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?
Lolll That was what I thought before I thought I found the exact house. Just shoot me.
However Peter Nicholls is the photographer he only has a couple of photos on the case LFR and ….
http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&sa=X&tbo=d&biw=1209&bih=617&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:9/7/2012,cd_max:9/7/2012&tbm=isch&tbnid=3ptN7lguNbv_4M:&imgrefurl=http://www.francetvinfo.fr/video-comment-sera-auditionnee-la-petite-survivante-de-la-tuerie-de-chevaline_138009.html&docid=BPjSXnWfnhA8KM&imgurl=http://www.francetvinfo.fr/image/74rf0jqur-ef79/570/320/826365.jpg&w=570&h=320&ei=puzlUMCCBMLs0gX1q4C4AQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=868&vpy=186&dur=9233&hovh=168&hovw=300&tx=63&ty=189&sig=112092931598180586549&page=1&tbnh=163&tbnw=270&start=0&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:9,s:0,i:118
After several months of observing this case, I have come to the only possible conclusion that makes any (non)sense: The IKEA monkey did it!
Let me explain…
He escaped his handlers at a top-secret lab in Iran, where he was being held for bio-weapons experiments. Finding his way to France, via an elaborate network of helpers who oppose the current regime, he landed in France, where he flipped the lid of his car carrier and escaped into the forest, only to flip his lid literally in the chase that ensued.
Somehow he made his way to Canada, where he ended up dazed and confused (thinking James Holmes with orange hair) in the parking lot of the Swedish furniture store. His disguise as an ordinary shopper in shearling coat failed. He did not want to be seen topless, thus the coat with no pants (diaper excluded). He could not warn the public of the evil plot against humanity, which was his original intent, because he was a victim of mind control. Sadly, that secret is still safe because the monkey has lawyered up. As with all celebrities, the focus has shifted to what he will wear next.
This is not based on reality or facts. This is intended as satire only, with no intent to distort reality or facts, or harm anyone, human or not. It does, however, contain references to Sweden, Iran, weapons,mysteries, etc.
@ Tim V 3 Jan, 2013 – 6:42 pm
“…if indeed the builders are telling the truth when they say they held them up for about ten minutes.”
If the SAHs waited ten minutes, I’d think that means they had a reason to go up to Martinet. They weren’t just driving around sightseeing or were lost and took a wrong turn, otherwise they’d turn around (unless the road was too narrow) and go elsewhere.
It also means they didn’t have a tight time to get to an appointment if there was one, or the builders would tell that they were annoyed or in a panic at the delay.
One more thing: no doubt the monkey’s real name is not “Darwin”. That’s way too obvious.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/switzerland/9779061/Swiss-shooter-to-be-questioned-over-al-Hilli-Alps-murder.html
I smell a rat!!!! Next stage: discover he’s got a Luger with a bit of the handle missing?????
Good points NR
3 Jan, 2013 – 8:45 pm
Tim v
I agree. This is a copy of the Drummond case. Find an idiot with IQ <50 who is on alcohil or drugs and he will confirm everything for some more drugs.
Of course, we need to find the taxi driver only. Somebody had to drive him to the parkung lot in martinet and picking him up again. So all we need todo is finding these two taxi drivers. Sorry for my irony, but that is totally stupid to link this mentally ill drug addict who had no car to the annecy murders. I even prefer trow's theory to that BS of the telegraph.
@NR 8:45 PM: “f the SAHs waited ten minutes, I’d think that means they had a reason to go up to Martinet. They weren’t just driving around sightseeing or were lost and took a wrong turn, otherwise they’d turn around (unless the road was too narrow) and go elsewhere.”
That is a very good point. If the builders tell the truth, then the martinet must have been the destination.
“It also means they didn’t have a tight time to get to an appointment if there was one, or the builders would tell that they were annoyed or in a panic at the delay”
That would have been the case had the appointment been close. But there is the obvious possibility that they knew they had time to spare and were, in fact, quite early for the “appointment”..
Also NR jan 2 10:22 AM – I made the suggestion of the ‘early extraction” sometime ago, a conjecture that Straw44berry liked, I believe. In fact, with regard to an “extraction theory” this would almost have to be the case otherwise the time period is way too tight. My supposition was that the likely time for such an “extraction” would be between the stay in the two camps, or just after they left for the trip to Chevaline. That suggestion was made to provide some rationale for why it was important to keep pictures of the women out of the public eye. Agents could have been used for the trip up Combe d”Ire to make sure the builders saw the full car. All of which points to the fact the “real” Saad was the driver – as indeed, his was the only picture ever released. As an aside, this theory requires that at least the women be substituted – on location – by suitable dead bodies – which could (kind of) explain the need for seat belts to “hold them in place”. The need for “20 military types” would be to “secure” the scene and get rid of any incriminating evidence, plus who knows what other support function.
The main problem with this plot line are, and has always been, the children. But there is a lot that’s strange about the story involving the children – wrong names at the beginning – really garbled in some news accounts, the extent of Zainab’s injuries, the fact that she was first reported ‘dead”, then badly injured, then making a miraculous recovery, Zeena being in the car, undetected for 8 hours (or was it just 3?), now suddenly this bizarre contention by the reporter Tim V quotes above that Zeena has in fact been killed as well. And over everything hangs this weird foster home business, which they are apparently not allowed to leave, counter to every policy the social services have for cases like this.
BTW, one other item – those family pictures at 3:15PM – these could have been part of the intended plot line – something to establish “late arrival” – but since they are not released, there must be a good reason for keeping them “under wraps”.
One reason I give credence to the builders tale BTW (in any scenario) is the very fact that they changed the timeline later. Had they been part of the “operation” surely they would have been on-board the official story line from the start. The only alternative is that if they were part of the plot, needed for example to block any other accidental cars from going up the road, then something could have happened that required changing the official time line to a later arrival by the BMW.
To me, whatever the scenario was – murders of all, extraction of some or all – earlier or later, SM’s role in what transpired, the obvious official desire to move the BMW arrival time by about 1/2 hour forward, is the key that could unwrap much of the mystery. So far, I have not been able to come up with a reason I would find satisfactory, other than a botched cover-up story, which for some reason is not totally convincing. It is though possible that there are a few facts or witnesses still left to be unveiled that could provide a new clue pointing to an explanation.
At cha Marlin.
You make good points.
Tim V 3:28PM – Yes, it is peculiar if the picture with the skid marks has disappeared. If true, that would indeed confirm you were on the right track in postulating they belonged to another 4×4. Taking it one step further – we should then ask – why is it so important that the presence of that vehicle and its maneuver not be hidden “in the mist”? does this perhaps make the whole action look “too professional”? does it give the lie to the “unrelated forestry vehicle”?
Also, the comment you brought in from MZT is pertinent. I do remember – vaguely – seeing something about PD going up to the scene by car, presumably with the occupants inside, including the two women companions. But I did not have the story to quote, so this must be it.
Funny how the accounts about whether the companions were “left behind in the car” and PD walked up with WBM, or whether he drove up with his car then came back down to make the call – have been so totally garbled. I forgot now what WBM’s exact words were in his interview either. Do you recall?
Marlin
I can follow your extraction theory except for the children. Who would be the children who are currently in care with the foster parents? Or di you believe that the rest of the al Saffar family knows about an extraction and they are liars? What kind of an extraction would that be when the family knows about thar?
The children are the weak point of an extraction theory.
Something else?
Could anybody find any traces of Laurent Filliot-Robin?
Once again i cannot find that name anywhere. There is a Laurent Filliot who is an artist (paintings). However, i cannot find a Follier-Robin with the name Laurent.
Perhaps off topic, but could happen here, too, once the lunatic Swiss drug addict who took a taxi to ba able to go to the Martinet crime scene was identified by Maillaud as the lunatic mass killer …
Quote:
Connecticut police took the quite unprecedented step, of threatening to close down any bloggers who theorised about this event, and to arrest any journalists who departed from the official narrative.
Very good link and summary regarding the CT event with lots of proof:
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=62991
I do hope they do find a “bad man” (a real nutter), then perhaps we could start hanging people.
Worked in the KSA..and believe you me, it works…although the “powers that be, still do what they want”.
Hang a few of them too, I say !
But if “dot mil” then lets get it out there….
The silence is….”what …..”
@Bluebird,
Yes, the children are the weak point of the extraction theory, as is the complexity required to make it all happen, and the need to minimize the number of people in the loop. With regard to the complexity issue – that weak point could also be flipped into a ‘strong” point since the very reason we find that so tenuous would lend credibility to the cover, helping convince whoever needed convincing that this is too far fetched and the Al Hillis (and Mollier) are indeed dead as claimed.
As for the children, there are a few angles I’ve been musing over. The easiest plot line would see the children “killed” as well. Perhaps that was the original intent, which would help explain the names mix-ups, the “dead” Zainab, and possibly the 8 hour gap to the finding of Zeena. But then something happened that put a cog in the wheel – perhaps the substitute “bodies” were found unacceptable, or could not be “procured” in time. So big problem – now one or both children must be alive. Whether actor children were used on the scene I have no idea, and I can’t see how much of Zainab’s injuries would have been faked. I think they could have had serious problems with the younger child – whether real or acting – and had to scramble. Anyways, possibilities can be worked up along the line of an original plan gone awry. In which case, they would still be scrambling ..
With regard to the al saffar’s being in “on the plot’ and the identity of the children in foster care, well, I haven’t gone that far – obviously the more that know the worse for the whole scenario – and my logic can only carry me so far with so few details. The kids in foster care may be the actual Al Hilli kids but psychologically, this seems just too outlandish – and so abusive towards them as to tax the imagination. But if they are not then tat least some members of the al saffar family must be in the know, and that presents a host of other questions.
So, all in all, take the extraction as just one theory which I would like to keep in the mix, at least until there is more conclusive evidence to indicate it’s impossible.
Hi James
3 Jan, 2013 – 7:05 pm. I agree. Everything comes from somewhere it’s true. Either the police/prosecutor; the survivors or witnesses; the reporters or what we can see ourselves from the photo’s and video. That’s all we have to go on. But we can use our intelligence to apply logic to these sources to test their voracity. We can spot contradictions or physical impossibilities when we see them. We can interpret the scanty evidence available to us and hypothesise (“to believe especially on uncertain or tentative grounds”) and make judgements as to liklihood. That’s what we’ve been doing. We can never be absolutely certain because none of us were there, although there may be some reading this who were!
I can reasonably doubt Mr Maillaud’s assertion that Mr Martin made the first call at 3.48 because 1) Mr Martin denied it (if he hadn’t, I couldn’t) and 2) because he later claimed Mr Didierjean had done so. I can doubt his word that Mr Didierjean made the first call at 3.48 because it conflicts with his testimony and in addition makes Mr Martin’s untenable as well. So just on this one crucial point we have posed a significant question “If they could not have phoned then, who did?” but also proved Mr Maillaud was lying. His credibility thereafter is therefore undermined. Whether he made these statements unwittingly (i.e. he was just passing on information made available to him without question) or made them knowing them to be false, hardly matters. It proves deceit at the highest level of the investigation. A little fact can have a huge consequence.
Now this was just one fact. There have been many. So many that we can reasonably claim the investigation has been fundamentally flawed. They have so often been rehearsed here I will not attempt to list them again. Your point is valid therefore: what information CAN we trust? I have chosen to accept the little that was announced about bloods samples and bullet injuries precisely because it ran quite contrary to Mr Maillaud’s constant line that there was no connection between Mollier and Al Hilli; that Mollier was not the primary or any intended target; and he was shot merely by virtue of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.I also gave the information credence because it came from scientists who may have been less prepared to lie. I also give it credence because rather than undermining conspiracy and assassination they tend to support them, contrary to what the French authorities have tried to suggest.
So going back to the results, which of course could be checked by others, the only way Zainab and Saad could get Sylvain’s blood on them is if they were standing together. Subsequent cross contamination might be feasible but if it was in the form of minute droplets It would be fairly conclusive. I suppose if they were all in the car together it might be explained but then we have the soil on shoe evidence, the fact that both Zainab and Sylvain were outside when discovered, the blood staining on the ground and little in the car and Zainab’s alleged testimony that she WAS outside with her father when the attack started. An alleged lateral wound to Saad suggests he threw himself across the bonnet and got hit doing so before managing to get back in the car.
So to sum up all this is consistent with a story that all three were outside together when the attack occurred and that Saad’s desperate attempts to drive off were prevented in some way, either by an approaching gunman or vehicle blocking the way. If you have a better theory supported by the evidence I shall be happy to be persuaded otherwise.
* veracity I really should check BEFORE sending!
Straw44berry
3 Jan, 2013 – 7:29 pm any chance that you could give a ref to that picture cause I’m still not sure which and where that property?
Tim…
“can reasonably doubt Mr Maillaud’s assertion that Mr Martin made the first call at 3.48 because…”
Tim where you ever called to the bar ?
Perchance a QC ?
Maybe the hourly rate interests you ????
Tim, it is not in dispute ! Eric seems to contra himself so well.
I would say it adds to the confusion he wishes.
Infact, I would argue…his “sources close to the investigation” are indeed “he”…or someone close to himself.
And for christs own sake, make use of paragraphs !
Marlin
3 Jan, 2013 – 10:23 pm I like yur thinking. I just threw in that Didierjean quote again cause i came across it looking for other stuff. The effect of it of course as we have discussed many times, if true it made Didierjean and the 3.48 EVEN MORE impossible because it adds the time of them both returning to the crime scene and back down again BEFORE he rings, As to Martin’s televised interview as you know it was in the same room, at the same time but by two different interviewers, one BBC and second Sky, producing two parts. These share some information and cover different stuff as well. The Sky interviewer seems to be more inquisitive. The bit about Didierjean is not in the BBC interview but in the Sky part. He says he set off down the hill and meets Didierjean’s car three or four hundred down the hill. Car with 2 wowen goes up to 50 yds short and 2 men return whilst women stay in car which has been turn around for speedy retreat if nec. As they return to car he says the emergency vehicles start to arrive actually BEFORE Didierjean has a chance to phone if that Maralyn quote is accurate!
Can anyone else locate that aerial photo of the complete carpark from the west showing the parked BMW and tyre tracks at the other end? If it has disappeared I would say it’s fairly confirmatory of my interpretation of it that someone doesnt want us to see!!!!!!!
James
4 Jan, 2013 – 12:17 am thanks for the compliment (at least I’ll take it as such!) No sorry to say I’m not a barrister or looking for hourly work, just trying to get to the bottom of this thing, always hopeful that someone with better reach will take up the baton and run with it, until someone tells the truth. What a naive fellow I am?
Take a look at this ppl. A good example of subliminal suggestion from someone. Anyone know anything about the organosision that produced it? “PCW Forum on Religion and Public Life” at “Boom Tribune”!
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?start=756&hl=en&sa=X&tbo=d&biw=853&bih=566&tbm=isch&tbnid=uoIH2OvKJeJycM:&imgrefurl=http://www.boomantribune.com/section/Diary&docid=-8pR7wstIwyDBM&itg=1&imgurl=http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sW2QG_Iyvy8/T49jBpoZFkI/AAAAAAAAAFk/_DFxiKmlBJI/s400/Shia-Sunni%252Bpercentages.jpg&w=400&h=261&ei=ZTfmUPSPMeaK0AX2-4Fg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=296&vpy=120&dur=399&hovh=160&hovw=248&tx=119&ty=90&sig=102623993251211428976&page=48&tbnh=136&tbnw=209&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:69,s:700,i:211
Have started my investigation of William Hershkovitz in New York State.
Most interested in if he is listed as a pistol permit holder there in 2010, but have been unable to open the thread on cryptome.org.
Is anyone able to do so here?
If he is on it, would show that he knew how to use them, like when he quickly killed Armando al-Abed.
@ bluebird 3 Jan, 2013 – 10:30 pm
“Could anybody find any traces of Laurent Filliot-Robin?”
I’ll repeat what I wrote above. Note they give “Laurent” – not his real first name, and no last name. Others spell it Fillion and now Straw44berry has it as Fillion-Robin, which I hadn’t seen before.
“NR 1 Jan, 2013 – 9:56 am
@ Marlin 1 Jan, 2013 – 12:29 am
“NR, 9:48AM – that French article is interesting.”
http://www.lejdd.fr/Societe/Faits-divers/Actualite/Le-scenario-minute-par-minute-de-la-tuerie-de-Chevaline-555890
“A beautiful day. Hot and sunny. It’s a good half hour this Wednesday afternoon as Laurent **, 35, and his young apprentice took over the job after the lunch break. And labour, there to enlarge this small wood chalet, as the portal has taken very late.”
“** First name has changed.”
@Tim V 31 Dec, 2012 – 7:37 pm
“James 31 Dec, 2012 – 9:29 am
I think Laurent Fillion was originally quoted as “some time between 2.30 and 3.00 pm. Their account is strengthen because they appear to be genuine builders…”
This is the same person? Then why does this paper say they’ve changed his first name when they have not? They never give the last name, Fillion. It’s like PD, who is at first nameless, then a first name, and finally a last name that doesn’t obviously connect to anyone in the area.”
@Tim
Picture of tyre tracks here.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/french-alps-shootings-pictures-of-bullet-riddled-1308571
@ Marlin 3 Jan, 2013 – 9:59 pm
“Also NR jan 2 10:22 AM – I made the suggestion of the ‘early extraction” sometime ago, a conjecture that Straw44berry liked, I believe.”
I didn’t know you’d proposed this before. Great minds travel the same roads… 🙂
Thinking more on this, it’s not the British SIS who would be in on it from the start, or why would they be intensively searching for “something” at Claygate.
So it would be another country’s agency. As I’ve said before, don’t necessarily believe neighbour Aked and the cousins as to which side SAH played for – if he did that sort of thing.
He would deceive them too.
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/world/middleeast/19lebanon.html
“Lebanese in Shock Over Arrest of an Accused Spy. Investigators say Ali al-Jarrah confessed to a career of espionage… He said he tried to stop, but the Israelis would not let him…”
Whoever extracted them early – IF that’s what happened – didn’t plan on a massacre of the substitutes. That’s where everything went wrong.
Pink, 5:30AM – the page doesn’t work. You sure that was OK earlier? anyone else has trouble uploading?
@Marlin 4 Jan, 2013 – 7:00 am
“Pink, 5:30AM – the page doesn’t work. You sure that was OK earlier? anyone else has trouble uploading?”
Works ok for me.
NR, Pink – OK, it works now. Not sure why it didn’t open earlier. The second picture seems to show the circular tracks – is that what Tim was looking for?
NR
So then, they say that they gave him a false name and nobody could trace the said building on the route either. We have “his” picture in the telegraph. Who is he? Another crises actor? How long after the event had happened did it take for him to appear in the news? Enough time for making him up in a story and for giving him the necessary script?
When a real witness wants privacy then i accept that they would give him a false name. However, privacy, false name, but then a photo in the newspaper where he is smiling, does not add up. It’s excessively unlogic. That’s a Shakespeare or a Moliere script. I wonder if anybody in that region recognises that guy and wonders about his false name. Or else he isnt from that region but simply a crises actor from intelligence clean teams. Just like BM and PD and that woman who “saw” the white car.