🚀 go-pugleaf

ad613@torfree.net (Nabil Mohamed El-Khodari) wrote:

>nospam@x.com wrote:
>- It is taken that the driver has been drinking. However, being drunk is 
>another thing. It will actually depend on the his blood alcohol level AT 
>THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, not from a sample God knows taken when after 
>the accident.
>

Are you suggesting he continued to drink after he was dead?

>- There has been 3 different reports now about the blood alcohol level; 
>first 3 times legal, second 4 times legal, last (on request of the driver 
>family) 3 times legal.
>

Yes, all indicating the driver was drunk as a skunk..

>- It seems that both the Princess and Dodi, did not feel that the driver 
>is 'rackless', for they would have worn their seat belts at least.
>

They may have been drunk too. There will be incredible pressure to 
prevent releasing their blood alcohol levels. It may be that the
princess NEVER wore a seat belt, because it tended to crease
her designer gowns. 

>- According to the lastest report, there is a picture taken inside the 
>tunnel from the front of the car showing that the driver was 'startled' 
>by the flash.
>

..a long way from the tunnel. At which point any responsible driver
would have slowed down to let his retina recover from the flash.

>- If the paparatzzi have been 'following' the car, at least one or more 
>of them would have been involved in the accident, which clearly means 
>that they were - mostly - in front of the car. It may be likely that the 
>driver may have been trying to avoid crashing into them.

Nonsense. This is like saying if you were following a bus that ran off
a bridge, you "would have been involved."
>- I do not think that any logical person would deny that the papatzzi are 
>at least partially responsible, whatever the drunkness state of the 
>driver may have been (you do not try to provocate a drunk on the street, 
>right?).
>

The paparazzi are minimally responsible, if responsible at all.

>- I believe that Fayed is doing the right thing. As it is only through a 
>court that the 'evidence' can be cross-examined by 'specialists', 
>including in fact the blood alcohol level, method and time of sampling, 
>test used and any possible 'interactions' and/or falacies of the test used.
>

Fayed, like most rich fathers of spoiled, irresponsible children
(which Dodi is widely reputed to have been),
will do what he can to preserve the illusion that everyone but
his child is responsible for whatever mishaps his child is
involved in.

Of course, we know that Ted Kennedy was in no way responsible
for the death of Mary Jane Kopechne. After all, that's what
the authorities decided. And of course they were in no way
influenced by the enormous wealth of the Kennedy clan. 


>Fayed 
>conducted himself with grace (and acceptance of God's well) and was more 
>than gracious supplying even tea to the people in the queue to sign the 
>books at the Palace. He thanked in a public appearance at a stadium all 
>those who shared in the exceptional show of emotions.
>

Our evaluation of Fayed should not be based on trivial gestures, but
on how he originally obtained his extraordinary wealth. Was it as an
intermediary in arms dealing? Or was it legitimate?  Perhaps you could
respond with a short biography.