The mainstream media for the most part has moved on. But there are a few more gleanings to be had, of perhaps the most interesting comes from the Daily Mirror, which labels al-Hilli an extremist on the grounds that he was against the war in Iraq, disapproved of the behaviour of Israel and had doubts over 9/11 – which makes a great deal of the population “extremist”. But the Mirror has the only mainstream mention I can find of the possibility that Mossad carried out the killings. Given Mr al-Hilli’s profession, the fact he is a Shia, the fact he had visited Iran, and the fact that Israel heas been assassinating scientists connected to Iran’s nuclear programme, this has to be a possibility. There are of course other possibilities, but to ignore that one is ludicrous.
Which leads me to the argument of Daily Mail crime reporter, Stephen Wright, that the French police should concentrate on the idea that this was a killing by a random Alpine madman or racist bigot. Perfectly possible, of course, and the anti-Muslim killings in Marseille might be as much a precedent as Mossad killings of scientists. But why the lone madman idea should be the preferred investigation, Mr Wright does not explain. What I did find interesting from a man who has visited many crime scenes are his repeated insinuations that the French authorities are not really trying very hard to find who the killers were, for example:
the crime scene would have been sealed off for a minimum of seven to ten days, to allow detailed forensic searches for DNA, fibres, tyre marks and shoe prints to take place.
Nearby bushes and vegetation would have been searched for any discarded food and cigarette butts left by the killer, not to mention the murder weapon.
But from what I saw at the end of last week, no such searches had taken place and potentially vital evidence could have been missed. House to house inquiries in the local area had yet to be completed and police had not made specific public appeals for information about the crime. No reward had been put up for information about the shootings.
Behind the scenes, what other short cuts have been taken? Have police seized data identifying all mobile phones being used in the vicinity of the murders that day?
The idea that the French authorities – who are quite as capable as any other of solving cases – are not really trying very hard is an interesting one.
Which leads me to this part of a remarkable article from the Daily Telegraph, which if true points us back towards a hit squad and discounts the ides that there was only one gun:
Claims that only one gun was used to kill everybody is likely to be disproved by full ballistics test results which are out in October.
While the 25 spent bullet cartridges found at the scene are all of the same kind, they could in fact have come from a number of weapons of the same make.
This throws up the possibility of a well-equipped, highly-trained gang circling the car and then opening fire.
Both children were left alive by the killers, who had clinically pumped bullets into everybody else, including five into Mr Mollier.
Zainab was found staggering around outside the car by Brett Martin, a British former RAF serviceman who cycled by moments after the attack, but he saw nobody except the schoolgirl.
Her sister, Zeena, was found unscathed and hiding in the car eight hours later.
Both sisters are now back in Britain, and are believed to have been reunited at a secret location near London.
There are of course a number of hit squad options, both governmental and private, which might well involve iraqi or Iranian interests – on both of which the mainstream media have been very happy to speculate while almost unanimously ignoring Israel.
But what interests me is why the Daily Telegraph choose, in the face of all the evidence, to minimise the horrific nature of the attack by stating that “Both children were left alive by the killers”? Zainab was not left alive by design, she was shot in the chest and her skull was stove in, which presumably was a pretty serious attempt to kill a seven year-old child. The other girl might very well have succeeded in hiding from the killers under her mother’s skirts, as she hid from the first rescuers, and then for eight hours from the police.
The Telegraph article claims to be informed by sources close to the investigation. So they believe it was a group of people, and feel motivated to absolve those people from child-killing. Now what could the Daily Telegraph be thinking?
The “rain” pic is from another crime in Rennes
http://www.parismatch.com/Actu-Match/Societe/Actu/Macabre-decouverte-dans-la-foret-de-Rennes-358223/
It must have been raining at some recent time – a week? – at Martinet for the BMW to get stuck in a muddy spot by the embankment.
Tim V
2 Jan, 2013 – 8:47 pm
Peter who posted the video did say on MZT that he thought the gun would have had to be used for something more than just hitting Zainab.
…
Peter
1-2-2013 at 11:16:49 MZT
http://www.marilynztomlins.com
NR
Well that’s that sorted out.
The “rain” pic is “stock”.
But as for the BMW getting stuck.
I have said this before, it can’t be stuck.
Stuck is “prevented from completing it’s journey”. The BMW seems to have “hit” the bank. Maybe SAH was deceased at that time…or he hit the bank, but deceased before he could engage a forward gear. But “stuck it is not !
Question. Where was the BMW when it engaged reverse gear ?
Tim V
2 Jan, 2013 – 9:50 pm how many time do we have to repeat the obvious? The tyre tracts: Just look at them and THINK. IF IF IF IF IF they were made by the BMW it would HAVE to have been facing INWARDS next to the sign to end up facing OUT where it ended up wouldn’t it? Now just study the detailed photo. The BMW is REAR wheel drive so the skidding wheels would have to be closer to the road than the steering wheels. You can see the rear wheels are closer to the woods and not only so but a carbon deposit from a diesel exhaust can be clearly seen that confirms it. Then the steering track on a RH lock can be seen closer to the road. It also slips which points to front wheel under power i.e. 4×4. Note the opposite side doesn’t loose grip as the weight of the vehicle is thrown to the LHS. Finally the circle made by this vehicle in no way fits the location of the BMW where it ends up with steering wheels pointing straight forward. If the BMW reversed it did so in a straiht line and the semi circular and skid markes were made by a parked vehicle pointing out. If the tracks had been made by the BMW the car would have ended up FRONT FIRST in the bank not the rear. Can we please, please PLEASE accept whatever theories we put forward for the tracks (they might have been made by some unrelated tearaway practising speed skidding for example) let us at least agree they were NOT, COULD NOT, be made by Al Hilli’s BMW.
Sorr James
2 Jan, 2013 – 9:21 pm that last one was a reply to yours.
James
2 Jan, 2013 – 9:21 pm a bullet is a fairly efficient deflator. Fairly standard procedure to stop car getting away as well. Twenty five bullets allow for one aimed at the tyre. Remember ten cartridges were only discovered once the car was moved.
NR
2 Jan, 2013 – 10:01 pm thanks for clearing up that little picture puzzle. However the BMW was “stuck” in the bank not because it had lost traction but because it was in reverse and still under power. The bank was merely stopping it going back. I have no doubt if if forward gear had been engaged it would have gone forwards. That new film clip found by Pink (I think!) is interesting because for the first time as pointed out by James, the off side rear is actually flat. It has been suggested before but could never be confirmed as the other angles prevented a clear view. We still dont know why, but an intentional bullet must be a firm possibility.
Tim.
I never said that the tracks at the other end of the carpark were made by the BMW.
I said, where was the BMW when reverse gear was engaged ?
Next point. Yes a bullet is pretty good at making a tyre flat.
So when or where did this happen ?
Where the BMW “is”. But why fire a round into a tyre then.
A more effetive way to “stop a car” is to shoot the driver.
Taking the “times”.
If we assume that Laurent is correct…and that Brett therefore wasn’t paast by SAH on his way up the route, where was SAH “parked” for that time period ?
If we say (as we do) the car wasn’t where “they” tell us it was, then we have to say where it was. It has to have been somewhere after all !
Now on a slightly different but related thread KAZAKHSTAN RE Gareth Williams, James Giffen, Furkat Ibragimov, Missa Elizabeth Guthrie a recent development you may have missed. One of those pesky helicopter crashes that just happen to contain some important people: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19343442
Après 3 mois de recherche sur internet, avoir lu des centaines d’articles, posts et avoir vu beaucoup de photos, comme vous tous sur ce forum, et parce qu’on tourne en rond, je vous propose ma théorie. Ce n’est qu’une théorie, je n’ai aucune preuve, pour cela je m’abstiendrais de nommer les possibles responsables.
1.Mr SAH ne métrait jamais en danger sa famille.
2.La famille est allé se promener et prendre des photos. Au martinet il n’y a rien à voir.
3.La famille continue son trajet. Ils se croissent avec les futurs responsables de la tuerie.
4.SM arrive au martinet, il s’y arrête et consulte la carte sur le parking. Il decide de faire demi-tour.
5.À ce moment il y a contact entre SM et les responsables qui arrivent au parking. Il se produit quelque chose, peut-être un accident.
6.“la plupart des études convergent pour souligner la part prépondérante de l’alcool dans le passage à l’acte meurtrier. Beaucoup indiquent que près de la moitié des affaires criminelles sont concernées. “ in http://classiques.uqac.ca/contemporains/mucchielli_laurent/B_recherche_homidices/homicides/homicides_texte.html#Anchor-Les-11947
7.SM est abattu.
8.Les responsables vont essayer de cacher le corps dans la forêt.
9.Trop tard, ils entendent la voiture des Anglais qui revient sur le parking.
10.Ils partent
11.La famille arrive de nouveau au parking et s’arrête sur la route, juste devant SM gisant sur le sol, pour lui porter secours.
12.Mr SAH sort, à ce moment les responsables reviennent, Mr. SAH monte dans sa voiture, mais un véhicule plus grand que le sien l’oblige à faire marche arrière, la BMW est prise en étau entre le talut et la voiture des agresseurs.
13.C’est fini. Deux balles dans la tête, la petit essaye de s’enfuir, il n’y a plus de munitions,etc..
Pourquoi sont~ils abattus ?.
Bien que les victimes ne connaissant pas personnellement leurs agresseurs, ils pouvaient les identifier. Ils étaient des témoins gênants.
Voilà.
Simple, trop simple.
The fact is, you would engage reverse gear to position your vehicle OR mave out of the way of another vehicle.
For instance if you were faced with an oncoming car…and you knew you could reverse out of the way (into a space that you know to be clear) !
The rear pax had seatbelts on (we are told), so they have just arrived…or they are just leaving ?
If they are leaving…and are then faced with an oncoming vehicle (on a single track road) it is possible that he reversed…into the spot where he had previously been parked.
With his head facing away from the oncoming vehicle…and reversing, there would be ample time…and opportunity, for a person to (perhaps leave a vehicle !) and run to the drivers side of the car (UK RHD) and begin firing.
Leaving the vehicle in reverse…and against the bank.
But then there is the issue of the eldest girl outside the locked vehicle….and (so they say) blood splatter marks from Mollier on Al Hilli !
But I may have found a suggestion for that to !
Sorry James but you did say the following:
“The rear drivers side tyre is flat (1.02/1.03).If the vehicle was reversing at speed, in an arch, then that tyre would be facing towards the “prohibited” road….and always on the outer edge of a reversing arch.”
Apologies if I misinterpreted what you meant but on the face of it I hope you agee it seems to suggest that the BMW made the marks in a semicircular route from the top of the park to the bottom.
Personally I am fairly convinced he was always parked up forward of his eventual position at the bottom of the car park waiting for Mollier and possibly a third party to arrive. Not only can the skid marks not be the BMW the steering wheels show no sign of turning either. The only conclusion that can be drawn (or most likely at least) is that their car reversed in a straight line presumably because going forward was not an option for some reason?
@Holmes PT
Thankyou for making clear what your thoughts are and how you arrived at them and welcome back .
I will read your link and think about what you have said .
Translation by google of Holmes post.
Holmes.Pt
2 Jan, 2013 – 10:53
After 3 months of research on the internet, I read hundreds of articles, posts and have seen many pictures as you all on this forum, and because in circles, I offer my theory. This is only a theory, I have no proof for that I would refrain from appointing officials possible.
1.Mr SAH métrait not ever endanger his family.
2.La family went for a walk and take pictures. The whip there is nothing to see.
3.La family continues its journey. They grow with the future leaders of the killing.
4.SM the whip comes, it stops and consults the map in the parking lot. He decided to turn around.
5.A this time there is contact between SM and officials arriving at the car park. There is something, perhaps an accident.
6. “Most studies converge to emphasize the dominant role of alcohol in the passage to the act of murder. Many say that almost half of criminal cases are concerned. “In
7.SM is shot.
8.The officials will try to hide the body in the forest.
9.Trop later, they hear the car of English who returns to the parking lot.
10.Ils leave
11.La family happens again and stops the car on the road just before SM lying on the ground, to rescue him.
12.Mr SAH fate at that time officials returned, Mr. SAH gets into his car, but a larger vehicle that his forces him to back off, BMW is caught between the car and the Talut aggressors.
13.C is finished. Two bullets in the head, little attempt to escape, there is more ammo, etc. ..
~ Why are they slaughtered?.
Although the victims did not know their attackers personally, they could identify. They were embarrassing witnesses.
That’s it.
Simple, too simple.
Tim…
“Apologies if I misinterpreted what you meant but on the face of it I hope you agee it seems to suggest that the BMW made the marks in a semicircular route from the top of the park to the bottom”.
It doesn’t. As I say, “IF” that was the route taken, then it would involve a magic bullet (the rear drivers side wheel would be on the outer side of that arch…and impossibe to be hit).
Therefore we are left with a few “ideas”.
He pulled forward, then stopped (had to), then reversed.
He reversed straight away !
He didn’t place the car in reverse, it was placed in reverse after he had deceased.
There are only TWO possibilities there !
That story on Gareth Williams and the Kazakh that was originally published by The Telegraph and copied by the DM and then pulled by both, was also up on The Mirror for a while.
It still exists on Nigeria Today and there’s a very short version at The Sun, but interestingly that mentions only the Kazakh billionaire’s son and the part about Elizabeth Guthrie is missing.
So, using my powerful powers of deduction, it is she that the MIs or CIAs don’t want discussed! As I recall, she was the mysterious US heiress that had three identities herself and asked Gareth to make fake docs for Furkat.
I’ll bet the secret services are furious that I figured that one out all on my own. 🙂 I need not worry about limos with Kazakhi diplomatic plates cruising by, but will watch for Bentleys or Bond on a motorbike.
UK The Sun:
“By RYAN PARRY Published: 31st December 2012
“SPY-in-the-bag Gareth Williams was in contact with the son of a Kazakh oligarch before his death, it was claimed yesterday.
Cops believe the spook and Furkat Ibragimov — son of billionaire Alijan — spoke in the months before the computer analyst was found dead at an MI6-owned flat.”
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4719137/Spy-in-the-bag-had-links-to-son-of-Kazakh-oligarch.html
Off Topic: Gareth Williams / Furkat Ibragimov
On Topic: Smuggling Islamic Antiquities to fund AQ terror cells.
“NOT 4 ATTRIBUTION
This is the blog of Jason Lewis, Investigations Editor of the Sunday Telegraph newspaper in the UK. It also features articles from my previous position as Whitehall and Security Editor of the Mail on Sunday. I specialise in writing on intelligence and security matters, human and civil rights and the activities of the British State.
Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist.
http://not4attribution.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/mi6-spy.html
Much interesting spy stuff in the archives of the above, including the story of Diana’s stolen wedding presents, including this, perhaps relevant to Chevaline:
“They believe gangs linked to Al Qaeda are profiting directly from the trade. Our source said: ‘Moving antiquities is one of the easiest ways to get cash to cells in foreign countries, or for Iraq to get cash to purchase goods they are barred from buying under UN sanctions.”
“The artefacts can be easily smuggled. To the untrained eye, an Islamic treasure looks the same as something from a cheap bazaar. They raise less suspicion if they are spotted by customs. They are the perfect terrorist currency. One small artefact worth £50,000 can keep a cell going for a long time.”
“By the time royal butler Harold Brown turned up at Bloomsbury art house Spink with the Wales’s wedding gift, intelligence agents had unearthed evidence that London was the focus of a massive black market in Arabic relics.”
Williams / Ibragimov article also still is up at:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/world/spy-in-bag-had-mysterious-links-to-kazakh-oil-oligarch/story-fnddckzi-1226545626323
This one mentions Elizabeth Gutherie but does not include her flatmate and William’s old school friend Sian Lloyd-Jones.
Reading through Holmes PT link I found it difficult to fit this crime to most stated reasons .
We have not found any relationships between the people we know about they appear to be unconnected ,SM and SAH were not close to their home ,the crime didn’t happen close to a venue like a pub .
A vendetta ,or crime of passion against SM would be possible but not easy to fit SAH and SM.
Maybe the attack was close to the killers home .
Lunchtime drinking fits the time the crime happened late afternoon .
Someone who was not at work at that time or who’s work entailed them being around that location.
The border bit might play a part, as in resentment of certain types of people.
I think my property hunting idea is a good one.
If as I speculated they were property hunting then ,someone of the area ,low IQ, who had to much wine , owned an old gun and didn’t like property developers would fit 🙂
SO for instance a local drops into the cafe we haven’t found yet but is there ,Paul Tuhoy offers some refreshment and spare bike parts ,maybe there are more in homes on the cycle routes,
he wants a nibble and maybe some home brew,and chatty SAH who has stopped to buy some refreshment mentions he is on his way to look at a hut in the hills as he fancies building a chalet to rent out.
This is overheard by resentful local whilst he is supping his home brew or even him and his mate (4×4 and MC) ,they take off up one of the back roads and intercept SAH and start an arguement .
Along comes SM with the key riding his fancy bike, that local upstart who managed to chat up the pretty pharmacy owner and he says “calm down, calm down”.
X says hey mate don’t you tell me to calm down pulls out his old gun and stats shooting.
Against this idea I wouldn’t expect x to have the extra rounds of ammo.
……
Taken from Holmes linked article;
Circumstances of homicides play an important role and are old attention. To stick to the basics, retain at least the topics of the crime scene, his time, his instrument and the role of disinhibiting substances.
As for the location, found in all studies the consequences of the phenomenon of acquaintanceship: at least half of the cases, the crime took place at the home of the author and / or the victim.a Conversely, although some crimes interconnaissance take place on public roads, the latter is more often the scene of heinous crimes (other than robberies), fights and revenge.
@ NR
I remember when the Iraq was attacked that the museum got broken into pretty quickly ,I felt very sad reading the stories the curator had tried to get some rare bits to safety .
Given the rich history of that part of the world it seemed tragic that these things were getting stolen.
http://www.baghdadmuseum.org/index2.htm
The seatbelt discussion is curious, no one, but no one would stop to fasten their seatbelt when fleeing danger.
IF… it is true they did have belts on, then, to me this indicates a meeting was over & they were leaving peacefully, awaiting Zainab to return to the car but during that few minutes the killer arrived.
I cannot see that the blood on Saads trousers came from SM….it more likely splattered from the women.
The alternative theory is that they were fleeing , Saad was not using a seat belt & when he was shot he fell & knocked the automatic gear lever into reverse……. this makes far more sense than the suggestion ‘someone’ else put the car in gear,this is a conspiracy too far in my view.
Pink I agree with your intent, but I believe many of those items were ‘stolen’ by responsible people with preservation in mind.I remember one curate saying so.
Imagine if all the artefacts had been destroyed in bombings ?
I see no problem with stealing under those circumstances, destruction is worse, anyone stealing from a museum does so to keep or sell, either is preferable in a time of war…. Don’t you think ?
It is an IF with regard the seat belts.
The article posted by Peter (Sunday Times I think) said “a source close to the investigation” (yet a again !) said that the two women were weraing seat belts.
If this is true, then I would suggested they were indeed they were leaving.
If this is true, then it confirms WBM’s story (or him not mentioning SAH passing him) and would confirm LFR timing.
The curious thing then is would you strap a young child, seated in the middle of the two rear pax, first ? I guess so ?
Then it follows that she was also unstrapped at the time (possibly during) of the shootings ?
As for the reverse gear.
He could have been “blocked” and so reversed into the position he knew was clear OR could he have fallen on “reverse” as suggested above ?
I believe that there is a “lock” switch on the forward gear shift (a small lever/button) on the lever….but does this have to be pressed when selecting reverse gear ? I’m not sure it does.
As for the girl outside the car, I do recall that some cars (BMW inc) had an “auto release” on locked doors.
Some years ago I remember a story that car thieves could drive into the rear bumper of a car (and impact it at low speed) and the sensor would be triggered, thus opening the locks.
That would fit with a locked door, being unlocked. However it has to be firstly locked.
Therefore..just to add to the confusion…are we saying that one of the rear belted paxs had time to unfasten the rear seated childs seat belt ? And that SAH had time to engage the locks on his vehicle from the inside ?
This would suggest that SAH and the other pax’s could see either a threat approaching OR an incident happening outside the vehicle.
The police suggest he was caught unaware….I think that his actions suggest he had time (albeit little).
Does that mean SAH was the main target…and saw the threat approaching ? OR he saw SM being gunned down ?
I’m not sure, but what it does indicate is that the story told by Eric isn’t quite adding up.
….and if the above is true, how the hell did blood splatters from SM appear on SAH ???
Pink
The Baghdas museum was one thing, the Cairo and the Tripolis museum another, and the Damascus and Aleppo museums will be the next.
Did you ever have a rational answer why Mubarak protestors in Cairo would want to loot their own museum. Why not the banks and financial institutions but a bank?
My answer: Ask the CIA about the why. They are co-organisers of that uprise. Why would they want to steal from a museum?
Ask the al Khawam family, who is a very important partner of CIA and a supporter of the uprise.
Do they need new ancient artifacts for their business? You bet zhey do. Financing CIA and uprises? Give the answer to yourself. Looting ancient museums and bringing important ancient culture to rich western people is a business that was popular in WW1, during the Russian revolution, in WW2 as well as anytime later. It is still popular today.
I gave this link for the Khawam family earlier last month, but nobody did care. This Khawam family lives in France. Maybe SAH was going after them twith proof that they had culture that does belong to the Iraqis? This family was educated and one of the top families of Iraqi history. They knew exactly about what was stolen from the museum. I believe that i once read that one member of this family was the director of the Baghdad museum in the 1950tees.
Read this link and you will know why CIA supported the looting of all those museums.
http://www.khawam-brothers.com/en/historique
Hopefully this time that link is getting more attention. There is no reason for revolutionaries to burn down and loot a museum other than theft. Where and how can you trade that theft? Give the answer to yourself.
NR
Sorry, i forgot to direct my above message to you as i thought that it was pink who mentioned the museum robbery first.
I am 100% sure that i read months ago that either one member of the al Hilli or else the al Saffar family was director of the Baghdad museum. Perhaps it was Hashim or Kadhim or an al Saffar. I cannot remember but i am 100% sure about that. Unfortunately i did not give much attention to that fact as i was not aware of the Khawam family at this time when i found that because the Patraeus thing happened later.
In the future we have to see museum lootings in uprise zones under different reasons and probably search for culture from those museums near the Louvre in Paris Ofcourse this is a wonderful income for CIA et al next to the international drug business.
Pink
The Holmes story is EXACTLY what the law enforcement will tell us sooner or later. A lunatic cow owner who lives in a hut uphill with IQ < 50.
Read the Drummond case.
It's a red herring.
Another try at translating the thoughts of Holmes.pt – presumably a Sherlock H from Portugal? Some of the French words seem a bit mangled. Maybe, as suggested, its been through a translation machine once or twice?
But Holmes.pt seems to say it could all be due to a drunken fight, simple so simple. Would that it were so. Many of the 13 points are assumptions , and don’t explain the details . One could offer that hunters out on an expedition fired by mistake and then covered up, or an army training exercise went wrong or a duel. Or does Holmes.pt know more than he says? Or knows people relevant to this?
Perhaps Drinking is as good an explanation as any of the going round and round in circles which Holmes.pt observes here. Apart from any confessions Inspector Pierre Lestrange (EM equivalent) and colleagues also seem destined for round and round circles. It will only be solved if the real Sherlock or equivalent comes along to deduce what happened.
After 3 months of searching on the Internet, having read hundreds of articles, posts and having seen many photographs, like all on this forum, and because people are going round in circles, I propose my theory to you. It is only a theory, I do not have any proof, so because of that I will abstain from naming the possible perpetrators.
1.Mr SAH ne métrait jamais en danger sa famille
1. Mr SAH never measured or quantified (?better – would never put) (métrait -measured; mettrait – would put) his family in danger
2. The family went to have a walk and take pictures. At Martinet there is nothing to see.
3. La famille continue son trajet. Ils se croissent avec les futurs responsables de la tuerie
3. The family continue on their way. They are grown (croitre to grow, croissent – grew; croiser to cross, croisent – crossed) overtook the perpetrators responsible for the killing.
4. SM arrives at Martinet, he stops and looks at the map put up at the carpark. He decides to turn round.
5. At that moment there is contact between SM and the perpetrators who enter the carpark. Something occurs, perhaps an accident
6. “most studies agree in underlining the major part played by alcohol in carrying out murder.. Many show that about a half of criminal cases are affected” in http://classiques.uqac.ca/contemporains/mucchielli_laurent/B_recherche_homidices/homicides/homicides_texte.html#Anchor-Les-11947
7. SM is cut down.
8 The perpetrators go to try to hide the body in the forest.
9. Its too late, they hear the car of the English people which comes back to the carpark.
10. They leave
11. The family arrives back at the carpark and stops on the road, right in front of SM lying on the ground, to provide assistance.
12.Mr SAH leaves, at that moment the perpetrators return, Mr. SAH gets into his car, but a vehicle larger than his makes him to go into reverse, the BMW is caught between the talut (talut- unknown word; talus = bank) and the attackers car.
13. Its all over. Two bullets in the head, the little one tries to flee, he does not have any more ammunition,
Why are they shot down?.
Although the victims did not know their attackers personally, they could identify them. They were inconvenient witnesses
There it is.
Simple, so simple.
@ Pink : Interesting that you speculate on someone overhearing something at a pub that has big implications.
In the story about Diana’s stolen wedding presents, it is someone who overhears people talking about them at a pub in Mayfair, and informs MI-6, not the police. MI-6 relays it to the police department that specializes in that kind of theft, but then starts looking into it themselves and finds this whole stolen antiquities biz going on in London to finance AQ.
NR, pink
Very interesting reports on the Iraqi museum theft. No random looters! Experts! US military stand by and protects looters. Replicas untouched. Same happened in Cairo, Tripolis. Next is Damascus and Aleppo.
Al Khawam …..
http://www.mongabay.com/external/iraq_antiquities.htm
Quotes:
Museum officials have determined that most of the looting that did take place at the museum, home to more than 170,000 artifacts of human civilization, was focused on office machines and furniture, as at other government buildings, and that only selected antiquities were taken. “The people who came in here knew what they wanted. These were not random looters,” Donny George, the director general of Iraq’s state board of antiquities, said Wednesday in front of the museum as he held up four glass cutters – red-handled with inch-long silver blades – that he found on the floor of the looted museum. He pointed out that replica items – museum pieces that would have looked every bit as real to an angry mob as authentic items – were left untouched. The museum’s extensive Egyptian collection, which is valuable, but not unique to the world, also was left alone.
Donny George, director of antiquities at Iraq’s National Museum, told CNN that U.S. laxity allowed looters to come back repeatedly. He said he went to the Marine headquarters in Baghdad three days ago and waited for hours to talk with a colonel about security issues. “That day he promised that he will send armored cars to protect what’s left from the museum,” Mr. George said. “Three days ago till now, nobody came.”
Rumsfeld expressed sympathy over the plunder of the Iraqi National Museum last week, when U.S. troops stood by as looters walked off with antiquities or smashed what they could not steal. But he denied at a Pentagon briefing that the war plan for Iraq had not adequately prepared for such a threat.