Unlawful Killing Review: Although Allen’s documentary fails to put forward any new “smoking gun” eveidence that it was the Royal family who had offed the Princess, something many had anticipated judging from the provocative trailers for the film, it does a good job of reiterating some of the key points that suggest Prince Diana’s death is not simply the open and shut case of baying paparazzi and a reckless chauffeur getting tipsy and losing control of his vehicle. That’s not to say Henri-Paul didn’t play a role in the crash, he was at the wheel of the Mercedes, but the very first scene of the film brings forth a wider context mostly ignored or brushed aside by the mainstream British press. Prior to her death, Diana had claimed in a note to Butler Paul Burrell that her husband Prince Charles was “planning an accident in her car”, possibly via “bake failure”, something she’d repeat to other confidants. This is an extraordinary factoid that whether coincidence or evidence of a conspiracy, one simply cannot erase from their mind once discovered. It’s not prosecutable proof that the Royals killed her, but that conclusion is one of only three possibilities. Charles may have been planning to murder his wife and fate conveniently did it for him, Charles did plan her murder and succeeded, or Diana had become paranoid after spending years in a loveless and bizarre marriage, and eerily wound up dying in an accident that was similar in ending to one of her delusions. Shennaginags surrounding the investigation suggest at the very least a cover-up, directly related to this prophetic note. Unfortunately Allen who clearly had Al Fayed’s ax to grind does not add any further insight to the case beyond the notion that the Royals aren’t really all they’re cracked up to be, and the mainstream media are lazy and sensationalist. This most of us already know. Philip had Nazi ties, they’re a bit racist and they still wield some power in terms of knighthoods and oaths etc. In fact it’s Allen’s own sensationalism and association with the publicly humiliated Al Fayed that prevents this film from having the impact and reach that it should. Instead of an independent empirical approach, he went with an emotional tabloid style, which although caused controversy, has ultimately shot him in the foot. Thanks to his tendency of pointing the finger when it’s obvious to the audience anyway, and making claims such as “Prince Philip is a psychopath”, hardly anyone in the UK will see the documentary due to defamation lawsuits. So to the lazy and sensationalist media…Allen cleverly placed his own reporter inside the press quarters to not only cover the inquest, but to cover those also covering it. The film demonstrates that the papers had already condemned driver Henri-Paul before the inquest had even started and there was an unspoken consensus about what happened – a sort of snobbery from leading journalists towards “conspiracy theories”. Some outlets suggested the inquest was a waste of time because we already apparently knew what happened, and the state’s BBC had their “Royal” correspondents on the story instead of their legal reporters; not that any of the royals would be called upon during the proceedings and their personal letters related to Diana were redacted. Oddly the inquest, which was to establish how the deaths occurred, spent time considering whether Diana was pregnant, including irrelevant details about her menstrual cycle and contraceptives, which the media obviously lapped up, but completely diverged from the matter at hand. The ultimate conclusion of the film is the distinction between the media narrative of a drunk Henri-Paul and pursuing paparazzi accidentally causing Diana’s death, and the actual verdict which was Unlawful Killing (murder or manslaughter) due to “following vehicles”. The film suggests that this does not implicate the paparazzi because they were all accounted for and believed to have been left behind by the powerful Mercedes before entering the Alma tunnel. There is also no evidence that Henri-Paul was drunk, with CCTV showing him perfectly mobile before getting behind the wheel and receipts showing he only had two ricards earlier in the evening. Furthermore every scientist at the inquest testified that blood results taken by French authorities were “biologically inexplicable” due to unexplainable levels of carbon monoxide in Paul’s blood. This leads us back to the theory of some kind of hit involving “following vehicles” such as the infamous white Fiat Uno (whose suspected owner was later found burned to death within in it) and elements of the French and British establishment. Why was Diana’s seatbelt jammed? Why did it take so long to get her to the hospital? Why was the CCTV not recording? Why were the blood test results of Henri fudged and then the details of such hidden behind French State’s Secrets laws? Why did successive MET police chiefs Lord Condon and Lord Stevens break the law by hiding Diana’s prophetic note for 6 years and get off without punishment? Why was Diana being bugged by the CIA, and is there truth to her assertions that MI5 were also listening in on her prior to the crash? These are all very important questions, that although do not yet prove exactly what happened, almost certainly suggest key information and leads have been overlooked. To conclude, this may not blow away anybody who has already taken a critical look at the cold case of Diana’s death, but it’s the best documentary in terms of production and content to be released on the subject and is well worth a watch. It is far more palatable than the Christopher Everard “Lady Die” conspiracy film, and some of the added hearsay put out there by Jon King, who was first to expand on the Fiat Uno story and possible state involvement. wideshut.co.uk/unlawful-killing-princess-dianas-death-documentary-watch-online/
Posted on: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 10:06:47 +0000