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?
Katie
3 Jan, 2013 – 9:50 am just think before typing please. If we accept the forensics on bullets and blood, the 3 must have been stand TOGETHER outside the car. Therefore SAH COULD NOT have been in the car and leaving as you suggest when the attack began.
Iraq in the “war” was a crazy place.
Allsorts going on. And allsorts roaming around.
There was that “rat run” down from Syria to Fallujah.
And then the Chechens running about all over the shop.
Happy days for your organised looters. Or anybody else for that matter. Lots of chaos. That’s the thing.
After Pink and Katie’s “musings” Bluebird
3 Jan, 2013 – 10:40 am thank god for some intellectual sense!
NR
3 Jan, 2013 – 11:20 am “overhearing things in pubs” comes in useful for the police as well as criminals. “Some fellow I have never met before in the pub…” serves the same purpose. It avoids having to say how they really learned or obtained particularly if the method for police or criminal was illegal (wire taps etc)
Tim..
The thing is SAH could have very well been leaving.
To look at it like this….
WBM did not say he saw the BMW pass (may have been requested not to)
LFR said he saw the BMW at 14.40.
Those to points alone could suggest SAH had been there for sometime.
Now to counter is simple, however we have to believe two stories which come from the same source.
A. SAH was taking photographs in Arnand at 15.15 (and therefore did pass WBM on the Combe D’Ire route.
And B. SM’s blood spatter patterns were on SAH clothing.
Both of those statements therefore have to be true, inorder to counter the fact that SAH could well have been leaving the carpark.
I an serious about the house hunting idea being a good one I have nada to back it up with .
I am saying that it might explain trips away from the campsite and there is a Mollier estate agent close by who in turn might have used SM to help show property, that creates a reason for them to meet in the lay-by .
There is property in them there hills like shepherd huts and refuges which if they become available present a chance to redevelop.
Saad had bought the house that was a chicken shed previously and was holding out on his price when the estate agent neighbour was trying to buy it .
So its not a stretch to think he might do it again if he found a suitable property, buy it and wait for someone wanting to develop a holiday chalet or build a house with a view.
As I say I cant back it up with anything its an idea only.
Pink
To decide the likelihood of searching for property near Chevaline first we need to know why he wanted the derelict property near Toulouse.
The advantage of having a French residence anywhere seems to me most of the benefits he gained. That would mean having a 2nd French property has no additional benefit.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18643134
This story is 6 months old, but wouldnt SAH be more of an asset if he was able to hack into drones for satellites he helped build?
Thanks for that reference to the Amber Room Bluebird
3 Jan, 2013 – 12:55 pm. Bits have turned up apparently but most likely destroyed they say when the castle was attacked in 1945 by the Russians though other theories exist.
Bluebird
3 Jan, 2013 – 1:17 pm worse than looting I believe this was a co-ordinated an intentional act to destroy Iraqi cultural and intellectual infrastructure. No one doubts Saadam’s terrible methods but but no one can argue he was put there by the Americans as a counterweight to Iran or that Iraq was a fairly affluent and civilized place other than the murderous regime in control. Outrage over Kuwait, always seen as a natural part of Iraq, was largely feined for reasons of oil supply security. It certainly wasn’t for human rights. When have they ever mattered much around the world? There is considerable evidence that Israel saw the destruction of Saadam (they had tried to kill him earlier) and the chaos that would follow hostilities in their interest and actively assisted with the Americans a clandestine operation after 2003 of which Chevaline is but a delayed outpost I feel sure.
I researched companies that SAH might have been working for near Toulouse and using his derelict as cover for being in the area.
As SAH seems to like Annecy and apart from Cern what companies might interest him in the area?
The only company I can see on the Annecy companies here:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annecy
…is Staubli (maybe)
http://www.staubli.com/
Nuclear connectors:-
[http://www.staubli.com/en/connectors/market-solutions/nuclear/]
and advanced robotics.
Straw…
Try Boeing !
Actually, try “Boeing” and “Titanium”.
Then add “Cezus”.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/three-dead-as-gunman-strikes-in-swiss-village-8436364.html
Interesting. Will attempts be made to link this individual (he has Maillaud’s profile for lone mad killer) to Chevaline?
Really looking for something other than that, a fresh lead maybe more from the satellite angle.
I dont see anything new and now most of what we have covered is 75% of a “Boeing titanium cezus” search.
James
3 Jan, 2013 – 5:13 pm I have read this post a couple of times and I’m still not quite sure what you’re getting at. (I have read it again and I still can’t) Are you proposing that SAH was leaving when he got shot, in other words they were all safely on their way when the attack started? If you are you have to explain the forensic report (I am taking it as reliable) that:
1. Mollier’s blood was on him
2. Mollier’s blood was on Zainab
3. SAH received a gun shot wound BEFORE he got back in the car
4. Zainab was OUTSIDE the car
5. Why the car was in reverse rather than forward gear
6. Why Mollier wasn’t on his bike and on his way when shot
Either the builders are reliable or the 3.15 photo is. They can’t both be. If the former they arrived at Martinet not later than 3 pm probably and were there about half an hour before the sound of shooting. Also they would have been ahead of WBM and therefore NOT passed him.
If the latter is correct the time window is simply not long enough to get from the photo shoot to the turkey shoot (sorry – couldn’t resist that one!) espectially if indeed the builders are telling the truth when they say they held them up for about ten minutes.
For these reasons until a better theory emerges I believe they did indeed get to the lay by at about 3 pm and that therefore neither the photo or Zainab’s reported comment that the shooting started immediately they arrived, are reliable.
I grant you the point that WBM is not a wholely reliable witness and that the fact he doesn’t mention the BMW passing him is conclusive as to the point. But an absence of it in his account is certainly compatible with the builders and with other elements of the event.
* I grant you the point that WBM is not a wholely reliable witness and that the fact he doesn’t mention the BMW passing him is NOT conclusive as to the point.
Tim V
I know you? said that they were working very close to the Police road block. Can we try and see how narrow the road is there and how they could block the road for 10 mins. No-one else mentions being held up, fire-brigade got to the crime scene without delay. Were they having roof trusses delivered?
I cant see another reason, any ideas?
But Tim
1. Mollier’s blood was on him
2. Mollier’s blood was on Zainab
3. SAH received a gun shot wound BEFORE he got back in the car
4. Zainab was OUTSIDE the car
5. Why the car was in reverse rather than forward gear
6. Why Mollier wasn’t on his bike and on his way when shot
Where do these points come from ????
1 Who says ?
2 same as above
3 again ?
4 again ?
5 We can onlt accept that, but if it was, give me your view
6 We also don’t know that !
If we take TWO points.
Shots fired 15.30 (may not be the first, but heard)
And 14.20 The builders.
What do we have ?
Can someone please confirm that on Google Satellite view of the house that Laurent Fillion-Robin was working on is partially obliterated.
On the Chemin rural dit de la Grande Combe west of (with a little south) of Le Moulin on the Route Du Moulin.
Is this house being censored?
Straw
I dont think of companies in annecy.
I think of people. Important people. I think of the Grande Lodge de Savoie Memphis Mizraim. That is how people from such circles meet and exchange secrets and business information. And that is the location Annecy. I am not surprised about the British and Americans searching for houses in the Annecy region. It is not the landscape and the lake inly. It’s the brothers and the connections.
I had it as on the higher road.
The house on the LEFT, heading towards the Combe.
Before the junction/merge
Is that wrong ?
Yes its definitely on the western road:-
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/crime/article3532793.ece
Use streetview to see the house he is leaning against the fence of (streetview in the snow)
Negative.
That pic is not NOT the house.
Street view and approach on the higher route from Arnand to the D’Ire.
Look LEFT on that approach and that I would say is the house.
I can see that my house is wrong, but I’m struggling to find yours.
I went all the way from Arnand to the road block using streetview, but no joy
I may be wrong…but we’ll turn the approach around.
Track back from the end of the Combe D’Ire (the police barrier) *you can’t get futher than that.
Track back on the LEFT road (the one that is higher) NOT the lower one.
Head that way, there is a place on the RIGHT (that) and a larger type farm one the LEFT (that is NOT the place)
Straw… You have “missed approach” !
Follow the above post for your go around.
Come in from the Combe D’Ire.
Now we have the place on the higher road and on your RIGHT.
Do you have it ?
I am circling forlornly now, dont think the house he was photographed by is here at all.
No houses have grass without a fence or trees opposite the house.
Straw…
The pic of the house in the pic…is not the house he was working on !
Why would it be ?