traced, was not involved in any plot. That is obviously right. The evidence to which he pointed as supporting a staged accident was different. He argued that there was evidence of a dark-coloured vehicle in front of the Mercedes in the left hand lane and evidence of a motorcycle behind it in that lane. As a result, he says that the Mercedes was “boxed in” and, on the evidence, collided with the dark vehicle. He also argues that there is evidence to support a conclusion that a bright light of some kind was deliberately flashed in the eyes of Henri Paul to disorientate him, and that this light may have been flashed by the motorcycle rider or from elsewhere. These are the physical features which he identifies as pointing to a plot.
16) As regards the “blocking vehicle” and the motorcycle, the difficulties with the argument are as follows.
a) Given the speed of the Mercedes, any vehicle ahead in its lane and observing the speed limit, or even driving close to the limit, would have impeded its progress and would have appeared to be blocking it. The witness who used the term “blocking” (Olivier Partouche) said in his first statement to French police that he thought the car in front was being used to slow the Mercedes down to allow paparazzi to take photographs from behind. When asked specific questions in the French investigation, he said that he could not say whether or not the car in front was deliberately being driven slowly. In any event, he maintained that it did not perform any dangerous manoeuvre. See 24/10/07 at p. 10–11, 23–24 and 33–34. The evidence of his colleague, M. Gooroovadoo, was to similar effect (12/3/08, p. 93).
b) The other witnesses who saw a vehicle in front of the Mercedes in its lane were the driver and passenger of a car in the opposite carriageway: Benoit Boura and Gaelle L’Hostis. They did not conclude that the car was being driven deliberately slowly or manoeuvring dangerously. They described the car as being in front of the Mercedes as it was going out of control, and then driving off. See 24/10/07 at p. 47–48, 63–64, 72–74, 83–84, 85–86. In that regard, their evidence should be seen in the context of the evidence of Mohamed Medjahdi and Souad Mouffakir [sic], who were in a car ahead of the Mercedes. See 6/11/07 at p.57ff; 12/3/08 at p. 108ff. They gave evidence that they were in the tunnel when they saw the Mercedes behind them out of control, and that there was no vehicle between their car and the Mercedes. They drove on. Their evidence would seem to suggest that their car was the closest in front of the Mercedes when it lost control in the tunnel. M. Boura and Mlle L’Hostis describe the car in front of the Mercedes as rather different from M. Medjahdi’s car, but their descriptions of the car are also inconsistent from each other. They say that there was a shorter distance between the Mercedes and the car in front than M. Medjahdi and Mlle Mouffakir [sic] say separated their car from the Mercedes, but judgment of distances in these circumstances can be very problematic.
c) The experts on road traffic reconstruction all agree that the Mercedes collided with the Uno (because of the debris at the scene) and all agree that the Mercedes lost control at around the time that collision occurred. There is some dispute about the extent to which that collision influenced the course of the Mercedes. However, Mr Mansfield suggests that a collision which M. Boura heard between the Mercedes and a car ahead of it, and described as sounding like “bumper-to-bumper” and not involving metal, was an impact between the Mercedes and the hypothetical “blocking vehicle”. Yet there is no debris from that collision and none of the experts has put forward a thesis which involves such a collision.
d) The presence of a motorcycle relatively close behind the Mercedes does not point to a plot. M. Partouche and M. Gooroovadoo, who saw the motorcycle behind, gave evidence about seeing camera flashes from a pillion passenger on the motorcycle (24/10/07 at p. 14 and 26; 12/3/08 at p. 77 and 83). This would be consistent with the motorcycle of Rat and Darmon, who were among the paparazzi closest to the Mercedes. Although Boura and L’Hostis recall only one person on the motorcycle, and that is not consistent with any known paparazzo believed to have been near the Mercedes, they could well be wrong. And even if they were right, it does not go to prove that the motorcycle was deliberately doing anything dangerous.
17) While various witnesses recall “bright lights”, the evidence is simply not sufficient for a jury to conclude that a light was flashed deliberately to disorientate Henri Paul. Mr Mansfield relies upon the evidence of: Boura; Partouche; Levistre; and Moufakkir. He does not rely upon the evidence of Brian Anderson, and for good reason. The following points need to be made.
a) On his approach to the tunnel in the opposite direction from the Mercedes, M. Boura saw flashes which he initially thought were like speed camera or radar flashes. On reflection, he thought that they were camera flashes (24/10/07, p. 44).
b) As mentioned above, M. Partouche also thought the flashes were from paparazzi cameras (24/10/07, p. 36–37).
c) Mr Mansfield relies upon one witness who gave evidence that, in general, paparazzi do not take pictures on the move. However, various eyewitnesses (including some paparazzi) have given evidence that they saw camera flashes on the journey in this particular case, not only close to the scene of the crash but also earlier when the Mercedes was in the Place de la Concorde.
d) Mlle Moufakkir gave evidence of seeing bright lights behind her (6/11/07, p. 74). However, she immediately acknowledged that those lights could have been the lights of the Mercedes as it swung around after Henri Paul had begun to lose control. Also, she only looked around to see the Mercedes after it was out of control, so her evidence is of limited value as to the cause of the loss of control. Her account about bright lights was not mentioned to the French police or in a television interview.
e) M. Levistre gave evidence about seeing a blinding flash as a motorcycle overtook the Mercedes. However, his evidence plainly falls into the category of “inherently weak evidence” (in Galbraith terms). He spoke about seeing the riders of the motorcycle dismounting and making mysterious signals to each other; a description which is not supported by any other witness. He gave inconsistent accounts about what he saw, and gave an account of his own speed and angle of vision which was difficult to accept. After giving evidence, he contacted the Inquests secretariat with a bizarre story involving bullet casings at the scene of the crash. In short, his evidence could not be a proper foundation for the jury to form any view.
f) A large number of witnesses did not see any flashing light, despite being specifically questioned on the point. The Metropolitan Police have listed 17 such witnesses. Mr Mansfield points out that some (though not all) of these witnesses would not, or might not, have had a view of the Mercedes after it had actually entered the tunnel. However, some of the witnesses on whose evidence Mr Mansfield relies concerning bright lights (such as Partouche) did not have a view into the tunnel either.
g) The jury have been shown a video of vehicles entering and leaving the Alma tunnel. The headlamps of vehicles can appear as bright lights as they ascend the slope.
18) In any event, as Mr Mansfield concedes, one cannot look at the circumstances of the collision in isolation from the immediate preparations for the journey of the Mercedes. This is because the jury could only be sure that there was a plot if they were sure that the supposed plotters knew in advance where to stage the crash. In other words, they would have had to know in advance that the Princess and Dodi Al Fayed would be driven in a single car along the embankment road, and not in a convoy of two vehicles (as was usual) or on some different route. The most direct route to the apartment was not along the embankment road, although there was evidence that professional drivers would use it to avoid heavy traffic in the Champs Elysees. Only one source has been or can be suggested for the plotters’ knowledge of the decoy plan and route: Henri Paul.
19) Henri Paul’s movements cannot be accounted for between when he went off duty and left the Ritz at 7.00 p.m. and when he returned at 10.00 p.m. However, this period of time is of little relevance. M. Paul could not have imparted the information to the supposed plotters during that period. The incontrovertible evidence is that when he went off duty he was not expecting to return. Neither was it expected that Dodi and Diana would return to the Ritz. Their plan was to have dinner at a restaurant called Chez Benoit and then return to the apartment. It was as a result of the attentions of the paparazzi when they set off for the restaurant that Dodi diverted the convoy to the Ritz at the last moment. Henri Paul was then called back. He was first told of the plan to use a third car from the rear of the hotel at 10.30 p.m. The plan was conceived by Dodi Al Fayed, and communicated at that time by Thierry Rocher to Henri Paul. That is the evidence of M. Rocher, it is supported by CCTV evidence and it has been accepted by all Interested Persons.
20) Between that conversation with Rocher and the departure of the Mercedes from the rear of the Ritz, Henri Paul is visible on CCTV footage for all the time except 8? minutes. Shortly after 10.30 p.m., he is seen to make one of his several walks out into Place Vendome and he cannot be located on the screen for those few minutes. However, Henri Paul could have been in the Place Vendome and outside the range of the cameras. Equally, he could have been within the range of the cameras and indistinct because his movements could not be followed in
