
11 but in humans it's fairly fluid, particularly when in
12 the recently dead.
13 If people, members of the jury, are of an age when
14 they might have had the opportunity to have dissected an
15 ox eyeball as school children, it is not at all like the
16 vitreous humour in an ox eyeball, which is fairly --
17 like a squidgy marble. It is less fluid than a glass of
18 water, more fluid than a golden syrup.
19 Q. Right, so one of those.
20 "Gastric contents: 1.
21 "Hair: 1."
22 Then "Histology pail ...", and I think that is
23 "pail" as in "bucket"; is that right?
24 A. I think it is -- I can't remember the word, but I looked
25 it up in the dictionary. It can be translated as pail


1 or bucket.
2 Q. That is 1. Then "Jar" has nothing.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Then if we compare that with the form over the page, our
5 page 14:
6 "Expert Professor: Lecomte.
7 "Body of male."
8 I think on the original that we will look at,
9 I think it's "X male (Paul, Henri)", I think, but we
10 will check that.
11 "Forensic institute number 2147.
12 "Autopsy 31.8. 1997.
13 "(Sheet completed 1.9.1997).
14 "Blood: 5."
15 Is that right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Then "Intestines: 5 plus 5."
18 A. Yes. I think one would need to look very carefully at
19 the original French because I suspect that the word
20 translated here as "intestines" is actually a word which
21 means guts or viscera, and guts are not the same as
22 intestines. It could be what a butcher might call the
23 "pluck", the entire viscera, of the body, not just the
24 intestines -- the tubes through which food passes. So
25 it may be important to look at the original French here


1 to understand what is meant by "intestines".
2 Q. We will look at both of those in due course:
3 "Muscle: 0.
4 "Urine: 1 plus 1."
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. "Bile: 1."
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. "Aqueous humour ...", you have already told us another
9 expression for the vitreous humour "1".
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. "Stomach contents: 1 plus 1."
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. "Hair: 1 plus 3."
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Histology bucket: 1."
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Yes?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Now, if we just concentrate for the moment on blood. On
20 each sheet its blood 5, isn't it?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Is this right, Professor Forrest, that documentation in
23 the French dossier purports to deal with what happened
24 to three samples of blood said to have been taken from
25 Henri Paul on 31st August?


1 A. Yes.
2 Q. If there were five, we don't know what's happened on
3 that analysis to two of them; is that right?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. There was another examination, is this right, on
6 4th September --
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. -- in which Dr Campana took two blood samples that we
9 are going to hear about.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Is this right, that Professor Lecomte said to officers
12 from the Paget Inquiry that the five that are referred
13 to here referred to three that she had taken and to two
14 that Dr Campana had taken on 4th September. Are you
15 aware that that's what she said?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. But that really doesn't work, does it, because if we
18 look at page 14, the sheet is said to have been
19 completed on 1st September, so that's three days before
20 Dr Campana had taken his two samples and that the number
21 for blood is still 5, isn't it?
22 A. There are unresolved incompatibilities --
23 "inconsistences", I should say, rather than
24 "incompatibilities".
25 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Is it good practice to complete


1 the sheet the day after the autopsy or would it be
2 appropriate to do it at the time?
3 A. Sir, every young doctor is told that there is no
4 substitute for a note made at the time when things
5 happen, and that, I would imagine, applies in France
6 just as much as it does in England and Scotland.
8 MR HILLIARD: Now I think photographs were taken at the
9 examinations both on 31st August and 4th September; is
10 that right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. I think you are aware that recently Dr Shepherd has --
13 and he can tell us about this, but just so we have the
14 overall picture now -- looked at photographs taken at
15 the post-mortem examination on 31st August; is that
16 right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. He has pointed out that two sample bottles appear to
19 have been filled with what could be blood --
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. -- before the chest cavity had been opened; is that
22 right?
23 A. Yes, correct.
24 Q. But at a time when there had been an incision in his
25 neck; is that right?


1 A. Yes, and I should say in the back of the neck rather
2 than the front of the neck.
3 Q. If two bottles had been filled with blood that was taken
4 from the neck, those have not been referred to at all or
5 mentioned in any report; is that right?
6 A. They have not been accounted for.
7 Q. Right.
8 A. If it was blood.
9 Q. Now, I mention the question of two bottles that may have
10 blood in them at a time before the chest cavity had been
11 opened, but after there had been an incision in the
12 neck, for this reason: is this right, as you understand
13 it from the French dossier, Professor, that on
14 8th September, the examining magistrate, Judge Stephan,
15 gave instructions in these terms to Professor Lecomte:
16 "Assignment: further to the post mortem of Henri Paul on
17 31st August 1997, to clarify the exact conditions and
18 precise location in which the samples mainly of blood
19 were taken"?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Some presumably would be obvious; for example, the
22 vitreous or aqueous humour.
23 A. You can't get it from anywhere else.
24 Q. But blood is obviously different, isn't it?
25 A. Yes.


1 Q. Her response, if we turn on beyond the two sheets we
2 have been looking at and turn to our page 15 -- is this
3 document headed "Additional report"?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. It's from Professor Lecomte and it's dated 9th September
6 1997.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. It says this:
9 "The post-mortem examination was conducted ... in
10 the morning on 31st August 1997."
11 In other words, a few hours after the accident.
12 "The blood [I am reading this as it is written] was
13 taken from the left hemithorax area ..."
14 What does that mean?
15 A. "Hemithorax" means the left side of the chest.
16 Q. "... in which there was a major haemothorax ..."
17 A. Blood collecting within the chest cavity.
18 Q. "... following a clean cut of the descending thoracic
19 aorta ...", and that is?
20 A. The "aorta" is the main blood vessel which carries blood
21 from the left side of the heart to the rest of the body.
22 In an injury, a de-acceleration injury, basically what
23 can happen is that the heart keeps on moving when the
24 chest is held still and the result can be a major tear
25 in the aorta at a particular point, which is quite


1 a common sight for this to happen. What
2 Professor Lecomte is describing is a complete section of
3 the aorta. So whilst the heart continued to pump, the
4 total output of the heart would be pumped into the chest
5 cavity.
6 Q. Then "... level with the isthmus ...", and that's what?
7 A. That's the point at which the descending aorta
8 straightens out and goes down alongside the backbone,
9 down into the rest of the body, into the abdomen. It is
10 a point at which it becomes -- the aorta becomes
11 relatively fixed. So when you have a de-acceleration
12 injury of this type, the aorta can literally become
13 torn, torn off, as the heart continues to move forward,
14 whilst the rest of the body is restrained from
15 accelerating, in this case by the airbag.
16 Q. Right.
17 A. Again, Dr Shepherd, if more detail is required, I am
18 sure would be able to assist the court.
19 Q. It carries on:
20 "As a result, the left-hand side of the heart was
21 exsanguinated and the heart only yielded a few drops of
22 blood which were insufficient for conducting proper
23 tests."
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. So that is saying that as a result of that there was


1 very little blood left in the heart.
2 A. Yes. Basically what has happened is you have cut off
3 blood going from the heart to the rest of the body
4 because the cardiac output is pouring into the chest.
5 Under those circumstances, there is going to be no
6 heart -- no blood coming back into the right side of the
7 heart or being pumped through the lungs, and eventually
8 the left side of the heart, which is pumping blood from
9 the lungs into the rest of the body, is going to become
10 empty and it's going to be contracting on empty and
11 there will only be a few drops of blood left in it, and
12 this is a condition that Professor Lecomte is
13 describing.
14 Q. Is there anything surprising, given the injury she is
15 describing, or is it what you expect, that there could
16 only be a few drops of blood left in the heart?
17 A. Yes, I have to say that I am not a pathologist -- I have
18 never carried out the autopsy personally -- I am not
19 a pathologist who examines bodies directly. I have
20 never carried out an autopsy, but I have seen this
21 condition when it has been demonstrated to me in my --
22 by my colleagues in the five years I spent working in
23 the department of forensic pathology.
24 Q. So she says:
25 "The heart only yielded a few drops of blood as


1 a result which were insufficient for conducting proper
2 tests."
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. "In total", she goes on, "five bottles of blood were
5 taken from the same area, ie the area of the left
6 haemothorax."
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. "Urine was taken from the bladder which was intact."
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. "Hair was taken from the occipital region of the scalp."
11 What does that mean?
12 A. The occipat is the back.
13 Q. "Samples were also taken from various organs (liver,
14 kidney, spleen, lungs, gastric contents) as well as
15 anatamo-pathology samples (brain, heart and various
16 organs) ..."
17 A. I believe the anatamo-pathology samples would be the
18 samples for histology. The samples from various organs
19 would be the samples submitted to Dr Pepin for
20 a toxicological analysis.
21 Q. "We also took, as a matter of routine, a sample of the
22 vitreous humour."
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. She says:
25 "I certify that I personally carried out the task


1 assigned to me and that the contents of this report are
2 true and accurate."
3 A. Yes.
4 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Where Professor Lecomte says that
5 five bottles of blood were taken from the area of the
6 left haemothorax, that appears, does it, to create
7 a possible inconsistency with Professor Shepherd's
8 interpretation of the photographs?
9 A. Yes, sir, it could. On the other hand, if there is
10 a total of eight bottles of the same type lined up and
11 two of those bottles have some -- something which looks
12 like blood put into them, that, of course, leaves six
13 bottles still available to put blood into if blood was
14 indeed taken from the left hemithorax.
15 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: So we can't really draw any firm
16 conclusions?
17 A. Correct, sir.
18 MR HILLIARD: That's what she is saying in response to the
19 specific query raised on the 8th. That's her response
20 the next day on the 9th.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Just to deal with one more aspect, is this right, that
23 I think on 9th March 2005 she said to Metropolitan
24 Police Officers, the Operation Paget officers, that the
25 blood had come from the heart using a clean scoop?


1 I think you are aware of that.
2 A. Yes. And I understand that using a ladle to take blood
3 from the heart is a procedure which is laid down in what
4 might be the equivalent of a statutory instrument. Of
5 course the procedures which are supposed to be adopted
6 by pathologists are very much laid down by legal or
7 judicial authority in France. So while we might look at
8 it as being rather old-fashioned, using a ladle to scoop
9 blood out of the heart cavity -- and also something not
10 particularly easy to do -- she described this as being
11 a standard practice, and Dr Pepin told me that in terms.
12 Q. As between blood coming from the heart on the one hand
13 or simply from the chest cavity on the other, is it
14 important which?
15 A. I believe that it is -- because in general cavity
16 blood -- well, let me take a step back and say how we
17 would approach cavity blood as toxicologists in the UK.
18 If you could only get cavity blood, then so be it, you
19 would use it and one would hope that the pathologist
20 would tell you that it was cavity blood and you would do
21 analyses on it and you would report the results of those
22 analyses with a warning as to the difficulties in
23 interpreting them.
24 What often happens is you have quite a bit of cavity
25 blood in a traumatic injury and the pathologist manages


1 to get some blood from a more appropriate site. The
2 site which is generally considered to be the best is
3 from the femoral vein, preferably below a clamp or
4 a ligature which has been applied; in other words the
5 pathologist dissects out the femoral vein, identifies
6 it, clamps or ligatures it and takes a sample from that,
7 from below the clamp or ligature, so you are not drawing
8 blood down --
9 Q. I think you will need to slow down a little bit. All
10 right.
11 A. So you are not drawing blood down.
12 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Femoral vein, upper part of the
13 leg?
14 A. Yes, sir. The ideal instruction or the instruction
15 which I tried to persuade my pathology colleagues to do
16 is to identify -- to dissect out the femoral vein,
17 preferably before the body has been eviscerated, put
18 a clamp or a ligature across it and then to take the
19 sample of blood from below the clamp or the ligature.
20 That's the best sample.
21 You may not get very much blood when you do that.
22 If you get two samples of blood, one from the cavity
23 blood -- it might be the abdominal cavity, it might be
24 the thoracic cavity -- and a femoral vein sample, which
25 is of a much lower, what you can do is you can use the


1 cavity blood for screening purposes, analyse it and see
2 what is there, and then go on to carry out much more
3 specific analyses to confirm the identity of the drugs
4 that you have detected and to measure their
5 concentration in the femoral vein sample which is likely
6 to produce a more reliable and easier to interpret
7 result.
8 MR HILLIARD: Pause a moment. Ever simply, why? Can you
9 just stick to cavity and heart blood for the moment? We
10 will come on to the femoral vein and all of that in
11 a moment.
12 Just very simply, why does it matter, in general
13 terms, if a blood sample may be heart blood or chest
14 cavity blood? Very simply, what --
15 A. Well the heart blood is not ideal, but it's better than
16 cavity blood. The reason why it's better than cavity
17 blood -- or chest cavity blood in particular -- is that
18 the cavity blood can be contaminated by fatty material
19 from rib fractures, from fatty material from what's
20 called the "thoracic duct", where lymph empties into the
21 veinous system and which can be disrupted in trauma, and
22 also material can diffuse across the diaphragm from the
23 stomach into cavity blood.
24 Q. So it may be contaminated in the ways that you
25 suggested?


1 A. It may be contaminated in a variety of ways and it is in
2 general less suitable for quantitative analyses which
3 require an accurate interpretation than either heart
4 blood itself, which also has major difficulties, and if
5 I could allude to one of those difficulties --
6 Q. If you go slowly, you can.
7 A. It in fact relates to fluoxetine. Fluoxetine is one of
8 a number of drugs which combine to lung tissue.
9 Q. Prozac is the --
10 A. "Prozac" is the proper name. It is the pharmaceutical
11 name for Prozac.
12 Q. The pharmaceutical name is "fluoxetine"
13 A. Fluoxetine binds to lung tissue and it can be found,
14 particularly after death, in quite high concentrations
15 in blood from the left-hand side of the heart; much
16 higher, for example, than the concentrations you might
17 find in the femoral vein.
18 Q. So does it come to this: femoral blood you think perhaps
19 best, cardiac blood not quite as good, but both better
20 than chest cavity blood because of the contamination
21 problem?
22 A. Yes, and in order to help pathology colleagues and
23 ultimately, where appropriate, the courts to understand
24 the interpretation of the results, the toxicologist
25 needs to know where those blood samples have come from.


1 Q. Right. Notwithstanding what Professor Lecomte said at
2 our page 15 on 9th September about the five bottles of
3 blood being taken from the area of the left haemothorax,
4 so not cardiac blood, did the experts -- this is right,
5 isn't it -- work for some time on the understanding that
6 in fact it was cardiac blood? Is that right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. If we just turn on, please --
9 A. I should say that I was there when Dr Pepin was told it
10 was not cardiac blood, it was chest cavity blood, and
11 I still have a vivid recollection of the way his face
12 changed when he was told that. He looked surprised.
13 Q. Right. We may be able to see why if we turn to our
14 page 28 and onwards. At page 28 we can see
15 "Toxicological report".
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Dr Pepin's report. Over the page to page 29 --
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. -- we can see that he was appointed, just below the
20 middle of the page, ordered to present a detailed report
21 containing his reasoned opinion and a certificate that
22 he has personally fulfilled the mission which has been
23 entrusted to him before 5th September 1997.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Then the mission:


1 "To carry out a complete analysis of the samples
2 taken at the time of the autopsy on Henri Paul, blood
3 and viscera, for the purpose of revealing the presence
4 of any toxins, as well as that of any medicinal
5 products."
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. "To take any measures of use in enabling second expert
8 opinions to be obtained."
9 He says:
10 "I have fulfilled my mission, the analytical
11 laboratory ..."
12 Then this report, the date 9th September 1997.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. We are going to come to the first analysis that was done
15 of the blood in a moment, but I just want to look at
16 this report because there are some pictures of the
17 samples, aren't there?
18 A. There are.
19 Q. If we turn to page 30, we can see this:
20 "On presentation of the mission, there was obtained
21 from the Institute of Forensic Medicine one container
22 with different types of samples."
23 It's a very poor photograph, or the copy of it is,
24 isn't it?
25 A. Yes.


1 Q. We can just make out. We will need to bear this in
2 mind. Top left, we can see a date, can't we, 8/9/1997?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. That date is also in the top corner of all the
5 photographs that follow. Although in some you can just
6 make it out, in others you can't; is that right?
7 A. Yes, that's correct.
8 Q. Then if one had a better copy of this photograph ...
9 there is the label there; is that right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. With an IML number, 072147.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. The name "Paul, Henri".
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. 972147?
16 A. 972147.
17 Q. Yes. Name, date, "31 --
18 A. It looks like "08".
19 Q. Yes, "1997".
20 A. Then --
21 Q. That is Lecomte.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. If one had a better copy of this photograph, we can see
24 relatively clearly here what look like seven tops of
25 jars; is that right?


1 A. Yes, and one is looking through a translucent --
2 probably polythene -- top of a container.
3 Q. Yes. You had the original photograph. Just below that
4 label, there is the top of a jar that is dark in colour
5 so it doesn't show up very well; is that right?
6 A. Yes, I think that's probably stomach content, but I am
7 not sure.
8 Q. So if one had the original of the photograph, eight that
9 you can see, and then following in the report there are
10 photographs of nine bottles; is that right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. If we turn over to page 31 --
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. -- it says:
15 "One normal glass type vial of blood fitted with
16 a self-crimping screw top, the label stuck on which
17 bears the following inscription ..." and we can see what
18 it says.
19 In fact, if you actually look at the label compared
20 with the writing, it's slightly different, isn't it?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Because actually the label has the IML number at the
23 top, "972147".
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. The name is "Paul, Henri".


1 A. Yes.
2 Q. The date is 31/08/1997, but it looks like that "8" has
3 been handwritten over.
4 A. Agreed.
5 Q. It looks as if it's a printed label, but we can see on
6 the label "sang cardiac", so heart blood.
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. Below that, "Medicin, Dr Lecomte"; is that right?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. Just help about this: the camera date that is being
11 given, 8/9/1997, it's obviously before the date of this
12 report, which is 9/9/1997.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. But, of course, by the 8th and the 9th it's apparent, is
15 this right, that the analysis has actually been done?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. For the analysis of the contents, for example, of this
18 bottle to have been done, to state the obvious, the
19 bottle would have to have been opened, wouldn't it?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. You can't see from this one, but you have seen a better
22 photograph. In your view, has the bottle been opened?
23 A. My view was, when looking at it, that it probably
24 hadn't, but I hadn't had the chance obviously to examine
25 the bottle. The reason why I expressed the view that it


1 probably hadn't been opened is that these are
2 tamper-evident bottles.
3 You have the top of the bottle which is white
4 plastic. It is designed so that the flange at the
5 bottom of a bottle -- and you can just see the marks
6 going at the bottom of the cap of the bottle, which
7 suggest that there is a division there or a line there.
8 That is attached with a very thin piece of plastic to
9 the cap. You screw it onto the bottle and it slips over
10 a flange on the bottle. If you then unscrew the top, it
11 will break and there will be a clear division between
12 what has now become a plastic collar and the rest of the
13 cap.
14 We see exactly the same thing, of course, in
15 tamper-evident smoothies that we might buy. That's
16 probably -- certainly in my house -- the commonest --
17 well, teenagers, and young adults, they certainly seem
18 to get through a fair number of them -- but it is
19 something that we see in everyday life, certainly now.
20 Normally, when you open one of those bottles, you
21 can see that there is a clear gap, when you just eyeball
22 it in the fridge, to say that it's been opened. That is
23 not -- such a gap is not apparent on the copy of the
24 original photograph that I have seen, but I can't say
25 for sure that the bottle has not been opened.


1 Q. All right. Then if we just turn on, so according to
2 this report, a bottle of blood.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. If we turn over, our page 32, "One self-crimping vial of
5 urine bearing the same type of label as the vial of
6 blood".
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. One has to say -- I may be looking at a different part
9 of it -- on the face of it, certainly what we can see
10 here isn't the same type of label, is it?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. This is handwritten.
13 A. It's handwritten. The type of bottle is exactly the
14 same as the type used for blood.
15 Q. Then:
16 "One glass jar with metal screw top, containing
17 gastric liquid and bearing the same type of label as the
18 vial of blood."
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. We can see the date clearly in this one, can't we?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Over the page:
23 "Five plastic pots with screw tops bearing the same
24 type of label as the vial of blood and containing
25 respectively samples of lung, liver, kidney, spleen,


1 pancreas."
2 Is that right?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. 1, 2 on that page; third on the next; 4, 5 on our
5 page 35. Is that right?
6 A. Yes, correct.
7 Q. Then:
8 "One glass tube with rubber top containing vitreous
9 humour and bearing the same type of label as the vial of
10 blood."
11 That's the vitreous humour that we have over the
12 page, don't we, our page 36?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. Certainly at the time of receiving them -- if we just
15 finish this off, our page 37 -- Pepin says:
16 "They are therefore indeed samples taken by
17 Professor Lecomte during the autopsy carried out on the
18 body of the above named. The seals were intact."
19 Yes?
20 A. Yes. I think in UK practice, when one makes a statement
21 like that, one says "The seals are apparently intact" as
22 a matter of course.
23 Q. Right. Just while we are on this section, if you would
24 just turn on, just to complete it -- we will come back
25 to Dr Pepin's analysis, but in terms of the taking of


1 the samples -- your paragraph 51, please.
2 A. Yes, sir.
3 Q. Can you help us about that, about documents that you
4 have seen?
5 A. Yes. I think what happened was Dr Pepin went personally
6 to get one blood sample from the laboratory when the
7 question of an analysis by Dr Ricordel --
8 Professor Ricordel, that I am sure we are going to hear
9 about -- was first brought into question. He took that
10 back to the laboratory, to ToxLab, his laboratory,
11 personally, and then subsequently his -- I guess we
12 would call them his chief technician in UK parlance --
13 Monsieur Billault went to the IMLS and was handed the
14 remaining samples which were taken on the 4th, which
15 were taken directly to ToxLab.
16 Q. Sorry, when you say "taken on the 4th" --
17 A. I believe, yes.
18 Q. Do you understand why I am asking you that? Do you mean
19 samples from the 31st that he took on the 4th or samples
20 that had come from the body on the 4th?
21 A. No, I think these were the samples which were collected
22 on the 31st. My understanding is that of the samples
23 collected on the 31st, Dr Pepin got one sample to carry
24 out a confirmatory or counter-analysis, to use the
25 direct translation of the French term, when


1 Professor Ricordel's result became available, and
2 subsequently he was asked to carry out a full
3 toxicological analysis on all of the samples which had
4 been obtained on the 31st.
5 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: So Pepin gets one himself, having
6 gone to get it, and then, a few days later, he sends
7 down Monsieur Billault to get the rest?
8 A. Yes. Yes, sir. That's my understanding.
9 MR HILLIARD: Just finally before we look at the analyses,
10 all those labels that we can see have got
11 Professor Lecomte's name on them, haven't they?
12 A. Yes, they have, pre-printed, apart from the urine sample
13 where it's handwritten.
14 Q. I think you are aware that she has said that the only
15 autopsy at the IML on 31st August 1997 was the autopsy
16 on Henri Paul which she conducted.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And that between 28th August and 2nd September, there
19 were 46 autopsies there in all, but she had not carried
20 out any of those; is that right?
21 A. That's my recollection, yes.
22 Q. Anyway, all these samples then have her name on them, as
23 we have seen, haven't they?
24 A. Yes.
25 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Are you moving on to something


1 else?
2 MR HILLIARD: I was going to come on to the analyses now,
3 yes.
4 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I think that's probably a good
5 time to have our break.
6 A. Yes, sir.
7 (11.30 am)
8 (A short break)
10 (11.45 am)
11 (Jury present)
12 MR HILLIARD: So, Professor, we have looked at material that
13 concerns samples taken on 31st August 1997. I want to
14 come now, as we said we would, to the analysis of those.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. The first analysis, is this right, was carried out by
17 somebody called Professor Ricordel?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. We will look at the detail, but it might be helpful just
20 to detach, perhaps, the first two pages of the bundle
21 and have that side by side. There is such a lot of
22 detail here that this is perhaps just a useful summary
23 sheet, with, of course, the caveats that we have heard
24 about and that we are hearing about in evidence from
25 you.


1 A. Yes.
2 Q. As Mr Keen has pointed out, this is samples said to have
3 been taken on 31st August 1997 by Professor Lecomte from
4 Henri Paul, and we can see there blood and then the name
5 "Professor Ricordel". His report that we have in our
6 bundle begins at our page 16; is that right, Professor?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. The front sheet, 16, we can see it's addressed to the
9 State Prosecutor. Then if we turn over to page 17,
10 there are details about Professor Ricordel himself and
11 we can see "Requested by the State Prosecutor on
12 1st September the following terms ...", and I am just
13 highlighting:
14 "To establish the quantity of alcohol in the sample
15 of blood taken from the body of Henri Paul by
16 Professor Lecomte during the post mortem on
17 31st August 1997. The report on the tests will be
18 produced and sent by the said expert after confirming
19 its contents as true and accurate."
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. This is the report. If you go to page 18, please, it
22 says that:
23 "... the following was obtained on 1st September
24 1997 from the Institute of Forensic Medicine ...
25 "A cylindrical flask made of transparent plastic


1 material sealed by a white screw cap containing a glass
2 bottle. The bottle was labelled as follows:
3 "No. IML: 2147.
4 "31/8/97.
5 "Lecomte."
6 And translator's note:
7 "Labelling possibly incomplete."
8 Then page 19:
9 "The testing for the presence and quantity of
10 ethanol ..."
11 For practical purposes, is that alcohol?
12 A. It is. Ethanol is the principal alcohol present in
13 alcoholic beverages. There are other alcohols which
14 will probably come up in the course of the exploration
15 of the evidence.
16 Q. All right. Then detail of the method is given, and you
17 have looked at that.
18 A. It's a perfectly standard method. The equipment is
19 a perfectly standard equipment. We certainly had
20 a Perkin Elmer gas chromatograph in my laboratory for
21 many years.
22 Q. Then we can see at the bottom of this page:
23 "Result: the ethyl alcohol content found in the
24 blood is: 1.87 grammes per litre."
25 A. Yes.


1 Q. Then on to page 20, he reports his findings. Then at
2 page 21, if we turn it on its side, and then what will
3 be four lines up from the bottom over on the right-hand
4 side, can you see "1.8718 ethanol"?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Then over the page, again if we have it on its side,
7 four up from the bottom, over on the right-hand side,
8 "1.8750 ethanol".
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. On our summary sheet, we have each of those figures in
11 the first section.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. "1.8718 grammes per litre ethanol", "1.8750 grammes per
14 litre ethanol".
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. Then the summary says, as does his report:
17 "The conclusion he reported, 1.87 grammes ethyl
18 alcohol content."
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Just looking at paragraph 35 of your report, you deal
21 with the method there; is that right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. You point out that the documents we have at pages 21 and
24 22 have, at the top, starting times. It's the very
25 first line if you have it on its side. 9.44, looks like


1 nine seconds, it's obviously 1st September 1997, the
2 first one, and the next one starts at 9.52 on the same
3 date.
4 A. Yes.
5 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: So these are tests carried out by
6 Dr Pepin, are they, on the sample that he went and got?
7 MR HILLIARD: No, Professor Ricordel.
8 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Sorry, Professor Ricordel I mean.
9 MR HILLIARD: Yes. We will explain how Dr Pepin comes into
10 it in a moment. We have jumped ahead -- it may have
11 been confusing -- only so we could look at the labels
12 and see what the samples said on them.
13 So it's Professor Ricordel who is asked to do the
14 job first of all, isn't it?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. In fact, just to clear this point up now, after his
17 results were reported the position was, I think, that
18 his results were challenged -- is that right?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. -- by those acting on behalf of Mr Al Fayed, I think.
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. So it was that Dr Pepin was asked to do what you
23 described earlier as a "counter-analysis"; is that
24 right?
25 A. Correct.


1 Q. With that in mind, let us go back and look at the
2 results by Professor Ricordel. First of all, anything
3 in those documents that you think you need to draw our
4 attention to? Anything out of the ordinary or are they
5 relatively standard documents as you see them?
6 A. Well, there is no standard curve, no data on the
7 standardisation available in these documents and there
8 is no result of any quality assurance sample that might
9 have been run along with these documents, with the
10 sample of interest.
11 It looks to me as if there was a prestored standard
12 curve on the instrument, in other words it had been
13 precalibrated by running samples of alcohol containing
14 known amounts of alcohol through the instrument, and
15 this stored standard curve has been used to calculate
16 the result from the tracings that we see here.
17 Do you wish me to go into the details of how the
18 analysis is done?
19 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: If you look at page 22, right at
20 the top of the page, second line down, there is
21 a reference to "Last edited, 25th August 1997". What
22 does that mean?
23 A. I believe that that may be the time at which the
24 standard curve was last run, sir.


1 A. In other words, quite a few days before the analysis was
2 carried out.
4 Now, the result that he reports, 1.87 grammes of
5 alcohol for a litre of blood, is this right, that
6 corresponds to a blood/alcohol concentration of
7 170 milligrams [sic] of alcohol for every
8 100 millilitres of blood?
9 A. Yes, the conversion is very sample. There are 1,000
10 milligrammes in a gramme, so if you multiply the result
11 given here in grammes per litre, you would get a result
12 of 18,750 milligrams per litre. There is -- if you
13 divide then by 10, you get the result in milligrams per
14 100 millilitres of blood. Of course there is 1,000
15 millilitres in a litre, and if you divide 1,000 by 10,
16 you get 100.
17 Q. The reason for just making 1.87 into 187 milligrams of
18 alcohol for every 100 millilitres of blood is this,
19 isn't it? The limit in the United Kingdom -- if we can
20 just use milligrams and millilitres for the moment, the
21 permitted limit for drivers in the United Kingdom is
22 80 millilitres of alcohol for every 100 millilitres of
23 blood; correct?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. In France, the limit if we, as it were, change it, is


1 50 milligrams of alcohol. If we put it into milligrams
2 and millilitres, it's 50, isn't it?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. Right. So 187 is over twice the limit in this country?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. If you had that result in this country, would it be
7 reported as 187 or a different figure?
8 A. If it was taken in life and was being used to prosecute
9 someone in a drink-driving case where they are driving
10 with greater than the permitted amount of alcohol in
11 their blood, then at that level, 6 per cent would be
12 taken off the mean of the two results obtained, and that
13 would then be reported as the result minus 6 per cent,
14 which works out at 176 milligrams of alcohol per
15 100 millilitres of blood, and it would be qualified by
16 saying "not less than 176 milligrams of alcohol per
17 100 millilitres of blood".
18 The reason for that is that this takes into account
19 the imprecision of the analysis. Precision is the
20 ability to get the same result when you are carrying out
21 an analysis on the same sample of blood over and over
22 again, and it is clearly something that has to be taken
23 into account when you are reporting a concentration of
24 alcohol in a blood sample which is used to determine
25 whether or not a person is guilty of a particular


1 offence.
2 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: So when Mr Hilliard mentioned
3 "170" a few minutes ago, I think it should have been
4 "176".
5 MR HILLIARD: I don't know why I mentioned 170. That's not
6 a figure we ...
7 So 187 that he reports, but, as you say, if that was
8 in a drink-driving case in this country, it would be
9 reported as not less than 176.
10 A. Yes. In the coroner's court in this country in general,
11 the laboratory often reports the result actually
12 obtained without making the 6 per cent reduction, which
13 would be used in a criminal case in the magistrates'
14 court.
15 Q. Right. After those results then were obtained from
16 Professor Ricordel, it was then -- is this right -- that
17 Dr Pepin was asked to do another analysis?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. If we look at page 24 -- 23 is the front sheet,
20 toxicology analysis report; it's Dr Pepin's -- over at
21 page 24, we can see that he had instructions from the
22 public prosecutor, and having regard to the urgency of
23 the matter, he is to determine the alcohol level in the
24 blood sample taken by Professor Lecomte during the
25 autopsy carried out on 31st August 1997 on the body of


1 Henri Paul. Then a report to be drawn up.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. It's dated and signed 1st September 1997; is that right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Then over at our page 25, he says that:
6 "... the following was obtained from the registry of
7 the Institute Medico-Legal ..."
8 He gives the address.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. He says:
11 "One standard glass flask of blood with
12 a self-crimped screw top and an adhesive label marked as
13 follows:
14 "'Henri Paul.
15 "Institute Medico-Legal number 2147.
16 "31st August 1997.
17 "Professor Lecomte."
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. He says:
20 It is therefore definitely the sample taken by
21 Professor Lecomte in the course of the autopsy on the
22 body of the above."
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. He says that the seal was intact.
25 A. Yes.


1 Q. He then explains the equipment that he used; is that
2 right?
3 A. Yes, which is -- it's a more recent gas chromatograph
4 that he has used and a slightly different technique, but
5 it is absolutely identical in principle to the method
6 used for the measurement of alcohol in what is currently
7 the gold standard throughout the world: Head Space Gas
8 Liquid Chromatography.
9 Q. If we have an eye on our summary sheet as well. It is
10 in the second section. He says in this report:
11 "The analysis produced the following result in
12 Henri Paul's blood, ethanol 1.74 g per litre."
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. He says that the blood not used in the analysis will be
15 stored at his laboratory for one year; yes?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Then, over the page, we can see, four lines up from the
18 bottom of page 26, "ethanol", and we can see "1.74". Do
19 you see that?
20 A. Yes, I do.
21 Q. Then if you go up, can you see a date section as well,
22 about a third of the way down, "1/9/1997 at 13.19.52"
23 I think.
24 A. Correct, not very long after he received the sample.
25 I should say that the time stamps on these instruments


1 are something which has to always be taken with a pinch
2 of salt. You should always try and adjust them, but
3 they -- it's like a digital watch, a cheaper --
4 something like a -- I will not mention a brand, but
5 a cheap digital watch. They can both lose and gain
6 time, and while it ought to be part of quality control
7 procedures to always adjust the time on an instrument
8 and some modern instruments are networked and they will
9 keep the same time as the computer system in the
10 laboratory, basically you have to take them always with
11 a pinch of salt.
12 Q. Right. Then if we turn over the page --
13 A. Yes. Here he does seem to have run a quality assurance
14 sample.
15 Q. We can see we have a date and time, 1st September 1997,
16 and the time, 13.48. If we look at the "Ethanol"
17 section, five lines up from the bottom, "2.02" --
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. -- what's going on here?
20 A. Okay, if you look at the top right-hand of the document,
21 immediately above where is written "D824", the page
22 numbering in the French dossier, it appears to say,
23 "Controle ethanol, 2g/l". In other words, I would
24 interpret this as meaning alcohol control sample with a
25 concentration of 2 grammes per litre.


1 If you then, bearing that in mind, look down to the
2 print-out of the result, where it says "number 1,
3 ethanol", then "Taux [level] (g/l) 2.02".
4 He has a result on his quality assurance sample
5 which agrees to within 1 per cent or agrees to a level
6 of 1 per cent with the result which is assigned to the
7 sample, and that is a very acceptable result. Again,
8 there is no record of a quality assurance -- of
9 a standard curve having been run at around the time that
10 the analysis itself was done.
11 Q. Right. If we go back to our page 26, we have the figure
12 of 1.74 at the bottom.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. I should perhaps have said, it's quite difficult to make
15 out here, but the handwriting here, I think that's
16 "Paul, Henri".
17 A. Yes, it's clearer than that in some of the other
18 documents I have seen.
19 Q. Then if we just go back, looking at our summary sheet,
20 because we have an extra -- in section 2 there we have
21 the "1.74" which we have just looked at. Can you see
22 the same date, "Confirmation blood/alcohol analysis of
23 1.72". Can you just help us what that was?
24 A. He has obviously run it again and got a result of 1.72
25 or 172 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of


1 blood. That is within the acceptable range, certainly
2 for a post-mortem sample.
3 Q. Right. Just pausing there for a moment, we have results
4 reported of 1.87 grammes per litre by Professor Ricordel
5 and 1.74 from Dr Pepin, as it were, noting in passing
6 another test he had done that had given him 1.72. So
7 1.87 and 1.74.
8 There is obviously a difference between those
9 figures. They are not exactly the same.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Anything that we should be aware of there, please?
12 A. Yes. When you do any analysis which generates a number
13 in a laboratory and you repeat that analysis even in the
14 same laboratory on exactly the same sample on the same
15 instrument, you will always get a difference or
16 virtually always get a difference. This is illustrated
17 when Dr Pepin carries out a confirmation sample on the
18 same sample that he received and gets a slightly
19 different result to the original sample.
20 When you move to a slightly different situation,
21 where two different laboratories using two different
22 instruments are carrying out an analysis, even
23 a relatively straightforward analysis like alcohol, on
24 two samples which, although collected at the same time
25 are in different tubes -- and there could be some issues


1 about if you are collecting haemothorax blood, whether
2 or not you have collected blood at the top of the
3 haemothorax, for example, for the first sample, where
4 there might be -- it might have more watery material in
5 rather than, say, from the second sample at the bottom
6 of the haemothorax, where it might have more red blood
7 cells which have proportionately less alcohol in them
8 than the watery part of the blood, then the difference
9 observed is not a difference which leads me to have any
10 major reservations about the interpretation of the
11 result.
12 One can say that both of these results lead one
13 clearly to the conclusion that the concentration of
14 alcohol in the sample is of the order of twice the
15 concentration of alcohol in blood permitted to drivers
16 in the UK.
17 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: The difference was between 1.74
18 or 1.72, and 1.87, wasn't it?
19 A. Yes, sir.
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Well, now, what sort of
21 difference would there have had to have been to, as it
22 were, alerted your antenna and said, "Hello, there is
23 something odd here"?
24 A. It would have to be more than that. If, for example,
25 Professor Ricordel had got a result of, say, 150 and


1 Dr Pepin on what is putatively the same sample had got
2 a result of, say, 120, then I would be worried and
3 I would want to look very closely into the reasons.
4 This one, it's different and you take note of that,
5 but there can be explanations, as I have set out, which
6 could account for that difference without giving rise to
7 any degree of suspicion of malfeasance or problems with
8 the analysis. In other words, one wouldn't have to
9 postulate that there was an extraneous difficulty with
10 the analyses.
12 MR HILLIARD: Right.
13 If we turn on, please, to page 38 in our bundle, the
14 next development was this, is this right, that
15 Judge Stephan, the examining magistrate, went to the IML
16 himself?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. He was present when proceedings took place there; is
19 that right?
20 A. Yes, and this isn't uncommon in a civil law system, for
21 the examining magistrate to go to a post-mortem
22 examination. It also happens in Scotland, where
23 a system which is not that dissimilar, the Procurator
24 Fiscal, who has charge of the investigation of sudden or
25 unexpected death, very often goes to a post-mortem


1 examination where there may be some difficulties or in
2 a particularly difficult case.
3 Q. We have his official report of the visit, pages 38 and
4 39.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. It's simplest if I read this slowly.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. He says this, doesn't he?
9 "At 17.00 on 4th September 1997 I [and gives his
10 details and his assistant] went to the Institute of
11 Forensic Medicine [otherwise known as the 'IML', and he
12 gives the address] where we carried out the operations
13 described below in the presence of Dr Campana, Dr Pepin,
14 and three police officers [who he names].
15 "I was taken to see a body which I was informed was
16 that of Henri Paul. I requested the officers from the
17 Forensic Science and Identification Service to
18 photograph the body and face."
19 Over the page, 39:
20 "Dr Campana then took a blood sample from the right
21 femoral artery and after that from the left femoral
22 artery, making up two vials identified by IML labels as
23 number 972147.
24 "The vials were placed under seal number 1, right
25 artery, and 2, left artery respectively."


1 A. Yes.
2 Q. "A sample of muscle tissue was then taken and placed
3 under seal number 3."
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. A sample of hair was also placed separately under that
6 seal, but inside the same vial in a separate section.
7 "A similar sample (muscle tissue and hair) was
8 placed under seal number 4.
9 "It should be noted in the case of the blood sample
10 placed under seal number 1, the vial was filled
11 one-tenth full, and in the case of seal number 2 (left
12 femoral artery) the vial was filled one-third full."
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. "The vials were placed in identified and sealed
15 envelopes. Sealed exhibits 2 and 3 [so that's the blood
16 samples, according to him, from the right and left
17 femoral arteries] were handed over immediately to
18 Dr Pepin.
19 "The operation was completed at 17.45."
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. I think I may have made a mistake. I am very grateful.
22 Sealed exhibits 2 and 3, corrected -- so that's left
23 artery and muscle tissue, isn't it -- were handed over;
24 do you see?
25 A. "A sample of muscle tissue was then taken and placed


1 under seal number 3. A sample of hair was also placed
2 separately under that seal but inside the same vial in
3 a separate section."
4 Q. So that was my mistake. I said that two blood
5 samples -- I was wrong about that. We can see from this
6 what it is.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Right. Those were then given to Dr Pepin?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And he then carried out analyses; correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. In our bundle at page 40, if we turn over -- this is his
13 report -- to page 42, we can see in the second line he
14 has been appointed. We can see his mission:
15 "To analyse the samples of blood and tissues which
16 will be taken today at 5 pm in my presence and yours
17 from the body of Henri Paul at the Institute of Forensic
18 Medicine for the purpose of carrying out a full
19 toxicological analysis, alcohol and presence of any
20 toxins."
21 Yes?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. He says that he has fulfilled that and this is his
24 report of 9th September 1997. If we turn on to page 43,
25 he says, having been given the mission, that they go to


1 the Institute of Forensic Medicine or the IML, witnessed
2 the taking of samples from the body of Henri Paul
3 carried out by Dr Campana "... in the presence of the
4 officer of the criminal investigation police and of the
5 examining magistrate".
6 He explains, "Seal number 2":
7 "This is a brown envelope containing a plastic
8 bottle with wax seals with the slip stuck to the
9 envelope and bearing the following inscriptions ..."
10 Those are recorded.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Then it includes, seal number 2, sample of left femoral
13 blood, and he says that the seal was intact. Then there
14 is a photograph of the packaging at the bottom of the
15 page; is that right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Then if we turn over, there is a picture of the sample
18 bottle; is that right?
19 A. Yes. I should say that they really do seal the
20 envelopes with sealing wax. I have seen them do it.
21 Q. We have, is this right, in the pages that follow, the
22 results of the examination or the analysis?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. If we look at page 45, it indicates that the blood
25 showed the presence of fatty acids and cholesterol; is


1 that right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. If we turn over to 46 --
4 A. Then they go on to do another screening technique, which
5 also can be a quantitative technique, less commonly used
6 in the UK, although some very reputable laboratories use
7 it; for example the Birmingham Toxicology Laboratory,
8 the NHS laboratory at -- I forget the name of the
9 hospital in Birmingham, but they use it and they publish
10 quite considerably on this technique. We use it, but --
11 we used it in my laboratory, but for rather more
12 specific analyses rather than as a screening test.
13 That's called --
14 Q. I think we probably don't really need to worry about
15 that too much. At 46, as you say, another screening
16 test, and in the blood were found fluoxetine,
17 norfluoxetine and Tiapride.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. We were dealing at the start with the fact that he had
20 been prescribed Prozac, but that, as it were, is a sort
21 of pharmacological name for that, fluoxetine; is that
22 right?
23 A. That's right.
24 Q. Norfluoxetine, is that a breakdown product of fluoxetine
25 or Prozac?


1 A. Yes, it's the principal metabolite of fluoxetine in
2 blood formed as a result of the metabolism or breakdown
3 of fluoxetine by the liver, and it is, like fluoxetine,
4 pharmacologically active; that is, it is not an inactive
5 metabolite. It exerts a similar spectrum of effects as
6 fluoxetine itself does on the brain.
7 Q. Then we heard about prescription for Tiapride.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. That was also detected; is that right?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. Then if we just turn on, our page 47, just below halfway
12 down we can see, in bold: "Conclusion", and that no
13 barbiturate detected.
14 A. Yes, he has actually gone on to run a series of
15 additional tests. Clearly this page is describing the
16 panel of tests that he does for barbiturates. In the
17 first section, that is III.1, he goes on to say that he
18 has looked at phenobarbitone, secobarbitone,
19 amobarbitone -- a whole list of barbiturates --
20 Q. Yes, I am going to stick only because I suspect it may
21 be area we will not need to trouble with. We can just
22 do it in headline form.
23 A. Yes, basically negative results.
24 Q. We can see, at the bottom of the page, no anti-epileptic
25 was detected either.


1 A. Correct, and it's interesting that one of the
2 anti-epileptics he has looked for is a drug called
3 "Clomethiazole", which is a drug which has, in the past,
4 been used in the UK to assist people in withdrawing from
5 the consumption of alcohol. So that has specifically
6 not been detected in -- among with a number of other
7 anti-convulsant drugs -- has not been detected in the
8 sample attributed to Monsieur Paul.
9 Q. We will only need these in headline form. If we go to
10 the bottom of 48, again he said that a separate
11 different method hadn't enabled benzodiazepine to be
12 identified.
13 A. That's right. They have actually done two screening
14 tests for barbiturates. One was described in an earlier
15 section when we talked about using an instrument called
16 a TDx instrument. This is a much more sensitive and
17 specific method of screening for barbiturates. There is
18 a long -- I am sorry -- for benzodiazepines drugs.
19 Benzodiazepines are the group of drugs which include
20 Librium, Valium, Mogadon, Tamazepam, and a whole variety
21 of others. It also includes lormetazepam, which is the
22 active component of the drug, Noctamide. That's the
23 active component of the drug, Noctamide, said to have
24 been prescribed for Monsieur Paul by Dr Melo, and it was
25 not detected in the blood sample attributed to


1 Monsieur Paul.
2 Basically this is about as comprehensive screen for
3 the benzodiazepine drugs currently available at that
4 time in France as I have ever seen listed anywhere.
5 Q. Then 49, "Absence of alkaloids in the blood". What are
6 they?
7 A. What he is specifically looking for is the alkaloids
8 which we would describe as opiates, using another
9 technique, gas chromatography mass spectroscopy, and
10 they have looked specifically for morphine derivatives,
11 codeine, and also another alkaloid, cocaine, in the
12 sample, and they have come up with negative results.
13 Q. Then --
14 A. He also described using an immunological screening
15 method, which would have been from the description the
16 TDx method that I mentioned earlier to look for a rapid
17 screen for opiates in the blood.
18 Q. Then if we turn over the page, our page 50, we have
19 already known from the conclusion that fluoxetine and
20 norfluoxetine were found, but we have the levels,
21 haven't we, in bold towards the bottom of this page?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Then "Alcohol", bottom of the page, "1.75 grammes per
24 litre".
25 A. Correct.


1 Q. Anything about the method used so far as alcohol is
2 concerned that we ought to know about?
3 A. Again he has used Head Space Gas Liquid Chromatography
4 which, as I have said, is the gold standard at the
5 moment throughout the world for the measurement of
6 alcohol in biological fluids. I emphasise that he has
7 used that method, he has not used other methods. For
8 example there is one which can be run on the TDx, which
9 are less specific for ethyl alcohol and can cause
10 problems if you try and use them with post-mortem
11 samples. He has used the gold standard method.
12 Q. If we turn over the page, no volatile substances
13 independently of the ethanol. At 52, it doesn't contain
14 glycol -- I am taking it relatively quickly --
15 A. Things like antifreeze.
16 Q. Something else he has not got on page 53.
17 A. Correct. The curare-type derivatives, which are -- this
18 would be a very long shot. If one wanted to
19 incapacitate someone, you could rapidly -- or fairly
20 rapidly you could inject them with a curare derivative
21 and they would then be paralysed, and there is no
22 curare-type derivative such as is used in medical
23 practice present in the samples he has analysed.
24 Q. Right. Then page 54.
25 A. Yes.


1 Q. You can see at the top, "Exploration of the functional
2 state of the liver on ketoacidotic comas". Yes?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Anything we need to be aware of here?
5 A. Right. What one can be assured of is two things. First
6 of all that -- well, three things. First of all, none
7 of these were detected, and the situations in which they
8 are elevated -- well, there are basically three:
9 starvation, diabetic keto-acidosis, and a condition
10 called alcoholic or alcohol-associated keto-acidosis,
11 which you find when somebody has been a very heavy
12 drinker and has gone on a drinking binge and is then
13 abstinent. None of those conditions were present in the
14 samples, the sample analysed.
15 So that is a very small print test which would
16 normally never be done on a deceased driver in these
17 circumstances. What the instructions were to -- or
18 a way in which Dr Pepin interpreted them was basically
19 to do every test in the repertoire of his laboratory on
20 those samples, so I guess that's why it was done.
21 Q. Let us go on to page 56. We have seen in a conclusion
22 at the beginning that Tiapride had been found.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. We can see here it's at a very low level; is that right?
25 A. Very low concentration, indeed.


1 Q. We will come back to the significance of that later.
2 Then if we go to page 59, "Look for the presence of
3 carbon monoxide"; is that right?
4 A. That's right.
5 Q. Reported that at a level -- do you see our page 59,
6 penultimate line -- 12.8 per cent?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Then we have the conclusions at page 62. Do you see
9 that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Just so we complete this, we have -- I don't think at
12 this moment there will be a need to look at them -- but
13 65, 66 and on, we have a large number of graphs and
14 charts; is that right?
15 A. Right, there are a selection of the print-outs of the
16 various instruments used. For example, 67 is the method
17 used to confirm and quantitate the presence of Tiapride
18 in blood using a particular piece of software called
19 a "Millennium Spectrum Analyser", attached to the
20 high-performance liquid chromatograph with diode-array
21 detector; a perfectly standard piece of equipment.
22 The one on page 68 is an alcohol tracing from the
23 Hewlett Packard instrument he used. 69 relates to the
24 quantitation of norfluoxetine from hair and so on.
25 These are a selection of the instrument print-outs


1 which are given in considerable detail in the original
2 documentation and there are many more of them available.
3 Q. Right. We have looked at a number of results there
4 simply because it's convenient to do so because they are
5 there all in one place.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. If we just turn on, page 75, there is a summary sheet,
8 isn't there?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Summary note. Now, if we turn to our other summary
11 sheet, I just want you to help us with one thing, just
12 because I want to stick with alcohol, although
13 occasionally, because they are in similar documents, we
14 have to look at other substances. The left femoral
15 blood there, just below the first holepunch --
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. -- 1.75 grammes per litre of ethanol, and it says here
18 "NB, 1.80 reported as 1.75".
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now we know, because we have just looked at it in the
21 report, that the report refers to 1.75, doesn't it?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Can you just help us with that comment, 1.75 --
24 A. What I think Dr Pepin has done is got a result of 1.80
25 and then -- I am trying to use a non-pejorative


1 expression -- utilise the facility available for
2 adjusting the results in accordance with quality
3 assurance samples to get a result of 1.75.
4 We would not do that in the UK. We would report the
5 result actually obtained. I think this is a reflection
6 of the way in which Dr Pepin, as per Professor Ricordel,
7 has used stored standard curves in his analyses of blood
8 samples for alcohol, which has meant that he has had to
9 take into account instrumental drift, a drift of the
10 instrument's sensitivity, when he has reported the
11 results.
12 As I say, we would not do that in the UK, but I have
13 no concern that the result obtained can be interpreted
14 as saying that the concentration of alcohol present in
15 the sample examined would reflect, if that sample had
16 been collected in life, an alcohol concentration of the
17 order of twice the limit permitted to drivers in the UK.
18 Q. If we just look at our page 68 in the bundle, can you
19 see at the bottom that there is a total figure -- I just
20 want help with this -- total figure, do you see, 2.41?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. That's a reference to butanol, 1.61. If you take that
23 one away from the other, you get left with 1.80, don't
24 you?
25 A. Correct, which would be the ethanol figure on that


1 particular run.
2 Q. I just want to understand why -- it gets reported or
3 could be reported as 1.75 because ...?
4 A. Well, what has been done is that there has been some
5 adjustment of the figures in order to -- using
6 presumably a quality assurance sample which has been run
7 to adjust the standard curve, and when --
8 Q. Had you seen that in the papers is really what I am
9 getting at.
10 A. It's on the basis of the explanation which was given to
11 me by -- and the trouble is I can't remember whether or
12 not we actually wrote this down. When Mr Beer, the
13 translator attached to Operation Paget, and myself
14 visited Dr Pepin at ToxLab in Paris, we discussed this
15 and he told me how he would use one of the quality
16 assurance samples to see whether or not there needed to
17 be an adjustment to the standard curve in order to
18 produce a -- to adjust for any drift in the standard
19 curve.
20 As I have said, we would not do this in the UK.
21 I presume I can mention that I have discussed this with,
22 in particular, Professor Oliver, and we just wouldn't do
23 it. We would run a standard curve with each batch of
24 samples, ie a standard curve obtaining known samples,
25 and we would not adjust the results of the standard


1 curve in accordance with samples which should be run
2 independently as quality assurance samples.
3 Q. Right.
4 A. So it's a reflection of what we in the UK would consider
5 to be a less than desirable way of doing it. I am not
6 saying that it doesn't happen, but it certainly
7 shouldn't happen, particularly in forensic samples, but
8 which both, I suspect, Professor Ricordel and Dr Pepin
9 have done, and I presume, although I don't know, that
10 this is an acceptable practice in France.
11 Q. All right. Now I had mentioned to you the summary note
12 from Dr Pepin that we have at page 75.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. If we just stick with alcohol for the moment;
15 1.74 grammes per litre, according to this, the sample of
16 31st August 1997.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 1.75, and we have been dealing with this, the blood
19 sample on 4th September 1997. Just one other point on
20 that: Dr Campana, who took the samples on
21 4th September 1997, there are just two things that he
22 said that I want to deal with with you. First of all,
23 notwithstanding Judge Stephan's note that the blood had
24 come from the femoral arteries, Dr Campana said that he
25 took the blood from the femoral veins; correct?


1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And from an area called Scarpa's Triangle; is that
3 right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Is that at the top of the thigh, effectively?
6 A. Yes, basically the area at the top of the thigh, and
7 it's a triangle with its base at the crease in the thigh
8 that you can see when you are -- when you bend your hip
9 up and bring your knee up towards your chest, and then
10 it tapers down to a point about 5 or 6 centimetres down.
11 It's not an anatomical term that would normally be
12 taught to British medical students these days. It is a
13 slightly archaic term. We would call it the "femoral
14 triangle".
15 Q. He said there wasn't much blood there, but that the
16 blood he did obtain was by massaging the raised legs of
17 the body?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Just first of all, in massaging the raised legs of the
20 body to get these samples on 4th September -- we will
21 come back to arteries or veins in a moment -- could
22 that, in your view, have any effect on the blood/alcohol
23 level?
24 A. Yes, it could. What it might do is produce a marginal,
25 perhaps of the order of 10 per cent, elevation in the


1 blood/alcohol concentration. The mechanism is this: as
2 I have already mentioned, red blood cells contain far
3 less fluid -- far less alcohol or significantly less
4 alcohol than does the fluid part of blood, the plasma or
5 the water in the blood.
6 If you squeeze a sample out in the way which
7 Dr Campana describes, by massaging the leg, what you can
8 do is increase the concentration of watery fluid in the
9 sample that you are collecting from the tissues by
10 squeezing it out. This will produce an elevation in the
11 apparent concentration of alcohol in the sample when you
12 come to analyse it in the laboratory. As I have said,
13 the elevation is likely to be of the order of
14 10 per cent or thereabouts.
15 Q. Right. So we need to bear that in mind with that
16 result.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. So far as vein or artery is concerned, "artery" says the
19 examining judge, "vein" says Dr Campana.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. I think -- is this right -- when we look at the question
22 of carbon monoxide, we may need to discuss that then?
23 A. There may be some significance in whether or not it's
24 a vein or artery.
25 Q. We will come back to that later. If we stick, please --


1 page 75 -- with the summary note. So we have dealt with
2 blood 31/8, blood 4/9.
3 Urine sample, also tested for alcohol and giving
4 a result of 2.18 grammes per litre; is that right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. All these said to have been taken on 31st August. The
7 vitreous humour, 1.73?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And the stomach contents, 1.91?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. The other one we need to bear in mind that we heard
12 about was Professor Ricordel's result of 1.87; yes?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now, can you comment, please, upon -- so we have the
15 blood results in mind, 1.74, 1.75, 1.87, and you have
16 told us about differences that you might expect in
17 blood.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. What about the levels in urine, vitreous humour and
20 stomach contents --
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. We have those recorded. Should those be the same or
23 different? If you will take them one by one.
24 A. Yes, can I take the stomach content first? This is
25 a concentration which is only marginally higher than the


1 concentration in blood, and it strongly suggests that
2 the absorption of alcohol from the gut into the
3 bloodstream has been virtually complete by the time of
4 death in the individual from whom that sample has been
5 collected.
6 There are issues about measuring stomach content
7 alcohol. Basically if you have got carbohydrate starchy
8 material in your stomach, you can get the generation of
9 alcohol after death as a result of fermentation within
10 the stomach, which is usually associated with
11 putrefaction, which is obvious at the post mortem and
12 may be obvious within the laboratory from the smell of
13 the sample.
14 If you have putrefaction, you tend to get a gas
15 chromatographic tracing which has little spikes on it
16 from volatile substances in the sample which are picked
17 up on the tracing which are not ethyl alcohol. We don't
18 see that in these tracings. So you always take stomach
19 content alcohol with a pinch of salt, but the artefact
20 tends to increase the concentration of alcohol rather
21 than decreasing it.
22 So this result suggests that the concentration of
23 alcohol in the stomach has fallen to a baseline level
24 not dissimilar to the blood/alcohol concentration after
25 the absorption of alcohol from the gut into the


1 bloodstream has been completed.
2 Looking at the vitreous humour alcohol
3 concentration, normally you expect a vitreous humour
4 alcohol concentration to be higher than the
5 blood/alcohol concentration. The reason for this is
6 again that the vitreous humour is much more watery than
7 the blood. Red blood cells contain less water than does
8 the plasma fraction of blood and consequently the
9 vitreous humour will have a higher proportion of alcohol
10 in it, in general, than the blood/alcohol concentration.
11 However, there is a fairly wide spread of range of
12 ratio between the blood/alcohol concentration and the
13 vitreous humour/alcohol concentration, and while this is
14 unusual, it is not very exceptionally unusual.
15 Looking at it, I would say I am a little surprised
16 but, taking it into account with all of the other cases
17 I have seen, it doesn't flag up to me that this is
18 something which raises a major area of suspicion and
19 I don't think one can interpret in any realistic way the
20 vitreous humour ratio -- the ratios between the vitreous
21 humour and the blood/alcohol concentration so as to
22 produce additional information to reliably assist the
23 jury. They are broadly similar results which -- ie
24 results consistent with the blood/alcohol concentration.
25 The usual alcohol concentration --


1 Q. If we just pause before you tell us, page 8 of our
2 bundle, Professor Lecomte recorded that -- seven or
3 eight lines up from the bottom -- the bladder, she said,
4 contained a little pinkish urine that is removed for
5 toxicological examination, but the wall is intact. Do
6 you see that?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. If that has any significance, you will tell us.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. So the 2.18, please, in urine?
11 A. Right. In life, if one empties one's bladder, waits for
12 a few minutes and then you pass urine again and somebody
13 collects a blood sample from you, you will find that in
14 freshly secreted urine, shortly after you have emptied
15 your bladder, when you are no longer absorbing alcohol
16 from the gut, the ratio between the blood and the
17 urine/alcohol concentration will be of the order of --
18 did I say urine to blood -- 4 to 3. It's about
19 33 per cent higher than a simultaneously collected blood
20 sample.
21 If, on the other hand, several hours elapse between
22 the time at which you last empty your bladder and the
23 time at which you have stopped drinking, you will find
24 a blood/alcohol concentration which is very much lower
25 than the urine/alcohol concentration. In some


1 circumstances, perhaps death associated with taking
2 a drug which stops you emptying your bladder while you
3 are lying unconscious, you can get a situation where
4 there is virtually no alcohol in the blood and quite
5 high concentrations in the urine simply because the
6 urine/alcohol concentration is, in part, a reflection of
7 earlier higher blood/alcohol concentrations.
8 We don't have that here. The urine/alcohol
9 concentration is not that much higher than the
10 blood/alcohol concentration. In fact the ratio is
11 a little lower than 4:3, and this may be because the
12 deceased has some contamination of his urine by blood,
13 which would tend to lower the urine/alcohol
14 concentration and that is what has made the urine look
15 pinkish. There may be other explanations, but that
16 would seem to be a reasonable possibility.
17 Q. On the CCTV film, I think it's at one minute past
18 midnight, we have a film of certainly Henri Paul going
19 into the lavatory and then out of it.
20 A. Yes, that would fit.
21 Q. Yes, with what you are saying.
22 A. It is consistent with that, that he emptied his bladder
23 at that time.
24 Q. Right. Just staying then, to conclude this part, with
25 the alcohol results from the various tests. I am


1 including Professor Ricordel's 1.87. Obviously we have
2 gone through issues about who the samples were from, how
3 they are labelled and so on and so forth.
4 Assume for the purposes of this question, if you
5 would, please, that they have indeed come from
6 Henri Paul at the times that are claimed.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. All right. If that's the case, are these alcohol
9 results, as it were, internally consistent? Do you
10 understand what I mean by that? Do they match with each
11 other?
12 A. I believe that they do.
13 Q. Perhaps we can just deal with two matters before we
14 break, and then after the break we will just come to the
15 question of traces of drugs that were found, and by that
16 I mean medically prescribed ones and carbon monoxide.
17 We will do that after the break.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. I don't know if you can help us, please. If we approach
20 the matter on the basis of readings that are, as it
21 were, in excess of twice the limit that would be
22 permitted here --
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. -- can you help us with the sort of quantities that
25 somebody would have to drink to get to those levels?


1 You understand the question?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Against the background that, I think there is no issue
4 but that. I will give you the times if they help.
5 According to the film, between 7 minutes past 10 in the
6 evening and 25 minutes past 10 in the evening and then
7 between 22.44, so about quarter to 11, and 23.07. So in
8 those periods Mr Henri Paul was in the bar at
9 the Ritz Hotel and there is evidence that he consumed
10 two 50-millilitre measures of Ricard; all right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. We know before that that he was off duty between 7 and
13 about 10 o'clock in the evening, when he came back. All
14 right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. So with that by way of background, can you help us about
17 the sort of amount that would be needed to get to
18 a level in excess of twice the limit in these
19 circumstances?
20 A. I think the first thing to say is that such calculations
21 are always imprecise, and the degree of imprecision
22 varies again with the quality of the information which
23 one has got. The basic approach that one takes is to
24 take the concentration of alcohol in the body and to try
25 to work out the amount of alcohol in the body, the total


1 amount of alcohol this would represent. The data which
2 was first developed to allow this to be done was studies
3 back between the two world wars by a
4 Professor Eric Widmark, who worked in Sweden using
5 Swedish police officers as his experimental subjects.
6 You have to look at the weight and the height of the
7 individual to try to work out the way in which alcohol
8 distributes in their body. Essentially you are looking
9 at the way in which alcohol distributes throughout the
10 water of the body. That's where alcohol goes in your
11 body, and somebody who is fat tends to have less alcohol
12 in their body than somebody who is thin simply because
13 muscle has got more water in it than fat does. The
14 calculations, as I have said, are imprecise.
15 By analogy, the way in which you do it is if you
16 imagine a bath full of water, let us say 40 or
17 42 litres, the sort of amount of water you might find in
18 the body of a 70-kilogram man, and you have emptied into
19 that bath some shower gel or Radox or one of the other
20 materials which you can use to colour bath water. You
21 measure the concentration of the dye in the bath water
22 and that will give you a concentration in, say, grammes
23 per litre of bath water. You then know the
24 concentration in the bath water and the volume of water
25 in the bath. If you multiply the two together, the


1 volume of bath water by the concentration, you get the
2 amount of dye in the bath.
3 Doing that in the human subject, taking the
4 concentration of alcohol in their blood at any
5 particular time and their body weight as known, and
6 using a factor called Widmark's factor, which relates to
7 the distribution of alcohol throughout the body and is
8 closely related to the amount of water or proportion of
9 water in the human body, you can make a similar sort of
10 calculation.
11 I have done this in my statement, and I estimated --
12 I can just find it -- that in order to reach
13 a blood/alcohol concentration of around 174 milligrams
14 of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, if that was in
15 life, with a man of Monsieur Paul's physique, it would
16 probably represent the consumption of the equivalent of
17 around 240 millilitres of Ricard in total. It doesn't
18 take account of elimination of alcohol from the body as
19 a result of metabolism and it is an estimation of the
20 alcohol present in the body at the time of death.
21 That's at paragraph 6.5 of my statement.
22 There are a number of health warnings to be given in
23 respect of that calculation.
24 Q. We will come to know to the health warnings. I just
25 want to understand it, before we get to the health


1 warnings, he would have had to have consumed, is this
2 right, 240 millilitres of Ricard to be left with 174 at
3 death; is that what you are saying?
4 A. That would represent, in terms of millilitres of Ricard,
5 the total amount of alcohol in the body if one had taken
6 that blood sample from a living person. That's
7 obviously one of the caveats. This isn't a living
8 person.
9 Q. Right. You were going to say something about caveats.
10 A. Yes. The first thing is that post-mortem blood is not
11 the same as ante-mortem blood, and it's a very rare set
12 of circumstances when one has a blood sample immediately
13 before death and a blood sample after death and one
14 measures alcohol on it. One knows that when one does
15 that, one may not get a result which is identical and it
16 can go either way, up or down, after death.
17 Alcohol can be produced in the body after death.
18 The one way of looking at whether or not that has
19 happened is whether or not the samples taken from
20 different parts of the body are relatively consistent --
21 and that includes vitreous humour -- are relatively
22 consistent in their concentration. If one takes -- if
23 one has post mortem changes taking place, then typically
24 you will find that if you take alcohol samples from
25 different parts of the body, you will get one blood


1 sample with a result which is very different to another
2 sample.
3 The next point, which excludes or helps to exclude
4 post mortem changes as a result of micro-organisms
5 contributing to this, is the relatively clean gas
6 chromatography traces when alcohol was analysed, which
7 are in the documents we have seen, particularly those
8 produced by Dr Pepin where it's easier to see little
9 extraneous peaks if any were present. There is the
10 general problem that after death there can be diffusion
11 of alcohol from one part of the body to another and that
12 can cause problems, but in this particular case the
13 stomach content alcohol is relatively low, so one has
14 not got a large reservoir of alcohol at high
15 concentration in the stomach to diffuse into the heart
16 or the blood in the chest cavity to bias the results.
17 Even with all of the negative caveats I have
18 mentioned, the reasons why one ignores them, I have to
19 emphasise that these calculations are quite imprecise
20 because one cannot estimate precisely Widmark's factor.
21 It varies quite considerably from individual to
22 individual, even taking into account their physique, and
23 there are other variables which one -- well, one knows
24 that there are other variables that one can't take into
25 account, and to paraphrase a former American Secretary


1 of State, there are also variables one doesn't know
2 which may be present and one cannot take those into
3 account. So these calculations are always very
4 imprecise.
5 What I would say is that the results are unlikely to
6 reflect simply taking two 50-millilitre doses of Ricard
7 in the couple of hours or so before death. It is likely
8 to reflect the consumption of a significantly greater
9 amount of alcohol than that.
10 Q. Just before we break off -- if you can't do it shortly,
11 we will come back; I don't mean this critically -- is it
12 possible just to finish this for the moment? If you are
13 sticking with Ricard, in addition to the two that we
14 know about, how many more, is it possible to say, would
15 have to have been consumed in the evening?
16 A. Possibly of the order of three.
17 Q. Three more?
18 A. Yes.
19 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Making five in all?
20 A. Making five in all, but that doesn't take account of any
21 metabolism of alcohol by the body, if, for example,
22 Ricards had been drunk in the interval between going off
23 duty and unexpectedly coming back on duty, and I have to
24 emphasise that the calculation is imprecise, sir.
25 MR HILLIARD: We will come back to that later. Thank you.


1 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We will resume at five past 2.
2 (1.05 pm)
3 (The luncheon adjournment)

<< Back