Diana- There was a sinister conspiracy but it began AFTER the crash

Back to the Diana conspiracy. Mind you I did always find it very odd how the ambulance took well over an hour to get her the 2 miles to hospital. They say she could have survived if she had got there sooner.





The director of a controversial Diana documentary says: There was a sinister conspiracy but it began AFTER the crash

By Keith Allen

Last updated at 11:15 AM on 12th May 2011

Tragic Princess: Why was she not taken straight to the hospital?


Calm down dears, it’s only a documentary.
The outrage generated by the announcement that Unlawful Killing (my film about the inquest into the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed) is to be screened in Cannes today has been so heated that I’m fully expecting the phone to ring, and my daughter Lily to say to me: ‘Dad, what have you been up to this time? Are you halfway between East Ham and Upney? Are you Barking?’
I’ve even been attacked in this newspaper by the redoubtable A.N. Wilson, who expressed utter contempt for anyone who believes that Diana’s death might have been anything other than an accident.
That struck me as odd, because I’m an avid reader of his work, and remember that on September 8, 2009, while reviewing the memoirs of Michael Mansfield QC (the barrister who represented Mohamed Al Fayed at the inquest), he wrote: ‘Mansfield has persuaded me that, as a matter of fact, there is something extremely fishy about the death of Princess Diana in the Paris underpass.’
Or perhaps that was another A.N. Wilson?
What’s caused the most heat this week is the inclusion of a photograph of Diana, taken shortly after the crash. I’ve been accused of cheap sensationalism (and worse), and Mohamed Al Fayed has also been attacked, even though he’s just a backer who had nothing to do with the editorial decision to include it.
Incidentally, the only reason I needed a private backer at all was because, even though the inquest was the longest and most significant in British history, not one UK broadcaster would commission a documentary about it from me.
Usually I can get programmes commissioned without undue difficulty, but Channel 4, Channel 5, Sky, and many others all stared blankly when we suggested the idea.
More...A.N. WILSON: Can't they let Princess Diana rest in peace?
Outrage at screening of dying Princess Diana photo: Cannes documentary to show graphic picture for first time
'It was so difficult': Fergie reveals her hurt over Royal Wedding snub
'I think the response has been incredible'... says Beatrice as she plans to auction off that Royal Wedding hat

And when my producer proposed (over lunch with the Director General) that the BBC might commission an investigative documentary about how the media had covered the inquest, and about how the coroner had conducted it (especially his extraordinary reluctance to call senior royals as witnesses, even though Diana had left letters stating that the Windsors were planning a car “accident” for her), the refusal was so powerful that it almost took the enamel off his teeth.
Questions: Keith Allen's film explores the series of delays that have never been properly explained
Anyway, before I get that call from Lily, let me explain why the producers and I decided to include that photograph. And I’ll rehearse the arguments in front of the toughest audience of them all: Daily Mail readers.
The photo is not used in the film for the purpose of shock. It is included as evidence, because it shows clearly that, although Diana had been injured in the crash, she was alert and very much alive. I repeat: it is not a picture of a dying woman.
As medical evidence presented at the inquest confirmed, if Diana had been taken promptly to hospital by Dr Jean-Marc Martino, she could well have survived.
Instead, due to a series of delays that have never been properly explained, it took one hour and 43 minutes to get her to a hospital just a couple of miles away, by which time her life was ebbing away.
We briefly use one photograph as part of a sequence which asks: why was she not taken to hospital more quickly? What took place within Dr Martino’s ambulance (inside which she remained for well over an hour)? Why is Dr Martino’s evidence greatly at variance with the known facts? And why did no official inquiry ever interview (or even name) most of other people in the ambulance?
Surely, if the inquest and police enquiries were as ‘thorough’ and ‘open’ as the voices of authority insist, that is the very least they would have done?
My film is not about a conspiracy before the crash, but about a conspiracy after the crash, culminating in a six-month inquest which (it is my contention) sought to bury the truth, rather than reveal it. I don’t know whether I’ll convince you or not, but I hope you’ll reserve judgement until you have seen it for yourselves.
Admittedly, that’s difficult at the moment, because the film cannot be shown in the UK (mainly because the questions it asks about the conduct of the coroner and police chiefs could lead to us all being imprisoned under contempt of court laws). But it will soon be showing widely throughout the world, so many of you will be able to see it elsewhere.
Accusations: Keith Allen denies he is trying to make money out of a much-loved woman's death
One final point. I’ve been accused of seeking to make money out of a much-loved woman’s death by making this documentary. That accusation is cheap, untrue and unworthy of those who make it.
I knew that I would be taking some flak by going public, but I made this film because I believe (as privately does A.N. Wilson and most of the British public) that there is something extremely fishy about Diana’s death, and that we have all been lied to by the authorities.
Frankly, if it was simply money I was after, then I wouldn’t have spent three long years making a documentary. I’d simply have signed up for another lucrative Hollywood blockbuster, or spent another three months in a forest in Hungary, pretending to be the Sheriff of Nottingham.
After all, my legs look lovely in tights.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1386137/Princess-Diana-death-conspiracy-started-crash-says-Unlawful-Killing-director-Keith-Allen.html#ixzz1MAErEwZb

I must admit that I originally thought that conspiracy theorists on the subject of Diana's death needed to get out more but, after the lunacy of the official versions of 9/11, 7/7 and yes even Madeleine McCann, I'm a lot more open minded to the possibility that this was not just an accident. I've heard that the announcement that Diana's driver was blind drunk was made before his body had been autopsied; is there anyone out there who has proof of that?

Marian wrote:I must admit that I originally thought that conspiracy theorists on the subject of Diana's death needed to get out more but, after the lunacy of the official versions of 9/11, 7/7 and yes even Madeleine McCann, I'm a lot more open minded to the possibility that this was not just an accident. I've heard that the announcement that Diana's driver was blind drunk was made before his body had been autopsied; is there anyone out there who has proof of that?

[quote snipped]

The photo is not used in the film for the purpose of shock. It is included as evidence, because it shows clearly that, although Diana had been injured in the crash, she was alert and very much alive. I repeat: it is not a picture of a dying woman.
As medical evidence presented at the inquest confirmed, if Diana had been taken promptly to hospital by Dr Jean-Marc Martino, she could well have survived.
Instead, due to a series of delays that have never been properly explained, it took one hour and 43 minutes to get her to a hospital just a couple of miles away, by which time her life was ebbing away.
We briefly use one photograph as part of a sequence which asks: why was she not taken to hospital more quickly? What took place within Dr Martino’s ambulance (inside which she remained for well over an hour)? Why is Dr Martino’s evidence greatly at variance with the known facts? And why did no official inquiry ever interview (or even name) most of other people in the ambulance?


I think there are some serious questions here.

It would be wonderful if the truth of Dianas death did emerge. I have read that in France ambulances are not like UK ambulances. They are equipped to treat life-threatening injuries and that is why the ambulance took so long.

I havent read up on the Diana case for a long time but didn't she die of a torn pulmonary artery? Surely if the ambulance staff were so highly trained they would have know that the only thing that could save her would be a trip to an operating theatre. I cannot believe, as good as we are lead to believe tese French ambulances are, that they would have, on hand a ready supply of blood of her type.

Didn't she and the other two die because they weren't wearing seat belts?

The bodyguard was wearing his and he was the only one to survive.

Clunk click every trip.

Re the seat belt issue, it was widely publicised initially that only the bodyguard was wearing one but I have read more recently that it hadn't been fastened properly and would have provided little if any protection. Whether of course that's true who knows?

Graphic Diana Death Photo Shown In Cannes

46 Comments

3:51pm UK, Tuesday May 10, 2011

A paparazzi photograph of a dying Princess Diana, which has never before been seen in the UK, has been screened in a new documentary about her fatal crash.


The graphic picture appears in Unlawful Killing, which was shown at Cannes Film Festival.

It was taken moments after the Mercedes in which Diana was travelling crashed in a Paris underpass in 1997.

Film maker Keith Allen - the father of singer Lily Allen - has based the 90-minute documentary on what he calls a conspiracy by the British establishment to cover up details of Diana's death.



The wreckage of the car Diana was travelling in


It is backed by Mohammed Fayed, whose son Dodi also died in the car.

Allen has insisted the documentary is not a "sensationalist film."

He said: "I think it is a very forensic analysis of a process, a British legal process, and I think it reveals things that, I'm sorry, don't add up."

A spokesman for Mr Fayed has confirmed that the former Harrods boss had provided around £2.5m to fund the documentary.

The film will be shown around the world, but not in the UK.


The jury at an inquest which ended in 2008 concluded that Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed were unlawfully killed as a direct result of grossly negligent driving by drunk chauffeur Henri Paul, who also died in the crash.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Showbiz-News/Photograph-Of-A-Dying-Princess-Diana-To-Be-Shown-At-Cannes-In-Unlawful-Killing-Film/Article/201105215989057?lpos=Showbiz_News_Third_UK_News_Article_Teaser_Region__0&lid=ARTICLE_15989057_Photograph_Of_A_Dying_Princess_Diana_To_Be_Shown_At_Cannes_In_Unlawful_Killing_Film