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?
@ Tim V 6 Feb, 2013 – 1:20 am
“Western powers may (almost certainly did) abduct and torture NR”
I’m all in favour of the Western democracies owning up to what they’re doing. The citizens will own it and won’t be able to claim later on, “We had no idea what they were doing.”
Not that it may make much difference. In the US what little outrage was generated yesterday about the revelation of President Obama’s extraordinary power of assassination was over the fact citizens are targeted, not that the policy is also wrong when applied to foreigners.
If BM is honest in his account of moving SM, getting bloody, then reaching into the BMW to turn off the engine, might he not have dripped some of SM’s blood on SAH’s pants?
That was given as the reason SAH was thought to be outside the car and that SM was shot first or at least early on. Think that fact was in a Le Monde story based on sources. Don’t recall if EM later denied it was true.
Secret drone base in Saudi Arabia and D notice agreement of US media to keep it a secret.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/brennan-nomination-opens-obama-to-criticism-on-secret-targeted-killings/2013/02/05/8f3c94f0-6fb0-11e2-8b8d-e0b59a1b8e2a_story.html?hpid=z1
The Obama administration’s targeted-killing program has relied on a growing constellation of drone bases operated by the CIA and the U.S. military’s Joint Special Operations Command. The only strike intentionally targeting a U.S. citizen, a 2011 attack that killed al-Qaeda operative Anwar al-Awlaki, was carried out in part by CIA drones flown from a secret base in Saudi Arabia.The base was established two years ago to intensify the hunt against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, as the affiliate in Yemen is known. Brennan, who previously served as the CIA’s station chief in Saudi Arabia, played a key role in negotiations with Riyadh over locating an agency drone base inside the kingdom.
The Post learned Tuesday night that another news organization was planning to reveal the location of the base, effectively ending an informal arrangement among several news organizations that had been aware of the location for more than a year.
The number of attacks on Americans is minuscule compared with the broader toll of the drone campaign, which has killed more than 3,000 militants and civilians in hundreds of strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.
I wonder if SAH and family had contacts to al Awliki who was murdered by a drone that came from a secret base in Saudi Arabia.
Quotes from wikipedia
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Aulaqi
In the United Kingdom; 2002–04
Al-Aulaqi left the U.S. before the end of 2002, because of a “climate of fear and intimidation” according to Imam Johari Abdul-Malik of the Dar al-Hijrah mosque.Moving to the UK for several months, he gave talks to up to 200 youths at a time.[96]He urged young Muslim followers: “The important lesson to learn here is never, ever trust a kuffar [non-Muslim]. Do not trust them! [They] are plotting to kill this religion. They’re plotting night and day.”[50] “He was the main man who translated the jihad into English,” said a student who attended his lectures in 2003.[50]He gave a series of lectures in December 2002 and January 2003 at the London Masjid al-Tawhid mosque, describing the rewards martyrs receive in paradise, and developing a following among ultraconservative young Muslims.[10][20][45][54][97] He was a “distinguished guest” speaker at the U.K.’s Federation of Student Islamic Societies’ (FOSIS) annual dinner in 2003.[98] He began a grand lecture tour of Britain, from London to Aberdeen, as part of a campaign by the Muslim Association of Britain. He also lectured for the Islamic Forum Europe (IFE), based at the East London Mosque, and appeared at an event at the East London Mosque in which he told his audience: “A Muslim is a brother of a Muslim… he does not betray him, and he does not hand him over… You don’t hand over a Muslim to the enemies.”[99]In Britain’s Parliament in 2003, Louise Ellman, MP for Liverpool Riverside, discussed the relationship between al-Aulaqi and the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), a Muslim Brotherhood front organization founded by Kemal el-Helbawy, a senior member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.[100]
Reaching out to the United Kingdom
Since 2006, al-Aulaqi has been banned from entering the United Kingdom. He has broadcast lectures to mosques and other venues there via video-link from 2007 to 2009, on at least seven occasions at five locations in Britain.[119] The East London Mosque provoked the outrage of The Daily Telegraph by allowing Noor Pro Media Events to hold a conference on New Year’s Day 2009, showing a videotaped lecture by al-Aulaqi; former Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve expressed concern over his being featured.[120][121]He also gave video-link talks in England to an Islamic student society at the University of Westminster in September 2008, an arts center in East London in April 2009 (after the Tower Hamlets council gave its approval), worshippers at the Al Huda Mosque in Bradford, and a dinner of the Cageprisoners organization in September 2008 at the Wandsworth Civic Centre in South London.[119][122][123] On August 23, 2009, al-Aulaqi was banned by local authorities in Kensington and Chelsea, London, from speaking at Kensington Town Hall via videolink to a fundraiser dinner for Guantanamo detainees promoted by Cageprisoners.[122][124] His videos, which discuss his Islamist theories, have also been circulated across the United Kingdom. Until February 2010, hundreds of audio tapes of his sermons were available at the Tower Hamlets public libraries.[125][126][127][128] In 2010 it was reported that the London-based Islam Channel had in 2009 carried advertisements for DVDs of al-Aulaqi’s sermons and for at least two events at which he was to speak via video link.
Nasser al-Aulaqi
Nasser al-Aulaqi is the father of Anwar and grandfather of Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi. After the deaths of his son and grandson, Nasser published a 6 minute audio message condemning the U.S. for the killings.[247] In the audio he described Obama:”I urge the American people to bring the killers to justice. I urge them to expose the hypocrisy of the 2009 Nobel Prize laureate. To some, he may be that. To me and my family, he is nothing more than a child killer.”
There are three stories in which the media engaged in insta-hagiography.* Brett Martin, Pete Barnes the helicopter pilot and Mr. Johnson, the council politician in Cormer.
BM we know about, proclaimed ex-RAF hero who saved the life of a child, before any facts are known.
Pete Barnes extolled as expert pilot, much beloved by clients, before details of the crash are sorted out. Helicopter forums were not so kind, questioning his judgment to fly in fog, especially since his client told him to cancel, and, if he was really texting while flying, reckless.
Council leader Johnson, in Cromer, who shotgunned his wife, is remembered by politicians as an invaluable leader who will be sorely missed. The locals say that’s a big load of — here’s a man who [allegedly and improbably] just offed his wife and then suicided and his political buddies are saying how great he was.
Who sets the media agenda in such reporting. Are they given hints from on high, or is it a herd mentality? The media has no problem demonising someone of lower class even suspected of involvement in a crime or mishap.
Note that in the case of John Didier in Norfolk, there is not one person who has come forward to say what a great dude he was. Nothing positive or even greatly negative — just a man of mystery.
For Bluebird I’ll include Gene Rosen of Sandy Hook, elevated to sainthood, and only evil Truthers would dare doubt it. Though some media commentators thought having the Sandy Hook Childrens Choir perform at the Super Bowl was pushing the story too far.
* I put in a big word for practice, if I ever want to comment on the other Craig Murray threads with the Oxbridge folks, so they won’t think I’m like totally a chav. Craig started a good one on Richard III:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/02/now-is-the-winter-of-our-disinterment/
The get to talking about olde English kings like Harold Godwinson and Aethelstan, unknown to me, for some good number of comments, before they all revert to insulting each other.
@NR
ESPECIALLY when the reason for WBM to move SM was the fact that he thought he was in danger of being run over by the BMW !
So he moves a dead body away from being “hurt”… with 7 shots in the body and head. That would mean a hell of alot of blood.
And he had been “pumping” his way up that hill !
So WBM breaks the window…maybe he moves SAH’s leg…certainly (we are told) turns off the ignition.
I would say that would transfer alot of “SM” onto SAH.
And provides “Da Police” with an opportunity to further “mix up” the offical story.
“I would say that would transfer alot of “SM” onto SAH”.
OOPS !
Missed out the “t” there by typing tooo fast !
That gives that line a whole new meaning. Bloomin touch screens.
“IT would say that would transfer alot of “SM” onto SAH”.
Anyway, you get what I mean !
So it would appear that SM was the trigger for the shootings.
What man would ride into a massacre. (seeing it and hearing it).
He appears to have been hit in the body first…and then two bullets to the head, just to make sure.
….and yet Eric is 99pc convinced that Mollier was not “the” (or indeed “a”) prime target.
Laughable !
Then again….maybe he wasn’t.
But it would then have to be someone that looked like Mollier !!!!!
@ bluebird 6 Feb, 2013 – 11:40 am
Secret drone base in Saudi Arabia and D notice agreement of US media to keep it a secret.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/brennan-nomination-opens-obama-to-criticism-on-secret-targeted-killings/2013/02/05/8f3c94f0-6fb0-11e2-8b8d-e0b59a1b8e2a_story.html?hpid=z1
“The Post learned Tuesday night that another news organization was planning to reveal the location of the base, effectively ending an informal arrangement among several news organizations that had been aware of the location for more than a year.”
Wonder how much coke and how many hos — not necessarily underaged ones — it took to induce the most respected news organisations to stay mum?
“The number of attacks on Americans is minuscule compared with the broader toll of the drone campaign, which has killed more than 3,000 militants and civilians in hundreds of strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.”
Too funny. Isn’t the Washington Post supposed to call them terrorists, or are they using the BBC style book? I never knew we hit 3,000 with drones. That’s a big number.
Good to know the number of Americans is minuscule — for now. If I were Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin I’d order one of them fancy Iron Dome things from Israel. Fox News could use one too.
And eventually they’ll add all sorts of undesirables to the kill list, not just political enemies, but what they call in England Anti-Social-Persons.
If you were Philippe D, at what stage would you believe that BM is not the killer?
I just cant get my head around that he would be treated with utmost caution by PD unless he saw the killer leave or saw BM arrive at the scene.
@ James 6 Feb, 2013 – 12:24 pm
“Then again….maybe he wasn’t. But it would then have to be someone that looked like Mollier !!!!!”
That’s why we can’t see a pic of SM, he looks like BM? Were there ever any pics of BM independent of the interviews and prior to the murders?
NR
And in approx. 15 years, when there will ba a time when all the lies and fake stories of the media and the western mobster governments are going to be published in an post- ww III scenario, the American and British survivors will say when being asked about why they did accept this to happen without their protest:
“we didnt know about”
“we were told that they are bad people and criminals who wanted to kill us”
“we knew about a few of them but not about 1.5 million having been killed without any court orders”
And then we must believe them they simply did not know the truth and they were manipulated by liars in the media and by liars in their governments.
This is the same situtation as it happened post WWII with the German survivors. They gave the same answers when being asked about why they did not show any signs of protest.
Off topic:
http://digitaljournal.com/article/342829
A dead lone(!!) gunman could become a threat for a witness?
Let’s put a summary from my point of view for the Chevaline event:
1) There was a D notice and an agreement of media to publish known knowns only and to avoid questions regarding unknown knowns and particularly regarding the known unknowns.
Every sane british and French journalist (and there are at least a few of them) would have asked at least a few questions from our catalogue. They either failed to do their job properly or else they werent allowed to do their job properly or they were afraid of doing their job (death threats, e.g. Anna Politovskaya).
2) The al Hilli and al Saffar families were much more into politics and intelligence work than the media had told us. Not only much more but worlds more …
3) This was not a lone assassination but connected with other events happening prior and later.
4) There was a strong interest by government(s) in play either to assassinate the family or/and to protect them because an assassination attempt was imminent for whatever reason.
5) Investigators from conspiracy boards found at least 50 reasons for an assasination. We can take it for granted that one out of the 50 theories is the right one. None was left out and nothing was overseen. They even found the hidden things.
6) Conspiracy investigators found quite a lot of signs and even signals and pictures, masonic signs, symbols, etc. Much of that might be coincidence, some might be setup deliberate.
Summary of summary:
It was only the ridiculous and unprofessional response of the media that had created so much attention, mixed up with the ridiculous “work” of inspector Clouseau aka Eric Maillaud.
This whole event was setup like some science fiction in the media, based on a bad script and performed by bad actors who were set up for the media. It is almost as badly faked as it was 9/11 and therefore it received so much attention. Personally I believe that it was somehow linked to 9/11.
NR
One cyclists looks much like another cyclist.
Even the bikes look the same…just different paint and even then I guess they look the same.
“Same same” …as they say in the Far East.
As for the “Govt.com/fr.gb.all”
I guess they got thrown a curve ball on that day.
Then along came the Msr Le Mayor !
And the friendly postman put his size 12’s in it good and proper.
They weren’t expecting that. But it’s okay. No one picked up on it.
More of the above drone strike secrets and the 2 CIAs.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/02/06/world/middleeast/with-brennan-pick-a-light-on-drone-strikes-hazards.xml
For James….. who scoffed at the mention of lasers being shone at planes as they come into land .
“Pranksters using ‘lasers’ to shine at helicopters and other aircrafts, are unaware of the extreme danger they are causing, the Metropolitan Police have warned.
Blue laser ‘weapons’ are being flashed at flying aircrafts, dazzling pilots and temporarily blinding them.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2274258/Police-promise-crackdown-pranksters-shine-lasers-helicopters-blind-pilots.html#ixzz2K8o48TZw
Bluebird 2″27 PM – good summary. There you are – another one guilty of rationality. Some day “dot connection” may be declared a crime punishable by drone.
I concur with your point 1 – the DA notice. Something must have been in place – one simply cannot assume all reporters are really that indifferent or that reluctant to ask that obvious a set of questions. They didn;t ask because they were (1) told not to and/or (2) knew it was pointless. Kind of like asking Bush why he listened to neocons. Or Obama on the morality of “kill lists”. That so many media types – all over the world – knew to hush up their innate curiosity, that the yellow tabloids suddenly became uninterested in scandalous goings-on, that lurid details were not turned over and over for the prurient public (think CS and SM!), just buggers the imagination.
I don’t think that it was the media that blew it though. Or that Eric the “investigator”was/is all that incompetent. It’s that the cover-up script they were all handed was so very poorly done and/or a key piece of the pre-prepared script unravelled, and everyone has been scrambling ever since. In a way it’s like that infamous Mossad assassination in Dubai – masterful, down to the minute execution without a hitch. Except that one Dubai policeman decided to be a detective for a change – and had the audacity to release all those CCTV images. That’s the part the Mossad didn’t plan on – they couldn’t have known that the chief-of-police would take his job that seriously. I mean – in their minds (the mossadists) he is “just” an Arab, right? We, out there, may groan that none was brought to justice – but really, the Dubai police did all they ever could in this day and age. They blew it far and wide. They kept it “hot” for well over 6 months. they made Mossad synonymous with “chubby tennis players”. Surely an achievement.
The analogy are the the “net Conspiracy buffs”, ie, us and all everywhere. We too may be able to do nothing to bring justice or to find the details, now kept deliberately hidden. But we keep it churning and unforgotten.
To “blind pilots and bring down an aircraft”.
You missed that bit out.
And how many aircraft have been brought down so far by these unregulated idiots ?
Erm… NON !
Problem, Yes. Effective, No.
Maybe releasing seagulls would have been better.
Bird strikes. Now there’s a real problem.
Get back to shouting that the Palastinaians people have plenty of ground to farm and much sea to fish in…and (what was it) they should get some soap and clean up “their area” !
Nut case.
Continuing with my conjectures. Being theatrically oriented I’d like to pose two hypothetical questions This again going to Bluebird’s contention that it could have been so “easy” to make it “all go away”, if just ‘they” had released some details or pictures or….. So why didn’t they?
1. What would the story have looked like if only WBM agreed to “confess” that he was the one to make the fateful 3:48PM call? had he done that – a mere little ‘confession” there would have been no need to invent a PD. Key pieces of the timeline would sort-of fall into place. There would be no need to explain “blood on his hands” (per PD), bad French, emergency vehicles coming up just after 4PM. Also, what if WBM did not tell that story with putting the “stumbling around” girl Zainab, in “recovery” position? she could have stayed “dead” then, wouldn’t she? just as the plot called for!
2. What if Eric Maillaud was like that Dubai police chief and decided to take his job “seriously”? what if refused to play ball? or rather, the question is – what was done to make sure he does play ball?
Basically, I don’t believe either the media or EM are all that incompetent. They are simply under the gun to “make the facts fit the crime after the fact”. very very few people are so brave as to put their livelihoods on the line for the sake of some strangers who came to a sorry end. Would we be quite all this brave had we been entrusted with writing cover stories for The Sun? The Parisienne?
Interesting WBM point Marlin
6 Feb, 2013 – 7:22 am. You may be right that he said what he did “off his own bat” but somehow I doubt it. The very strange “basement interview”, as with Didierjean’s, if that is his real name, gives all the appearance of an “actor” following a script. One giveaway I think is how we have the “Hollywood Analogy” coming from four different people. If, as I suggested months ago, that WBM “put a spoke” into the French official story line, I think it must have been done either at the instigation of his bosses or at least with their approval. We can’t even be absolutely sure that the person who appeared on screen, was indeed the man who first appeared on scene. Our only reassurances are that the BBC and SKY stations accepted him at face value and no-one who met him at the scene disagreed. However this is not failsafe as the people who met “him” at Chevaline was a relatively small number of officials, so it is possible they would not speak out if they were part of an agreement to keep the true identity secret. Then there are those who know the person being interviewed who might “blow” a subterfuge. It would be hard to pull off so on the balence of probabilities the man on the screen was WBM, and that man was the man who arrived first on-scene. That he is purely an innocent bystander who happens to “stumble” on a massacre – that is a step too far and as we have real problems with aspects of his story, we are forced to keep an open mind as to the true reason for him being there.
@Bluebird Feb.6, 2013 2:27 p.m.: Isn’t 9/11 when the trend of “rendition” really took off?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/05/cia-rendition-report-uk-court
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-singh-rendition-brennan-20130206,0,94288.story
It’s quite extraordinary.
Tim V – not disagreeing actually that WBM said or didn’t say what he did at the “instigation” of the agency running him. I agreed with you on that point a while back and then some. Be it as it may, while him being a paragon of civic virtue is indeed a big step to take, what we can surmise with some certainty, is that the agency behind him -did throw a spoke into the wheel of the official cover-up story, however WBM himself may or may not have felt (do agents like this have the luxury of :feelings’ even? Le Carre thinks so, but i am not so sure). i also tend to agree – based on the alternatives – that the man who gave the interview was indeed the WBM who “stumbled” on the scene. Too many people to keep quiet otherwise.
As for PD, that’s one we have never seem, have we? so no problem there to assume that whoever gave that interview to the Parisienne was an ‘actor”.
The upshot of this is my first conjecture remains the same: somebody decided not to go along with the cover-up. Or rather, someones (WBM being just the front man) had some issues with what happened and have deliberately decided to throw a bone or two out there for the likes of us to chomp on. And going back to one of BB’s points – clearly those “someones” had a wish for the story to not die a premature death. People wouldn’t be speculating nearly as much as they have – many months later, had it not been for the screwed-up timeline which necessitated more and more official “inventions”, that were getting increasingly outlandish (the lone psychotic tourist hater…just to mention something).
I think the indications are that originally, there was an “agreed upon” timeline: shots around 3;30PM, WBM arriving at or around 3:35PM, phone call at 3:48PM, emergency vehicles arriving just after 4PM. All nice and tidy. Something not so good happening to the older girl too, perhaps. But just look at how WBM’s story messed this all up because 1. he claims he couldn’t and didn’t make that call at the time it was recorded, 2. he claims to have seen that 4×4 and motorcycle coming down AND perhaps also going up (one such claim quoted in a paper that people brought up here. He didn’t say that clearly in his interview now, did he?) 3. he claims SM passed him about half way up, and 4. he saw Zainab alive a(and “stumbling”) “as if playing with HER sibling” when he arrived.
Note thatf these items, alone and together is what took the official pre-prepared story for a loop. The timeline continues to stand there as a huge calling card (“things are not what they seem”) – and I say the calling card is put out there deliberately by most likely, the British agency. they are not happy puppies about what happened and they continue to make that known by their silence. They also obviously have a bit more clout than the French who were clearly roped in the whole thing, and possibly included elements that actually participated. Is it possible that the same british agency is actually, really continuing to “protect” the girls? unable to let them go off with their family for fear of some ‘accident”? it’s possible, I think, even if I can’t say how likely. But certainly if Zainab does know enough to be a threat to the killers agency – in any way, steps must be taken to assure her safety. Very drastic steps. I think that could be why she was removed from France so quickly.
So, in the end, the one screw-up by the killers’ agency (most likely Mossad, because it’s just like them to mess up in the over-confidence department) is that they failed to get the British counterparts on-board. Either that or they miscalculated the level of their influence with “higher-ups” (and that’s where the analogy with the Dubai chief of police comes in. neither could be completely bribed to look the other way at the face of an outrage). My hope is that whoever he/they are in the guts of the british intelligence who disapproved of what went down in Chevaline, my hope is that they are reading this board and will care to throw us just another tiny little bone. I am sure people will know a bone for what it is, right?
Possible but not likely NR
6 Feb, 2013 – 10:50 am. As you know blood doesnt stay vicous for long when exposed to air and WBM states that after man-handling SM he moves around the other side of the car. So not only is his contamination “second hand” by the time he smashes the door glass, it is unlikely to be liquid. Much more likely is WBM cutting himself on the glass and dripping HIS blood on to SAH but that has not been claimed. WBM helpfully tells us he had cycling gloves on which leads to the strange story belatedly told by Diderjean. Another aspect is that dealing first with Zainab and then Sylvain, one might have expected the average person to take their gloves off. Are these whole hand gloves or fingerless ones? We haven’t been informed. Nor do we know what happened to his clothes. One would expect the police would have taken them for examination and annouced the fact at the same time EM announced that both he and PD had been interviewed at length, but he didn’t. Nor does WBM refer to it. Tricky when you think about it having to undress in the police station and obtain a change of clothing – the sort of thing you wouldn’t easily forget. Also loosing his mobile phone and rucksack presumably – unless of course he didn’t…..?
So many people have attempted to figure out what happened over the last five months here and at MZT plus the other boards around the world and with one hand tied behind the back through lack of information and to much misinformation, given the scarce amount to work with a few pictures from a helicopter a couple of pictures of SAH,plus gleaning bits from the often incorrect papers for any little clue,and trying to make sense of EM and his odd press conferences, it has produced an amazing amount of research and I think I have read most of it twice and I still haven’t figured out the simple details like what bike SM was on and where the car was parked , what road’s they all used ,who made the phone call.
So if they are covering up then they can count it as a success in my case and if they wanted to solve the crime then its a failure to convey even basic information that would help .
How can a witness know they are a witness when they have no idea
what the person looks like, what bike he was on ,what road he was on and what he was wearing in the case of Sm.
The two ladies the same how can anyone know if they have seen them when there has been no pictures to go by.
I think it is pretty obvious even to a non conspiracy theorist like me that something is not right.
Well put Pink.
Nothing anyone can add to that but.. “I agree”.
I can’t quite decide on EM – Marlin
6 Feb, 2013 – 6:49 pm – and his role. Clearly he became the region’s spokesman, with presumably government approval but later he says he’s not actually in charge of the investigation. So it seems position without authority. Were those his own thoughts on motive and method or was he just repeating what he was told? One of the most glaring was his statement that five not four had been killed, which he also refined as incuding Zainab, then next day correcting it. This is not a minor detail and in such a high profile case. A quite extrordinary mistake. Then there is all the confusion over bullets and bullet wounds. Claiming Mollier was nothing to do with it specifically contradicted by the lab by saying he was shot first, most and next to the Al Hillis. He starts off by opining that more than one gun was used by professional. This morphs through several stages to quite the opposite – “a lone mad killer”. We had the opinion that the car body was undamaged and most of the shots accurately on target indicating professionals, then quite the opposite that sprayed-shots indicated an irrational type. The profound and inexplicable conclusion that the attacker “had definately killed before”. Why? How does he know? Similar modus operandi or DNA or inside information or just an inspired guess? And then there is the very strange case of Stan Maillaud who disappeared on the 22nd September,2012 and never reappeared. He lived in Amancey not a million miles south of Annecy. Is he related to our prosecutor. We never did discover. A blood relationship would be significant as it might suggest coercion of EM to toe the line. There is a Stan Maillaund web site. Could someone on here send a direct question?
Good job Pink ! “something is not right”
Finally we know that they know and they know a long time. But the truth is inconvenient. In my opinion there are two theories for the massacre. Both will give the same, the truth is inconvenient!. Is the guard of the ONF, the father Schutz, or both together ? Agree on these three hypothesis, hide the truth, for different reasons, of course. Are theories, but need not look much further.
The final countdown !
Marlin
6 Feb, 2013 – 9:06 pm pretty much agree with your summary the elements of which I suggested many moons ago. It’s pure speculation but it makes sense I think. I pounced on, and kept on about the 3.48 call because I felt sure it was such a central and unmistakable plank of the French story line it could not be explained away. It quite definately pointed to French collusion and an unknown informer. Never could a call from an English speaking Englishman be confused with a French speaker, even if it was 3.48 – which, if WBM did not make the call, it couldn’t be. I also made the point, as did you above, how simple it would have been for WBM to have lied, and we would never have known, and never could have known, that he was. That part of the story would have hung together and they probably would have got away with it. It is notable that no attempt has ever been made to properly address the issue or supply the precise details of the call or even a recording of it which they must have if it came in in the conventional way. However if the Fire Rescue service which was the first to respond “overheard it on their radio” perhaps a conventional call was never made. It is possible they overheard a radio frequency being used by the killers for the purpose of communication? Anyway we are agreed that by specifically saying he didn’t make that call, when he knew the French had announced he had, he and his controllers must have known it critically undermined the official story, and the significance of that cannot be overstated.
Felix
Some new reports on John Didier appeared:
http://www.angliaafloat.co.uk/news/norfolk_broads_death_inquest_hears_that_woman_was_thrown_in_river_by_man_who_then_took_his_own_life_1_1831687
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/man-killed-partner-on-norfolk-broads-barge-before-drowning-himself-8471698.html
Both reports are giving more details.
However, they now claim that John Didier was from Klettering, Ohio.
I searched everything but there is no John Didier in Ohio and never was except for one guy who died 2009 at the age of 84.
The only useful person with a DOB 1970-1972 and this very name is that guy from Arizona.
http://www.peoplefinders.com/search/preview.aspx?searchtype=people-name&item-id=OP-271293755&fn=John%20&mn=nicholas%20&ln=Didier&city=&state=&age=&dobmm=&dobdd=&doby=
Of course, we do not know whether or not the gave us a real name or this is another setup with fake names.
I found another John Didier who would fit much better into this story, but it cannot be him because age and mugshot does not fit.
http://www.homefacts.com/offender-detail/CA17101089E9391/John-Paul-Didier.html
Since we never know about what BS and what fake “facts” the media are reporting about, we have to conclude that we know nothing. We are dealing either with liars or else with idiots when we are going to rely the facts on media reports and journalists. It is all mafe up, particularly in the USA and in the UK.
Off topic: I was watching the Zeitgeist Video earlier on You Tube and in particular the testimony of one individual who before 2001 was a close friend of an American Rothschild and dropped him after he foretold the attack on the twin towers and subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Asked what the long term aim was he replied that everyone would be micro chipped and that any who refused they would just be cut off from their finance. Then today on the news the prominent story that all dogs will be required to be chipped, apparently to control the dog problem. A chilling reminder how concepts and technologies are introduced seemingly innoculously. Dogs today; people tomorrow?