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?
@NR, Bluebird & Co
Thanks for your imput into Didier. Yes, amazing coincidence about Cregan of Manchester. Last year’s mugshot shows a normal eye, now we see an Al-Qaeda style false one. Curious.
You are asking the right questions. I have archived much at Icke. A bit more to come. I thought it bizarre at the time, but was bogged down with Al-Hilli (coincidence?)
Yes, Didier leaves no trace. Who identified him so quickly remains a mystery. Another mystery is the absensce of US consular services, as one would expect when a US national dies allegedly on away turf. No funeral, also, note.
“stuggling to identify….” thanks for that archived article, which was taken down by the Mail – it identified Didier before the (very quick!) formal identification then withdrew the identification!
Tim I posted that various cars post because it was Lt-Col Vinnemann
and not EM it clearly says various cars and not just a 4×4 ,I wonder if he saw the “people with wigs” car .
Lt-Col Vinnemann said that the Briton had seen ‘various cars leaving the scene including a 4×4′.
First post but holding my interest from very start My thoughts 1.Let BM go so quickly cos knew he Brit agent and they knew who were the killers 2. Actor gave interview – no way would Brit agent be identified like that plus girls would never recognise actor anytime in future 3. BM spent time in car park looking for second girl who he knew had been present on not finding her perhaps he thought another kidnaapping Prob why 20 or so others appeared and Peter Ricket 4. So simple to change time on digital camera 5. Many many nuclear works in that area of France 6. Adlene Hitcheur released after 6 days good behavior? contacts now known about nuclear leaks and 7. SAH lured SM whose identity was unknown until rendevous in car park Suspicions were now confirmed and all taken out Leaks now stopped for a little while 8.Fled in 4×4 downhill and on mootorbike over other mountain paths 9. French cover up to protect their interests like Areva again
A fascinating but tragic tale Have learned so much through following this and loved James’ sense of humour Been entertained all through winter If only this were fiction How bad a world we live in!
@Marlin, 5:00 a.m.: Good question. I think you will find the answer in how many times per day your internet connection crashes, and whether men with white panel vans come to fix the telecommunications box, without being summoned.
@Tim V 1:35 a.m.: Another minor point to add. Saad al-Hilli was fixing a house in France. BM was connected to a guest house in France earlier in these discussions. So it could appear on the surface that they were two foreigners fixing up houses in France, who might have asked one another for advice. How easy is it to hire building subcontractors in rural France, if you do not speak the language? How easy would it have been for SAH to work for DMC International Imaging Ltd. in France, if he did not speak French? What is the English language fluency of tradespeople in France, vs. scientists and engineers at a satellite company?
@Tim V: You’re not suggesting a hasty retreat by helicopter, perhaps back to the MI6 HQ in Vauxhall, are you? Maybe that’s a little too “Skyfall”.
@Marlin 4:13 a.m.: It is an interesting thing, this idea of running and triathlons. Thinking of another story involving a runner and triathlete at the upper echelons of service to country. The recurring idea here is that you don’t get to the upper echelons without proving your worth in the field, and that involves elite-level physical fitness. Running is key; triathlons are optional.
Did Brett Martin run down the hill at elite-level speed?
@Marlin 5:43 a.m.: Whisked away by medevac helicopter, perhaps? I’ve been looking at medevac helicopter incidents and realize it would be much easier to do from a hospital in Grenoble with a helicopter landing pad than from a wooded area.
Must write in short bursts, due to possibility of internet crashing yet again.
@Pink: If a car were escaping down the mill road, or “Moulin”, and continued on down that road to Arnand, it seems that Sylvie Lecoeur would not have narrowly escaped being hit on her bicycle/car, as that road goes behind her house. It would not make much sense for her to travel home from the supermarket in Doussard on that road, either. The “mill road” is out of the way for Shopi shoppers, and leads past her (alleged) house, which would mean doubling back. It is also a narrow road, and meeting an oncoming car would involve one driver backing up for a distance until they could pull over onto someone’s property. A meeting at high speed down that road would be head-on, game over. So they only reasonable way for SL to have seen a vehicle coming down the road and narrowly missing her is if it did not continue all the way down the “mill road”, but turned off and went down the one that leads to SL’s (alleged) house. I continue to find it interesting that one of the men in Google Streets images of the custom van at the house next door to Sylvie’s was wearing a black shirt of some sort. You know, the one holding what appears to be a map, at the “mairie Chevaline” (as opposed to the town hall further down the road).
@NR: Why do I find it odd that Roland Hoskins also photographed the royal wedding? He photographs important events.
Q / NR
Roland Hoskins was also allowed to photograph the Police search of Annette Creegan’s house in Mitcham:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2197121/Norfolk-boat-deaths-Mother-strangled-NHS-worker-John-Didier-hospice-nurse.html#axzz2KDw1PXL9
Special priveleges for sure.
*privileges
That’s an old and plausible idea NR
8 Feb, 2013 – 8:03 am. I’ve thought about it myself. Problem is I can’t come up with a rational reason why Al Hilli and Martin would go all that way to meet one another when they could have met up in a service station on the M3 or somewhere. UNLESS they both had to be there to meet a third party that had chosen that to be the place to meet for some reason or other. Clear of British protection? Easy escape (no channel to worry about? Radio incommunicado? Several escape routes and countries to choose from ? French co-operation with the mission for some reason? If this were the scenario, you might expect the British to be double-cross! Lured by an ally into a trap that might have resulted in both/several assets being eliminated. The only question left is why, if this was the case, would the killers spare Martin? The only explanations I can up with is that they were convinced they had their right man and therefore regarded Martin as innocent bystander and of no interest. Or the killer actually escaped in the opposite direction as soon as the deed was done, and didn’t actually see Martin behind? Had the killers been told Martin was on his way, but not seen Mollier, overtaking at some point may have been a fateful decision, as they might have jumped to the wrong conclusion as soon as he arrived. However there is a fatal flaw to this hypothesis. It is that Mollier was meeting the Al Hillis. If he was a totally innocent party, why would he have stopped to speak to total strangers?
Straw44berry 9:14AM – as you know I , for one, have not been willing to discount the extraction scenario, because it simply cannot be eliminated by facts alone. It is only conjectures/suppositions and deductions = strained or not – that make that possibility more tenuous than the outright killing. For me an extraction could mean alternatively a ‘rendition” and should include the possibility of “all or some”.
Tell you the truth it is not the extra complexity that bothers me so much about this option. I have already thought of a number of ways in which this could be addressed, if we assume French all-out co-operation. That despited Tim V’s many points that counter this narrative. I don’t have of course, a good story of the “how” because I can’t possibly know enough to piece together, so I go just by what fits or doesn’t fits as we absolutely know them. And the complete absence of photos of 4 of 5 key participants + children is certainly suggestive of a plot that involves absolute disappearance.
What does bother me are two things:
1. I have no good theory about who the Al-Hillis and/or Mollier want to escape – so much so that they would be willing to give up their previous lives. It would be SO simple to just assume it was Iranians! a story could be built up easily around such supposition. Unfortunately there’s no way we can go the next step and posit that it was somehow Iranian agents who “whisked” them to safety. Not in Europe, not at this time, and we have zero proof to show this has ever been consistent with Iranian MO. So this is an example of something that conflicts with facts as we know them. But if it’s not Iranians then who would they be so afraid of? not the Brits who we suspect SAH was an asset. Not the french, that people seem not to be so afraid of (except for Mollier perhaps – only French are afraid of other French…oops little sneer there? sorry me bad…). CIA, Mossad? possibly, but since when have they been such “do-gooders” for some plain folks neither American nor jewish? That leaves lesser, more tenuous options like mafia, Russians, Chinese etc.
2. the children – it always comes down to the children. They present several puzzles in every scenario, but the puzzle of the “how” and “when” is simply trickier for the “extraction” scenario because of the extra-complication of being known to relatives – who apparently flew in from England to be with Zainab in the hospital, Zainab’s injury which can be faked only up to a point (ie for hospital workers), and the need, somewhere along the line, for them to actually ACT. Not being french speakers, it wouldn’t be difficult in France — they’ll just need to look traumatized. But back in England, OK it’s tricky.
Mind you both elements are difficult in any scenarios. but the agencies involved are somewhat easier to piece together if killings took place. And the problems with what we know about the children are hardly resolved either, for the murder scenario, but extraction requires just that extra little logical stretch.
The rendition/kidnapping scenario is also not so easy to put into a logical whole. It will come down to the “who” and “why”. Keeping the children as insurance would then make sense but I can’t wrap my head around the why it would be necessary to make it look like murder. There are far easier ways to extract information out of people! it’d be quite enough to kidnap the children, or one child, for example.
So Straw, while it cannot be discounted, we have that much more uphill work to do to piece the some logical strands together for an extraction, and even I am too lazy to do so. Though at some point I may try my “logic path” with this scenario as well, and see where it leads. though as you can see that makes for rather long comments and involves a bit of work scrounging through old news account to make comparisons with facts and factoids. may be you could try? i am still not done with the thread I am on. jeanie who popped in to visit just gave me yet another angle (please come again jeanie – I like your suggestions. We each have only so much imagination – can definitely use a few more creative options….).
Jeanie 5:44PM – I liked some of your suggestions, and there were a couple I hadn’t thought of and did not see anyone bring up to date. In particular, your point #3 about WBM spending time looking for the second girl (Zeena) till he had to give up.
If that’s the case, then he, being the British agent on the spot, would have no doubt informed superiors (however he could contact them) that she must have been kidnapped and that the older child is badly injured. It’s consistent with him rushing down only to meet PD et al, who we must assume were part of the french agency (hence the non-identification of car/hiking/companions etc), sent as a front guard to help with the clean-up. Perhaps the two females were there to help calm the girls.
Mind you, it is quite possible to postulate that Zeena was indeed kidnapped originally and that a huge effort was spent by Brits + French to cajole the agency of the killers to return her unharmed. That would have to have been done at the highest possible levels. Still, this idea, that Zeena may have indeed been at first kidnapped – to be later returned after suitable threats – would help explain her non-discovery for 8 hours which we all have huge trouble with.
Your other suggestion that the whole operation was mounted to identify/plug a leak is interesting as well. It is consistent with some previous suggestions I have seen of disclosures from Areva being highly problematic, and with the possibility of SM being put on involunary leave of absence pending further investigations. What were the leaks about? safey? shenanigans with foreign governments? we don’t know – and how could we?
Still, this scenario requires that we believe that leaks justify outright assassination. perhaps that’s the thing then, they don’t – in which case we must assume that there was that “third’ agency that intercepted and/or was part of the investigative trail but that double-crossed both french and brits to kill the “Trojan Horses”. Several people here have been playing with this possiblity earlier – and generally, we are mostly inclined to believe that somewhere along the line, a double-cross took place..
Yup I got your point Pink
8 Feb, 2013 – 4:41 pm. Trouble is Martin gives no indication of seeing “cars”. Then we have PD stating firmly on his journey up the combe he saw neiter ppl or vehicles. Of course they may have all departed if they were there, by the time he arrived (4 pm +) I “cars” don’t appear at all in WBM’s account, only SUV and motorbike neither of which could be construed as a “truck”. You would think, given the importance of these vehicle movements, Maillaud or the French police, would have informed everyone what they think. That they don’t either indicates they haven’t a clue or keeping it secret either to assist enquiries or to cover up.
Well yes actually Q
8 Feb, 2013 – 6:09 pm! Not necessarily that one though. Military helecopter or special flight or even slipping him on a conventional flight. Or rail or car I suppose. What I am proposing is that it would be very unlikely a private innocent person driving or travelling all the way back on Thursaday, knowing he had to be back Saturday, so they could revisit the site withe the police for the reconstruction. Does he still have a pilot’s license? Might have flown himself?
Good to see you Jeanie
8 Feb, 2013 – 5:44 pm. Look forward to reading more of your thoughts soon.
and major conflict zones (Libya/Syria) if I remember rightly from way back Q
8 Feb, 2013 – 7:08 pm
Straw44berry
8 Feb, 2013 – 7:33 pm I can’t quite read that brand name on his te shirt. Is it “STINKES” or something else?
It’s Stinnes. Found this:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/91/91262.html
Steel and Stinnes…politics, power, etc.
Timet, another steel company, shares facilities on Avenue Paul Girod in Ugine with AREVA/CEZUS, where Sylvain Mollier worked. It’s worth a look on Google Maps, just to see how the industrial complex dwarfs the size of the town.
@Marlin: 8:14 p.m.: 1. Last sentence. Who were the clients of DMC International Imaging. Then look at this:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/02/06/f-vp-stewart-russia-mob.html
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2012/11/2012112816104231564.html
For a second there, that photo looked like Saad al-Hilli.
Thinking also of activity in the Costa del Sol.
Some thoughts on PD:
In one of the early accounts contained in the links I cobbled earlier, I noticed that PD was mentioned as driving up in a “Forestry car”. That caught my attention. Could be mistranslation, messing up by reporters or what not. Problem is, I don’t have and haven’t seen a really reliable translation of the interview of PD in Le Parisien (am sure one was provided on these pages but I failed to mark it at the time).
That however made me think again about PD’s appearance on the scene with the ‘two female companions” never identified. I now think it highly likely that the aforementioned Philippe D, later Phillipe Didierjean, was part of the advanced french clean-up team, showing up just ahead of the emergency vehicles. According to my scenario he and WBM know each other to be agents of respective governments and have a joint problem: Zeena is nowhere to be found and Zainab appears to have been injured, neither of which was supposed to happen, according to the original script.
As I mentioned in my comment to jeanie above, it is definitely possible to surmise that the ‘female companions’ were dispatched to take custody of the two girls (female agents would make sense)., who were supposed to be well and good. Possibly the two adult females in SAH car as well. But then it became quickly apparent – first to WBM, then to PD. that things did not go according to whatever it is they thought the plan was. One girl injured, one can’t be found (presumed kidnapped perhaps) and two adult females dead. It’s even possible SAH was not supposed to be shot, only Mollier was to be “sacrificed”.
This explains the reference to the distraught traumatized WBM by PD. If WBM did not expect such a carnage, possibly just one ‘clean hit” that would explain his distress. The plan went haywire!
From this point and on – the French and British part ways – in terms of how they deal with the aftermath. The french are d’accord with total cover-up (may be in return for the return of an unharmed Zeena?), but the Brits are fuming. They may have lost perhaps more than one asset, after all. The rest is then played out as we have all seen; discord, conflicting accounts, walk-backs, insider leaks (SM blood on SAH and Zainab!), guns and gun parts (Skorpion into old Lugar, blah-blah…), professional execution vs lone mad gunman, photo at 3;15Pm unveiled – and unseen – in desperation to fix a new timeline, finger pointing – ‘the problem is in England!”, no, “the problem is in Iraq!” etc. etc.
Finally, just one more comment that goes to the time coincidence (with +/- one day) of the WBM video release and the “whisking away” pf Zainab back to England. It’s quite possible there was blackmail involved – by the brits – to get the girl back under their auspices. There could well have been another version of the video with WBM that was used to make it clear to the french just how important it was for them to let go of the girl. The Brits were willing to either “burn” an agent or to take a risk and put on an actor!
In support of this supposition – that the WBM video was all about inter-agency tit-for-tat and power play, I would like to propose that there was actually NO NEED to put ex-RAF man on video – for the whole world to see. Yes, it can help calm a public but that public was not exactly clamoring for truths to be unveiled. It would have been quite sufficient to just quote WBM “interview” just as the french did with Didierjean. fact is, we are all convinced WBM was a british field agent. So what would it take to put one on camera? complete with serious athletic jogging/biking? there must be a good reason for that – have we ever gone through what those might have been? and if it was an “actor” the risks are again high – as Tim V elaborated – that too many on the french side have seen the actual WBM and would recognize an actor for what he is. That’s a huge risk, IMO!
Please good sleuth peoples, help me out here! why-ever would a British intelligence outfit, normally quite secretive – put on either a real agent or an actor portraying an agent – on camera, in public – describing his disturbing experiences at a murder scene where secret services fingerprints are all over? no one does such things without a very good reason. Do my reasonings (“give us back the girl or else”) stand to good reason?
http://www.trademarkia.com/brenntag-stinnes-logistics-75782265.html
Marlin
8 Feb, 2013 – 4:23 am
If SM was shot first how could SAH have been surprised unless he was only expecting SM to be shot (unlikely)or he had not yet arrived .
Marlin
8 Feb, 2013 – 4:23 am
Police, who have analysed different ballistic angles are now working under the assumption that Mr Mollier was shot first, according to Le Parisien. The 45-year-old French father-of-three was hit by at least five bullets.
They believe the attacker then surprised Mr Hilli who was outside the vehicle with his oldest daughter when the first shots were fired.
Annecy prosecutor Eric Maillaud on Friday vehemently denied that investigators had any idea of the order the victims were shot, calling it a “web of lies and pure invention”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/9621670/French-cyclist-was-prime-target-in-Alps-massacre.html
From August 2012:
http://www.eon.com/content/eon-com/en/media/news/press-releases/2002/7/3/e-dot-on-concludes-talks-on-sale-of-stinnes-stake-to-deutsche-bahn.html?t_camp=rssen&chan6=rss&t_var=e-dot-on-concludes-talks-on-sale-of-stinnes-stake-to-deutsche-bahn
http://www.eon.com/en/about-us.html
Look at the can of worms that Stinnes shirt has opened.
Not sure if I missed something but why would they care whether they got the girl back in the way you imply as she would return anyway in the normal course ?
Could she be important?
Marlin
8 Feb, 2013 – 9:41 pm
Do my reasonings (“give us back the girl or else”) stand to good reason?
@ Q
8 Feb, 2013 – 9:37 pm from that first article:
“It’s also interesting to note that in the later stages of his work, the GRU wanted Delisle to become “a pigeon,” the term used for a spy sent around to pass on messages to other hidden spies in the network.”
Didn’t I read somewhere that Martin was described as speaking in “pigeon French”?
Q
8 Feb, 2013 – 9:56 pm – Sorry I asked now. lol