Excerpts – Henri Paul’s Blood

Henri Paul’s Blood

DNA tests were not carried out on Paul’s blood samples when they were supposed to be, and when called for, these samples had gone missing. In the morgue, the number of Paul’s body was incorrectly recorded and two medicines that he was supposed to have taken even prompted the coroner to suggest that the police may have planted evidence. Scott Baker then said that the blood source was very much in doubt and questioned whether there had even been ‘a deliberate mix up,’ later adding, ‘is this Paul’s blood?’

But following this comment from Scott Baker, even ‘Accident theorists’ surely cannot have any remaining doubts that the blood evidence should never have been permitted to stand. Scott Baker told the jury, ‘Even if you were satisfied that the 31 August sample had come from Henri Paul you would want to consider whether this inexplicable reading causes you to have doubts about the whole process of analysis. If the carbon monoxide readings must be wrong, what about the alcohol readings, the Prozac readings, the Tiapride readings?’

Scott Baker had no confidence in these results and even considered police corruption. Why didn’t he reject this evidence and refuse to permit the court to find Paul responsible for the crash?

In his summation, when describing permissible verdicts, Scott Baker told the jury they might find unlawful killing through the gross negligence of Henri Paul because of ‘the speed and manner of his driving and any alcohol he may have consumed.’ But from the evidence we know that Paul was driving fast because vehicles were in hot pursuit and if one remembers that Paul was working with MI6, everything becomes clear.

So it’s alright to presume Paul’s unknown thought processes when confronted by these aggressive vehicles but this wasn’t sufficient to satisfy the court’s grounds for a manslaughter verdict (Remember Scott Baker’s instruction to the jury that they must be sure that Paul saw the risk of death but ran it nonetheless when, from the evidence, it’s clear Paul couldn’t know whether he was being pursued by paparazzi or assassins).

Scott Baker clearly acknowledged here that there is “some evidence, albeit of doubtful quality, that the crash was staged”. But it’s alright to accept a verdict on extremely dubious evidence such as Henri Paul’s results based on Scott Baker’s view of “any alcohol he may have consumed” when it’s known the police didn’t have Paul’s blood results when they proclaimed to the world that he was drunk.

But it’s unacceptable to find for Unlawful Killing by Persons Unknown because the coroner couldn’t be sure that these aggressive, loitering, hindering and blocking vehicles were assassins, despite substantial evidence to the contrary. So the jury were denied the option of finding for a verdict that would bring the curtain down on the monarchy and, now, many British officials.

Don’t forget that two of the eleven jurors were clearly not prepared to bow down to pressure and so, although Scott Baker had said that the verdicts “must be unanimous”; they were not. Also, these two jurors were most probably not the only ones that would have opted for a verdict of Unlawful killing by Persons Unknown if they had had the option. But since this verdict as Scott Baker intimated would have meant that MI6 were responsible, I believe that the two dissenting jurors shared my view and believed MI6 did commit this vile crime.