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Your email address will not be published.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.

7,866 thoughts on “Not Forgetting the al-Hillis continued

1 205 206 207 208 209 231
  • James

    GIP

    Quote….

    “If ONF1 did drive home at approx 15:00, why not just simply say that ? No-one would be surprised. He could mumble some guff about checking the trees at the bottom of the combe or something”

    And that’s the thing.
    Lets say he did “do one” earlier than he should. And lets say he “pieces together” what he “thinks he should have seen” from the info about the SAH car and ONF2’s biker.

    Then why the hell “run with it” to give a “more than dodgy” description of the ascending BMW.
    And then further, why the hell put forward an explanation as to where tha “BMW 4×4” went afterwards.

    In my mind, he is “trapped” by WBM ascent….
    ….and then it’s a matter of “who do you believe”.

    If (at a certain point) SM and SAH are ahead of WBM
    And ahead of all of them is “MC Car Park” and “BMW 4×4 charging up”.
    Then WBM effectively becomes a “rolling road block”.

    Everything and anything that is ahead of him, must either “pass him” as it descends…. or “be a victim”.
    We know who the victims were.
    And we are told by WBM that a “very slow moving motorcycle” passed him as it descended.

    So, ahead of WBM, we have left…
    ONF1
    BMW 4×4
    Citroen van.

    We have “two witnesses” that there was “something” up there (WBM and ZAH), but what was it ?

    The police (via the journalist) say (unofficially) that a Citroen van was in the area.
    Was this the vehicle “noted” by WBM and ZAH ?
    If so, what happened to ONF1 and BMW 4×4 ?

    Maybe the Citroen van was not “relevant” to WBM’s story. It wasn’t the “large vehicle” he spoke of.
    So, was the vehicle “noted” by WBM and ZAH the ONF1 unit descending ?
    That “seems” logical, as it is ONF1 himself, who gives an explanation to where the BMW 4×4, that he alone sighted, eventually (“escaped”) went to.
    The problem here is, ONF1 would also “have to see” SM and SAH. And he makes no mention of them.

    It could not be the BMW 4×4, as ONF1 has to provide an explanation as to his movements.
    And that would mean (as you quite rightly say) pushing ONF1 presences in the area to 15.00 or earlier.

    It is a “straight fight” between WBM and ONF1 as witnesses.
    Lets say WBM did indeed “note” ONF1 passing him as that vehicle descended….
    …..and also the BMW 4×4, which he does not wish to mention !

    Which ever way you cut it, the witness “statements” are a mess !
    Maybe “more than a mess”, a complete lie.

  • Good In Parts

    James

    A parsimonious explanation and a sympa one, would be that ONF1 simply saw the ado, who waited until ONF1 had passed, then zipped straight up the combe. That is due south crossing the bridge approx 100m past the ‘barrier’ onto the other side of the combe.

    About 4 or 5 minutes later he turns around and rides back down, hearing shots as he did so. He rides down through place Martinet and continues down for another minute or so to be then seen by WBM ‘riding slowly’.

    That would mean he had ridden straight down the combe through place Martinet approx 2 to 3 minutes after the shooting started. The transit time would be low enough for him easily not to have comprehended what had occured there. I estimate it took WBM more than double the time to actually do so (as well described in his interview).

    Perhaps it dawned on him reterospectively that things were not ‘quite right’, so he slows down. Fortunately someone else was coming up the combe, he does not need to turn around, they could check it out.

    In this scenario, the killer walks out of the combe.

    So the ado is entirely innocent and (mostly) unaware. Later ONF1 has a word with his family saying that he might well have been seen up the combe and what a ‘really good idea’ it would be to come forward with a statement before the gendarmes put two and two together and give him some hassle.

    He agrees to and duely does so the next day, claiming loosely to have been on the other side of the combe when he heard the shots and ‘didn’t see nothing’. All entirely true but this leaves ONF1 with a little problem because in the meantime he has reported the presence of a BMW and an MC to the gendarmes.

    Fortunately ONF2 came along with a way out. Another MC seen by them above place Martinet. That must have been the MC ONF1 saw before it went up one hairpin ! One MC morphs into another and the BMW break morphs into an X5.

    So just a little scene shifting to avoid some embarrasment.

    It roughly works as a scenario but it’s only real merit is that it offers a ‘reasonable’ explanation of the X5 shenannegans. I still advocate another motorcycle rider as being part of the solution

  • michael norton

    Remember the al Hilli passports could not be found, then a couple of years latter they were found in a police station, in France.

    Was there ever an eXplanation given by the French Authorities.
    We must assume they were dusted for prints and tested for DNA

    Be a co-incidence if the shootist had handled them, they got”lost” then turned up found in a police station?

    • michael norton

      What I am suggesting is a DNA /prints comparison could be done on the al-Hillis lost/found passports
      with samples taken from the scene of The Slaughter of the Horses,
      to see if there was any correlation.

      If there are matches

      are there any unknown person samples?

  • James

    GIP

    In a “quiet” statement to police, ONF1 could say “I wasn’t there”.
    It’s that simple.
    That could “conclude” an element of the investigation. No “CrimeWatch” appeal needed.
    French laws protect his privacy. And his employer would be non the wiser.
    No need to appear on Panorama. No need to do anything.

    But it isn’t “that way”.
    He (ONF1) is clearly saying, “He was there”. Or “there ish”.

    WBM says he saw (or rather “noted/was aware”) of a “large vehicle” which descended before the motorcyclist.

    If ONF1 is saying that the “4×4” he saw “must have” escaped “over the hills and far away”, then the “large vehicle” that WBM speaks of, has to be “known” to ONF1 (regardless if ONF1 is mistaken in his identification of that vehicle….a BMW 4×4 or a BMW shooting-break).

    So….
    It was ONF1
    It was the Citroen van

    At this point, we don’t know which…..but if the police don’t know, then I will be “gob smacked”.
    So I have to assume that the police “know” who passed Martin.
    Or at least “who claims what”.

    Posing the question in a completely different way…..
    ….why did ONF1 go “on camera” to say (essentially) “I know a BMW 4×4 went up the hill… but no one is saying it came down again”.

    There is something “not quite right” about the statements (in the public arena) of ONF2, ONF1 and WBM.
    As to “which one” ….I don’t know. But I think I will keep an “open mind” on it !

    • Good In Parts

      James

      All of the above… plus, from his own personal perspective, he should by rights be perfectly happy accepting the role of WBM’s “large vehicle”.

      • Good In Parts

        … because WBM becomes his alibi. Their ‘crossing’ at approx half-way up, as WBM described it, effectively rules ONF1 out of direct involvement.

        “So I have to assume that the police “know” who passed Martin.
        Or at least “who claims what”. “

        I am sure they do. Or some of them at least. I am as guilty as most of posting about ‘the gendarmes’ or ‘the investigation’ as if it was a single coherent entity, sometimes embodied simply as ‘EM’. Whereas in reality, at it’s height, it was an unwieldy agglomeration, probably organised around around the pistes or core hypotheses (numbered H1 – H7 I think).

        Even with it’s current much reduced headcount, I guess there are still staff working on ‘their’ piste. There will have been differences of opinion within the groups and the J-M D tweet seemed to reveal one, namely that some gendarmes seriously doubted the existence of the X5.

        Yet the decision was made to launch the international appeal after the Panorama show. ONF1 went all-in and it had an effect. Did he get the result he wanted?

        I must admit that I was ‘swayed’ myself. Here was a core witness tub-thumping on TV. What’s not to like ?

        “not quite right” sums it up. However I guess that some witnesses have been instructed not to reveal certain things. That may make them seem a tad evasive.

  • James

    GIP

    What’s not to like, indeed.
    On face value, two key witnesses have gone “all in” on camera (and not a policeman insight).
    Maybe there was “guidance” provided to them, but never the less, the went “public”.
    In terms of a “major murder inquiry”, this has to be a first. And a bizarre one at that. But how did they know it would become this bizarre.

    WBM and his “it was a large vehicle guv…. but I didn’t really see it”. That’s a perfect alibi for ONF1, if ever there was one….albeit a rather “vague” one.
    And it’s a definite “….and that’s all I know folks” from WBM.

    All very peculiar.

    It does put the pressure somewhat “full square” on ONF1.
    But ONF1 (in his on camera interview) appears to be throwing the “hot potato” back to WBM.

    WBM was definitely at the Combe D’Ire. Forensics would show that. And then there’s also PB.
    But SM and SAH can’t help him, by saying “Yep, he was riding up the route”. They’re both dead.
    And the MC that was leaving the scene, has disappeared into thin air.
    So, that just leaves “the large vehicle” to say he was “riding up the route”.

    ONF1 doesn’t give us much.
    He says he saw a “sinister” motorcyclist. Kind of the same story as WBM.
    But he doesn’t say he saw SAH or SM or WBM.
    If he was “the large vehicle”, he’d have to say he saw ALL of them (or at the very least, one of them !).
    And that would apply (partially) if WBM wasn’t even on the route, where he said/claims he was.

    A bit of a conflict (or something).

    • michael norton

      James,
      what if what WBM is not saying is:
      “I was cycling up the Combe of Ire, when I heard twenty or so shots, I jumped off my bicycle and threw it and myself in the stream/gulley, then i glimpsed a large vehicle coming down the combe, this i now think was ONF1.
      After a while i walked/cycled up the combe to discover The Slaughter of the Horses”

  • James

    MN

    It’s a point, but is it possible ? Why go up towards the danger ?

    You see, GIP has a point (and a strong one). Essentially, LMC is out of the frame because the encounter with ONF2 was earlier.

    So we have WBM and ONF1

    Now ONF1 says he was “up there” at the Combe D’Ire, so he has to “descend”. He doesn’t live there !
    So, he descends. And what does he see ?

    Maybe the BBC Panorama team were just focusing on the “mystery 4×4” ?
    ONF1 does say anything else (apart from the “MCX?”)
    He neglects to say anything else.
    Well, TV costs money. You can’t have people rambling on about other things, can you.
    So SM, SAH, and WBM are not mentioned ????

    Oddly, that “breaking news” comes after (much after) WBM’s own exclusive.
    And the “vague” description of the “large vehicle” passing him.

    Put simply…..
    …. why is there such a mystery of “who passed who” (and the “vague” Large Vehicle” passing by ?
    An ex RAF fighter pilot/B777 Four Bar/SIM check guy, “misses” a vehicle heading towards him ?????

    My view is, the stories of both, need to “check out”.

    • michael norton

      Eric Maillaud needs to keep his wits about him,
      some people do not like prosecutors

      He was already excited before arriving but despite that no one saw it coming!

      Mardi dernier au parquet d’Albertville, un homme de 53 ans sans domicile fixe était présenté au procureur Nathalie Parot pour la mise à exécution d’une peine de prison.

      Brusquement au cours de l’audition, la personne déjà très excitée avant sa présentation a porté un violent coup de poing au front du magistrat, lui causant une entorse cervicale. Aussitôt maîtrisé par les deux gendarmes qui l’escortaient, l’homme a directement été conduit au centre pénitentiaire d’Aiton afin d’y exécuter sa peine.
      « Personne n’a vu le coup venir »

      « Les gendarmes lui maintenaient les épaules car il était déjà très excité avant d’arriver mais malgré cela personne n’a vu le coup venir. C’est marquant dans une carrière mais ça fait aussi partie des risques du métier. Maintenant je suis passé à autre chose et c’est à la justice de faire son travail » a accepté de réagir le magistrat.
      Il encourt trois ans de prison

      Pour des raisons tenant à une bonne administration de la justice, le quinquagénaire qui par ailleurs se revendique Savoisien devrait être jugé très prochainement par le tribunal correctionnel de Chambéry pour violence sur magistrat dans l’exercice de ses fonctions. Il encourt une peine de trois ans de prison.

      http://www.ledauphine.com/savoie/2016/04/29/il-donne-un-coup-de-poing-au-procureur

      Suddenly during the hearing,
      the person already excited before his presentation dealt a violent blow to the magistrate of the forehead, causing whiplash.

  • michael norton

    Lathuile 1,000 inhabitants – Connections

    Eric Devouassoux – first (known) person to be picked up in FRANCE buy the authorities apparently lived in Lathuile
    and had munitions concealed there, his in-laws live in Chevaline
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/18/alps-murders-former-policeman-arrested-village-shootings

    William Brett Martin the apparent discoverer of The Slaughter of the Horses has his second home in Lathuile

    six days after the release of the E-FIT-SKETCH Nicole Communal-Tournier was shot in her home in Lathuile,
    a stones throw from the home of W.B.M.

    L.M.C. was traced because he used his mobile in Lathuile
    Jean-Luc Falcy, co-gun enthusiast with E.D. lives in Lathuile.

    According to Bluebird the Molliers are in family with the Communal-Tourniers.

    Amazing that Eric Maillaud does not think Sylvain Mollier was a target?

    • michael norton

      Eric Maillaud has said that Eric Devouassoux did not know the family al-Hilli

      but he has not said that
      Eric Devouassoux did not know the family Mollier?

  • James

    GIP

    One “worry” to Eric’s theory of “it was a hired hand what did it” is…..
    …hired hands are synonymous with “State Killings” (even when “the State, isn’t the State”).
    The “arms length” approach, so to speak.

    It doesn’t answer anything….just amazed at the “it was this” approach taken by Eric (et al)

    • Good In Parts

      James

      I understand what you are saying.

      One explanation may be that once Zaid’s alibi had been checked out, EM needed “A Hitman for Hire” (as Parry titles chapter 16 of his book) to be one half of his mantra – ‘remote control, local execution’.

      Presumably, in the early days, the information pouring in seemed to offer support for EM’s fixation on Zaid. Then the ‘missing passports’ must have further bolstered the concept of a contract killer.

      So, to address your point, he must have felt he could safely make those statements without treading on any toes in the ‘deep state’.

      I am reaching now but maybe the twenty odd military types from the embassy, compared notes with their local counterparts, then everyone went away shaking their heads.

      That should have been sufficient however the french deep state is reputedly the deepest of the deep, so the head shakes could have been head fakes…

  • James

    GIP

    It is a very curious case, moreso than I once believed.
    Maybe it is just “bad policing” ?

    I am surprised that the two conflicting witnesses have been able to go “head to head”, without any explanation being offered by the French police.
    And yet they let BBC CrimeWatch go ahead with their appeal. No wonder it was so half hearted.

    Considering what has been officially said (and not always by the French police), I am amazed that the “large vehicle” that passed WBM has never been “officially and absolutely” identified.

    I assume ONF1, in his TV appearance, is saying “that was me”, as he gives an “explanation” for where the vehicle he saw, then went (if at all, it was ever seen in the first place).

    The “vagueness” of WBM’s first interview….becomes rather telling.
    Moreso than the latter “what did ONF2 see” and the subsequent “manhunt” for that biker.

    Much of this (after you pointed out the removal of ONF2 and LMC) comes down to ONF1 and WBM.
    On face value, it could be said, ONF1 was mistaken in what he saw. and it was he that passed WBM. But having reviewed WBM’s words, he does not want to say it was ONF1.

    A “key” to all this, may indeed be “that” (or what leads from that). Which is something “missed” (or we are led to miss) by what has been publicly told.

    All scenarios where ONF1 and WBM see/don’t see each other are now important.
    Other than… ONF1 was mistaken in his BMW make and model identification and WBM was looking down and can’t identify that particular ONF unit.

    Both have played their respective cards.

  • Good In Parts

    James

    “But having reviewed WBM’s words, he does not want to say it was ONF1.

    A “key” to all this, may indeed be “that” (or what leads from that). Which is something “missed” (or we are led to miss) by what has been publicly told. “

    Mmmmm good point. I shall have a think.

    There might some kind of ‘general orders’ thing going on. Even Eric, post the discovery of LMC, used an odd form of words to describe LMC’s account of his descent. It was something to the effect that LMC had not seen anything sufficient to identify an individual.

    I put it down to translation mangling and that probably is the case. However maybe there is some kind of wholesale reluctance to pin an ‘identification’ back to a witness.

    I supose that might be, er, prudent.

      • michael norton

        France’s ailing nuclear giant, Areva, faced a major scandal on Tuesday after the country’s nuclear watchdog confirmed there have been “irregularities” in 400 parts produced in its reactors since 1965, and that “around 50 are currently in service in France’s nuclear power plant fleet”.

        France’s independent Nuclear Safety Authority, ASN, said the “irregularities” were listed in an audit it had ordered from Areva after it detected a “very serious anomaly” in a reactor vessel in the country’s Flamanville EPR nuclear plant, the same model Britain plans to use for two new plants at Hinkley Point.

        The fault in the vessel destined to house the plant’s nuclear fuel and confine its radioactivity was detected last year.

        “These irregularities consist in incoherencies, modifications or omissions in manufacturing dossiers,” ASN said in a statement.

        The revelation came hours after Areva’s director general admitted that 400 documents assessing whether parts of nuclear plants met required standards may have been “falsified”.

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/03/frances-nuclear-giant-areva-admits-to-400-irregularities-in-nucl/

        • michael norton

          Well If AREVA can falsify documents for something so very important to THE FRENCH STATE

          maybe things have been falsified about what occcurred up The Combe of Ire on
          05/09/2012?

  • Good In Parts

    James

    One puzzling question for me is why have les gendarmes not made use of mobile phone data to pin down the timing of the descents of ONF2 and ONF1.

    Each should, in my humble view, have been able to connect to the local base station when up-top. Each would have gone through a deadzone as they descended, then as signal became re-available there should have been a re-connection event recorded in the base station log-files.

    The only reasons I can come up with are that all the ONF personnel had their mobiles switched off or had set their mobiles to ‘manually select network’.

  • James

    GIP

    Ah yes, now “prudent” is a good word.

    Seems like Eric is constantly very “prudent”. Like the time he put WBM in a bulletproof vest whilst he took the police through his ride up the Combe D’Ire.

    Or when Eric leaves out “where (and so when) ONF2 sighted SM…and SM alone”.

    He shows further “prudence” when he doesn’t mention the fact that ONF2 had actually spoken to LMC… and that they had even provided a detailed description of this biker.

    I don’t think I have even seen a “key witness” to a massacre, give a “direct for broadcast, closed press conference” before….without a policeman insight.

    If we go down the route we are going, that being “ONF2 and LMC had departed the area, well before the murders had started”, we are left with just two key witnesses “in the vicinity….at that approximate time”.

    Both with seemly “differing” views.
    One not providing the other (or potentially himself) with an alibi.

    Ah… the “known, unknown”.
    The “unofficially recognised, but officially identified” (all vehicles on that route, that day have been located and identified…. Eric’s phrase) Citroen van.

    I correct myself !
    We have three “known witnesses”. ZAH herself (via Eric) states she was aware/saw a “4×4/large vehicle”.
    We have to assume that this is what she actually said.

    ONF1 driving a “large 4×4 type vehicle” and seeing a “large 4×4 type vehicle”
    WBM being aware of a “large 4×4 type vehicle”.
    ZAH seeing a “large 4×4 type vehicle”
    And a Citroen van. Which in essence could be a “large 4×4 type vehicle”.

    If “MCX”is “X”.
    Then what of all these “large 4×4 type vehicle” that are knocking about !

    Re mobile phones.
    I thought that they would “register” (dare I say “ping”) even if they are “off”.
    And the “deadzone”. Didn’t PB use his “mid way ish” up the Combe D’Ire. Not at the car park (as WBM didn’t get a signal there) ? A “logon” point down the Combe D’Ire would be even easier to establish.

    I still believe in “training”. That is “aviate, navigate, communicate”. Having done all the things WBM “decided” he could do, he bugged out. If there were “no comms” there, then that would be the last thing he discovered.

    So WBM decides to “get out…and get to somewhere that comms can be established”.
    I get the “don’t bother trying on the way down”. If it didn’t work before…it’s likely not to work now.

    PB could make the call. And that is where the initial timings come from. The emergency call.
    …but nothing passed PB.

    One wonders if ONF1 was even there ?
    WBM was.
    As you say…. cell tower data should be able to confirm ONF1’s presence in the area (and the time).

  • James

    Assuming the sequence is….

    WBM is overtaken by SAH
    SAH crosses 4×4 (noted by ZAH)
    4×4 crosses WBM

    Q. Who was “4×4” ?

    If ONF1 believes that “his” 4×4 (which wasn’t SAH), escaped “over the hills”, then ONF1 is saying what ?
    He was the vehicle that crossed WBM (but NOT the later arriving SAH ?).

    No wonder WBM’s statement is (purposely) vague !

  • Good In Parts

    James

    Been busy – haven’t enough time to comment fully – back tomorrow.

    Here are a couple of points to ponder on:-

    How many motorcycles were there ? Making the assumption that Janin was correct and that the MC on the col turned back, then there were a minimum of two (ie LMC and the ado). If I am correct and LMC arrived via Chevaline like SM and WBM, then with the ‘deux mobylettes’ that would make three. If the ado rode up the combette instead of being counted as one of the mobylettes, then there could even be four.

    Now consider the MC claimed to have been seen at place Martinet by ONF1. We can assume a motorcycle was somewhere nearby in that timeslot, in order for it to descend and be seen by WBM. This motorcycle cannot have been LMC and could be any one of potentially three. For the purposes of this example it is assumed to be completely uninvolved in the murders.

    You made a good case that WBM was a spanner in the works. Yet from the perspective of the killer, this motorcycle was more disruptive.

    However long the killer had been there, the arrival of this MC ‘locks’ the killer in wherever his current hideyhole was when the motorcycle arrived. The killer cannot move around to get a better view or prepare for his attack without revealing himself.

    I think that the motorcycle masked the arrival of SAH from the killer. The eventual departure of the motorcycle (to be seen moments later by WBM) eliminated any slack in the critical path and thus required the killer to attack precipitatively. I think the shooting started so quickly that the motorcycle rider actually heard some of the shots. Which would explain the slow riding seen by WBM.

  • michael norton

    Disgraced LYON ex-police officer’s corruption trial opens in FRANCE

    http://www.france24.com/en/20160502-france-disgraced-former-police-officer-michel-neyret-corruption-trial-opens

    The trial of Michel Neyret, once one of France’s most respected law enforcement officers, opened in Paris on Monday, where he stands accused of a litany of crimes, including corruption, drug trafficking and embezzlement.

    Neyret’s fall from grace has been a spectacular one. Known for his charisma, Neyret headed up an anti-gang unit in the southeastern city of Lyon for 20 years, a job that earned him France’s highest honour, the Légion d’honneur, in 2004 from then interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy.

    He quickly rose up the ranks over the next three years and was promoted to deputy chief of police in Lyon in 2007.

    Neyret’s career, however, came to a crashing halt with his arrest on September 29, 2011, after an investigation into a major drug trafficking ring led straight to his office.

    He now faces up to 10 years in prison if found guilty on charges of corruption, influence peddling, conspiracy, breach of professional secrecy, holding stolen property, drug trafficking, embezzlement and money laundering.

    An informer’s informant?

    Neyret’s involvement in the case came to light in a string of wiretapped phone conversations with Gilles Benichou, a known convict who briefly worked as a confidential informant.

    Although the police had severed ties with Benichou for being too unreliable, the recordings revealed that he and Neyret met at least two to three times a week, and spoke on an almost daily basis.

    During these conversations, Benichou often solicited Neyret for information on judicial proceedings or investigations into his inner-circle and family, including his cousin Stéphane Alzraa, a notorious carbon tax scammer.

    In exchange, he showered the deputy chief of police and his wife, Nicole, with lavish gifts, including several trips to Morocco and a room at the luxurious Carlton hotel in Cannes. Benichou also gave Neyret around €40,000 in cash, as well as a €6,000 watch from famed Swiss watchmaker Chopard, and a €30,000 watch from Cartier for his wife, among other items.

    ‘Ruined’

    But Nicole Neyret soon began to complain about her husband’s increasingly extravagant behaviour.

    “He’s not the same since you started giving him money. Because [he] goes out, [he] spends… He spends everything on champagne, on nights out,” she was recorded saying in a phone conversation with Benichou.

    “Don’t give him any more money, otherwise he’ll go to the casino. He’ll drink and pay for girls to drink too. You’ve ruined Michel for me… He’s now more of a gangster than the others. But stop, stop, he’s obsessed with money, money, money,” she pleaded.

    Far from stopping, Neyret opened a Swiss bank account in his wife’s name just weeks before his arrest. Prosecutors believe that the account was intended to be used to deposit millions of euros from a carbon tax scam involving Alzraa.

    “I’m telling you, you’ll want for nothing, you’re going to have a beautiful future,” Benichou was recorded telling Neyret in one wiretapped conversation.

    ‘An excellent cop’

    Despite the case against him, Neyret has defended his actions, maintaining that he was only doing his job as an officer of the law.

    Former national chief of police Christian Lothion also spoke out in support of Neyret shortly before the start of his trial.

    “He was an excellent cop, if not an exceptional one,” Lothion told France’s Europe 1 radio on Monday morning. “He had a reputation for being an excellent and honest police officer, and I don’t think this reputation was undeserved in the least.”

    The move came somewhat as a surprise, since Lothion, who served as Neyret’s direct superior from 2001 to 2004, initially responded to his arrest five years ago by stating, “He is no longer my friend, nor a police officer.”

    “At the time, I was chief of police and Neyret was not only one of my colleagues, but also one of my friends. The shock was all the greater for me and I perceived it as a betrayal,” Lothion told Europe 1.

    Neyret appeared in court on Monday alongside seven other defendants in the case, including his wife Nicole. Eighth suspect Stéphane Alzraa has been on the run ever since his escape from France’s Corbas prison in November 2015.

    The trial is expected to run until May 24.

  • Good In Parts

    James

    “PB could make the call. And that is where the initial timings come from. The emergency call.
    …but nothing passed PB.”

    Here is the can and, you guessed it, more worms.

    There is something ‘not right’ about the emergency call(s) and the reported timings. This was apparent right from the start when key witness WBM publicly corrected EM’s media claim that he (WBM) was the first to alert the emergency services.

    What on earth was Eric up to ?

    Quote from Paris Match 05 septembre 2015

    “A 15 h 44 et 59 secondes, les secours sont prévenus par deux témoins qui découvrent le massacre.”

    It is almost anathema to critique ‘first responders’ but it also has to be said that something does not stack up re their response time.

    My guess is that they (the call centre) did not actually ‘despatch’ in response to the first call made. Maybe it was considered a prank call.

    • michael norton

      Keep your eye on this evolving story

      A burnt body found in Marlens

      Firefighters were alerted to a fire in a house of three levels, last night around 20:30 in Marlens place called “shadow below.” Four fire hoses were deployed. The fire is not yet fully mastered this morning and still high content of carbon monoxide interferes firefighters and investigators. It was also learned that a body was found inside the house. For now, his identity was not revealed. Investigators are on site to determine if it is of an accidental or arson. An order of the mayor has just been published which prohibits access road leading to the house. Witnesses said an explosion was heard just before the fire. The latter information to be confirmed.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marlens

      popular with certain types

  • James

    GIP

    Hmmm. Lots to ponder.

    I wonder “whom” reinforces what hypothesis ?
    Narrowing it down, with logic, some are gone (ONF2 and LMC).

    The hypothesis that there was a motorcyclist (other than LMC, seen by ONF2).
    That’s “two”. Unless Citroen Van comes forward.

    We still have this “head to head” between WBM and ONF1

    With “blood spatters”, you’d expect “one” to be nearby …and on that (with no evidence), I can only see “one” covering for “the killer”.
    Or “almost”.

    Oh feck.
    You’d know if “there was a BMW there” if you’d shot them ?
    If your target was “anything” but them…you’d know SM was there.

    This sounds “odd”.

    Take out the LMC element (and so ONF2).
    Now remove the “MC X” only spotted by WBM and ONF1.

    Say there was no “MC X”

    The one clouds the other…….
    ….both saw a “BMW”. Both “knew” it was a BMW.

    It’s only “One” phone call that puts “an” MC there.
    Is the other “real”.

    One question “defunks” everything.
    Who else saw WBM. And at the time he was there.

    It cannot be as simple as that ?

    Who knew that ?

  • James

    In English Law there is what is called a “self serving statement”
    For example “I saw a motorcyclist and I saw one to” carries no effect. In Law. It proves nothing.
    One person is not corroborating the other.

    “I saw a motorcyclist and I saw one to, when you did …. and I saw you”, could link, in Law.
    The same one (the same MC) becomes “witnessed” otherwise AND certainly in Law. It goes into “hearsay”.
    Almost !

  • James

    Infact, if you look at the Maddie McCann case in the UK (or rather Portugal), you can see how the media is worked….and “jumps to” it’s own conclusions when making a programme.

    Panorama produced a programme, in which it said “it is the most conclusive evidence yet” in the Maddie McCann case. And then it just went on about “an abduction”.

    The “most conclusive evidence yet” isn’t even in it !

    And that is “three fold”.

    1. Kate McCann never used the name “McCann” prior to the disappearnce of her daughter. She only used the name “Dr Kate Healy”. That was for everything.
    But apparently, when she collected her child from the nursery at their holiday resort, she signed the register (at the times there is a signature there) as “McCann”.

    2. Sniffer dogs (x2) expert in picking up 1. the scent of a deceased person 2. the scent of blood were used (from the U.K.) and they did separately identify the previous presence of a deceased body and the previous presence of blood (in the McCann apartment and the car they used and hired later), to which Mr McCann, when questioned,on the matter, said “dogs are unreliable”.
    The dog in question (the “deceased person” dog was “240 out of 240” at that time. The two cases it “failed” on were 1. The McCann’s and 2. The Jersey Child Abuse case, involving Jimmy Saville). Still, for a dog, it’s impressive !

    3. The “differing” statements given to Portuguese Police and Leicestershire Police (under interview and under re-interview) by the McCann’s and Dr David Payne as to their actions, specifically covering the hours up to (but prior to their evening meal at the Tapa bar) the alleged abduction of Maddie McCann.

    Panorama…. does not “hit” any of these fundamentals. Which is, to be honest, probably at the crux of the McCann’s “alleged abduction” narrative.

    The programme merely repeats the “easy narrative”. Whether this is intentional or merely due to the fact “it has an hour slot to fill, so records whatever will fill that slot” (which makes commercial sense).

    In the McCann case, it is contested whether their daughter was ever abducted.
    That is the simple fact.
    There is NO evidence to suggest that their daughter was abducted, in the same way, there is NO evidence to suggest their daughter was murdered (or even died… other than the sniffer dog intelligence, which is not evidence…and is never used as thus by the police investigators on that case or another).
    The only evidence is, their daughter is “no longer with her parents”.

    …and yet, if you “go along with” BBC Panorama, she was abducted !

    Same is true here with the Al Hilli case.
    BBC Panorama present the “case” based on “scant” investigation.

    In reality (exc Citroen Man), we have TWO conflicting “statements made to camera”.
    If these are “partially” to be believed (on face value) ONE or BOTH have to be lying ?
    Or there is an intention to “mislead the public” for some reason or other.

    WBM and ONF1 “have to see” the same thing, whether “BMW 4×4” is a mistake or not.
    Whatever “one sees”, so should the other.
    And lets face it, they pretty much do (if you consider the “mistaken identity” argument).
    But the point is…. if the same experience happened to both, then both must report the same thing.
    And they don’t.

    They both agree they “experienced” MCX

    So now they have to say, they did see….
    ONF1 saw SAH, SM, WBM and the Citroen van.
    WBM saw BMW 4×4, ONF1 and the Citroen van.

    Who is “involved” in the murder/cover-up ?
    Well unless there are concrete answer forth coming, it could be “either of the above” or “both of the above”.

    • Peter

      @ James

      I really don’t want to join a debate on the McCann case, but I have done a fair bit of research on cadaver dogs lately, which has left me less than impressed with their reliability.

      First, very few, if any, cadaver dogs are trained to pick up “the scent of a deceased person”, because very few, if any, jurisdictions allow them to be trained with actual human bodies (or parts thereof). Rather, they are usually trained with pig carcasses or an artificial scent called cadaverine. Thus, they will pick up on animal remains as well as human remains. Secondly, it is not just the dog that does the detecting, it is the dog-handler team. Just as the handler needs to be able correctly to “read” the dog’s reactions (is he indicating something or merely excited?), the dog invariably “reads” his handler and the handler’s expectations. If the handler has committed the cardinal mistake of acquiring prior information about the case, forming an opinion on where the trail may lead, the dog is going to sense those expectations and will indicate accordingly. Thirdly, there are hardly any solid empirical studies on how reliable those dog-handler teams are in practice. The few that exist show that, whilst some dog-handler teams are remarkably reliable (being right 95% of the time), most of them hardly beat the toss of a coin. Yet those few studies exhibit a selection bias, inasmuch as truly dire dog-handler teams would not willingly participate in a test of their performance. Real-life case studies conducted by criminal defence teams have found that some randomly selected dog-handler teams managed to perform significantly worse than a coin toss, some getting it wrong 8 out of 10 times. (It was one such trial in which the defence completely destroyed the dogs’ “evidence” to which Mr McCann was referring.)

      I love dogs and am aware that they are capable of astonishing feats, but cadaver dogs in particular are one of the dodgiest, least reliable tools in the forensics toolkit. This is of course their handlers’ fault, who have the audacity to call a dog trained to find mouldy pork chops a “Human Remains Detection Dog” and so forth 🙁

  • Good In Parts

    James

    Yeah totally – on the “self serving statement” thing – but shouldn’t the gendarmes expect witnesses (even innocent ones) to be somewhat self serving and be able to ‘discount’ their statements appropriately?

    Anyway, you may remember my discussion with Peter on ‘dinner party dentists’ – well it appears to me that the whole ‘professional name’ versus ‘married name’ can be more of the same baggage. In certain circles it appears to be the ‘new normal’, so it doesn’t surprise me in the least.

    That the married name (ie the kids surname) was given when collecting said sprog should not surprise anyone. Pour le avoidance of les questions, as they say in france !

    You asked:-

    “It’s only “One” phone call that puts “an” MC there.
    Is the other “real”. “

    It is a very good question ! – but I am out of time – back tomorrow.

      • michael norton

        We had been expected to understand that the ONF people helped the police artist draw up the E-FIT-SKETCH

        which actual ONF people?

        It was expected that the public were to assume that more than one ONF person helped the police artist,
        arrive at the E-FIT-SKETCH ( that resembled Eric Devouassoux)

        this is crucial information to our understanding if there is a cover-up happening.

        • michael norton

          Remember
          Sylvain Mollier worked for Cezus-Areva and they paid for Maitre Caroline Blanvillian to take the media to court to
          stop them asking questions about “What was Sylvain Mollier doing up the Combe of Ire on that day”
          and to put a stop to the media sniffing about for inconsistencies
          in the stories put out by the FRENCH AUTHORITIES.

          FRENCH STATE OWNED
          AREVA in Le Creusot, Burgundy
          which has
          manufactured key components used
          in more than half of FRANCE’s 58 nuclear reactors, “may”
          have falsified safety reports on some of those components. Unverified components may also
          have been installed by EDF at some of the 15 reactors it owns in BRITAIN.
          Meanwhile, Thomas Piquemal, EDF’s
          former chief financial officer,
          told France’s parliament
          on Wednesday that he had wanted to delay a final investment decision on building Hinkley
          Point C by at least three years. He said the weight of the project on EDF’s balance sheet
          would be significant
          and EDF cannot afford a credit rating downgrade, as it is already essentially BROKE.

          The falsified documents have come to light because ASN ordered AREVA
          to carry out an audit
          after it detected
          very serious anomalies
          in the reactor pressure vessel at Flamanville
          The EPR nuclear plant being
          built in Normandy which is the same model as the ones planned for
          Hinkley Point C, Somerset.
          Flamanville is currently 6 years late and around €7.2bn over budget.

    • michael norton

      The E-FIT-SKETCH : There is apparently no doubt that Eric Devouassoux resembles the e-fit image of a man spotted

      by forestry workers near the scene of the crime “SO MORE THAN A SINGLE FORESTRY WORKER”

      and released November 2013. The crowd at the café said he would roar with laughter when anyone pointed out how much he looked like the e-fit – or “portrait-robot” in French.
      http://www.theweek.co.uk/europe/57368/alps-murder-mountain-man-cleared-killing-al-hillis
      http://www.ledauphine.com/haute-savoie/2014/04/18/l-arme-du-crime-repechee-dans-l-isere

      Quite amazing: The E-FIT-SKETCH is released in November 2013 – six days later Nicole Communal-Tournier,
      who lives a stones throw from William Brett Martin in Lathuile, is shot dead.
      W.B.M. was the apparent discoverer of “The Slaughter of the Horses”

      Move on to February 2014;

      Eric Devouassoux, a dead ringer for the E-FIT-SKETCH is arrested
      also in February 2014 the Charpentier of Doussard is arrested – yet more than two years have gone by and he has not been given a public court appearance and he has not been publicly named;

      They were both arrested in February 2014 suspected of murder, one is named and one is not named,
      this is in the same part of FRANCE and under the same prosecutor,
      so can anybody tell me
      why the different treatment?

  • James

    Peter….

    Yeah, I agree with you. But…
    One “defence” that was mounted by the McCann family was (there has been no “inquiry” it to all this) regarding the capability of “the dogs”, the case in America. The husband had murder his wife, the “intelligence” given by the dog (as that is what is all it is) was that there was a body there.

    And this was SUCCESSFULLY over turned in court. so….Dogs 0 v Suspect 1.
    Later in the trail, the suspect changed his plea, and admitted to the murder of his wife.
    I guess the “McCann PR team” didn’t follow the whole case to it’s ending. They don’t need to. Thay just need to get the “story” out there.

    GIP….

    Self Serving Statements are key to any witness. Did I really just say that !!!
    What the hell, I’ll say it again, self serving statements are key to any “witness”.

    I think we are seeking “key witnesses”. And there aren’t any.
    Eric quotes ZAH. She saw a “large 4×4”.
    Hey presto, we have confirmed WBM’s story.
    Nice one Eric.

    Okay, picking on WBM for a moment. Who saw him “prior to being at the murder scene”.
    1 The large vehicle…. not publicly come forward.
    2 The mystery MC…. not publicly come forward.

    But we know WBM was indeed there. He has DNA there. He stopped PB.

    Turning to ONF1.
    If he made a mistake (BMW 4×4 v SAH BMW), then who else saw him ?
    The large vehicle descending ?
    Nope…. we can say that was the Citroen van.

    You see, we have “nothing”.
    We have “WBM’s story”
    And we have “ONF1’s story”.

    Misdirection (or “focus”) is amazing. I refer you to the McCann PR team. You tell a story and you keep fixed on that. Do not look anywhere else.

    The “trick” is, you have to keep the focus. As in the McCann case, we are focus on “the abduction” or “not abduction, she was murdered that day”. And that’s the “trick”. Say the McCann girl died “days before”. We missed that. We are trying to work out “what happened that evening” (pro or against).

    We need an “independent” witness that confirms either(or both) WBM’s or ONF1’s story.
    Otherwise, they are “suspects”.

    • Peter

      The trouble is, at least in German courts, the “intelligence” given by a cadaver dog, plus a bit of hearsay evidence from the neighbours, may suffice to earn somebody a manslaughter conviction. It has happened before, largely based upon outright lies by police cadaver-dog handlers regarding what their dogs are supposedly capable of (i. e., telling human remains from animal ones) and how reliable they purport them to be. I looked at the issue in the context of the forthcoming “missing-body” trial of a Yazidi family accused of having done away with their daughter in a so-called “honour killing”.

      Yazidis have a bit of form when it comes to such killings
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Du%27a_Khalil_Aswad
      Yet, like everybody else, these particular individuals are entitled to a fair trial based upon the merits of the case against them, and I am confident that the defence will tear this case to shreds.

      Insofar as the McCann case is concerned, I would agree that the overall picture looks pretty damning against them at first sight. However, I have followed a number of lower-profile cases sufficiently closely to have come to the conclusion that, if there is one source of information on which you can count to get it wrong almost every time, it is the media, even if journalists have direct, unfettered access to the case files. As I have no sources of information other than the media in that case, I shall keep my personal opinions to myself.

  • James

    GIP….

    The very last thing for today…..

    Why Are We Looking For This Large Vehicle ?

    The answer is simple.
    Because ZAH reports seeing one. So one has to be explained.
    Now think about that !

  • James

    And the final point !

    Is the Al Hill case like the McCann case ? Well, yes it is.

    In the McCann case, they have witnesses that “see” a “man carrying a child”.
    And six years later, they “find” this man.
    No name given etc, etc, etc

    In the Al Hilli case, they have witnesses that “see” a motorcyclist
    And a couple of years later, they “find” this motorcyclist.
    No name given etc etc etc

    The question is, was there ever a “sighting” ?
    And did the police play the “same game” ?

    Hey…the “person” that you said was there (but wasn’t)….
    …well, we have found them (but we won’t name them).

    Check out the number of cases this happens in. It is astonishing.

    In the McCann case, was there a man carrying a child near to their apartment, on that night ?
    Most likely not.
    So the police “find” this person.
    What the heck.
    They play the game !

    Okay, we saw a motorcyclist…..
    ….okay, it took us awhile, but we found him.
    Now what ?

    AND guess what !

    The “key suspects” brought into view by the “key witnesses” that will never be found (because they were never there), always get found (and always remain unnamed). And why ? Because the police already have their “key suspect”, but they can’t prove it !

    And if you can’t prove it….. it doesn’t count.

    Quote “the perfect crime” unquote.

    In this case, who is the “most” reliable witness ?
    I’d say the Al Hilli daughter.
    And all we know is “she saw a large 4×4”.
    No motorcycle, no nothing.
    And we have a “massive” debate, all about “who was the vehicle ?”

    I want to know, when ONF2 got “introduced” ?
    I saw a biker
    Okay, we have a mystery biker.
    Well, we have a worker that saw this biker.
    And we’ve found this biker.
    End.

    It’s the “large vehicle” that’s of interest (and who’s lying).
    ZAH saw one.
    And now/then WBM saw one, ONF1 saw one.

    Say there was a “second” biker. Say there was this.
    Key to the story is, what “sequence” are the witness statements.

    I think the police “know” pretty much what went on.
    But they just can’t prove it.
    I think that is the same for the McCann case.
    The girl is “gone” (dead). But you just can’t prove the “who did it” (or the how and why).

    Why am I interested in this (and now ?). I noted the Portuguese Supreme Court recently over turned the McCann’s libel case against the lead investigator (on a point of Law).
    I suspect they would have let it stand, if it wasn’t “unsafe” to do so.

    • michael norton

      If LMC resembles the E-FIT-SKETCH then maybe the E-FIT-SKETCH was not crafted to look like Eric Devouassoux.

      There are enduring concerns, we are not sure which witnesses enlightened the police artist/s.
      We have not seen a photograph of LMC to compare with the E-FIT-SKETCH:

      we have been expected to swallow the information that a motorcyclist was seen by some ONF people:
      so far we do not know if these witnesses, were one or more in the “group” known as ONF ONE
      ,
      one or more in a “group” known as ONF TWO or some of each group or all of each group, or both ONF groups and W.B.M.

      • michael norton

        LMC has claimed he was not wearing a special side-opening helmet, he has never owned or worn such an item.
        Further more LMC apparently also claims he did not pass or see W.B.M.

        If these items are all correct:

        We assume there was a further motorcyclist.
        This would be the very slowly descending motorcyclist who passed W.B.M.

        Now if we knew who the witnesses to the police artist/s were,
        we could ask them a question.
        That question would be:
        is the description you gave to the police artist/s of L.M.C.?

  • Good In Parts

    James

    Lots of things there, you are on a roll. Taking your ‘final point’ first:-

    “Is the Al Hill case like the McCann case ? Well, yes it is.

    In the McCann case, they have witnesses that “see” a “man carrying a child”.
    And six years later, they “find” this man.
    No name given etc, etc, etc”

    I know little of that case other than mainstream radio and TV news reports (PM, News at Ten etc.) and (probably for the same reasons as Peter) I really don’t want to join a debate on the McCann case. However, having said that, I did note that the man carrying a child had been ‘found’ after so many years.

    To be clear, I am open to the possibility that les gendarmes might resort to subterfuge in order to advance the case, to wit the pretence that they had found the motorcyclist. This was suggested on one thread or other when the arrest of the ex-gendarme ED was announced. The idea being that this hopefully might provoke a reaction from one or other suspects who were being closely monitored i.e. tapped and bugged.

    The ensuing feeding frenzy seemed to show that ED wasn’t ‘taking one for the team’ when he was thrown under the bus.

    So, is the ” discovery ” of LMC a subtle and considered ploy ? Right at the moment I think not.

    “In this case, who is the “most” reliable witness ?
    I’d say the Al Hilli daughter.
    And all we know is “she saw a large 4×4”.
    No motorcycle, no nothing.
    And we have a “massive” debate, all about “who was the vehicle ?””

    I would say she is a very, very, important witness for the investigators. Sadly her head injuries and subsequent medically induced coma means that she could not be a ‘reliable witness’ at all in legal terms.

    “I want to know, when ONF2 got “introduced” ?”

    On the phone call, of course ! (seen by my colleagues 10 minutes later)

    “Say there was a “second” biker. Say there was this.
    Key to the story is, what “sequence” are the witness statements.”

    Exactement !

  • Good In Parts

    Question for everyone !

    How many motorcycle riders were present that day between 15:00 and 16:00 ?

    You can post two answers if you wish, firstly assuming Janin is right and secondly assuming Janin is incorrect.

  • James

    GIP

    “I want to know, when ONF2 got “introduced” ?”
    On the phone call, of course ! (seen by my colleagues 10 minutes later)

    No. That’s when he’s introduced in “the time line”, that’s not when he/they come forward.

    There will be a time when ONF2 comes forward to the police.
    And there is a time when ONF1 spoke to ONF2.
    A time line is produced later. Basically “in hindsight”.

    I assume ONF1 spoke to ONF2 before either or both went to the police.
    Normally, this would be “okay”. But this isn’t an ordinary case.

    Re the McCann case. Whatever went on, I do not know and do not want to speculate on.
    The point is…., the way the witnesses come forward is “odd”. Their stories are “confused”. The time line is “odd”.

    Back to the case of Chevaline. Above all, the witnesses stories, should (in part) match. They don’t. That’s a red flag.

    • michael norton

      We note that Eric Maillaud nor any of his work accomplices have updated the World on the status of the November 2013 issued E-FIT-SKETCH, since the 95/% “unlinked – story” of LMC.

      They pointedly have not been corrective or precise.

      One possibility: is they are still looking for the Motorcyclist – Shootist
      who may resemble the November 2013 issued E-FIT-SKETCH

      therefore that sketch is relevant

      but it would be good if they could be SPECIFIC about the contributors to the police artist/s

    • Good In Parts

      James

      ” No. That’s when he’s introduced in “the time line”, that’s not when he/they come forward. “

      Fair enough, I misinterpreted what you wrote.

      I seem to remember EM stated something to the effect that they received the details of the X5 within 48 hours and details of the motorcycle in approx 72 hours.

      My interpretation is that ONF1 made an initial report to the gendarmes on the day of the murders, probably focused on his putative X5 sighting but also possibly mentioning a motorcycle. I also think he had a telephone conversation with one or both of the ONF2 pair. I don’t know whether that convo was before or after his report to the gendarmes.

      I presume that subsequently, ONF1 had a formal statement taken within 48 hours and that ONF2 had their statements taken within 72 hours.

      The above is ‘from memory’, so add a pinch of salt. Another poster – M. – seemed focused on this issue and I think I might have gotten the 48/72 hour timing from one of her posts.

  • Good In Parts

    James

    “And we’ve found this biker.”

    OK, assuming for a moment this was in fact a subterfuge, what did the gendarmes hope to achieve?

    Were they looking for a reaction or simply to take a piece out of play, clearing the way for endgame ?

    Or perhaps to break up any ‘mutual support’ pact between ONF1 and ONF2 ?

1 205 206 207 208 209 231