Not sure if this has been posted but check out this news for observation. Very interesting to say the least...but you never know lol...
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/arti ... article.do
Diana's Murder - Latest / Analysis
James Andanson, the owner of the white Fiat Uno seen by many witnesses in the tunnel and believed by some to have been involved in the crash of Diana's car, was murdered by a Yugoslav agent. Details here:
http://www.investigateur.info/affaires/ ... anson.html
(Dossier needs translation into English).
The relevant paragraph is:
"Selon le rapport confidentiel d¹une sorte de ³groupe d¹études², constitué, après la mort d¹Andanson, par des amis que le photographe avait su se faire dans une société anglo-saxonne d¹investigation et de sécurité proche des services britanniques, le photographe a été assassiné par un homme de main d¹origine yougoslave, T...,évoluant habituellement sous le pseudonyme d¹une grande famille de la noblesse française, connu aussi de la chanteuse Amanda Lear."
Its English translation, somewhat garbled by an internet translator, is:
"According to the confidential report, a kind of studies group, made up, after Andanson death, by friends whom the photographer had known to be made in a Anglo-Saxon company investigation and of safety close to the British services, the photographer was assassinated by a henchman origin Yugoslav, T…, usually evolving/moving under the pseudonym of a great family of the French nobility, also known of the singer Amanda Lear."
(Notice the reference to "Anglo-Saxon" and "British services". Intelligence services.)
Now, Amanda Lear is a famous French transexual singer and TV show hostess who was a close friend of Salvador Dali.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Lear
In 1979, she married the bisexual French aristocrat Alain-Philippe Malagnac d'Argens:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain-Phil ... ll%C3%A8le
It is suspected that this man killed himself in a fire at his home in 2000 in a suicide pact with his former close male friend, who had died shortly before. So what this explosive passage in "Le Investigateur" is saying is that a Yugoslav code-named "T", who operated under a deleted (d) pseudonym that is in this aristocrat's name, murdered the very man whom many suspect was involved in the assassination of Princess Diana!
That this man "T" was connected to intelligence agencies is strongly suggested in the following translated passage (garbled somewhat) from the same article in "L'investigateur":
"But information of the British from now on came to a service French information, attached to the Ministry for Defense. They could have unexpected developments. (Old) connections of T… with Amanda Lear feed from the interrogations on death by fire - a mania - D ¹ Alain-Philippe Malagnac, the husband of the singer, on December 28, 2000. T. would have worked a little, also, a front year, on the Safra file - name of the owner of national Républic bank of New York, asphyxiated in a fire with L ¹ interior of its building-fortress of Monaco, on December 6, 1999. According to L ¹ official investigation, fire had been lit in a dustbin by an old green beret (commando of the special forces) American, Ted Maher. It came D ¹ to be recruited as male nurse, and lived a love disappointed with one of his colleagues… "
Notice the reference to working on the "Safra file". This refers to the murder of Edmond Safra, the founder of the Republic National Bank in New York, in 1999 (two years after Diana's death), for which an ex-Green Beret, Ted Maher, was convicted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Maher
Safra employed security guards trained by the Israeli Mossad and had contacts with the FBI. So his murder was of great interest to intelligence agencies because he had made enemies with the Russian mafia. The man codenamed "T", named by the French investigative website as Andanson's killer, was therefore very likely either an intelligence agent or a free-lance hitman who carried out 'wet jobs' for intelligence agencies.
Here, therefore, is indisputable evidence from a French investigative website specializing in digging the dirt on French politicians and famous people (therefore very likely having sources within French intelligence agencies - notice the official-looking format of the dossier) that confirms that James Andanson did not kill himself, as the French police concluded but which his wife adamantly denied. Instead, he was assassinated by a Yugoslav involved in some way with international murder cases (he worked on the "Safra file"). The question now is: why was Andanson killed? He had started to brag about his presence at the crash scene and about slipping away from the French police (he left that night for Corsica - a mafia haven - possibly to stay at a 'safe house'). Could it be that, because of his intelligence agency connections and his bragging, he had become a dangerous liability to those who had used him to cause the crash that killed Diana? If so, he had to be silenced before his freelance work for French and British intelligence agencies became revealed. And - more serious still - before he exposed his collusion in - if not their official involvement in Diana's death - at least with some of their maverick members......
http://www.investigateur.info/affaires/ ... anson.html
(Dossier needs translation into English).
The relevant paragraph is:
"Selon le rapport confidentiel d¹une sorte de ³groupe d¹études², constitué, après la mort d¹Andanson, par des amis que le photographe avait su se faire dans une société anglo-saxonne d¹investigation et de sécurité proche des services britanniques, le photographe a été assassiné par un homme de main d¹origine yougoslave, T...,évoluant habituellement sous le pseudonyme d¹une grande famille de la noblesse française, connu aussi de la chanteuse Amanda Lear."
Its English translation, somewhat garbled by an internet translator, is:
"According to the confidential report, a kind of studies group, made up, after Andanson death, by friends whom the photographer had known to be made in a Anglo-Saxon company investigation and of safety close to the British services, the photographer was assassinated by a henchman origin Yugoslav, T…, usually evolving/moving under the pseudonym of a great family of the French nobility, also known of the singer Amanda Lear."
(Notice the reference to "Anglo-Saxon" and "British services". Intelligence services.)
Now, Amanda Lear is a famous French transexual singer and TV show hostess who was a close friend of Salvador Dali.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Lear
In 1979, she married the bisexual French aristocrat Alain-Philippe Malagnac d'Argens:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain-Phil ... ll%C3%A8le
It is suspected that this man killed himself in a fire at his home in 2000 in a suicide pact with his former close male friend, who had died shortly before. So what this explosive passage in "Le Investigateur" is saying is that a Yugoslav code-named "T", who operated under a deleted (d) pseudonym that is in this aristocrat's name, murdered the very man whom many suspect was involved in the assassination of Princess Diana!
That this man "T" was connected to intelligence agencies is strongly suggested in the following translated passage (garbled somewhat) from the same article in "L'investigateur":
"But information of the British from now on came to a service French information, attached to the Ministry for Defense. They could have unexpected developments. (Old) connections of T… with Amanda Lear feed from the interrogations on death by fire - a mania - D ¹ Alain-Philippe Malagnac, the husband of the singer, on December 28, 2000. T. would have worked a little, also, a front year, on the Safra file - name of the owner of national Républic bank of New York, asphyxiated in a fire with L ¹ interior of its building-fortress of Monaco, on December 6, 1999. According to L ¹ official investigation, fire had been lit in a dustbin by an old green beret (commando of the special forces) American, Ted Maher. It came D ¹ to be recruited as male nurse, and lived a love disappointed with one of his colleagues… "
Notice the reference to working on the "Safra file". This refers to the murder of Edmond Safra, the founder of the Republic National Bank in New York, in 1999 (two years after Diana's death), for which an ex-Green Beret, Ted Maher, was convicted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Maher
Safra employed security guards trained by the Israeli Mossad and had contacts with the FBI. So his murder was of great interest to intelligence agencies because he had made enemies with the Russian mafia. The man codenamed "T", named by the French investigative website as Andanson's killer, was therefore very likely either an intelligence agent or a free-lance hitman who carried out 'wet jobs' for intelligence agencies.
Here, therefore, is indisputable evidence from a French investigative website specializing in digging the dirt on French politicians and famous people (therefore very likely having sources within French intelligence agencies - notice the official-looking format of the dossier) that confirms that James Andanson did not kill himself, as the French police concluded but which his wife adamantly denied. Instead, he was assassinated by a Yugoslav involved in some way with international murder cases (he worked on the "Safra file"). The question now is: why was Andanson killed? He had started to brag about his presence at the crash scene and about slipping away from the French police (he left that night for Corsica - a mafia haven - possibly to stay at a 'safe house'). Could it be that, because of his intelligence agency connections and his bragging, he had become a dangerous liability to those who had used him to cause the crash that killed Diana? If so, he had to be silenced before his freelance work for French and British intelligence agencies became revealed. And - more serious still - before he exposed his collusion in - if not their official involvement in Diana's death - at least with some of their maverick members......
Unlawful Killing Official Trailer
<iframe id="ytplayer" type="text/html" width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/V5PFWc8DgFw" frameborder="0"></iframe>
Trailer released for controversial Diana film, Unlawful Killing
<iframe id="ytplayer" type="text/html" width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/V5PFWc8DgFw" frameborder="0"></iframe>
Trailer released for controversial Diana film, Unlawful Killing
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... lling.html1:20PM BST 13 May 2011
The film sets out to prove a cover-up by the "establishment" over the death of Princess Diana. It has caused outrage in sections of the British press and is not scheduled for a UK release.
Controversy centers around the use of a paparazzi photograph of Princess Diana dying at the scene of the car crash that killed her, her partner Dodi al-Fayed and the car's driver Henri Paul in Paris in 1997.
Directed by actor Keith Allen and backed by Mohamed al-Fayed, father of Dodi, the film is being screened at the 2011 Cannes Film Festival on Friday.
Mr Allen describes his film as an "inquest into the inquest" of Princess Diana's death. Of the controversial photo, Mr Allen wrote in the Daily Mail: "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."
<iframe id="ytplayer" type="text/html" width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hnzmk1E6QmE" frameborder="0"></iframe>
Movie Sneak Preview Above
Keith Allen on his Diana doc 'Unlawful Killing'
Saturday, May 14 2011, 08:41 BST
By Simon Reynolds, Movies Editor and Mayer Nissim, Senior Entertainment Reporter
Keith Allen unveiled his documentary Unlawful Killing, about the inquest into the death of Princess Diana, to the world's media at the Cannes Film Festival this week.
The Shallow Grave and Robin Hood star, with the financial backing of Mohamed Al-Fayed, spoke of his desire to "contribute to the world's wallpaper" regarding the questions still surrounding Diana's tragic passing. Here are some of the highlights from Allen's eventful press conference at the Croisette's Carlton Hotel...
On how he approached the project
"I didn't make this film because I am a documentary filmmaker. I made it because I'm just a normal person who didn't believe what I was hearing and seeing. When I was informed that there was going to be an inquiry, I wanted to get in very early, and I wanted to make the film that might confirm my suspicions."
On filmmaking
"I didn't find this film very difficult to make - the film virtually made itself."
Is it a sensationalist film?
"I thought it was important that the public got to understand in a forensic manner what was happening in this inquest. I didn't want to make a sensational film - I don't think it is a sensational film. I think it's a very forensic analysis of the British legal process."
On Mohamed Al-Fayed funding the film
"He put money in because nobody else would. If I could have got it somewhere else I would have got it somewhere else. I didn't, I got it from him."
What's new in Keith's film?
"I don't believe that there is too much that is new... There's an old saying in our country - the best kept secrets are on the bookshelves of the British Library. They're all there, if you care to have a look. Now if you just take all the information, and you manipulate it or place it into a certain shape, then two and two start to make four - before you did that, two and two may well have made five. I've used the available information, and I've put it in a certain way. It's as simple as that."
Allen suggests a link between the monarchy and our ruling elite
"Now, look, let me make this absolutely clear - this is not an attack on the monarchy - it's actually questioning the role of the Establishment. And in so doing it will make clear that there are connections between the Royal House of Windsor and the Establishment. It's as simple as that."
What about that picture of Princess Diana dying?
"As I said when I defended the film, there won't be a sharp intake of breath when you see 'the photograph' of the princess dying, there won't be. You saw it and I don't believe there was. It's nowhere near as sensational or revealing as people made it out to be."
On whether he should have mentioned that the film was financed by Mohamed Al-Fayed
"I don't understand at which point in the film I could have said to the viewers, 'By the way, this was financed by Mr Al-Fayed'. I think it may have disrupted the flow of the film... I think you'll find there are an immense number of films coming out of America and all over the world that are financed by the Mafia... I presume that you're trying to imply that the presence of Mohamed Al-Fayed in some way informed the editorial process. I can categorically say that it didn't."
Is the ending of the film anti-royal?
"It's not anti-monarchy - I think it may be questioning capitalism."
Allen and Diana: The Last Days author Martyn Gregory have a heated exchange about the financing of the film
Martyn: "How much was not funded by Mohamed Al Fayed?"
Keith: "None of it"
Martyn: "So it was all funded by him?"
Keith: "Genius."
Keith is asked about Al-Fayed's absence from the press conference
"I'm not his keeper."
Was Keith tracked by the authorities while he made the film?
"I really think, my friend, that our secret services are so good that I wouldn't know."
Will he make lawyer-requested cuts to the film in order to secure a release in the UK?
"I haven't made any cuts of the 87 that were suggested, which is contributing to why the film isn't being show in England. When you want to screen a film in England you have to have insurance, and the only way to get insurance is to be lawyer approved. I could get lawyer approval if I made the 87 cuts, which I wasn't prepared to make. It's an ongoing process, there's a chance it may be seen in England. We're in talks with the London Film Festival and it could be shown there."
His own personal opinion on Diana's death...
"I do believe that Diana was in a position to rock a number of boats, I do believe that a warning may have sufficed. I remember with Mo Mowlam when she banged her head, they could easily report anything she said that had been contentious within the framework that Mo's mad. So I think there's a chance [Diana] may have survived the accident, they could argue that anything she said could be put down to a nasty crack on the head. I think it may have gone too far. I also believe that there is a cover-up about the presentation of evidence."
Is the royal family racist?
"I believe that to be the case, I don't think they're above racist comments."
What does he hope to achieve with Unlawful Killing?
"Maybe if the inquest had been conducted to my satisfaction... basically what I'm trying to do is to contribute to the world's wallpaper, I'm trying to add information. What I'm saying is do not necessarily believe the hype, that's all."
Did he ever meet Princess Diana?
"I haven't met Princess Diana but my son and my daughter have years ago. My ex-wife Alison produced a film called Hear My Song, [which was] chosen as the royal premiere. Bless his heart, Alfie, it was the first time he'd ever worn a suit... he was putting on his trousers and he did what you wouldn't wish upon all young boys - he caught his c**k in his zip. I had the awful job of having to unzip it and pull his penis out. I've got a wonderful photograph of Princess Di bending over talking to Lily and Alfie as they're presented to her and her just laughing. I wasn't there and I asked why [she was laughing] and my son told her he'd trapped his penis."
Why does his documentary not include any dissenting voices?
"I think that there are more than enough dissenting voices who'll watch the film... I'm not particularly interested in... I have to be very careful here... the film is a film from my POV. I think the French call it being an auteur."
http://www.digitalspy.ie/movies/at-the- ... lling.html
Diana tragedy needs answers
May 15th, 2011
One of the first men in the world to know of Princess Diana's car crash, Geelong's paparazzi king DARRYN LYONS gives his view on the latest film to examine that night, Unlawful Killing.
THE conspiracy theories surrounding the 1997 death of Princess Diana are to be given fresh life in actor Keith Allen's film Unlawful Killing, which premiered overnight at the Cannes Film Festival.
I was one of the first people in the world to receive photos of the crash - photos I never sold, despite being offered millions of pounds for them. And to all of those who have been asking me no, I did not sell those pictures to the movie. But I can't wait to see the reaction to the film.
Keith, father to pop-star Lily Allen, is expected to be inundated by offers from American, the Far East and Europe. But there is one place the film is never likely to see the light of day - Britain. Lawyers have warned Allen that significant cuts would have to be made for it to ever air in Diana's home country.
He began making the film in October 2007 at the beginning of the six-month inquest into her death and is financed by Harrods owner Mohamed Al Fayed, whose son Dodi, 42, died alongside Diana. But this was not the original plan. Allen says that before he met Al Fayed he was convinced by the media caricature of him as a crazed man, driven mad by his son's death.
After meeting him and digging around, though, he soon changed his mind. Al Fayed has always believed his son and Diana were murdered by the secret service in collusion with Prince Philip, because the pair were in love and the mother of the nation's future king could not marry a Muslim.
What amazed Allen, he says, was that after questioning a raft of educated people they all recalled the inquest verdict was accidental death. In fact, the jury decided it was an unlawful death, and the negligent driving of chauffeur Henri Paul and the following vehicles had killed the pair.
Also wrong were the media reports that these vehicles were paparazzi; in fact, the verdict never mentioned this.
Whatever your view on Diana's and Dodi's deaths, the film certainly gives everyone food for thought, exploring a series of unanswered questions.
Why was Diana's seatbelt faulty? Why was she left in the car for 37 minutes, instead of being rushed to hospital? Why was every camera in the Pont de l'Alma road tunnel broken or off?
In a letter to butler Paul Burrell three years before she died, Diana famously wrote: "My husband is planning an accident in my car - brake failure or serious injury." The film looks into Al Fayed's legal action against then Metropolitan Police Commissioner Paul Condon into allegations he held this letter for three years after Diana's death instead of investigating it. He strongly denies being part of a cover up.
There is also the infamous blood tests taken from driver Henri Paul, who only three days earlier had a strict medical to renew his pilot's licence and had no drink problem at that time. Medical experts term his samples biologically inexplicable but French pathologists refused to attend Diana's inquest. Those samples no longer exist, just like tests taken from Diana to establish if she was pregnant.
Another mystery is that while the inquest agreed there had been a collision with a white Fiat Uno, it was never found. A photographer, James Andanson - then suspected of working with MI6 - owned a white Fiat Uno that he sold just two months after the crash.
In March 2002, he was found in a burnt-out car, shot in the head twice and French authorities claimed it was suicide. As the film says, it's possible to shoot yourself once in the head in a suicide - but not twice.
And where was the Queen's private secretary Sir Robert Fellowes? He said he was on holiday at the time of the crash, but in his autobiography the then prime minister's press secretary, Alistair Campbell, stated he saw him in Balmoral.
These are just some of the many questions covered.
After making the film, Allen, like Fayed, is convinced there was a cover up and I agree. I can't believe this was just a simple case of crash by a drunk driver. There are still too many questions that have gone unanswered about that night.
And despite the coroner never placing any blame on photographers, the paparazzi have been made an easy scapegoat. Adding up all this evidence and raising important questions, there's one thing for sure: Unlawful Killing hits its target.
http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/art ... _news.html
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
They only function when open.
Debate on
on Fox TV
on Fox TV
<iframe id="ytplayer" type="text/html" width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/V1FwNFFSeh0" frameborder="0"></iframe>
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
They only function when open.
Keith Allen’s Princess Diana documentary flops at Cannes
Keith Allen”s controversial documentary about the death of Diana, Princess of Wales failed to impress or shock critics as it premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in France on Friday, with many reporters walking out of the much-hyped screening.
Unlawful Killing, directed by the British actor – father of pop star Lily Allen, documents the 2008 inquest into the beloved royal’s death in a 1997 Paris car accident, which also killed her companion Dodi Fayed and their chauffeur Henri Paul.
The documentary caused outrage in Britain after Allen chose to include a graphic black-and-white photograph of Diana moments after the crash, as rescue workers fought to save her – an image which has never been published in the U.K.
Allen defended his decision to use the grizzly snap, insisting the image was not used to shock or to boost the film’s appeal.
But the controversy leading up to the movie’s premiere proved irrelevant – reviewers invited to attend the big screening were left unimpressed by the piece and either left early or stayed behind to challenge Allen in a press conference about his film’s criticisms and attacks on Britain’s royal family.
According to the U.K.’s Independent newspaper, reporters grew angry about the documentary after Allen labelled the royals “gangsters in tiaras” and claimed that journalists never questioned the monarchy as they “wanted knighthoods”.
The filmmaker also reportedly became embroiled in an argument with Martyn Gregor, writer of a biography on the Princess of Wales’ death, who heckled Allen throughout the premiere.
Daily Mail critic Baz Bamigboye has also dismissed the film as “unlawfully dull” and slammed Allen for approaching Dodi’s businessman father Mohammed Al-Fayed for financial backing, insisting the documentary is nothing more than “the ramblings of a sour old man who misses his son”.
–WENN
http://blog.chron.com/celebritybuzz/201 ... at-cannes/
Jeff Steinberg did a video years ago on it, check this series out:
<iframe id="ytplayer" type="text/html" width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bdLBPuj1R40" frameborder="0"></iframe>
<iframe id="ytplayer" type="text/html" width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bdLBPuj1R40" frameborder="0"></iframe>
Well he does report news exclusives and so he gets mentioned.
My last audio reference to him raised the very question of whose
agenda APEvans is promoting. He doggedly disses the Eurozone.
My last audio reference to him raised the very question of whose
agenda APEvans is promoting. He doggedly disses the Eurozone.
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
They only function when open.
Ahhh I see, thanks Fintan and thanks for the incredible Osama audio, gosh its been so long and as always, well worth the wait. I also want to stress that I had no intention to throw the AEPritrd. issue at you or BFN. As I sat and listened to Steinberg bring his name up as siding with the Monarchy it just hit me to toss it in the forums in the proper place, especially since I've heard of him through here at BFN. Just in case some weren't aware of that possibility 
.
.
<iframe id="ytplayer" type="text/html" width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Wf1Gh1VyjqA" frameborder="0"></iframe>
Part II
<iframe id="ytplayer" type="text/html" width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/QgJsvmbxys0" frameborder="0"></iframe>
7:00 mins in
I wasnt aware before of how Bill Clinton firstly backed Diana
with his promise of support to vote for banning the selling of
landmines just before her death and after her 'unlawful killing'
voted against the banning. Implies he had foreknowledge?
Certainly appears that way. Either way he capitalised on it.
I wonder how many sycophantic liberals are aware of that.
Wow!! what a duplicitious bastard!
Part II
<iframe id="ytplayer" type="text/html" width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/QgJsvmbxys0" frameborder="0"></iframe>
7:00 mins in
I wasnt aware before of how Bill Clinton firstly backed Diana
with his promise of support to vote for banning the selling of
landmines just before her death and after her 'unlawful killing'
voted against the banning. Implies he had foreknowledge?
Certainly appears that way. Either way he capitalised on it.
I wonder how many sycophantic liberals are aware of that.
Wow!! what a duplicitious bastard!
I can see through you.
Some people see you.
To me you're just see-thru
Some people see you.
To me you're just see-thru