Comments on: Dimanche Dialogue Entre Daniel Balavoine et Francois Mitterrand

By: squirelllover

squirelllover — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 23:27:45 +0000

I think people have to stop with these murder fantasies not to say bullshit. I love Daniel Balavoine more than anything but we have to accept the fact that the crash was an accident. Not only do I doubt the pilot (who was prince Albert’s cousin) deliberately crashed the helicopter for money or esteem or I-don’t-know-what at the peril of his own life and anyway, Soisson I dunno but Mitterrand wouldn’t have killed Daniel because they simply got along: they had lunch together several times and Daniel himself said he liked Mitterrand, that he found him very intelligent which proves what you said about him rejecting every politician wrong.

By: pierre Baron

pierre Baron — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 01:42:39 +0000

I just have read your written work.I am a huge fan of Daniel since I am 5 years old (now I’m 35). I have to tell that for many years many people (including myself) thought it was an execution not an accident, but the pilot of the helicopter was Prince Albert’s cousin (from Monaco) so I doubt about the murder. Moreover the helicopter was on ground and they were waiting for a van to pick them up and bring them to their place 08 kilometres away because of the faul weather and more because the night was falling down. It seems that nowadays we have an idea why they went up again in the air as it was dangerous : one on the passenger had been hurt by a scorpion or a snake because the bottle of anti venom had been found out of the box and used (it was not at the beginning of the trip, so as only 8 km was to be crossed to reach the Paris-Dakar Camp we assume that they take the risk, what is only 8 km to fly, almost nothing, less than nothing when the life of somebody might be in the balance.

Daniel was a not a threat for politicians he was more a moralist and blunt. He said many time by quoting names that this politician or that one was a moron.

A man with gusts.

By: sf

sf — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 00:11:47 +0000

omfg this is cool1

By: Cyrano

Cyrano — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:10:43 +0000

So, if Coluche and Balavoine were murdered, why don’t they kill the Guignols ??? :p
Balavoine was not involved in any action (political or other) against the government, Coluche wanted to present himself at the president election, but he could not, not enough majors gave him a voice (500 are needed to participate to the election).
Chirac and Giscard were most dangerous to Mitterand than Coluche and Balavoine, the first because it was it’s greatest opponent, the second because he has known the double life and the hidden daughter of Mitterand and because he spoke about it (without reveal it) on TV.
Beregovoy was not dangerous to Mitterand but to people working around Mitterand and he was involved by them in a bad business which has damaged his reputation.

By: ptinfrance

ptinfrance — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:32:19 +0000

calimero, you get it! that’s exactly what i mean. stories are made up to turn blame away from the guilty.

when stories are fabricated, a sandstorm was the perfect reason for an accident.

colouche was definitely murdered.

hey i TOLD YOU i was a conspiracy theorist!

By: Calimero

Calimero — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:39:40 +0000

Well like mister Beregovoy , commited suicide by shooting 2 bullets in his head

By: David

David — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:29:02 +0000

In French we have a saying “pourquoi faire simple quand on peut faire compliqué?”, in other words, why go through all the trouble, when you can do it in a so much easier way…
If you tell me “Coluche was assassinated” I’ll say “Ok, mayyybe…” but Balavoine… check the facts about the accident, it just doesn’t make sense that it’s an assassination (Mitterrand was powerful, but not powerful enough to raise sandstorms when he felt like for starters)

By: ptinfrance

ptinfrance — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 07:30:37 +0000

thanks for the correction about election years but ahhh! you underestimate the endurance, pettiness, deviousness and budget of politicians.

oh and rememeber how powerful government can be over the media. the “accident” was in africa. who else was present? the circumstances could be fictional. how often does the media LIE for politicians???? answer: a lot. sure there are more convenient ways to get rid of someone but waiting for the perfect “faraway” oopportunity is an evil politician’s forte.

By: David

David — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:23:11 +0000

Wow… Props for the most imaginative conspiracy theory ever…

Be careful with your facts though. Mitterrand was not trying to get re-elected in 1980, he was trying to get elected.
And he got elected, in great part thanks to the youth vote and the support of many “young” personalities, Balavoine included (the confrontation taking place about a year before the election, Mitterrand managed to have many people who first opposed him to join him as a “lesser of two evils”, same thing with Coluche for example).

Then, Balavoine died 6 years later, 6 years during which he never really was a threat for the government, on the contrary, he kinda was on its side.

And his death is quite well documented.

It doesn’t make sense why Mitterrand would want him dead, when he was so useful to him.
Also, it doesn’t add up, seeing all the circumstances of the accident, it had to be an accident. There are many much easier, cheaper, not likely to create a diplomatic incident ways to get rid of somebody…