Princess Diana documentary ‘Unlawful Killing’

This post is more of an update to the post I made in July about the shelving of the documentary. Back then, we were led to believe the film was simply not going to be released due to an insurance entanglement, but now on David Icke’s site I see a link and some news saying that they’ll be releasing it in Cannes and the U.S.; just not in the UK.


So for now, it seems you can stream the whole film through rutube, which I’m guessing is a Russian youtube?? I’m not sure how safe the site is, but it seems fine, I’ve been on there already. I’ll post the clips below if I can figure out how to locate the embedding…

Here’s the video, in three parts (provided these links and video stay active):

UPDATE: The video was taken down. Again. Sorry.


UPDATE 2: I was given an order to take down the video links by the UK’s web sheriff, due to some kind of copyright infringement (even though I didn’t upload the videos; I was merely embedding the links). So to abide by the laws and requests I’ve taken the video links off entirely. My website was shut down for a few hours earlier and that is because my web host was apparently given some kind of directive to do so. Sorry for any inconvenience.



Author: Isaac Weishaupt

Share This Post On

1 Comment

  1. Noting that copyright infringement was cited, the irony is that if you were based in the UK where the film is not released, legally, there is no copyright issue whatsoever. This is because the film is not commercially available while does have various fair use sharing identities, social discussion, general interest in news, politics, education.

    Ironically, though, Keith Allen and his associates probably would not be able legally to ask you to take their film down from free, not for profit publication under fair use. However, probably a bigger fear would be that someone sharing it in the UK may be targeted from the people whom Allen and his associates feared, and who were the reason the film was withdrawn in the UK in the first place.

    Thanks (meaning no thanks in the illuminati type trench of a world that is constantly being dug) to a very recent case brought by a former high ranking Conservative politician, a former party secretary, anyone publishing this film themselves in the UK might conceivably find themselves sued in libel laws for actually making some or all of the potentially libellous comment in the film themselves.

    Although legally I cannot agree this is correct and I sincerely hope there is an appeal against it, Judge Tugendhat decided against Sally Bercow (wife of the speaker of the House of Commons) in making a brief tweet asking why Twitter was saying that someone’s name was “trending” in the web service at that time. The name was of Alistair (Lord) McAlpine who, it is said, the BBC news program Newsnight made indirect references to in a program the previous night, but didn’t name him.

    Ms. Bercow didn’t name him as the person the BBC were referring to either, she just tweeted asking why this person was trending in Twitter, accompanying the Tweet with “innocent face”.

    To me that would suggest that Ms Bercow didn’t really understand the social development and what exactly was going on, and hence the use of “innocent face”. However, Judge Tugendhat “decided” (I use quotes because it’s not actually a logical thing to do, it’s not really possible rationally, despite that the man works as a high court judge) that the words “innocent face” can somehow be construed to only mean the opposite of the lexical meaning of the words. He decided Ms. Bercow, rather than asking a question in wonder at what was going on, as she did, made wild accusations against Alistair McAlpine. McAlpine had sued Ms Bercow over her tiny, normal and pretty harmless tweet in itself (considering she was repeating a Twitter phenomenon people Tweeting about someone a lot – real life, and asking what it was exactly, what it meant or why).

    That’s only the start. The utterly irrational Judge Tugendhat then proceeded to claim a controversial ‘repeating’ law applied (this was made in quite recent years in libel law). He then proceeded to “decide” (somehow – the man has a different dictionary I think, with different word meanings, or, a different world) that Ms Bercow through her short tweet was responsible for the full force of any defamatory allegations made by the BBC alone themselves against Mr McAlpine. This is exactly the kind of thing that McAlpine was looking for, of course, and why the old man sued. (Strange that McAlpine calculated such incredible, far fetched and palpably irrational decisions could be made by Judge Tugendhat or whoever was sitting if he wasn’t sure he’d get Tugendhat. Having spent time in a law school in the UK, I’d never have been able to get near the kind of “legal decisions” Judge Tugendhat was making from existing libel laws, with apparently very strange leaps of assumption inded.)

    Anyway, there’s a big story about possible dangers of hosting this film if you live in the UK. It seems possible you might just find yourself facing legal charges of making certain statements about very famous or high ranking people yourself in the first place, which is very odd indeed, and must be a real cornerstone of any illumati style list of achievements in the world.

    Does that mean fair use is nulllified? At the same time I can’t see how that can happen, I just can’t. It would also, simultaneously, and very obviously and undoubtedly annul fundamental human rights of free speech to describe what has happened in social and current affairs issues.

    So, maybe something like this disclaimer accompanying sharing the film would work. (I don’t know.)

    “This is what Mr. Allen et al. have said, it is not my opinion per se as I make no personal opinion here. I have not had the opportunity to do the research Mr Allen etc. have and so in no way am I in a position to offer the same or related conclusions or opinions. While I can see a lot of this film can make a lot of sense, I do not know exactly what the truth is in relation to subjects it deals with. It is ludicrous to think I am claiming personally what is claimed in this film. But I publish for the sake of human interest and within fair use categories.”

    You’d think that would be totally implied.

    After Tugendhat in McAlpine v Bercow, I don’t know.

    What a strange, frightening world, ever seeming to worsen.

    Post a Reply


  1. Princess Diana Conspiracy Theory Documentary Update | IlluminatiWatcher - [...] until we can watch Unlawful Killing legally. The film is online if you look hard enough, I’ve been shut…

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.