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?
You are Looking around the truth, when the truth is in front of you!
@Straw (I think ?)
“Roland Hoskins was also allowed to photograph the Police search of Annette Creegan’s house in Mitcham:- ”
Mitcham is quite far from Annecy !
And the French like “their own” people to leak through.
How did Hoskins get through that “red tape” ?
Or even “blue tape” …as it’s a police line !
So given the French Privacy Laws …therefore no paper would dare publish a picture of Mollier against the wishes of “the family”, how did they manage to publish Al Hillis’ ?
Maybe the British press published first, so the French Press followed ?
BUT photorgaphs of an “active” crime scene on French soil !
Maybe if you “dressed a scene”, it would be ashame to waste it ???
@ Marlin
8 Feb, 2013 – 9:41 pm “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?”
Because it was demanded? By whom?
Compare the almost identical description provided by these two principal witnesses.
Tues 11 September, 2012 Text of the Parisien interview with PD published.
“There was no sound. It was like in a film,” Philippe Didierjean, a French hiker, told Le Parisien. “One of those TV series where everything starts with a murder. Except this time we were the actors and we couldn’t change channels with a remote control.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/14/alps-shootings-survivor-return-uk
Thurs 13 Sept, 2012 BBC/SKY Interview broadcast. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19587272 13.9.12 Note screen goes black for 2/3 secs. at 2.13.
“it seemed to me to be just like a Hollywood scene.
‘And if someone had said “cut” and everyone had just got up and walked away, that would have been it. But unfortunately it was real life. So it became quite obvious now, taking stock, that it was a gun crime.’ Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2202635/French-Alps-shootings-British-cyclist-speaks-horror-discovering-bodies-family-shot-dead.html#ixzz2KMM5zHBe
Friday 14 September 2012 8 am “Zainab ‘whisked’ back to UK”
So we do have PD on Tuesday, WBM on Thursday and Zainab bcck to Britain first thing Friday morning. I am not quite sure when WBM did the interview but I think it was a couple of days before. Co-ordination?
You see, the whole thing gets “odder” !
Mollier’s blood is found on Al Hilli.
Well that was transfered by Martin.
He had to lean in the car to turn the engine off.
To do this, he first had to smash the window.
So there we have a story !
And you could fit a picture to a story.
Lets say, Mollier’s blood was found on Al Hilli…
Lets say the BMW was stationary.
And lets say the car wasn’t locked.
How did SAH get SM’s blood on him then ?
Martin opened the car door and check Al Hilli ?
He would have would have checked all of them, surely.
But then SM’s blood would be on all of them.
And the youngest daugher would have been (maybe) found.
Well that didn’t happen AND there’s been a cock up.
So we’ll make the “story” fit the facts !
And take a pic of it !!!!
So….
The BMW was in reverse
Martin has to enter the vehicle
He “drop” Molliers blood on Al hilli.
…And he’s the photo to prove it !
Sh*t ! The girls outside the locked car !
Worry not. The “people” will forget about that “detail”.
And over to our correspondent at London 2012.
So, how’s Team Gb’s medal score ?
(Ya gotta admit, these guys worked pretty well under pressure !)
In other words whoever carried out the crime had the necessary “clout” to demand both London and Paris get the cover story out there in the media as widely circulated as possible. For some reason the British were less coy than the French in that no image of Didierjean has appeared, probably because the name is false, and showing face would reveal it. Alternatively they consider PD more sensitive or less well protected or lacking as good a cover story as WBM? There are demonstrable untruths in WBM’s account that I have previously demonstrated. Why these were made is difficult to say. Were these demanded by the killers also, as the price that had to be paid? There are few organisations/states with the necessary leverage to make Britain especially toe the line on this one. In fact I can only think of one. In any event WBM’s statement follows PD’s so we can’t really claim France responded to Britain, rather the opposite, unless of course they got wind of the gist of what Martin was to say prior to the 11th which is possible as I think it was recorded Monday but not sure. Anyway hope this keeps your creative juices flowing Marlin.
For Tim.
Just incaase my “tongue in cheek” post was too cryptic !
Mollier’s blood was on Al Hilli.
But it may not have be transfered by Martin.
The car wasn’t in reverse.
And didn’t need to be shut down.
It’s just a nice story to “prove” that Martin “carried” the blood.
The eldest girl could escape the car….
…as it wasn’t locked.
The window “needed” to be broken as Martin wasn’t opening doors to check the victims status…he was in a hurry to shut down the engine. (after all, there was a dead man with several mortal shots that needed to be protected. He may have become “deader” if the car had crushed him !)
And the nice pictured….was most probably not done “by accident” !
Your intriguing remark Holmes.Pt
9 Feb, 2013 – 12:15 am has got me thinking. Any more “elementary” clues?
@ Felix @ Bluebird et. al. Off-Topic : Didier Norfolk
There is a JD connected to: King Solutions, Inc., a leading provider of freight transportation. Dayton, MN 55369 US and King Shipping Inc., Freight Transport Arrangement Service, Rogers, MN 55374-8964. Both in same field as Stinnes / Schenker USA. Maybe a relative who supplied JD the tee?
Another JD is an IT Computer Consultant, Self Employed, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Thought there was one at Kettering Medical in Minnesota, but can’t find now — maybe it was someone once removed.
As Bluebird discovered:
John Didier, 41, Phoenix, AZ, http://www.mylife.com/replynora << note url
Places Lived – Atlanta, GA, Potomac, MD, Manassas, VA,
Eric Didier, 39, Phoenix, AZ, http://www.mylife.com/e_didier
Places Lived – Phoenix, AZ (1999 to 2010), Potomac, MD (1995 to 2011) << note they both lived in Potomac, Maryland, US
There's a Nora Jean Didier, 53, Longmont, Colorado and a Nora Didier of Sante Fe, New Mexico, who appears in ElLitoral.com a Spanish publication.
@Straw
Strange Police CCTV van to send out to the Creegan house, EJ11UAK, based in Wimbledon
http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/disclosure_2011/september/2011080003237.pdf
The “interesting” vehicles would have long gone.
Hoskins gets everywhere. The photos are taken on the Tuesday – the police would almost certainly have been there before that, Sunday or Monday, so these are window dressing poses for Roland.
The Nora Didier of Santa Fe is I think a Professor in Argentina. I think we have the right ones in Phoenix/Potomac (Langley travel to work area) though.
And that, er, “helicopter crash”….
The Inquest was certainly “inquest light”.
#2 @ Felix @ Bluebird et. al. Off-Topic : Didier / Norfolk
Comments on Felix’s copies of media at:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?s=0dbd80e7a18f0efec5001157cbbd4cf0&t=229400&page=6
“The boat has been recovered and returned to a boat yard at Horning where the boat will be examined. Enquiries are on-going to determine the circumstances surrounding the incident and to establish the whereabouts of the 13-year-old’s parents.”
The boat was removed before they knew JD and AC were dead. May explain why they started the underwater search in the wrong places. If they found a bloody sheet aboard, wouldn’t they suspect something was amiss?
“Neighbour Julian Jones, 21, said: “She was quiet. She lived with her daughter, by themselves, for the last 10 years. I have lived here for 15 years. She’s known in the area.” The 21-year-old also spoke about John Didier, saying: “He had only recently moved in the last few months. I spoke to him for the first time a few months ago.”
I recall reading elsewhere that they had a relationship longer than a few months, and that they’d previously done the same boating vacations previous years at the same location. Echoes of the stories about SAHs being at the caravan campground previously, while others said they were new there.
“Officers are treating the death of the woman as suspicious, but not the death of the man… ”
As Bluebird mentioned, it seems like mob hit – the strangulation of one and the deep-sixing of both corpses. Old time American mob hit, excessively heavy weights too.
“One local rumour suggested that the man had left a note for the girl when he left the boat, instructing her to stay on board.”
Where are all these “local rumours” coming from? They don’t say “our sources” or “police sources” as they usually would. Why would police blab to locals about evidence, or did they leave the boat unguarded or let a boat rental employee drive it back to the boatyard?
“On Tuesday at about 5.30pm I decided I would go and see if everything was OK because I was concerned for their safety as they’d been in the same place for a long time. I was about eight feet away and shouted over. The man came through in a hurry, from the toilet area to the main section. He shouted back through the curtain something like, “Go away. I don’t want anything”, and he waved me away with his hand. I saw the boat in the same position every day after that.”
“He said: “I think the boat had been there for a good seven days. There was something odd about it because all the curtains were closed and it looked like no one was on board. Concerned, Mr Cook eventually approached it at about 5.30pm on Tuesday. He said: “I brought my boat up close and went gently up and down and looked into the bathroom window a bit. That was when a man stumbled through from the front to the middle of the boat and said he did not want to buy anything. He said: ‘Go away’ and brushed me away with his hand.”
These two statements above are by the same person? In one he hails from eight feet away, and in another he’s peeping in the bathroom window – a stupid thing to do. In the first a man comes through in a hurry and in the second he stumbles – implying impaired. Echoes of the varying stories about Martinet. Is this another actor who can’t remember his lines?
A reader’s comment in the DM: “I have no idea, or opinion about what happened on that boat. However, from experience, I do know the problems in movement about that design. Whilst it has a stern access to one of the sleeping cabins, the standard access is midships, via a very narrow walkway. Everything is nice and stable, when inside, but the unwary can wind up in the water, through missed footing, when boarding or disembarking…….. especially if it has been raining!”
If the murderer/suicider used the midships access he must manhandle a possibly weighted dead body, or a struggling live one via the passageway, without making too much noise to wake the girl. Unless she was heavily drugged, which would be a trick unless the drugger was an anesthesiologist or experienced in such things, to avoid ODing a 13 year-old.
Misc: Would a 13 year old girl, who BB found was on Twitter, consent to travel without her mobile? Would the adults? Was there mobile service available there? Echoes of Martinet. We need a forensic bananaologist or fruitologist to advise if the two bananas would not turn brown in a week. It can’t be a bowl of fake fruit, as there are market stickers visible – or have fruit fakers gone that far to make things realistic? In the pic of the evidence tech removing paper bags of evidence from the boat, there appears to be a circuit board (not green) in one bag – the loose hard drive?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/9808147/Operation-Elveden-Suns-crime-reporter-arrested-over-alleged-corrupt-payments.html
Q 9:37PM – OK, I’ll bite.
The web of connections between the Russian mafia, Russian Intelligence (GRU) and Russian government is interesting. That being said, the Russian mafia (some of the mafias, as there’s more than one, evidently) is, in turn, infiltrated by israeli mafia elements, some of which may or may not have their own secret little connections to israeli security. To make matters even more complicated, some of these Israeli security outfits which are proliferating around the world like mushrooms are themselves off-shoots of shin-bet or even mossad, gone “civilian”. I mean, what else is a nice ex-IDF-major with no talent for politics do? the ex-military and ex foreign service and ex-all-kind-of-things plus burnt-out lowlier field agents, with no normal markatable skills – are being set up cozily with their security “outfits, given a couple of early contracts, a few connections and off they go – plowing their wares. After all, “security” – cyber and not – is one of Israel’s key exports (and there you were, thinking it was jaffa oranges – ha!).
So back to my “agency profiling” exercise. I have given some thought and wrote earlier about who is likely to be such cold executioners, with good planning AND huge pull over both brits and french. And here’s the thing – I believe we can almost immediately exclude the british – they have this “squeamishness” about hurting children and ain’t all that keen on shooting ladies either. And surprise, surprise, I kind of doubt the french would be so very nonchallant about perpetrating this kind of a macabre action, even if they could have been willing enough to, say, throw Mollier to the dogs. Both of these agencies seem to be sticklers for ‘clean” operations, with minimal collateral damage, especially on European soil, just based on history (that we know or suspect). So either brits or french may have had a hand in what was planned – though they may have each been privy to a slightly different plan, and neither expected the extent of the carnage. So basically, I doubt either would have perpetrated the full massacre, complete with a hurt girl, dead women etc. These are my reasons for doubting WBM could have been the killer of them all or the mysterious PD, or a combination of the two. All that, not to mention that it doesn’t sit well with the post shooting cover-up etc, not to mention any number of other facts that don’t fit together.
So the killers are a third agency, as Tim V – and others have said as well. But who could they be? The three things we know about them are:
1. They are ruthless, and are willing to hurt kids though perhaps not so much as to kill them. Seems like a bit of a red line there.
2. They are efficient and good at planning things down to the minute.
3. They have enormous clout – both over the brits and the french – AND the Swedes – but mostly over the French (see Tim V for reasoning above, with which I totally agree). as Tim V says above.
In the past I excluded the Iranians, iraqis and other ME players due to wrong MO and insufficient clout (which is too bad because it could have tied things up neatly as far as motivation). CIA? well, they can’t be excluded but something doesn’t smell right – unless one can postulate some “rogue” CIA. Mossad? yes, as far as MO, it’s close, but something keeps bugging me about the children, though i can’t quite put my finger on it. To have dead children (and the killers may well have thought Zainab was dead – she could have been shot in the shoulder and fallen hard, hitting her head for example) would be considered a huge mission mess-up. Dead children means problems and yes, believe it or not, I suspect even mossad agents may have second thoughts at such “collateral damage” (there can never be doubt children – young ones – are to be considered innocent). In fact, I don’t know of any past assassinations attributed to mossad where children were hurt (traumatized yes, wounded – maybe, but shot outright – no).
So there is the possibility of a mafia involvement though it’d take a very efficient and focused one – cf. Russians. That’s the one way i can rationalize the cold-bloodedness of the whole killing exercise. So what’s the motivation? obviously we don’t know, but Russian mafia types could be a front for someone else, or it could be – as Pink’s articles suggest, that a ‘spy” may think they are communicating with the GRU but that one is thoroughly infiltrated by mafia types, and the mafia is, in turn, infiltrated by israeli intelligence, so who the heck knows what and who one is communicating with? it could indeed be that our “Trojan Horses” were under the impression they were dealing with one entity, but that entity was leaking like a sieve to another, and so a “somewhat” different, much more ruthless entity showed up than the one expected.
Yet, even though the actual killers may have been a “rogue’ element (or “semi-rogue”), behind them or besides them there’s that powerful agency. Which can only be one out of two: US and/or israel. And as I said before I am leaning towards the second, even though the US is needed to exert just that little extra bit of “pressure”. So although the execution could have been “outsourced” to certain elements, known to be capable of ruthlessness, that, if caught, will provide plausible deniability (hey – not us! it’s the mafia!), the main agency behind it all will be needed to apply the necessary pressure to assure that a proper cover-up is in place. And who cares about how credible it is? I mean, they can always say it’ll take 10 years to solve!
I know this sounds convoluted, because now we have gone to four agencies(!), but almost everything about this case seems complicated. As a funny aside (if “funny” is the right word), if the killing was indeed outsourced, then I believe it is viewed as less than a complete success by the powerful agency. And that would be because of the children – maybe the women too (and we should bear in mind that SAH may have indeed brought his family along unexpectedly because he was THAT confident; in which case, he was indeed rather naive). So the actual killers may well be raked over the coals, right along with whoever had the brilliant idea of “outsourcing” the “mission” in the first place.
Shoot, reading this over, one could think I am applying for a job as “profiler”…but no, I am so not. Besides, luckily, unlike those barely employable ex-security and ex-intelligence (the latter a bit of a misnomer) types” referred to above, I have a few other marketable skills….
Holmes.Pt 12:15 AM – do you still believe it was the “forestry” people, who imbibed a bit more than they could handle, who offed Mollier (by accident) and then turned on the Al-Hillis , being undesirable witnesses, who turned around? I remember you suggesting something like this.
Or do you have something else in mind?
5 Oct 2012: “The gun used was not a Luger P08, reports RTS, refuting information that circulated last week in the British press. It may have been made in Switzerland.
And it is highly unlikely that the killer was a professional, RTS was told by Eric Maillaud, the French magistrate handling the case: an experienced hired killer would not shoot 21 bullets.”
http://genevalunch.com/tag/investigation/
Just a note on “here there and everywhere” Hoskins.
He seems to be everywhere.
But there are a few pictures he owns the copright to, but didn’t take….but do display his name.
A for instance.
Big cat thought to be a lion (Daily Mail).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2194481/Essex-lion-Teddy-cat-time-ginger-tom-cat-doesnt-need-police-escort.html
The picture is “Roland Hoskins”
Some website interested in the subject of “Big Cats”.
(Note to ed. I wasn’t searching anything else, but you have to be careful what you type !)
http://bigcatsinbritain.weebly.com/essex-lion1.html
“Copyright Roland Hoskins: Picture taken by Stephen Aitken”
So it would seem that Roland operates as a “photographer” and a “source”.
And he has links the MSM, but seems to link quite well in with the Daily Mail.
Which the brings up THE QUESTION….
Who took the series of “the BMW at the carpark crime scene” ?
I doubt it was our Roland.
BUT then this is a problem.
If it wasn’t Roland, then who ?
A Frenchman and a pilot.
The pictures appear to be from the left hand side of the aircraft.
Helo’s PIC’s (PF) sit on the right.
So the pictures appear to have been taken from the “pax” seat.
No surprise there.
What is surprising though is, if it were a “local” crew, they would know the area (you have an approach to Annecy over the other side of the lake, so apart from “hills” and mad paracrashers, you’re pretty clear in an eggbeater around the Point De Velan/ D’Ire) however being “local” as well as knowing this, you’d also know that the French can be pretty “funny” when it comes to Privacy.
Hence maybe why the pictures got “sold” through Roland ?
And yet, you still have the issue with being “allowed” to take those pictures.
And also….drum roll…you’d have to get you timing pretty “spot on” !
You’d want to get the car in situ. Maybe a few police around it for good measure….
But imagine if they had flown over as they were removing Al Hilli and zipping up the grandmother (gulp).
Hence I am a bit “sus” about those pictures.
It seems to link so well with Martin’s story.
And that story enables the cross contamination of Mollier, Al Hilli and Martin (which is handy).
And the girl outside the locked car ?
Well you’d look pretty silly smashing the window of a car to gain access, when the doors were unlocked.
But smashing the window…
1. Adds to the urgency of the task in hand (the car was a danger).
2. “… and that’s how I got glass on my clothes oss-e-ffer” !
And the girl outside the locked car ?
Well if you say it really fast (“an th’ gir oot th’ ock ca”) you barely notice that detail !!!!
@ Q 8 Feb, 2013 – 9:37 pm
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/02/06/f-vp-stewart-russia-mob.html
That’s a good description, but Prava claims it isn’t so bad:
http://english.pravda.ru/russia/politics/07-11-2011/119544-russian_mafia-0/
While this page claims it is:
http://www.rumafia.com/
As they put it, the connections are Byzantine. I learned that if you happen to have $US seven billion do not diss President Putin’s friends at the tennis/judo club, or you’ll be left with a single, lonely billion. And do not diss the much diminished billionaire either or you’ll be shot in the middle of a Moscow street. (No grenades though – they aren’t yet as violent as the UK.)
There’s this old story related to that, plus comments on Swiss media, privacy laws and the Internet. Applicable to reporting on Chevaline.
http://genevalunch.com/2009/11/26/russian-youths-car-crash-taunts-swiss-media/#more-32331
A reader’s comment: “As a Russian I’m a little bit annoyed when media refers to these people as “Russians”. Please, don’t forget to clarify that they are citizens of Russia of Azerbaijan nationality. Enough of blaming my people for everything that they haven’t done.”
Further off topic, there’s this from:
aangirfan.blogspot.co.uk: “Late one night on the Thames embankment by the House of Commons a British prime minister approached a rent boy. Reportedly, almost all the rent boys worked for the spooks – CIA, Mossad, MI5 and the KGB. The details of the encounter on the Thames embankment quickly ended up on the London KGB station chief’s desk.”
These come up now and then: NAPAWASH – 24 SusSEX – 1950 Old Gallows Road, Vienna, Virginia – The only one I recognize is 24 SusSEX, not far from where Q said Lachlan Cranswick’s body was found, if I remember.
@James 9 Feb, 2013 – 9:16 am
“Just a note on “here there and everywhere” Hoskins.”
By coincidence there’s this reader’s comment re Sandy Hook:
“I believe an important part of the story is exactly who took photos. I researched all photos in early Jan, all of them said : Don Emmert; I can’t find out if this is a person or a company. Why if a person would so prominent a photographer for AP be present there? do people sell their photos to him? this isall i could find”
Donald Emmert AFPNYC Photo Bureau chief at AFP
Greater New York City Area | Media Production
Current: AFPNYC Photo Bureau chief at AFP (Sole Proprietorship)
http://aangirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/sandy-hook-drill-mcdonnells-lanza-kids.html?m=1
Think this is part of how photogs operate now. Very few on staff anymore. Chris Eades, in UK, who had interior pics of Gareth William’s flat after police left, was one-time on staff of a paper or agency, then free-lanced, and finally opened his own photo agency. Not liked by others in biz, ’cause he deeply undercut on prices. Haven’t seen his credit on any of the pics we’ve looked at recently. Maybe his fellow photogs offed him. 🙂
@ Felix re your comment on Icke: “Just saw this… Nora M Didier, Mesa, Arizona.” {http://www.yasni.fr/ext.php?url=http…tion&showads=1}
The link goes to a ND with a religious group in New Jersey, as did the one I found, to a religious group in Sante Fe, (New Mexico or Argentina?) Are all Nora Didiers religious?
@NR
Re pictures.
Ever wondered if the police (first on the scene) don’t actually sell/provide their own pictures !
Sounds crazy ?
“Met Police got £22.7m from sponsors, FOI request finds”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20156574
“Met police received £23m in corporate sponsorship over five years”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/01/met-police-corporate-sponsorship-years
Virtually all Police Forces aroound the world are now supplier of “content” for cop reality shows !
You can’t turn on the TV these days without watching “Oscar Five Sierra” belting down the road, lights on, sirens blaring….whilst they try to stop a fight at a local takeaway !
Now they don’t do that for free.
Who’s to say they don’t “sell” there own pictures of a crime scene.
Seems logical. They already employ photographers.
Who’s to say that the eggbeater that over flew The Martinet carpark wasn’t actually the helo owned and operated by the police themselves ?
NOTE. I am not saying that the “photographer” was “in on it”.
I’m saying, why would he think it unusual…if the police already sell/provide photographs of crime scenes to the press photo agencies already !
“Please find below information pursuant to your request above.
The total amount of money received by the Metropolitan Police in 2010/11 for the sale of footage was **11,450.00”
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/income_from_media_organisations#incoming-198106
However, there’s one in there “revenue from all sources” relating to the City of London Police (a much smaller force), and they seem to do better out of the “men from the telly” !
I thought that was rather strange, but there you go.
So based on the fact that they do “sell” moving images (information) then it is not beyond that scope to assume they may also “sell” (or provide) still photography.
I assume that the French Investigation Team would want a “overview” shot of “their incident”, so what bettr wy to killtwo birds with one stone.
Or rather use on “bird” and “provide” the required pictures.
And on that “wee” thought, it is “normal” as we have seen, for the French to “leak” information to the press that they trust, from a source close to the investigaion.
The photos were NOT leaked ! (and that’s really odd !).
Instead Roland Everywhere got hold of them.
Doubt he’d write…
“Photo Copyright. LeakedfromTheFrench/AFP/GettyImages”
Crime Scenes in my experience are wholly controlled by the police. In practise this means only those they allow enter. It may go beyond this to them actually choosing the people to go in beyond the SOCO and pathologist beside other experts where necessary. The police have their own photographers but may allow others to take photographs too, if for example they have a professional or property involvement. How this works in practise depends on circumstances and the personal disposition of individual officers, the seniority of which is determined by the nature and severity of the event.
Now strangely when you come to the law it becomes rather vague. It appears only in cases of “terrorism” is there specific power to control the crime scene under the Terrorism Act 200. In all other the police have to rely on their persuasive power and if necessary crimes of obstruction, perverting the cxourse of justice, and even powers under the Highways Act to follow the reasonable instuctions of a PC.
So going back to photographers, general photographs from a public highway or the air (?) I would presume be outside of police control if done by member of the press or public. Publishing them obviously raises different issues and will be decided by Editors and Proprietors, subject to any legal advice or government influence. Inside the actual crime scene the police control, as at Chevaline means only the police have access to the original photographs and video. The police no doubt do have favourites that they give both tips and access, of course never in return for money.
All this results in the public being in a very inferior position when it comes to early photographic (and other) evidence. We get to see only what the police allow us to see for what ever purpose (hence we should always ask why information is put out as we do why it is retained apros pos the Arnand 3.15 photo); the photographer allowed on scene may be anxious to preserve the relationship and please the police if he wants to retain his access and income; photographic evidence is thus not value free or unimpeachable. Further questions must be asked to prove its voracity.
Holmes.Pt
9 Feb, 2013 – 12:15 am
“You are Looking around the truth, when the truth is in front of you!”
My computer screen?
Thanks, Tim V and James. This reminds me of the grainy images taken from a public road elsewhere in France on the day of the Chevaline incident. You know the ones.
@Marlin: Thank you for the analysis. Thinking of how this played out over time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_immigration_to_Israel_in_the_1990s
@NR: Correction: A body was found in the river near 24 Sussex in June 2010. Another body was found further upstream, with time enough for ground transport to Deep River, KWIM. The media seemed to mix up the photos, confusing a sunny day for a cloudy one, and forgetting the different custom paint jobs on police cars in various jurisdictions. Very confusing, to be sure. Both were found by fishermen in canoes. One was in a rocky bay that is too shallow for canoes, and is known to be a poor spot to fish, due to the rocks. Fish prefer silt. It seemed like bodies were dropping out of the sky that day, or another day, or however the story was messed up. One body, the one said to have been found near 24 Sussex, was a female enrolled in a graduate degree program (with ties to an Algonquin band connected to uranium mining protests), but who appeared to be a homeless person wearing strangely mismatched clothing. The other was said to be Lachlan Cranswick, found exactly where someone predicted he would be found, completely intact despite six months in the river, and with his work ID from the nuclear facility (RFID?) in his coat pocket.
@NR: And now Ron Jeremy’s had an aneurysm.
Tim V
9 Feb, 2013 – 4:39 pm “My computer screen?”
I like this ! I like anyone with an open mind, who refuse aprioris. Your satirical comment shows that you are really interested in this case.
Is Roland Hoskins the press equivalent of a film directed by Alan Smithee:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Smithee
So come on Holmes.Pt
9 Feb, 2013 – 6:57 pm – tell us what you meant by your observation. Has it any substance or was it just a throw-away line?