Review of Unlawful Killing by "Anonymous"
This documentary (Unlawful Killing) is the total antithesis of 2006′s ‘The Queen’. Hopefully, the documentary will find
a distributor and soon.
The documentary’s title, ‘Unlawful Killings,’ comes from the actual legal findings of the inquest. The deaths of
Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed were ruled “Unlawful Killing” by the other vehicles that surrounded them in the
Alma Tunnel in Paris , and not, like most people have been led to believe, an accident! The original reports indicated
that among the contributing factors to the accident were 1) that the driver of the car, Henri Paul, was drunk, and 2)
the actual crash was caused by paparazzi on motorcycles chasing the car to get pictures of Diana and Dodi.
The evidence presented in this documentary shows that this is simply not true. First of all, Henri Paul had no history
of being an alcoholic, as accused. Receipts from the restaurant that night show that he only had 2 drinks, and video
images of him leaving the restaurant do not show him stumbling drunk, but relatively sober with no visible impairment.
When his apartment was searched after the accident, very small amounts of alcohol were found – a bottle or two.
When a later search was done, the report mysteriously indicated that there was enough alcohol to stock a full bar.
The inquest panel questions whether some tampering took place to build the story against Henri Paul. This is not to
say he was totally innocent. There is also video of Henri Paul stepping outside the back of the hotel and “signaling”
to someone that they are about to leave. This leads us to believe that he was in on the plot and he was not meant to
die in the accident. Further more, upon examination of the vehicle after the accident, it was determined that all the
seat belts in the car were in working order except in the seat where Diana was sitting. It was reported that she always
wore a seatbelt, but that hers was jammed and she couldn’t wear it, again raising questions of tampering.
Then there is the issue of the paparazzi giving chase. Eye witness reports from the scene say that the car that Diana
and Dodi were in was too powerful for the paparazzi on their motorcycles to keep up with and by the time they
reached the entrance to the tunnel, the paparazzi were left far behind. Witnesses reported seeing the car
surrounded by three or four other high-powered motorcycles and a small Fiat. The motorcycles blocked the car,
making it impossible to avoid hitting the Fiat when a bright flash went off in the tunnel seconds before Henri Paul lost
control of the car.
Questions are raised not only about the mysterious flash that went off, but also as to why the surveillance cameras in
the tunnel were turned off, when normally they were recording 24-7. Adding to the conspiracy theory, it was
documented that it took an astonishing 37 minutes to get Diana out of the car once emergency personnel arrived on
the scene (there was not enough damage to her side of the car to justify it taking that long), and a HORRIFYING 187
minutes before she reached the hospital in an ambulance driving on empty streets. So there is some of the evidence!
The really compelling and fascinating issues come from the question of why ? Why was there a plot to kill Diana and
Dodi in the first place? Mohamed al - Fayed, Dodi’s father and former owner of Harrod’s Department store in London
has his suspicions. These are presented in the film by various interviews and video footage.
In a nutshell, according the senior Mr. al - Fayed, the Royal Family, led by Prince Phillip (The Queen's husband) are
racist and were not going to stand by and watch the royal bloodline diluted by an Arab Muslim like Dodi Fayed. In the
months leading up to the crash, Diana and Dodi’s relationship had become serious and there were reports that they
would marry and that she was even pregnant with his child. There are even accusations that the reason that Diana’s
body was embalmed so quickly was so that no pregnancy test could be done on her.
When the issue of a blood test was brought up years later, Diana’s blood samples had mysteriously disappeared.
Lastly, the most frightening conclusion from this film is that the Royal Family is above the law. During the inquest, no
one was forced to testify, including both Prince Phillip and Prince Charles. The high court most definitely participated
in covering up evidence and making special rulings that apply only to the Royal Family. In a letter that Diana sent to
a friend shortly before her death, she wrote “My husband is planning to have me killed in an accident, like in a car
with the brake line cut.” Even if this was written by a woman with an overactive imagination, if it were any other family
it would have been investigated more thoroughly. I guess it’s good to be a Royal!
Interview With Film Makers of Unlawful Killing
Q. Can you tell us about the background to 'Unlawful Killing'?
In 1997, Princess Diana and her lover Dodi Fayed died in a car crash in the Alma Tunnel in Paris. The press
immediately declared it was a simple accident, caused by a drunk driver and the pursuing paparazzi. But many
people (most notably Mohamed Al Fayed, Dodi's father) suspected that they had been deliberately killed. The
French police held an inquiry, but have never published the full report. For ten years, the British authorities
prevaricated over holding an inquest. At one point, they even tried to hold it in secret, or with a jury comprised solely
of members of the royal household. Finally in 2007, a public inquest got underway. The film is our take on what went
on in the Royal Courts of Justice during the next six months.
Q. How did you originally get involved in the project?
I'm part of a TV company (Associated Rediffusion) that has worked with Keith Allen for the past decade, making
documentaries for Channel 4. In 2004, we made one about Mohamed Al Fayed, and found him to be very different
from the unflattering way in which he is commonly portrayed by the British media. He's very funny, very sharp, very
stubborn, and very sane. When the inquest took place, my company initially started to follow the proceedings with
our own cameras on a self-funded basis, with a view to making a TV documentary about it. Mohamed Al Fayed
offered to fund a full cinema doc, giving us a budget that allowed us to film court reconstructions, and to research
deeply into the background of the case. We agreed, on condition that we covered the story in our own way. Our film
is the result.
Q. What was your initial response when you discovered the alleged cover-up?
When we began work on the film, I thought that there were some suspicious circumstances about the crash, but I
didn't believe that there could have been a full-scale cover-up, because it would have involved a great many people.
However, as I and my colleagues dug more deeply, we began to find more and more disturbing peculiarities. To take
just a couple of examples, a sworn legal note in which Diana claimed that her husband was planning "an accident in
my car" was concealed for six years by the Metropolitan police, and blood tests that were used as the sole basis for
the claim that driver Henri Paul was drunk were deemed to be "biologically inexplicable" by the police's own forensic
expert, suggesting that the blood tested was probably not his blood at all. If space permitted, I could list a hundred
other worrying anomalies, so many that (in my opinion) it has become impossible to argue that this was a simple
accident. Indeed, the jury didn't think it was an accident either. They said it was Unlawful Killing, which means
homicide or manslaughter.
Q. What can you tell us about the cover-up as seen in the movie? Who do you feel was behind it?
We've tried to avoid speculation in the film, and have stuck to the facts. There is strong evidence that Henri Paul was
working for the French and British intelligence services. Diana's involvement in the campaign to ban land mines was
known to be causing huge fury amongst sections of the British Establishment (and the arms industry), as was the
prospect of the mother of the future King of England being about to marry a Muslim, and perhaps have a child with
him. But having a motive is not the same as proof of wrongdoing, of course, and all of us who have worked on the
film feel that there is a still a great deal more information to be unearthed, before the finger can be pointed
definitively at a single culprit. But there were certainly a lot of powerful people who were very happy that Diana was
no longer alive.
What we can say is that there was definitely something very wrong indeed about the autopsies and blood tests
conducted on the body of Henri Paul. In particular, Professor Dominique Lecomte, the Head of the Institut Medico-
Legal in Paris, has been involved in several suspicious cases in France over the past twenty years (if your readers
Google "Bernard Borrel," they'll find details of another official cover-up in France, one in which she was heavily
involved, but which has now been partially uncovered). At the inquest, forensic scientists agreed that Lecomte's
account of the autopsy she had conducted on Henri Paul was untruthful. She refused to attend the inquest, and
when the jury asked to see the statements that she and her colleagues had given to the police, the coroner told
them "no, you cannot see the statements." Incidents like that simply reek of an official cover-up.
Q. How much of the alleged cover-up has been reported by the media and how much has disappeared?
In Britain, quite a lot of the suspicious detail was reported by sections of the media between 1997 and 2006. But
strangely, as soon as the inquest was announced, the press fell into line, and suddenly all began saying that this
was a simple accident, and that the inquest was really a waste of time and money. Put simply, the British press like
the royal family (the senior ones anyway), and they don't like Mohamed Al Fayed, and their coverage of the inquest
Q. Do you think the truth of the cover-up will ever come out and what will be the implications of this?
I would defer in this to Michael Mansfield QC, who represented Mohamed Al Fayed at the inquest. He told me that,
during his long career, he has been involved in many cases where evidence has been suppressed, and that sooner
or later, at least part of the truth always emerges. So yes, I'm optimistic that we will learn more, although we may
never know everything.
Q. The movie is not about a conspiracy before the crash, but about a provable cover-up after the crash. Are you
able to speculate an opinion about what happened before the crash?
The most important point is that the paparazzi had nothing to do with the crash. The jury understood this, and their
verdict made no mention of the paparazzi. It blamed unidentified "following vehicles" for causing the crash. The single
biggest disservice to the truth that the British press has committed was to misreport the verdict, by claiming that the
jury had blamed the paparazzi. All over the world, people now think that that's what the jury said, but they didn't.
Apart from that, we know that Diana's Mercedes was surrounded by unidentified motorcycles, and collided with a
white Fiat Uno. At first, the French police denied the existence of this car, even though white paint was found on the
Mercedes where the collision took place. Why did they try to deny its existence? Perhaps because it was driven by
James Andanson, who worked for French Intelligence, and was later found dead in a burned-out car in a French
Ministry of Defence field, apparently with two bullet holes in his head. The French said he had "committed suicide."
Shooting yourself twice in the head, then setting fire to your own car before dying? That doesn't sound very likely,
Q. Who made the decision to ban the movie in UK? Will it be shown at many other festivals around the world?
We have been warned by British lawyers that, unless we make 87 cuts, we will be liable to prosecution for contempt
of court if we screen it in the UK. As the main point of our film is that the inquest was rigged, and that the coroner
(who had sworn an oath of allegiance to the Queen) was not impartial when presiding over a case that involved the
royal family, it's impossible for us to make our case without falling foul of that law. However, the film can be shown
everywhere else in the world, and should be released during the autumn. It's also being shown at the San Sebastian
film festival in September, with others also in the pipeline (but not yet officially announced).
Q. What was your opinion of the Royal Family before getting involved in the movie? How much has that changed as
you learnt more?
I have never had much interest in royalty, but I had no ill-feeling towards them. My opinion of Prince Philip has
certainly changed for the worse since I found out more about his early years. The film contains images of him
marching at a Nazi funeral in Darmstadt in 1937, alongside his high-ranking Nazi brothers-in-law and in front of a
Sieg Heiling crowd. He was never a member of the Nazi party, and it should be noted that he fought on the Allied side
in WW2, but if his early history had not been sanitised by Mountbatten (and glossed over by the British press ever
since), I doubt if he would ever have been allowed to marry the British Queen.
Q. Why do you think people are still fascinated by the story of Princess Diana to this day?
The story of the girl who grows up to marry a prince is a recurring one in fairy tales, and Diana seemed to have
walked straight into a fairy tale when she married Charles. But within a few years, the fairy tale had turned into a
nightmare. And rather than stay in a miserable marriage, she rebelled and broke free. I think that she was a role
model and an inspiration for many women (especially unhappily-married ones), and for anyone who identifies with an
outsider. I don't believe the myths about how saintly she was. Indeed, in many ways, she was a spoiled and vain
woman. But there was something admirable about her defiance, and her willingness to confront the British
Establishment. She knew full well that she would be bumped off as a result. But she did it anyway.