On April 21, Judge Stephan announced he was convening a "witness summit" on June 5th in Paris.  This summit, known as a "confrontational" to the French, is ostensibly designed to resolve the supposed conflicting accounts of the various witnesses.  Conveniently, the summit is scheduled just before the World Cup.

No doubt the French hope to use this confrontational to put the definitive, witness-approved stamped on their cover story:  Diana killed by reckless paparazzi and a drunk driver.  Up to ten paparazzi have been invited to the summit.  What is remarkable is that it is now clear the paparazzi played no discernible part in the crash.  It has all but been ruled out the paparazzi were in the Uno, or on the "powerful bike," both of which may have played a part in the crash.  And yet the French, against every dictate of reason and common sense, continue to peddle the paparazzi-at-fault line.  One has to admire their obstinacy in the face of the facts, if nothing else.

Below, we take a look at who's who among the major witnesses, who's Real, and who's Fake.
 

THE FAKES:
 

  ERIC PETEL (29).  Eric Petel, a cook, claims that he was the one riding the "powerful bike" seen by witnesses exiting the tunnel immediately after the crash.  Petel claims that right after the crash he passed the Mercedes, stopped, went back to check on the princess, and then left for a public phone and immediately called authorities, notifying them of the accident.  Only after repeated calls did they believe him.  Eric Petel without question is a fraud.
Here is a Reuters account of what he saw:

Petel said he was driving a powerful motorbike at 70 miles per hour when Diana's Mercedes, headlights flashing, overtook him seconds before crashing in Paris' Pont de l'Alma underpass.  He said smoke was rising from the bonnet of the wrecked car when he reached the scene and saw a woman who had slipped from the back seat.

"I feared that the car would burn...I lifted this person and put her head on the back arm rest," he said.  "Blood was flowing at the level of her right ear...Her eyelids were flickering but she did not open her eyes. I asked her how she was but she did not answer. This is when I realized that she was Lady Di," he said.

Petel said there was no other car either in front or behind the Mercedes. This contradicted police evidence that Diana's car had hit a glancing blow against another car, believed to be a Fiat Uno, before crashing.  Investigators have said shards of glass and paint chips found at the accident site came from a Fiat Uno that might have caused Paul to lose control as he sped around a curve to enter the underpass. They are still searching for the mystery car.  Early testimonies have mentioned a lone motorcyclist speeding away from the scene of the crash.

But Jean-Marc Coblence, a lawyer for some of the photographers being investigated in connection with the crash, said
Petel's account that he was alone at the scene was hardly credible as photographers had arrived there rapidly.

But there definitely was a motorcycle right behind the Mercedes, and it does not appear to have been driven by a photographer. Three witnesses, all of  whom were in the eastbound lanes, described seeing a large motorcycle in the westbound lanes slow down and pass the wreck just moments after the crash.  Jean-Pascal Peyret, headed west in his Saab, was passed by a single motorcyclist just seconds after hearing the final impact...

Some conspiracy theorists have floated the idea that a motorcycle might have been working in tandem with the Fiat Uno. Its role might have been to pursue the Mercedes doggedly and aggressively from the Place de la Concorde, forcing it to drive faster and faster as it approached the Alma tunnel.

With the revelation of this very vital piece of information, the French wheeled out Petel to lay claim to being the crucial motorcyclist.  We don't believe his story for one second and neither should you.  Our doubts were strengthened still further by the April 21 edition of Bild.  They too cast doubts over Petel's story, wondering:  Why, sitting on the story of the year, did he wait so long to go public?  And why at that particular time?  And why wasn't his call to police logged?

Petel's made-up story encompasses four essential areas of the assassination that the French realize present extreme difficulties for them:

1.  A large, powerful bike cut in front of the Mercedes just as it was about to enter the tunnel, and thus may have had a direct role in the accident.  This is glaringly apparent from the testimony of the "real" witnesses.  Undoubtedly the rider of this bike was a member of the assassination team.  Hence, Petel is rolled out to lay claim to being the rider.  How could this lowly cook be an assassin?

2.  Several witnesses (BRENDA WELLS and FRANCOIS LEVY) reported seeing bright flashes as the Mercedes entered the tunnel.  These flashes may very well have been anti-personnel lasers or some other optical weapon, designed to blind Henri Paul.  To counter this, Petel tells us that he saw the Mercedes headlamps flashing.  The flashing headlamps no doubt are meant to account for the bright flashes seen by the aforementioned witnesses.  This is pathetic.  No one else saw the Mercedes headlamps flashing.  And why on earth would Paul be driving around with the headlamps flashing?

3.  Witnesses TOM RICHARDSON and JOANNA LUZ saw someone get out the Mercedes only seconds after it crashed.  This presents a particular problem for the French, for even according to their own police reports, the paparazzi had not yet arrived at the crash scene.  Without question this man was a member of the intervention team.  Hence, they have Petel claiming to be the mystery person.  The claim is ludicrous.  In order to have been that person, he would have to successfully got around the Mercedes, stopped, come back, checked on the Princess, and then taken off, presumably for a public phone where he made his call to police, which of course was never logged.  It didn't happen this way, we can be sure.  None of the witnesses (see below) saw the big bike go back for the Mercedes.  It behaved exactly how a member of an assassination team would: it tailed the Mercedes, played either a direct or indirect part in the crash, slowed (but did not stop) to inspect the wreckage, and then took off at high speed.

4.  It is clear a Fiat Uno, at least one powerful bike, and perhaps a second motorcycle were either directly in front of the Mercedes or behind it up to the time and at the time of the crash.  Revelation that a motorcycle was trailing close behind and then cut off the Mercedes by definition turns this into a conspiracy to murder Diana and Dodi, since a conspiracy must involve two or more individuals.  The French no doubt realize the implications.  But rather than face them, they choose to bury their heads in the sand.  They have Petel saying there were no cars in front or behind the Mercedes.  This is worse than pathetic.  It shows a contempt for the world public that is truly sad - and sickening.  A dozen eyewitnesses and reams of physical evidence, some of it produced by the Paris police, say Petel is wrong.

There is no sense mincing words:  Eric Petel is a liar.  His story doesn't hold up. He shows just how desperate the French have become.  The rider of the powerful bike without question was a member of the intervention team, who played a direct role in the murder by one, tailing the merc at high speed, forcing it to go ever faster as it neared the tunnel, and two, by preventing it from being able to move to the far left  at a critical point as it was about to collide with the Uno.  Eric Petel is a fake who has no place at the upcoming witness summit.
 

FRANCOIS and VALERIE.   Francois, a financial director, and his wife Valerie (we are given no last names), according to a police report leaked to the press,  claim they were "dining at a restaurant near the Pont de l'Alma, they got in their car and were driving on a road parallel to the traffic tunnel.

"Just beyond the tunnel exit, they were passed by a white Fiat Uno, the report said, according to the source. The man said he recognized the car model because his mother-in-law had the same one.

"The car's exhaust pipe was making a loud noise as if it had been damaged, and the driver was driving abnormally - 'zigzagging' - and then cut off the couple's car, the witnesses were quoted as saying.

"The Fiat's driver was 'a European type,' about 40 years old, with brown hair, the witnesses said. In the back of his car was a large dog."

We are absolutely certain this couple doesn't exist.  Though we are sure the French will find suitable intelligence agents to play them on June 5th.  Consider how plausible it is that this couple waited three weeks before going to police with their story, even though they claim they were actually able to get a good look at the driver of the Uno.  So why did the French invent this couple?  Desperation.  Notice the psychology at work:  the couple not only was able to identify the driver, but also saw his dog in the back.  And after all, how many assassins ride around with a dog in the back of the car?  Hence, the driver of the Uno couldn't have been part of an intervention team, as a growing number of critics of the investigation were claiming, but simply some average Parisian who happened to be driving along and was hit by a drunk driver.

But there is something even more sinister at work here.  Let us turn to Death of a Princess:

In other words, by forcing Henri Paul to speed and by blocking the right lane, one could virtually guarantee a crackup.  After which, the motorcyclist [the "powerful bike", see above] might be expected to slow down briefly, inspect the damage, and take off - which is exactly what this one did.  And there would normally be a backup car watching the whole operation and waiting to spring into action if necessary - for example, to pick up the driver of the Fiat Uno if it became damaged and incapacitated in the accident.  And that would probably be a heavy, powerful, and fast car - like the white Mercedes Gary Hunter saw speeding down the Rue Jean-Goujon after the crash in the wake of what appeared to him to be a Fiat Uno.

In is interesting to note, in this context, that the Rue Jean Goujon and its extension, the Avenue du General Eisenhower, are the shortest straight-line route from the Alma tunnel to the British embassy at 35 Rue du Faubourg-St. Honore.  The distance is only six blocks, or 1.5 km.  By running the two sets of lights they would have encountered - or, of course, if the lights were in their favor - the two vehicles could have easily have made the trip in a minute or two.  The embassy has a large drive-in door on the Rue du Faubourg-St. Honore which opens into an interior courtyard... This intriguing scenario, however, appears to be contradicted by the September 18 testimony of Francois and Valerie, who reported seeing a white Fiat Uno with a damaged muffler continuing westward along the expressway just after the accident.

THE SUSPICIOUS:

DR. FREDRICK MAILLIEZ.  Employed as an emergency medical doctor by S.O.S. Medecins.  Before that worked for three years with Service d'aide medicale d'urgence (SAMU).  Thirty-six years of age.  First doctor on the scene.  His numerous television appearances have been fraught with contradictions.  His initial interviews stressed his opinion that Diana stood a good chance of making it, but that Trevor Rees Jones might not make it.  "I thought this woman had a chance," he told CNN.  "The most urgent thing was to attend to the passenger in the back [Diana], whom I did not recognise and whose condition did not seem desperate to me," he stated in an interview in the medical magazine Impact Quotidien.  However, on October 13, 1997, as the French were becoming increasingly frantic in their attempts to hold the coverup together, his view took a decided turn.   “In lay terms her heart had been ripped out of its place in her chest. No-one had ever survived this kind of lesion before. There was no way, no chance for her.”  This is in direct contradiction to his earlier statements, indeed to his own actions at the scene.  "I held her hand and spoke to her, took her pulse, put the resuscitation mask on her, assured her she was safe."  Even forgetting that one does not speak to and reassure a person who is unconscious, how could he take her pulse, and not at that precise moment know something was terribly wrong, if indeed her heart had been ripped out as he now claims?  Wouldn't such a grievous injury result in a catastrophic drop in heart rate and blood pressure?  And consider the report filed by police officer Sebastien Dorzee, who spoke of Diana as he arrived at the scene, "There was a deep gash on her forehead.   She murmured in English, but I didn't understand what she said.  Perhaps 'My God!'  This person was conscious and I tried to maintain her in that state until help arrived."  The pre-October 13 accounts speak of a Diana who is very much alive, conscious, but in urgent need of prompt professional medical attention.

We need not touch on Mailliez's claim to not recognizing Diana.  It defies logic and common sense.  One final quote from the Scotsman newspaper:  "Asked whether Diana would have survived if she had reached the hospital earlier, Dr Mailliez said: 'That's very controversial. It's impossible to say. I don't want to be drawn on that. I've already said too much and I don't want to say any more.'"  His words eerily echo the "the terrible secret that weighs on this dossier," that one French official spoke of.

Clearly, Dr. Mailliez is a figure who has something to hide and must be viewed with the utmost skepticism.
 

ROUMALD RAT, JACQUES LANGEVIN, CHRISTIAN MARTINEZ, et al.  reviled by the public, accused by the Paris police of involuntary manslaughter, they initially took the brunt of the blame for the fatal accident.  It must be repeated here, there is no evidence that the paparazzi played any discernible role in the crash, the French charges notwithstanding.  As far as we know, the paparazzi were neither in the Uno nor on the "powerful bike" believed to have played a direct role in the crash.  Netherless, their statements in the aftermath of the crash warrant examination.  Many are contradictory.  It is certainly not out of the realm of possibility that one or more British intelligence operatives were among them.

The first contradictory information they put out was about the condition of Henri Paul.  "He was laughing a lot.  Many said he wasn't his usual self," Langevin said.  Another was quoted as saying Paul "Openly boasted, 'Tonight, you won't catch us.'" Still another said Paul had said, "Catch me if you can," before taking off in the Mercedes.  But there is absolutely no evidence Paul taunted the paparazzi in such a manner. The Ritz video show him having no contact with the paparazzi.  They also show Paul walking, talking, and acting normally.  The paparazzi also claimed that Paul took off flying from the back exit.  "They took off very fast.  My car was up the road.  There was no way mine could keep up, so I knew it was finished for me,"  Langevin said. But again, the Ritz video shows the merc pulling off at a normal speed from the back of the hotel.

They also lied about how Paul was driving, with repeated assertions that he drove in a reckless manner.  However, witness MOHAMMED RABOUILLE, a cab driver, saw the Mercedes drive by his cab on the Place de la Concorde, and stated categorically the Mercedes was not speeding or being driven in an inappropriate manner.  His sentiments were seconded by witness BRIAN ANDERSON, who was passed by the Mercedes while riding in his cab.  "My perception as a lay person was the car was not traveling at an unsafe speed," Anderson said.

The only thing we can be sure of is that at a traffic light at the Place de la Concorde, Paul took off at high speed and left the paparazzi behind, and that there were no paparazzi near the Mercedes just before it crashed.  Neither in the Uno nor the man on the powerful bike were paparazzi, or at least among the pack that were eventually arrested.  It's unclear whether the paparazzi, in lying about the condition of Paul, the speed at which he took off from the Ritz, and his manner of driving, were simply trying to deflect attention onto Paul to take the heat off themselves, or if something more sinister is at work. At this point it may not matter.  Their behavior before and after the accident makes them highly suspicious witnesses, to say the least.
 

THE REAL WITNESSES:

Amid the disinformation and outright lies being put out by the French authorities and the major media, there is a core group of witnesses whom we believe can be trusted for the overall veracity of their stories.  Despite what has been claimed by Stephan and the French authorities, there is no contradiction in their stories.  Quite the contrary.  Among this core group of witnesses, a surprisingly coherent picture has emerged of what really happened just before the crash and immediately after it.

TOM RICHARDSON and JOANNA LUZ.  Residents of San Diego, California.  American tourists, they were walking along the Seine River when they heard a noise "like an explosion."  Immediately they ran into the tunnel to offer assistance and "saw someone jump out from the car."  Also, "A man started running towards us telling us to go," Richardson said. All this happen within seconds of the crash.

What Tom and Joanna saw raises all kinds of disturbing questions.  Who was it that jumped out of the car?  It certainly wasn't one of the paparazzi, for they had not arrived at the scene yet.  And who was it that ran up and told them to go?  We need detailed sketches drawn of these men.  We need to know exactly what they were doing, and why.  Without question, these men were part of the intervention team.
 

BRENDA WELLS.  Forty years old.  British by birth.  Secretary working in Paris.  Resides in Champigny sur Marne outside of Paris.  Was traveling home from a party when "A motorbike with two men forced me off the road.  It was following a big car.  Afterwards in the tunnel there were very strong lights like flashes.  After that, a black car arrived.  The big car had come off the road.  I stopped and five or six motorbikes arrived and started taking photographs.  They were crying 'It's Diana.'"

Although this is speculation, it appears Brenda was attempting to enter the Alma tunnel from the Cours Albert 1er, which runs parallel and connects to the tunnel  through a short feeder road.  With Brenda Wells, we have the same forces at work as with Tom Richardson and Joanna Luz: she was prevented from entering the tunnel at a crucial time frame coinciding with the exact moment of the crash, or just seconds after it.   If we had no other accounts but for these three individuals, that would be enough to offer virtual irrefutable proof of a conspiracy.  And don't think for one second it's a coincidence that neither Tom, Joanna, or Brenda are no where mentioned in Death of a Princess, or outside of their initial interviews immediately following the crash, and one later interview for the Daily Mirror by Brenda Wells, the press has refused to interview them or report their statements.  Anyone who denies the validity of the accounts given by these three, and their ominous meanings, immediately exposes themselves.  If this upcoming witness summit is to have any meaning, these three must be present.  If they are not, we will know the summit has nothing to do with trying to discover the truth, but is a shameless exercise by the French to try and mask it.

FRANCOIS LEVY.  Fifty-three.  He, too, entered the tunnel from the Cours Albert 1er.  Apparently, he was ahead of Brenda Wells.  According to his deposition, "I saw the car (Mercedes 280s) in the middle of the tunnel with a motorcycle on its left, pulling ahead and then swerving to the right directly in front of the car (the Mercedes).  As the motorcycle swerved and before the car lost control, there was a flash of light.  But then I was out of the tunnel and heard, but did not see, the impact."  Levy added that he saw a powerful bike with two men aboard exit the tunnel immediately after the crash.

Not surprisingly, the French have tried to discredit Levy's testimony.  They know that, like Wells, Richardson and Luz, Levy's testimony, if true, and there is no reason to doubt it, is proof of a conspiracy.  One vehicle fleeing the scene of the accident is stretching things.  Two fleeing would stretch things beyond the breaking point.

OLIVER P. and CLIFFORD G.  Both men were off-duty chauffeurs.  They were standing just off from the tunnel entrance.  They saw essentially the same thing.  Oliver describes the scene, "I saw a Mercedes driving very fast, I would say about 90 mph, towards the Alma tunnel, and it was pursued by a motorcycle.  The Mercedes was preceded by a car, the type of which I cannot identify.   It was dark colored and was trying to slow down the black Mercedes... At that moment, I heard the chauffeur of the Mercedes downshift in order to accelerate and pass the car in its way.  Then the Mercedes descended into the tunnel and I heard a huge noise."

BENOIT B.  and GAELLE L.  They were driving through the tunnel in the eastbound lane when, according to Benoit, "I heard the squeal of tires and then the sound of a minor impact.  I saw two vehicles, the first car was dark.  The first one, a dark-colored sedan, accelerated brutally at the moment when the Mercedes that was following it in the same lane, that is, the right lane, lost control.  I saw it slide, strike a pillar... then spin around and hit the wall to wind up facing in the opposite direction... When we passed at the level of the wrecked car, I saw a motorcycle or a big Vespa... pass the Mercedes... The motorcycle slowed down, then accelerated and left."

JEAN-PASCAL PEYRET.  Was exiting the Alma tunnel when he and his wife heard a tremendous crash.  However, he didn't realize until the next morning that the crash he heard had been the Mercedes carrying Diana.  According to him, "We must have been at least fifty yards in front of the Mercedes.  I heard two impacts.  It is totally possible that the first one was the collision with the second car."  Peyret added that right after the crash, his car was passed by a motorcycle.  "The motorcycle passed us, but I can't say it was fleeing.  Obviously, he was at the scene of an accident and did not stop."

There is an interesting sidebar to Peyret's story, which, in a crucial slip-up by the French authorities, proves that the surveillance cameras outside the tunnel were working that night, despite French police claims to the contrary.  Peyret, once he realized it was indeed Diana who had died in the crash he and his wife had heard the previous night, immediately called the police.  They took down his name and phone number and said they would call him back.  Here is how Death of a Princess describes it:

"Monsiur Peyret?" said the caller.  "This is the criminal brigade.  Thank you for contacting us.  As a matter of fact, we were expecting your call."  Peyret found the remark curious, and vaguely worrisome.

GARY HUNTER.  London lawyer Gary Hunter was in his third-floor hotel room, less than 100 yards from the Alma tunnel, when he heard the crash.  "I was watching television when I heard a crash at exactly 12:25 am.  There was an almighty crash followed by the sound of skidding, then another crash.  My initial thought was that there had been a head-on collision.  I went to the window and saw people running towards the tunnel."  Seconds later, Hunter saw a car turning from the area by the tunnel exit and roaring down the Rue Jean Goujon, the street directly below him.

"I heard the screeching of tires.  I saw a small dark car turning the corner at the top of the road.  I would say it was racing at 60-70 mph.  My own feeling is that these were people in a hurry not to be there.  I am confident that car was getting off the scene.  It was obvious they were getting away from something and that they were in a hurry.  It looked quite sinister."  Hunter added that the car was being shadowed by another vehicle, a white Mercedes.

GRIGORI R.  A professional photographer (not among the paparazzi), was travelling in the eastbound lane in his VW.  "Just as I was descending into the tunnel, I heard an enormous shock...  I saw a motorcycle moving in the same direction as the Mercedes.  It was a rather large motorcycle with a round, yellow headlight... I am practically sure there was only one person on this motorcycle but cannot be totally affirmative.

"This motorcycle took off very rapidly after passing [around the Mercedes] as I described.  As I think about it, considering the lapse of time, it seems improbable that the motorcycle stopped before departing.  I think that the driver only had time to slow down or brake sharply."

MOHAMMED M. and SOUAD M.  They were driving through the tunnel in Mohommed's Citroen BX, when according to Mohammed, "I was alerted by noise of skidding tires behind me.  I was at that moment in the tunnel, on the flat part just before ascending the ramp.  The noise was loud, because I could hear it over the sound of my radio.  I looked in the left-hand external mirror.  I was in the right lane.  I saw a big Mercedes in the bottom of the tunnel, moving across the roadway.  It was going very fast, I'd say at least 90 mph.  The Mercedes was sliding in such a way that it formed a 45-degree angle with the central walkway... I continued to look in the mirror and saw that the Mercedes straightened itself and headed back in the right direction, then immediately I heard a huge noise and saw a piece of the car go flying as the vehicle smashed into the central pillar."

And Mohammed's girlfriend Souad, "Our vehicle was about thirty of forty yards in front of the Mercedes at the moment of shock.  My friend Mohammed immediately accelerated in order not to be hit from behind.  After this first contact, the vehicle pivoted around and smashed into the other [right] sidewalk.  I could clearly see the chauffeur's body slumped over the wheel.

"At this moment, I saw other vehicles come behind the Mercedes, maybe six or seven, and I had the time to notice that they passed the wreck."  According to Death of a  Princess, Souad went on to say that their car wasn't passed by any of the cars that passed the Mercedes.  To quote from the book, "Taken together with [Jean-Paul] Peyret's testimony (see above), Souad's observations has major implications.   If the car that was involved in the accident was among the six or seven that she saw driving around the Mercedes after the crash, that car apparently did not continue in the direction that the Saab and the BX were headed in, that is, westward towards the Place du Trocadero."

Souad testimony gives further credence that the getaway car(s) turned right immediately out of the tunnel exit onto the Rue Debrousesse, headed for the Rue Jean Goujon and a straight beeline to the British Embassy.
 

BRIAN ANDERSON.  California businessman.  Brian was riding in a taxi when he was passed by the Mercedes, which was being followed closely by two motorcycles.  "I felt that the one motorcycle, certainly without hesitation and any doubt whatsoever, was driving aggressively and dangerously."  Anderson went on to add the motorcycle swung by the Mercedes on the left, and then veered to the right, directly in front of the Mercedes.  He was also emphatic that the Mercedes was only going approximately 70 mph, no where near the 100 mph as claimed by the French police.
 

CONCLUSION

The idea of a "confrontational" in and of itself, has merit.  Bringing together all the principle witnesses to talk with one another, go over what they saw, offer different perspectives, can potentially further our understanding of what happened just before, during, and after the crash.  But it remains to be seen if Judge Stephan has this in mind.  Why did he schedule the confrontational just before a World Cup weekend?  And why did he schedule the planned re-enactment of the accident at the same time, ultimately having to cancel it for fears of a traffic nightmare because of the World Cup?  And why was not Trevor Rees Jones invited?  Jones, among all the witnesses, was a direct eyewitness to events.  Giving him the opportunity to talk with some of the other witnesses could potentially help further jog his memory.  Or could it be that's what Judge Stephan is afraid of?  And the Paris police still remain silent about Tom Richardson, Joanna Luz and Brenda Wells, and the obvious implications they have for a conspiracy.

The core group of dependable witnesses above, along with such witnesses as David L., Marie-Agnes C., and Trevor Rees-Jones, tell a remarkably consistent, disturbing story.  From the Ritz hotel to the Place de la Concorde, the Mercedes was being pursued by a horde of paparazzi.  Henri Paul was driving in a responsible manner, showing no signs of being drunk behind the wheel.  At a traffic light at the Place de la Concorde, Paul took off at high speed, leaving the paparazzi behind.  Why he took off at high speed, remains unclear, perhaps to shake the paparazzi.  However, he was still being tailed closely by at least one large, fast motorcycle, and perhaps a second motorcycle with two men aboard.  As Paul neared the tunnel, the large bike cut in front of the Mercedes.  Paul moved to his right to avoid hitting the motorcycle, but then found his path blocked by the Uno (which we must not forget was not only a Turbo model, but was also weighed down).  Rather than veer sharply to his left, and risk hitting the motorcyclist, and at those speeds, in all likelihood killing him, Paul attempted an aviator's move: a controlled crash.  He clipped the Uno on the Uno's driver's side, temporarily lost control, veering to his left, but then just as quickly regained controlled, turning to his right.  It may be at this critical point the "light flashes" that witnesses Levy and Wells reported seeing come into play.  These may have anti-personnel lasers fired from the Uno or  from the big bike, with the express purpose of blinding Henri Paul.  At any rate, Paul lost control a second time, slamming into the 13th pillar.  The big bike slowed down, examining the wreckage, then sped out the tunnel and disappeared.  The Uno sped out the tunnel also.  However, it is almost certain it did not continue westward down the expressway.  Souad M. is sure no such car past theirs as they continued on west towards the Place du Trocadero.  What happened to the Uno then?  In all likelihood, it turned right onto Rud Debrousse, where it dashed across the Place de Alma for the Rue Jean Goujon, where witness Gary Hunter saw a small dark car fleeing the scene in a sinister manner, shadowed closely by a white Mercedes, there to act as an extraction vehicle to extract members of the intervention team in the event something went wrong.  From the Rue Jean Goujon, it's but a 1 minute drive to the British Embassy.  Once on the grounds of the embassy, the assassins are home free.

Is the above scenario likely?  We believe it is.  At any rate, it is the only one that is consistent with the facts, as they now exist.
 

WeThePeople Home Page