PRINCESS Diana could have been pregnant when she died, a court heard yesterday.But blood tests taken from her body would not have revealed it because she had already been embalmed.
Dr Robert Chapman, the Home Office pathologist who carried out her post-mortem examination, also told the inquest into her death that he had found no visible signs of pregnancy.
However he conceded that, had she been in the very early stages of pregnancy, no visual signs would have been evident.
Furthermore, blood tests would have been “contaminated” because the Princess’s body had already been embalmed.
Dr Chapman, who examined the Princess’s body in London, admitted he had found it “surprising” that there had been time to embalm her.In addition, the embalming process itself had not been necessary to preserve the body.
“It is my view that (embalming) would not have been necessary for preservation,” said Dr Chapman.
He further conceded that, the body having been embalmed, would inevitably have affected all toxicology tests.
Dr Robert Chapman, the Home Office pathologist who carried out her post-mortem examination, also told the inquest into her death that he had found no visible signs of pregnancy.
However he conceded that, had she been in the very early stages of pregnancy, no visual signs would have been evident.
Furthermore, blood tests would have been “contaminated” because the Princess’s body had already been embalmed.
Dr Chapman, who examined the Princess’s body in London, admitted he had found it “surprising” that there had been time to embalm her.In addition, the embalming process itself had not been necessary to preserve the body.
“It is my view that (embalming) would not have been necessary for preservation,” said Dr Chapman.
He further conceded that, the body having been embalmed, would inevitably have affected all toxicology tests.
“The embalming procedure will affect the body fluids, perhaps blood or urine, which makes toxicology difficult or
impossible,” he told the High Court hearing.
However, if the pregnancy had been in the earlier stages then no signs would necessarily have been visible.
Under cross-examination by Michael Mansfield QC, representing Mohamed Al Fayed whose son Dodi also died in the car crash in Paris on August 31, 1997, Dr Chapman admitted a visual examination would not have revealed a very early pregnancy. “One would not see a pregnancy within the first seven days,” he said.
The court heard that Dr Chapman found the cause of the Princess’s death had been a severe chest injury, with a major laceration to the left pulmonary vein.
Unsuccessful attempts had been made to repair the vein.
The Princess had also suffered fractured ribs with most of the injuries on the right side of her body.
This suggested that she had been sitting sideways at the moment of impact in the Alma Tunnel.
The Princess had further suffered a major head injury, which was visible both internally and externally.
“She had some evidence of bleeding in and around the brain,” said Dr Chapman.
Under further cross-examination, he admitted that in addition to two official photographers and a coroner’s officer, two senior police officers had also been present at the post-mortem who he had not known.
Mr Mansfield asked him if he had been aware that one of the officers had been a member of the International and Organised Crime Group.
Dr Chapman did not recall this, and was also unaware that one of this group’s duties was investigating murders committed abroad.
One of the most controversial paparazzi witnesses to the Princess’s final journey has been called to give evidence, the coroner revealed last night.
But Romuald Rat, who allegedly rang a newspaper from the scene of the crash demanding £300,000 for pictures, has left the court guessing over whether he will attend.
Lord Justice Scott Baker announced that Mr Rat, who lives in France, may give evidence by video link from Paris after being contacted by French officials.
Sources said it was “highly unlikely” that he would attend the court hearing when it continues.
Source : the Daily Express
