Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Leave 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Your email address will not be published.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.

7,899 thoughts on “Not Forgetting the al-Hillis continued

1 229 230 231
    • michael norton

      It was thirteen and a half years ago.

      David Cameron was the newish prime minister of the U.K. in a coalition.
      Today, he is reborn as Foreign Secretary.
      Perhaps he could be asked to look into it?

    • michael norton

      Tom Parry, implies that Suhailia went with the family al-Hilli from Claygate, to The Alps.

      I don’t know where he gets his information but as far as I am aware, it has never been stated how Suhailia got to The Alps?

      It would be useful, to have a timeline of the movements of Suhailia.
      The girls claimed to not know who she was?

    • michael norton

      Pity I don’t speak French but picked some of it up from reading.
      Gun stopped being made in 1929.
      So, about a ninety year old gun, probably Swiss.

      • michael norton

        The youngest the gun could be (if we have been told the truth) would be 83 years old.
        How many times, since the Second World War, has an 80-100 year old pistol been used to kill four people at the same site, at the same moment?
        2012 − 1929 = 83

  • michael norton

    Perhaps the barrel had been changed, prior to the Alps Massacre?
    I expect, if the barrel had recently been replaced, this could be spotted by ballistic scientists,
    in the recovered ammo?

  • Good In Parts

    @michael norton

    The gun was first manufactured in 1929. The final manufacturing run for the Swiss armed forces was completed in 1946. A small number of sales to private individuals was made in 1947.

    • michael norton

      Good In Parts.
      So you are claiming the gun could be as young as 65?
      2012-1947 = 65

      In my view, still a very old gun to be doing a quad murder?

      If they have not got the actual gun but only the shots fired, barrels can be changed?

      • michael norton

        Actually, I have remembered, that, they have claimed a fractured part of a grip was recovered.
        But again, grips are also replaced.
        So, the actual gun used in 2012 does not have to be 65 -100 years old.
        It could be a made up gun, not a classic.
        If the actual gun has not or never will be recovered, we will not know?
        The question, though, is why use a 100 – 65 year old gun
        or why pretend it was a classic?

  • Good In Parts

    I was just musing about the tightness of the timeline, particularly just before and after the murders themselves.

    Just imagine that Sylvain’s ex-wife had stayed on the phone for, say, another minute, or insisted that he stop cycling and talk to her. Sylvain would have been further delayed and the gap between him and WBM reduced. WBM would then have cycled straight into the middle of the massacre.

  • michael norton

    Wikipedia
    “Eventually, ballistic analyses of the cartridge cases and butt plate fragments showed that the weapon used by the killer was a Luger P06 semi-automatic pistol (model 1906) firing the 7.65×21mm Parabellum ammunition”

    So, Wiki thinks it was a 1906 model?
    Have we seen written proof that it was a much more recent gun?

  • Good In Parts

    @michael norton

    The most interesting issue with regard to the gun is just how pieces of the grip plate ended up found near to Sylvain Mollier’s cycle.

    Zainab’s recent recollections seem to imply that she was grabbed from behind before she could get into the car, then bashed around the head. If this was when the grip plate was broken, how did pieces end up near to the cycle?

    It is possible that the grip plate was broken by the killer before he got to the middle of the car park (where Zainab presumably was) and that the cause was that the killer had an issue with the grip safety. If so, this implies to me that the killer had not had much (if any) experience of live-firing this particular weapon.

    • michael norton

      Good In Parts,
      maybe if the weapon was extremely old, the grip plates could be fragile.
      However I do not believe that a modern gun would shed a grip plate by being bashed into the head of a young girl.
      More likely the grip fragments were scattered at the crime scene to throw off future investigations.

    • michael norton

      Good In Parts I have heard it suggested that Sylvain was the first to be shot, with the shootist moving on to the occupants of the BMW.
      It has also been suggested that the shootist moved back to Sylvain to make completely sure he was dead. Maybe Sylvain was also clubbed, maybe he was clubbed before he was first shot, perhaps because Sylvain preemptively attacked the gunman?

      • michael norton

        How about this: Sylvain cycles up the mountain, he sees man holding Zainab, Sylvain rushes man and man bashes Sylvain and shoots Sylvain.

        • Good In Parts

          @michael norton

          Interesting idea but the recent information from Zainab is that she saw Sylvain (presumably already there at Le Martinet parking or just arriving) as she was instructed to get into the car.

          We still do not have a full picture of the events at Le Martinet. However les gendarmes have much, much, more information than us.

          For instance, forensic examination of the pieces of broken grip plate found near Sylvain Mollier’s velo should have revealed the presence, or absence, of Zainab’s DNA. Which would be a big help.

  • Good In Parts

    Previously I have advocated a killer working shifts (les trois huit) possibly at the same works as Sylvain Mollier.

    Well it turns out that les gendarmes found just such a man, ‘Nicolas’, who is pretty much the archetype for this scenario, who worked with SM, played sports with SM and had a serious beef with SM. See this video starting at the 8:00 minute mark:-

    https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8q56n7

    Apparently he was exonerated because he could not shoot well enough… Still, there could be others.

  • Good In Parts

    No comment

    Take a gander at our Eric under questioning about Sylvain Mollier in this video, starting at about 16:30 minutes in.

    https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8q56n7

    I am embarrassed to admit that I thought that some of Zaid’s comments about the wall of silence and “protection” of Sylvain Mollier were somewhat overblown.

    But watching this video of Eric smugly stonewalling, makes Zaid’s position seem more than reasonable.

    • michael norton

      Good In Parts, the brother, Zaid, always seemed pretty genuine, to me.
      Maybe he did have a dispute with his younger and stronger brother about their parents fortune.
      So what, nothing out of the normal there. Getting your brother and his family rubbed out, five hundred miles from home, almost, no chance, too difficult to organize, unless he was a major crime boss or in British Intelligence, so that did not happen.

      I had not previously heard of this, Nicholas, who used to be an item with Clair, the mother of the last child of Sylvain.

  • michael norton

    I would like a minute by minute detail of the last twenty four hours of the life of Sylvain Mollier.
    We have probably been told there was a phonecall. Following this phonecall, Sylvain thought he needed to go for a cycle ride. It has been suggested that the only earner in the family module of Clair & Sylvain, was Clair in her Chemist shop. After the phonecall, Sylvain, who was looking after their baby son, needed to dump the baby with somebody, so he could go cycling?
    This seems rather selfish behaviour. She, was apparently the only earner in their family group but because at the drop of a hat he needed to go cycling, Clair had to shut her shop, probably sending a worker home. Rather ludicrous behaviour? However, if Sylvain was an active member of the French Security service, I can imagine, although, not happy, Clair would understand.
    That day she contacted the police/government officials, to let them know she was worried, what could happen to Syvain.
    Maybe, this is why French Authorities have been so reluctant to spell out the movements of Sylvain Mollier?

    • michael norton

      Although this happened thirteen and a half years ago, probably Sylvain had a mobile phone with him. We have been told, that his wife/ex wife rang him, while he was ascending the mountain. One of the modern ways that police work is undertaken, is by looking at data from mobile phones. So, if it was true, that Sylvain had a mobile phone on his person that day.
      They should be able to understand, who called Sylvain, while he was out with his baby, letting him know, he needed to dump the baby to go cycling.
      They should have been able to track every movement of Sylvain, on that day.

      • michael norton

        My guess is that we have been lied to and that Sylvain did not have a mobile phone with him and therefor did not take a call from his (ex) wife
        on that day. I expect it is true Sylvain took a call, that day, that directly led him to dump his baby with somebody, to go Cycling, for a mission.

        • michael norton

          It may be a fairly small point but as far as I am aware, we have never been told who Sylvain dumped his baby with?

          • michael norton

            If, say he was visiting his sister and she had a landline call for Sylvain, his sister would most likely know who was calling Sylvain?

  • Good In Parts

    @michael norton

    I seem to remember that Sylvain Mollier called his new partner Claire at work and persuaded her to come home from work to care for their baby so that he could go out cycling.

  • Good In Parts

    Canal+ series:- Sans issue – La tuerie de Chevaline

    I have reviewed the six episodes several times now and overall it is a pretty reasonable view of the current situation. However the video is hosted by dailymotion so (as mchael norton noted) only autogenerated french subtitles are available.

    The highlights:-
    One of the journos (‘Perez’ I think) did press the hapless Eric about SM as far as she could get away with.
    A work colleague of SM was identified as a viable candidate (named only as ‘Nicolas’) and apparently eliminated.

    The downsides:-
    There was no mention at all of the two mobylettes seen by Claude Antoine.
    There was no discussion of the possible ingress and exit routes and their implications.
    The status of the ‘cold case’ investigation got minimal attention. They are working on the ‘bornage telephonique’
    The final episode (number six) still identified WBM as a viable suspect. Which, twelve years on, is patently ridiculous.

    Anybody got anything else to add?

  • michael norton

    As far as Sylvain was moving about that day with his baby, I expect he was walking with a pushchair in Ugine.
    It might be that he visited his mother ( normal) or visited his sister ( normal) or visited his (ex) wife, after all they did share children. Perhaps while he was visiting his (ex) wife, with his baby, there was a landline phonecall, so, (ex) wife looks at baby while Sylvain takes the call, then he says to her “I’ve got to go out now” you look after the baby and give Claire a ring.
    Then he dashes off home to go out on his cycle not taking a mobile phone. His movements are not tracked but he has been programmed for a task.

    Another option would be that he did have a mobile phone and it would be possible to track his movements. After almost fourteen years the French Authorities would know if he was carrying a mobile on that cycle ride or not.

    Did they recover Sylvain’s mobile phone from Le Martinet?

      • michael norton

        If no mobile phones were recovered from Le Martinet, what could that mean?
        It could mean that the shootist / their team took all the mobile phones away.
        It could mean that W.B.M. took all the mobile phones away.
        It could mean that none of the people killed had mobile phones.

        If all of the people, who usually had mobile phones, had chosen that day, not to take mobile phones up to Le Martinet,
        what could that tell us?

        • Good In Parts

          @ michael norton

          I think that SAH’s phone was recovered and also grandma’s phone and/or camera.

          Sylvain Mollier’s mobile was certainly recovered from Le Martinet – the interesting thing is that the gendarmes just sat on it, then approx a year later they checked the logs and found that his ex-wife had phoned him whilst he was grimping up the combe d’Ire. That seemed strange to me as it should be one of the first things checked. Also his ex-wife did not mention said call to the gendarmes when interviewed.

          • michael norton

            Good In Parts, if such a mobile call happened between Sylvain and his (ex) wife, moments before Sylvain was shot multiple times, it would be unimaginable for (ex) wife not to remember the last time she spoke to the father of her children.
            They do not forget anything.

          • michael norton

            If she did ring Sylvain, she might have said ” That bloody Claire has not picked up her baby yet”

          • michael norton

            Good In Parts, rather than the gendarmes just sitting on Sylvain Mollier’s mobile phone, a much more likely option, would be that one of the spy agencies held on to that phone. If it is true the mobile was only looked at by ordinary plod, twelve months later, that would be because all useful information had been removed and some disinformation had been installed on that device.
            I am not convinced Sylvain had a mobile with him that day or that his (ex) wife called him, just before he was shot.
            That fib, was most likely done to pin-point Sylvain at a “politically” convenient time, probably to tie in with W.B.M. rendering of a timeline.
            The French agencies, needed retrospectively, to get all their ducks, lined up

  • Good In Parts

    michael norton

    You wrote:-

    “I am not convinced Sylvain had a mobile with him that day or that his (ex) wife called him, just before he was shot.”

    Well that would require both les gendarmes and his (ex) wife to be in collusion. Because les gendarmes would undoubtable know where the phone was located and be able to check the call logs of his (ex) wife. So she would have to be in on it as well.

    Still, I am sure that there are things we are not being told about the two phone calls that were apparently made.

    • michael norton

      May be not, Good In Parts.
      If Sylvain did not have a mobile phone with him on his last cycle ride, his (ex) wife would not have been able to chat with him as he ascended to Le Martinet.
      Quote “Also his ex-wife did not mention said call to the gendarmes when interviewed”

      If many months after the mass shootings, the security forces handed over Sylvain’s mobile phone to the plods, saying they found in in the street or in Clair’s car or in his (ex) wife’s home or in Claire’s shop or where Sylvain kept his cycle, or where Claire and Sylvain lived, they had kept it for such a long time because of State Security reasons – no explanation offered and none asked for by the plod.

      Sylvain’s mobile would then tell the story that the State wanted the plod to understand.
      If needed the plod could tell that story to a court, all sorted.

1 229 230 231