Unlawful Killing: The Diana Movie Which Will Not be Shown in Britain and in France

We all know what happened that night.  It made sense.  It was the inevitable end to a tale that had been playing out for years.

Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed left the Hilton Hotel, in Paris, with their bodyguard and driver.  The latter - Henri Paul - was drunk and swaggering with bravado.  He was determined to out-run the photographers hanging around outside.  He set off driving too fast.

There were paparazzi.  There were always paparazzi.  The Princess of Wales was the most photographed woman on the planet. Her bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones, had made them leave from the back of the hotel to avoid the relentless cameras.

It was no good.  On mopeds and in cars, the press roared off in pursuit.  Henri Paul sped up, his faculties muddled by alcohol.

In an underpass, he lost control of the Mercedes that he was driving. Was there a disorienting strobing of camera flashes to add to the hour, the booze and his foot flooring the accelerator?

They hit a concrete pillar, concertinaing the car; killing Princess Diana, Dodi Al Fayed and Henri Paul outright. 

It's precisely what must have happened, because the papers told us so.  Before any official inquiry, evidence gathered and testimonies taken, the lore was set in print; and it embedded itself in our minds.

It's a pity, therefore, that so few people paid attention to what the inquest actually said.

The name of this documentary movie is Unlawful Killing. 

It's not solely sensationalist, designed to attract the conspiracy theory hordes.

If nothing else, the title and the furor over the subject matter should fix, for once and for all, the actual verdict of the inquest in people's minds. 

Regardless of what audiences ultimately conclude, the documentary will have got those two words into the cultural consciousness.

The crash was not an accident. It says so in the court transcript:

The verdict is unlawful killing, grossly negligent driving of the following vehicles and of the Mercedes...

The crash was caused or contributed to by the speed and manner of driving of the Mercedes, the speed and manner of driving of the following vehicles, the impairment of the judgment of the driver of the Mercedes through alcohol.

So far, so concordant with the general understanding of the story. 

Ok, so it wasn't legally a tragic accident, but surely that is just semantics?  The villain of the piece was Henri Paul and he paid for his actions with his life.  However morally reprehensible the photographers in pursuit may be, they were only doing their jobs.

Case closed.  On with the mourning.  On with the decade.  On to the moment when it's been a decent enough time for Hollywood to produce a clutch of movies about it all at once.

But no, read again.  Unlawful killing means that someone has a case to answer.  Photographers contributing, while doing what they do, is accidental death.  This was unlawful killing on both counts.  So why aren't said paparazzi even now doing time for homicide?

Because no-one's mentioned them.  They were too far away and took several minutes to reach the scene.  They weren't the aforementioned 'following vehicles'.

Amazon (US): Unlawful Killing DVD

Amazon (US): Unlawful Killing Blu-Ray

Unlawful Killing takes the view that there has been a cover-up surrounding Diana's death. There is a strong implication that she was murdered (many friends and commentators interviewed actually come out and say it). 

It has already made related headlines, after including a photograph of the dying Princess of Wales. 

These were all confiscated off photographers at the time, so have rarely been shown. Questions about public interest and the freedom of the press got buried, under a wave of paparazzi blame.

In fact, the incident allowed a series of legislation to be passed in Britain and abroad, which limited the freedom of press photographers. The laws all went onto the statute books with barely a murmur in protest. Everyone was too busy thinking of Diana and agreeing, than examining the reality of what was being banned.

But most of all, Unlawful Killing seeks to set out the evidence.  It is attempting to open a dialogue.

Within it, certain facts and realities are highlighted.  For example:

• If that was Henri Paul's blood that was tested for alcohol, then it also contained between 25-30% carbon monoxide poisoning. He couldn't have stood, let alone driven a car.
• A white Fiat Uno rammed into the side of the Mercedes-Benz, which carried Princess Diana. No public attempt has ever been made to locate the driver.
• James Anderson, the man who many suspect was driving the Fiat Uno, was subsequently found dead in suspicious circumstances.
• Every CCTV camera along that tunnel route was either broken or switched off. As one of Paris's main public highways, they are usually on 24/7.
• Diana lay dying in the Alma Underpass for over 40 minutes, after cock ups with the dispatch of the emergency services.

There is a lot more besides that.

Also motives for her murder are discussed. While Diana was undoubtedly embarrassing the British royal family, there were greater concerns within government, big business and the G8 military.

Her land-mine campaign work looked set to topple a very lucrative arms trade. She had already privately had a word with the President of the United States, and persuaded him to vote against the wishes of his own Ministry of Defense.  She was about to move into other anti-war activism.

One of the main criticisms about Unlawful Killing is that it has been 100% funded by Mohamed Al Fayed.  He's sunk somewhere between 2.5 and 4 million pounds into the documentary, depending upon which source you read.

Mohamed Al Fayed (pictured) has a personal stake in this story. It was his son Dodi who was in the car with Princess Diana.  The couple were dating; and there has been persistent speculation that the Princess of Wales was pregnant with Dodi's child.

Since 1997, Mr Al Fayed has been convinced that his son and the princess were murdered. He has openly stated that Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, was implicated.

Unlawful Killing certainly follows his version of events, but backs up its claims along every step of the way.

Keith Allen is unsympathetic to those who would dismiss the evidence, simply because of who funded its research and dissemination.  He pointed out that most Hollywood films are funded by the Mafia, but no-one ever thinks that's significant.

But is it a conspiracy film?  Let me be honest here and tell you that I have little patience with the term. 'Conspiracy' anything is the kind of stop word bandied about by people who don't want any challenges to the mainstream view.

Call anything a 'conspiracy movie' and you have effectively told the audience not to believe a word in it.

That is a point of view and, as an academic, I prefer my opinions to be based on solid evidence and rational extrapolation.

Unlawful Killing does suggest that there was a conspiracy. It points out the major players and those who would benefit from Diana's death. So yes, in the strictest sense, it is a film about a conspiracy; and there are unsettling conclusions to be reached.

However, I felt that it muddied the waters somewhat.  For example, we are told at length about Prince Philip's family connections in the Third Reich - one brother-in-law was a high-ranking official in the Nazi party; another was a Stormtrooper.  While sensational, I struggled with the relevance to the debate at hand.

Also the commentators equally could benefit from publicity here. One of the most ubiquitous speakers (and publicist for the film) is Noel Botham. As erudite an investigative journalist as he may be, it should be noted that he is also the author of a book claiming that Princess Diana was murdered.

Another familiar face was Kitty Kelley. As one of the closest friends of the Princess of Wales, she does have valuable insider information to impart.  However, she also wrote a popular biography of the princess.

Unlawful Killing, to my mind, should be an important new element in the overall discussion, but there needs to be much more objectivity before it could be considered the final word.

The obvious target audience for this movie is the British.  Princess Diana was a member of our royal family; and the film has been funded, made and published by British citizens.

The second major market should be in France, as most of the events debated occurred in that country. The French authorities and law enforcements are certainly implicated in the perceived cover up.

But the UK and France are the only two countries where Unlawful Killing will not be shown.

It all boils down to censorship.  Director Keith Allen was advised that no less than 87 cuts would have to be made, before his movie could be legally played in those two countries.  (In comparison, the American Film Board asked for only one.) 

If he did that, then the documentary would be rendered incoherent and nonsensical. It would not be worth distributing it.

Or perhaps Keith Allen realized that this is the 21st century.  Tim Berners-Lee has made it so that nothing can ever be effectively censored again.

While the rest of the world buy tickets for Unlawful Killing in theaters, or the DVD for home viewing, the British and French are largely watching it on the internet.

The fact that they've been told that they can't see this film, is bound to ensure that they all will.