The actual events?
Charles Watt
The authors of the ITV documentary put together an interesting
collection of theories and views. Here are my own.
1. The driver's condition
The alcohol level in his blood was significant but it is quite possible for
a man of his age and body weight to drink that much over a period of say 2-3
hours and not show the signs too badly (it's only the equivalent of 3 of our
Scottish measures and 3 chasers). Therefore the normality he displayed on
the video footage is not surprising.
However, since we have to assume that the drink he consumed was taken before
he entered the car it is very unikely that he also sustained the added
complication of carbon monoxide poisoning whilst in the hotel (e.g. as the
result of being in a room with a faulty gas appliance). Whereas he could
have hidden the effects of his drinking from the people he was seen talking
to just before the party left, that, plus the addition of monoxide poisoning
(at an estimated 25-30% accounting for dissipation during the car's journey
time) would have been much more difficult to conceal.
His carbon monoxide intake must have occurred whilst in the car. It could be
explained by a leak in the Mercedes' exhaust system at the downpipe or
manifold, i.e. close to the ventillator intake and before the catalytic
converter. The impact with the mystery car might well have caused that
damage to the exhaust but the fatal crash happened just moments later,
leaving too little time for Henri's respiratory system to have taken in the
required amount and distributed it to his bloodstream. We can therefore
assume that gas was entering the car when it started up or shortly
thereafter.
Also, for only the driver to be so affected the ventillator settings would
have had to have beeen set to fresh air intake and all ducts and vents save
the fascia ducts on his side of the car and pointing directly at him would
have had to have been closed.
Secondly, for the leak to have been substantial enough to cause that degree
of toxicity during the period of the journey there would have been a
noticeable rise in the exhaust's noise level (especially if in front of the
main silencer box). It would be interesting if anyone gives evidence as to
hearing this (e.g. the Ritz's doorman or Diana's bodyguard).
2. The phantom 2nd car
So far this vehicle has not been traced but the case for its existence is
pretty conclusive. It may well have been driven by someone with a very good
reason for not wanting to be noticed. Like Henri he might also have been
under the influence, or disqualified or carrying dope. Having panicked and
driven on
without stopping to render assistance he was immediately incurring a hefty
sentence under French Law. When he later found out just what happened he
would be even less likely to come forward. Given its fairly modest value I
suspect that the owner (for it probably has not been stolen) has by now sawn
his vehicle up into very small pieces with a 9" grinder in a lock-up and is
praying that no-one bothers to do a global check on vehicle registrations
and
renewals.
3. The flash
As the documentary report hypothesised it most likely came from a high
powered flashgun used to get a picture of all the occupants of the car
(especially the darker lit rear) under low lighting conditions. The
photographer was probably using a standard CAT lense. These have a high
aperture and given the shutter speed needed to avoid shake they require a
very powerful light source if photographing anythng more than a few metres
away..
4. Threats against Hewit
For someone supposedly menaced with all things dire unless he dropped
Diana, he showed a remarkable lack of concern in immediately selling his
story about their affair to the tabloids. I think he might well have the
idea of taking this present opportunity to milk a few more sheckels from
media before they forget his name and his market value drops.
5. The Royals' involvement
If anyone was indeed plotting Diana's and Dodi's death it is unlikely to
have
been the Family itself. They had actually greatly embarassed the then
government by their remarkable friendship with the El-Fahids long before and
right through the period of the Harrods affair and Tory sleaze revelations.
Certain members of the True Blue "Establishment" are far more likely
candidates.
6. Outside agencies
The El-Fayids had many bitter enemies, not least the Kashoggis and Tiny
Rowland. Apart from taking backhanders from the French or other secret
services Henri could well have been pocketing retainers in return for any
particularly juicy information which might be used against Mohammed's
family. His numerous bank accounts point to several sources of income.
So I personally go for the good old fashioned "series of cock ups" theory.
Henri had taken or been given a few extra drinks in view of the fact that
his master was going to propose to Diana. He then met an over-zealous
paparazzi team and a 2nd car whose driver panicked and fled the scene of the
accident.
banana
In article <896959001.509.0....@news.demon.co.uk>, "Charles
Watt" <cc....@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> The authors of the ITV documentary put together an interesting
> collection of theories and views. Here are my own.
>
> 1. The driver's condition
> The alcohol level in his blood was significant but it is quite possible for
> a man of his age and body weight to drink that much over a period of say 2-3
> hours and not show the signs too badly (it's only the equivalent of 3 of our
> Scottish measures and 3 chasers). Therefore the normality he displayed on
> the video footage is not surprising.
> However, since we have to assume that the drink he consumed was taken before
> he entered the car it is very unikely that he also sustained the added
> complication of carbon monoxide poisoning whilst in the hotel (e.g. as the
> result of being in a room with a faulty gas appliance). Whereas he could
> have hidden the effects of his drinking from the people he was seen talking
> to just before the party left, that, plus the addition of monoxide poisoning
> (at an estimated 25-30% accounting for dissipation during the car's journey
> time) would have been much more difficult to conceal.
> His carbon monoxide intake must have occurred whilst in the car.
Why's that?
>It could be
> explained by a leak in the Mercedes' exhaust system at the downpipe or
> manifold, i.e. close to the ventillator intake and before the catalytic
> converter. The impact with the mystery car might well have caused that
> damage to the exhaust but the fatal crash happened just moments later,
> leaving too little time for Henri's respiratory system to have taken in the
> required amount and distributed it to his bloodstream. We can therefore
> assume that gas was entering the car when it started up or shortly
> thereafter.
> Also, for only the driver to be so affected the ventillator settings would
> have had to have beeen set to fresh air intake and all ducts and vents save
> the fascia ducts on his side of the car and pointing directly at him would
> have had to have been closed.
Incredibly contrived.
> Secondly, for the leak to have been substantial enough to cause that degree
> of toxicity during the period of the journey there would have been a
> noticeable rise in the exhaust's noise level (especially if in front of the
> main silencer box). It would be interesting if anyone gives evidence as to
> hearing this (e.g. the Ritz's doorman or Diana's bodyguard).
Er, yes. An anti-terrorist-trained driver driving away from the Paris Ritz
carrying the mother of an expected future king, as well as the son of the
hotel's billionaire owner, in a car that was completely screwed up and
sounded like it was an old banger without a silencer fitted, being raced
around scrapground by a 'twokker', that would certainly be rather
noticeable, especially by the large crowd of onlookers.
> 3. The flash
> As the documentary report hypothesised it most likely came from a high
> powered flashgun used to get a picture of all the occupants of the car
> (especially the darker lit rear) under low lighting conditions.
The documentary did not say that at all.
>The
> photographer was probably using a standard CAT lense. These have a high
> aperture and given the shutter speed needed to avoid shake they require a
> very powerful light source if photographing anythng more than a few metres
> away..
You really think it came from an innocent photographer, just doing his
job, on a motorbike in front of a Merc doing somewhere around 70mph down
the Alma tunnel. Did you *see* the Alma tunnel? So you're going for a
'death caused by reckless unknown photographer with no malicious intent'
explanation? What would have been so great about the picture? Do you think
they were fooling around on the back seat or something?
> 5. The Royals' involvement
> If anyone was indeed plotting Diana's and Dodi's death it is unlikely to
> have
> been the Family itself. They had actually greatly embarassed the then
> government by their remarkable friendship with the El-Fahids long before and
That's *al-Fayeds*. I think we can be fairly sure that al-Fayed is not a
friend of the royal family any more, somehow.
> right through the period of the Harrods affair and Tory sleaze revelations.
Well *I* had heard about the royal family connection with al-Fayed during
the al-Fayed-versus-Rowland Harrods affair - and also, BTW, a Duncan
Sandys connection - but it was never particularly played upon in the
media. As for the Tory sleaze stuff, it was not, AFAICR, mentioned at all.
--
b.anana
Candy1966
I really like you b.anana, I think your a very intelligent and cool person. I
do not read this newsgroup every day or even every week in some cases but out
of all the people posting to this group you and Laura seem to spot on in your
observations. I look forward to more observations from you.
Candice
"I died to myself, and a stronger, wiser, and more passionate woman was
resurrected in my place"
alan hope
Charles, I only want to flag a couple of points. I'm going to snip a
lot of stuff I'm not directly addressing. Sorry if you come out
looking butchered.
Charles Watt <Cha...@starfireservices.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<896959001.509.0....@news.demon.co.uk>...
> The authors of the ITV documentary put together an interesting
> collection of theories and views. Here are my own.
> 1. The driver's condition
> The alcohol level in his blood was significant but it is quite
possible for
> a man of his age and body weight to drink that much over a period
of say 2-3
> hours and not show the signs too badly (it's only the equivalent of
3 of our
> Scottish measures and 3 chasers). Therefore the normality he
displayed on
> the video footage is not surprising.
How much are you referring to? The film said only two Ricards.
> However, since we have to assume that the drink he consumed was
taken before
> he entered the car it is very unikely that he also sustained the
added
> complication of carbon monoxide poisoning whilst in the hotel (e.g.
as the
> result of being in a room with a faulty gas appliance). Whereas he
could
> have hidden the effects of his drinking from the people he was seen
talking
> to just before the party left, that, plus the addition of monoxide
poisoning
> (at an estimated 25-30% accounting for dissipation during the car's
journey
> time) would have been much more difficult to conceal.
I'm a drinker of Ricard when the sun comes out, and I can assure you
there's no way, not even Fisherman's Friends, to conceal the
consumption of Ricard from anyone yoy stand in the same room as. The
smell is immediately noticeable. Two possibilities then: either he
never touched Ricard on the night - it's been suggested grapefuit
juice was in the glass (the video would never know the difference and
it would fit a professional security man better) OR a couple of
Ricards was not considered excessive. British readers will find it
hard to believe, but the continentals have a different approach to
drinking. I've known drivers here in Belgium to be stopped by cops
and the folowing dialogue ensue"
"Been drinking anything tonight, sir?"
"Not at all, officer."
"What, nothing?"
"Well, a few beers."
"Oh. Well, that's all right then."
The point being that drinking, which is part of everyday life here,
rather than a weekend thing, is viewed differently depending on where
you are. In Belgium, beer is seen as almost not alcoholic. In France,
wine is in the same category. Maybe Ricard (a southern drink) is seen
in the same innocent way by people who just got back from an August
trip to the Med.
Either way, we're a long way from a rolicking drunk taking the wheel
as he drives the most famous woman in the world, while nobody says
anything. Cultural differences are crucial.
> His carbon monoxide intake must have occurred whilst in the car. It
could be
> explained by a leak in the Mercedes' exhaust system at the downpipe
or
> manifold, i.e. close to the ventillator intake and before the
catalytic
> converter. The impact with the mystery car might well have caused
that
> damage to the exhaust but the fatal crash happened just moments
later,
> leaving too little time for Henri's respiratory system to have
taken in the
> required amount and distributed it to his bloodstream. We can
therefore
> assume that gas was entering the car when it started up or shortly
> thereafter.
Except that no-one else in the car was overdosed. It's far more
likely that the blood samples were either doctored or faulty,
conspiracy or cock-up. If doctored, it would be to make him look
drunk. How could a high CO count happen by accident? If cock-up,
well, all bets are off.
<snip>
> 4. Threats against Hewit
> For someone supposedly menaced with all things dire unless he
dropped
> Diana, he showed a remarkable lack of concern in immediately
selling his
> story about their affair to the tabloids. I think he might well
have the
> idea of taking this present opportunity to milk a few more sheckels
from
> media before they forget his name and his market value drops.
100% behind you here. Hewitt is irrelevant. His claims are so grossly
vague as to be laughable.
> 5. The Royals' involvement
> If anyone was indeed plotting Diana's and Dodi's death it is
unlikely to
> have
> been the Family itself. They had actually greatly embarassed the
then
> government by their remarkable friendship with the El-Fahids long
before and
> right through the period of the Harrods affair and Tory sleaze
revelations.
> Certain members of the True Blue "Establishment" are far more
likely
> candidates.
banana will ask you for more on these connections, I think.
> 6. Outside agencies
> The El-Fayids had many bitter enemies, not least the Kashoggis and
Tiny
> Rowland. Apart from taking backhanders from the French or other
secret
> services Henri could well have been pocketing retainers in return
for any
> particularly juicy information which might be used against
Mohammed's
> family. His numerous bank accounts point to several sources of
income.
Khashoggi is his brother-in-law and Rowland is a spent force. The
backhanders from state security are routine. Hell, I know people who
are paid sources for Brit spooks. Small beer. His money suggests
business espionage. Government spooks don't pay that well.
> So I personally go for the good old fashioned "series of cock ups"
theory.
> Henri had taken or been given a few extra drinks in view of the
fact that
> his master was going to propose to Diana. He then met an
over-zealous
> paparazzi team and a 2nd car whose driver panicked and fled the
scene of the
> accident.
Did your post run out there? How odd. I was expecting something more
detailed. If you have it, let's see it.
AH
alan hope
banana <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<banana-0406...@borve.demon.co.uk>...
> You really think it came from an innocent photographer, just doing
his
> job, on a motorbike in front of a Merc doing somewhere around 70mph
down
> the Alma tunnel. Did you *see* the Alma tunnel? So you're going for
a
> 'death caused by reckless unknown photographer with no malicious
intent'
> explanation? What would have been so great about the picture? Do
you think
> they were fooling around on the back seat or something?
Interestingly, the Paris Match story claims a motorcycle could not
have followed the Merc into the tunnel at those speeds. Based on
Stephan's reconstruction. It's at http://www.parismatch.com. I
presume you've seen my post on this.
AH
alan hope
Candy1966 <cand...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199806041642...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> I really like you b.anana, I think your a very intelligent and cool
person. I
> do not read this newsgroup every day or even every week in some
cases but out
> of all the people posting to this group you and Laura seem to spot
on in your
> observations. I look forward to more observations from you.
I agree. Kevin is cool, too. So serious.
AH
banana
In article <01bd900e$0decb340$Loca...@login.skynet.be>, "alan hope"
<ah...@skynet.be> wrote:
> The
> backhanders from state security are routine. Hell, I know people who
> are paid sources for Brit spooks. Small beer. His money suggests
> business espionage. Government spooks don't pay that well.
Who knows what you can get on room service at the Ritz apart from food and
drink?
Just a thought.
--
b.anana
alrighty then!
In article <01bd900e$76959ba0$Loca...@login.skynet.be>, "alan hope"
<ah...@skynet.be> wrote:
BTW Alan, thanks for translating that article. I've gone to their site
many times but to no aveil because I can't French unlike banana who can I
do believe.
Laura
Joe Berenbaum
Hi all; my first posting in this newsgroup. I just want to respond to
some aspects of the photographic question.
"Charles Watt" <Cha...@starfireservices.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>The authors of the ITV documentary put together an interesting
>collection of theories and views. Here are my own.
<mostly snipped>
>3. The flash
>As the documentary report hypothesised it most likely came from a high
>powered flashgun used to get a picture of all the occupants of the car
>(especially the darker lit rear) under low lighting conditions. The
>photographer was probably using a standard CAT lense. These have a high
>aperture and given the shutter speed needed to avoid shake they require a
>very powerful light source if photographing anythng more than a few metres
>away..
I just want to respond to the flash question as it raises the issue of
whether someone was using the flash that was witnessed immediately
before the crash for photographic purposes. I don't agree that the
documentary hypothesised as above.
The Carlton documentary compared the flash of a high-power Metz photo
flashgun such as is typically used by professional photographers with
the far brighter flash of the anti-personnel flash gun and the witness
on the Carlton programme said the latter was comparable to what he saw
immediately preceding the crash, not the former. Even allowing for the
possibility of a photographer using a flash device with the extremely
(dangerously) high light output of the latter, the photographic
possibilities are still very poor in my opinion. I have been an
amateur photographer for some 20 years and I have used CAT
(catadioptric) lenses and I would not even consider using one of these
in such a situation. These are more commonly known as mirror lenses
and they are very hard to focus accurately even on a slow moving
subject in strong daylight. They have small apertures, typically f11
on a 500mm mirror lens which means the the image in the camera
viewfinder will be darker than with normal lenses- many times darker,
thus in low light they would be virtually unusable in any event.
Mirror lenses and "long" lenses generally have very little depth of
field, ie whatever they are focused on, the region that will appear in
focus and recognisable is extremely shallow indeed, maybe only inches
from front to back of the focused and thus recognisable area.
The alternative would be to use a conventional (ie non-mirror) lens-
this would be easier to focus but in low light still extremely
difficult, and in low light on a moving subject virtually impossible.
Using a long focal length conventional lens (often referred to as
telephoto) I would not consider trying to photograph a subject in low
light moving at high speed from another fast moving vehicle with such
a lens. It is just not a sensible proposition- the chances of getting
a recognisable image are so slim as to make it a pointless excercise.
With longer focal length lenses (telephoto lenses) that can pull in
distant details, focusing in less than ideal conditons is difficult
even with autofocus since the focusing mechanism of even
state-of-the-art professional cameras tends to "hunt" backwards and
forwards and fail to "lock on" to the subject in difficult situations.
Another consideration is that if you attempt to autofocus on the
occupants of a car in a dark but artifically lit tunnel, the autofocus
is likely to pick the brightest part of the subject to focus on, which
in this instance would be the reflections in the car windows of the
tunnel lighting. Thus the autofocus mechanism would effectively focus
the camera on a distance some several meters behind the plane of
correct focus for the car occupants, giving a totally out of focus and
unrecognisable image of the occupants that would be a blur at best,
superimposed with a nicely focused and much brighter image of the
window reflections of the tunnel lighting.
The remaining possibility would be to have a lens set to manual focus
and set it on a pre-determined distance and try to take the picture
when you think the subject is at about the right distance from the
camera To do this you would need to have a predictable subject
distance and to have some idea of how the situation is going to
unfold. This is how the famous news shot of a tearful Margaret
Thatcher leaving No. 10 Downing street in a car moving at slow speed
tangential to the photographer was obtained, at some distance, and
with a conventional power flash gun set on manual (maximum strength),
the lens being pre-focused to an estimated distance. But- that was a
predictable situation with the subject at a predictable distance and
no really fast moving elements in the scene at all.
The situation at the crash in the tunnel was very different in just
about every way. The flash we are talking about before the crash was
many, many times brighter according to the witness, and the vehicle/s
were apparently moving at very high speed. So attempting to get a
picture this way you would get (maybe) one shot and if you were
extremely lucky, you just might get one usable image, but I think it
is still so very unlikely that I cannot believe anyone would try this
and I cannot believe that a professional photograper would come up
with this method for a serious attempt to get a usable picture.
But- why would anyone, photographer or otherwise, generate such an
intense flash burst whilst speeding in a dark tunnel anyway? The
deliberate use of an extremely high-powered flash device in front of a
fast-moving vehicle in such a tunnel poses an obvious threat to the
life of the occupants.
Joe B. (Please remove the ".com" from my address for email)
"A new idea is first condemmed as ridiculous and then
dismissed as trivial, until finally, it becomes what
everybody knows" --William James.
Joe Berenbaum
I just spotted a mistake in what I said- it doesn't amount to much but
I want to correct it anyway.
I wrote:
>Another consideration is that if you attempt to autofocus on the
>occupants of a car in a dark but artifically lit tunnel, the autofocus
>is likely to pick the brightest part of the subject to focus on, which
>in this instance would be the reflections in the car windows of the
>tunnel lighting. Thus the autofocus mechanism would effectively focus
>the camera on a distance some several meters behind the plane of
>correct focus for the car occupants, giving a totally out of focus and
>unrecognisable image of the occupants that would be a blur at best,
>superimposed with a nicely focused and much brighter image of the
>window reflections of the tunnel lighting.
Okay- the mistake I made was to forget the effect the electronic flash
would have on such a hypothetical picture. The focused image of
tunnel lights reflected in the car windows would not be the brightest
part of the final image on film because the illumination of the flash
at the moment of exposure would swamp them. Thus you could in fact get
a correctly *exposed* image of the car occupants. But the focus, which
is calculated and set by the camera electronics prior to the shutter
opening, would be set accoridng to what, at that time, was the
brightest image in the viewfinder (that is, if it could manage to
focus on anything at all in such a fast-moving situation, which is
itself pretty unlikely). Thus getting a correctly (or even barely
adequately) FOCUSED image of unlighted occupants of a car in a dark
but artificially illuminated tunnel by using a camera's autofocus
system is virtually impossible, even allowing for the use of autofocus
illuminators on the camera that project a light beam onto dark
subjects to assist the camera's auotofcus system. I've done a fair
amount of low light photography and I have found that even pro level
camera's autofocus is very iffy indeed and needs time (a couple of
seconds or more) and static subjects (ie the subject needs to sit
still for a couple of seconds at least) in order for the camera's
autofocus to cope with really low light levels.
Or to put it concisely- pro level SLR camera autofocusing in dark but
artificilally lit tunnel with long lens on fast moving dark car- no
way would that work.
Kitty
Hi there All...
>But- why would anyone, photographer or otherwise, generate such an
>intense flash burst whilst speeding in a dark tunnel anyway? The
>deliberate use of an extremely high-powered flash device in front of a
>fast-moving vehicle in such a tunnel poses an obvious threat to the
>life of the occupants.
Maybe, just maybe this wasn't a case of taking a photograph - maybe it was a
photographer... maybe it was intended to cause an accident....
Just a thought
Kitty