Who Killed Diana, and Why? Citizens Electoral Council of Australia

12

This May 2011 documentary video on the murder 

of Princess Diana, and the subsequent coverup by the 

French authorities and the British Royal Coroner of the 

true events surrounding her death, has been suppressed 

for the past three years. In it, director Keith Allen provides 

extensive background on the Nazi links of British Roy-

al Consort Prince Philip, including an exclusive photo-

graph of the Prince, marching in a funeral procession for 

his brother-in-law, a member of the Nazi Party, amidst 

men in SA and SS uniforms.

In the past month, however, the documentary video 

has been made available on the Internet, and is getting 

wide attention globally. After its initial appearance at the 

Cannes Film Festival in May 2011, the video was shown 

publicly in Australia in 2013. The film was reviewed on 

23 Sept. 2013 by Robert Barwick of the Citizens Elec-

toral Council of Australia (www.cecaust.com.au). We 

republish that review here.

Unlawful Killing, the 2011 Keith Allen film that the 

British Crown establishment has suppressed worldwide 

for more than two years, surfaced and was screened at 

the Sydney Underground Film Festival on 7-8 Sept. 2013. 

The British documentary on the death of Diana, Princess 

of Wales, in a car crash in Paris in the Summer of 1997, 

and on the 2007-08 inquest into it, leaves any view-

er with indelible questions about the role of the British 

Crown: unmistakably involved in shaping the inquest, 

what was its role in the killing itself?

The Crown’s suppression of 

Unlawful Killing has been so com-

plete, that its two Sydney screen-

ings were the first anywhere since 

it premiered at the Cannes Film 

Festival and a festival in Galway, 

Ireland, both in 2011. Not only 

the film itself has been suppressed, 

but also any public reporting of its 

actual content. Instead, where the 

international media has deigned 

or been forced to mention it at all, 

they have uniformly denounced 

the documentary as “grizzly” and 

“salacious”, usually citing a single, 

3-second grainy black and white 

image of Diana in the back seat of 

her car after the crash, while ex-

cluding any coverage of the entire 

rest of the 78-minute film.

The “rest of the film” leads inexorably to chilling, 

still unanswered questions about a British Royal Fam-

ily hand in orchestrating Diana’s murder. Its title, “Un-

lawful Killing”, refers to a type of verdict rendered un-

der English law when a death is determined to have re-

sulted from murder or manslaughter, but the perpetra-

tors are unknown. Media coverage has left most peo-

ple unaware that “unlawful killing” was the official ver-

dict of the inquest concluded at the Royal Courts of Jus-

tice in 2008—the longest such hearing in British history.

An Inquest into the Inquest

On 31 Aug. 1997, a Mercedes carrying Princess Di-

ana, her companion Dodi Fayed, bodyguard Trevor Re-

es-Jones, and driver Henri Paul crashed head-on at high 

speed into the 13th pillar of the Place de l’Alma tunnel 

in Paris. Paul and Fayed, the son of Harrods department 

store owner Mohammed Al-Fayed, were killed instant-

ly, and Rees-Jones was badly injured, but survived. Ac-

cording to expert testimony at the inquest, Diana, too, 

would almost certainly have survived, had she been tak-

en immediately to one of the five major hospitals in the 

vicinity. Instead, she suffered an inexplicable hour and 

three-quarters delay from the time an ambulance arrived 

at the crash until she was delivered to a hospital only 

four miles away. Unlawful Killing reviews these circum-

stances, together with eyewitness reports that the Mer-

cedes had been chased into the tunnel by several mo-

torcycles and a white Fiat Uno. Contrary to media asser-

tions, none of these vehicles belonged to the paparaz-

zi outside Diana’s hotel that evening. Witnesses also re-

ported that a bright light was shone into the tunnel from 

its far end shortly before the crash, while the Fiat Uno 

bumped Diana’s vehicle and sped off, never to be traced 

by law enforcement.

All images are taken from the video, “Unlawful Killing”.

Princess Diana’s death, on 31 Aug. 1997, was found by the jury at the official Inquest to have 

been an “unlawful killing”, yet no one has, to this date, been arrested or charged for it. In this 

October 1995 letter to her butler Diana writes, “My husband [Prince Charles] is planning ‘an 

accident’ in my car. Brake failure and serious head injury”.

Film Review

Suppressed Film Exposes Royal

Stonewall of Diana Murder Probe

From EIR, 9 May 2014

Unlawful Killing

Keith Allen, Director Associated-Rediffusion  

Allied Stars Ltd May 2011

---

13

The film highlights evidence of Diana’s own con-

cerns that she was under threat, at a time when even 

public accounts acknowledge that the Royal Family was 

conducting a vicious campaign against her. The open-

ing footage includes an image of her handwritten mes-

sage, dated October 1995, stating that “this particular 

phase in my life is the most dangerous—my husband is 

planning ‘an accident’ in my car, brake failure & seri-

ous head injury”. Prince Philip had also written several 

threatening letters to her.

The crash occurred at 12:23am; Diana was in-

jured, but was conscious and alert. An ambulance soon 

brought Dr Jean-Marc Martino to the scene, who took 

charge and made a series of inexplicable decisions that 

sealed Diana’s fate. It took him 37 minutes to put Diana 

in the ambulance, though she was accessible because 

the back car door next to her opened readily. Only af-

ter 81 minutes had ticked away, did the ambulance fi-

nally set off for the hospital. And though Diana’s identity 

and the nature of her injuries were by then well known, 

the ambulance made no radio contact with the hospi-

tal throughout the journey. Only after one hour and 43 

minutes had elapsed, did the ambulance finally arrive at 

the hospital, travelling at a snail’s pace on empty roads. 

Allen reported, “At the inquest experts agreed that her 

life could have been saved, had it not been for the sus-

piciously slow and furtive actions of Dr Martino and his 

crew, the other members of which have never been of-

ficially identified, or interviewed”.

While details such as these are crucial to unravelling 

the mystery of Diana’s killing, film director Allen empha-

sises at the outset that he constructed Unlawful Killing as 

an examination not of the event itself, but of the inquest 

into the crash. The vast majority of the public world-

wide knows nothing of the testimony presented at that 

inquest, he said, or of its official findings. Based on me-

dia accounts, people assume that the inquest found the 

deaths to be accidental.

But the inquest found that there had been an “un-

lawful killing”. As the film unfolds, it dramatises the ex-

tent of the efforts made to prevent even that open-ended 

conclusion, through rigging of the inquest itself. Clearly, 

the viewer is left thinking that those with the power to or-

chestrate such a high-level, far-reaching cover-up would 

also have had the power to order the murder with con-

fidence that they would get away with it.

Standing in front of the Royal Courts of Justice where 

the inquest took place, Allen observes, “The inquest was 

held in the Royal Family’s own court, so is it any wonder 

that the Coroner, the Royals’ representative in charge, 

decided that the key Royal suspects need not even ap-

pear at the inquest to be questioned?…. Note that name: 

‘Royal Courts of Justice’—a sure sign of impartiality in a 

case where the credibility of the Royal Family is on tri-

al in the Royal Courts of Justice, with a judge, or Coro-

ner as he is called here, who has sworn an oath of alle-

giance to the Queen, and has Queen’s Counselors on 

every side, and has already said that he is minded not 

to call senior Royals as witnesses”.

Prof. Stephen Haseler, a founding member of the Re-

public organisation in Britain, is interviewed: “Histori-

cally, the relationship between the Royal Family and the 

Courts has been difficult, mainly because every judge 

has taken an oath of allegiance to the Queen. Now, if 

you’ve taken an oath of allegiance to the Queen, and 

you have that legal case involving the Monarchy, I mean, 

you’re going to be biased, aren’t you?”

Sure enough, the Coroner, Lord Justice Scott Baker, 

announced at the outset that he would not call any Roy-

als to give testimony. And he clearly had advance noti-

fication about the testimony other Establishment figures 

would present, including the Police Commissioner, al-

lowing him to instruct the jury on how they should in-

terpret such testimony. Before the jury retired for its fi-

nal deliberation, Lord Baker tried to direct them to re-

turn a simple verdict of “accident”.

Meanwhile, to make sure that little or no honest cov-

erage of the inquest appeared in the press, most media, 

instead of sending their legal reporters to cover it, as-

signed their Royal correspondents. These are journal-

ists who spend their careers “sucking up to the Royals”, 

Allen notes, which guaranteed uniformly biased report-

ing. Indeed, Allen had sent his own undercover “mole” 

into the press gallery to take notes on the attitudes and 

behaviour of the Royal correspondents there, who were 

manifestly biased from the outset. As Allen observes dry-

ly, “It’s difficult to get a man to understand something 

when his salary depends on him not understanding it”.

We summarise here some of the other key points of 

Allen’s film on the inquest, along with related evidence 

which has emerged since it was made. These include ev-

idence that Britain’s MI6 and SAS were involved in the 

crash; that the French authorities falsified evidence and 

repeatedly lied, after having ensured that Diana would 

be dead before or soon after arrival at the hospital; that 

the Queen’s Private Secretary lied to the inquest; and that 

the Royals had been conducting a long-standing vendet-

ta against the Al-Fayeds and Princess Diana.

The Inquest Evidence: 

No Royals Testified

Both in a handwritten note to her butler Paul Bur-

rell, and in a conversation with her lawyer Lord Mish-

con, from which he wrote down his recollection soon 

afterwards, Diana insisted that the Royals intended to 

kill or badly injure her in a car accident. Lord Mishcon’s 

notes, which were available to the inquest (he had died 

in the interim), though withheld from the immediate 

post-crash investigation, recorded that he then spoke to 

Diana’s private secretary Patrick Jephson, who told him 

that the threat was credible. Diana confided the same 

fear to her close friend Simone Simmons, who later said, 

“Of course Diana was bumped off. She knew she was 

going to be bumped off”. Yet no member of the Royal 

Family was required to appear at the inquest. An observ-

er noted, “What if this woman’s name had been Diana 

At the inquest held at the Royal Courts of Justice, the experts agreed 

that Diana’s life could have been saved, had it not been for the “sus-

piciously slow and furtive actions” of Dr Martino, who supervised the 

ambulance—seen here in the tunnel—and his crew.

---