Date Posted: 09/12/11
                                         Keith Allen

Keith Allen Says:              

(Filmmaker of Unlawful Killing.)

"The internet is a global lavatory wall, a Rabelaisian mixture of truth, lies, insanity and humour. I felt its power and
madness this week, when an excerpt from my new film, Unlawful Killing, was leaked on to YouTube and seized on by
US conspiracy theorists, who immediately began claiming that the CIA had murdered "Diana, Princess of Wales"
thereby allowing others to dismiss my documentary as mad.

Deriding its critics as mad is an age-old British establishment trick. My "inquest of the inquest" film contains footage of
Diana recalling how the royals wanted her consigned to a mental institution, and the inquest coroner repeatedly
questioning the sanity of anyone who wondered if the crash was more than an accident. His chief target was
Mohamed Al Fayed, a man I once profiled for a Channel 4 documentary. Before I met him, I'd half-believed the media
caricature of him as a madman, driven nuts by the death of his son, and wildly accusing the Windsors of having
planned the 1997 crash. However, I found a man who was sane and funny but frustrated that Britain wouldn't hold an
inquest into his son's death. Michael Mansfield QC thought it unfair too, and fought for one to be held; which was why
the longest inquest in British legal history eventually began in 2007.

Long before the inquest started, the eminently sane Mansfield had persuaded me that there were suspicious
circumstances surrounding the crash, and signs of a cover-up by the authorities. Many journalists agreed, but as the
inquest drew near, I noticed that British newspapers (several of which had regularly run "Was Diana Murdered?"
pieces) suddenly fell into line, and started insisting that the inquest was a waste of time. They raised no protest when
virtually all the key French witnesses refused to participate, nor did they find it odd that not one senior royal was
ordered to appear, even though Diana had stated in a lawyer's note that the Windsors were planning an "accident" to
her car. Nor did they raise the issue of possible bias when legal proceedings involving the integrity of the royal family
were to be heard in the royal courts of justice before a coroner who'd sworn an oath of allegiance to the Queen.

I felt the need to raise it, so I asked every major UK broadcaster (BBC, ITV, C4, Five, Sky) to commission a TV
documentary about the inquest. But they refused even to contemplate such a suggestion, so Associated Rediffusion
and I began filming and financing it ourselves. Shortly before the inquest began, Fayed offered to fund our project, so
we could make a feature-length cinema documentary instead. We agreed, on condition that we would report events in
the way we saw them, and the deal was struck.

Unlawful Killing is not about a conspiracy before the crash, but a provable conspiracy after the crash. A conspiracy
organised not by a single scheming arch-fiend, but collectively by the British establishment – judges, lawyers,
politicians, police chiefs, secret services, even newspaper editors – all of whom have been appointed to their positions
because they are "a safe pair of hands". Just as compass needles all point north without being told to, so these
people instinctively know what is expected of them when the state's interests are under threat and they act
accordingly, quietly suppressing uncomfortable evidence or undermining the credibility of witnesses whose evidence
contradicts the official narrative.

Consider just a fraction of what transpired. Over 100 significant witnesses were not called to the inquest, or refused to
appear. Blood tests allegedly proving the drunkenness of the driver Henri Paul were deemed "biologically inexplicable"
by a toxicologist. A British crash expert found that Diana's seat belt had not been working. And so on.

Strangest of all was the media coverage of the verdict. Inquest evidence showed conclusively that the crash was
caused by an unidentified white Fiat Uno and several unidentified motorcycles, vehicles that were certainly not
paparazzi, because uncontested police evidence confirmed that the paparazzi were nowhere near the tunnel at the
time of the crash. The jury understood this, bringing in a verdict of "unlawful killing" by unidentified "following vehicles";
yet within seconds, the BBC was misreporting that the jury had blamed the paparazzi and the rest of the media meekly
followed suit. Which is why – three years on – barely anyone realises what the jury's troubling verdict really was.British
lawyers insisted on 87 cuts before any UK release could be contemplated, not butchering the film consequently it is
one that will be shown elsewhere than in the United Kingdom."  

Date Posted: 09-12-11

                                                                                                                        Order of the Garter

There are oddly “coincidental Masonic” elements to the death of Diana, Princess of Wales!

Royal Arch Masonry is obsessed with bridge symbolism – Princess Diana was murdered under a covered bridge. In
Paris, Diana died when the Mercedes she was in ploughed into the 13th pillar in a tunnel called Pont d’Alma on
August 31 1997. Thirteen is very significant, both in Masonry and witchcraft.

The Pont d’Alma tunnel is a replica of the torch from the Statue of Liberty – a Masonic idol, sculpted by a French
Freemason. That torch actually symbolizes the “light” of Lucifer.

A final grisly Masonic “coincidence” which has been pointed out by more than one writer is what was done the course
of supposedly trying to save Diana’s life (after the torturously slow ride to the hospital – it took all of forty minutes to
travel 3.8 miles). To work on and massage her heart, her chest was cut open from collarbone to navel. This is the
penalty of second degree in Masonry, to have your chest ripped open and your heart taken out.

Remember that both Prince Charles and his mother, the Queen, are – by virtue of their leadership in the Order of the
Garter – the highest ranking Masons in the world – even though neither is actually known to be a Mason. The Most
Noble Order of the Garter is the most prestigious “chivalraic” order in the British Isles. The British monarch is – by
virtue of his or her office – automatically the sovereign of the order. Queen Elizabeth was installed as a “lady” of the
Order of the Garter on April 23, 1948 (her birthday) while still a princess. When she became queen, she became the
sovereign of the Order. On July 26, 1958, Prince Charles became a knight of the Order.

To this day, the Order of the Garter remains one of the most elite societies and appears to be at pinnacle of English-
speaking Freemasonry, if not all Masonry. The Garter itself appears on the coat of arms of both the Queen and
Prince Charles. This is why the strange “Masonic overtones” to Diana’s death are so significant. Many high-ranking
Masons in government and the military of the United Kingdom might feel it was their duty to eliminate Diana, Princess
of Wales.