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?
Was it the “Lunatic in the Lay-by with the Luger ” or the “Woodsman in the Wolf Reserve with the Walther”? I think we should be told.
Here’s what happened to one (alleged) contract pilot:
http://boingboing.net/2013/02/04/former-pilot-and-911-conspira.html
Going back to this comment about Glocks:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20373970
James
9 Feb, 2013 – 2:40 pm Going back to phographic images – given the fact that the incident took place some time before 4 pm, that it was a “big” news story and it was being reported within hours, it’s rather surprising there are no arial shots from Wednesday or Thursday morning before the victim’s bodies were removed. Perhaps they were but not issued out of respect. We just don’t know.
Then there is WBM and PD. Both had mobile phones obviously. We don’t know, but it’s quite likely even if they couldn’t get reception, they probably had the camera function on them. Do we assume neither of took their own photographs of the scene before departing. After all PD had ample opportunity (when he wasn’t clapping!) and WBM had TWO (opportunities). This was a highly trained ex-RAF pilot after all. The topic and possibility has never to my knowledge been mentioned on here and was certainly never referred to by either of them.
Then finally in addition to the forensic people who arrived later, we were told the fire/rescue people took both stills and movies of the scene on arrival and within the first hour after the shooting. Who has that record now? Did they retain it all or did they have to hand it over to central authority?
@Tim V: The whole issue of the various phones, including those found at the scene, has been glossed over.
Early on in this story, some websites described Saad al-Hilli along the lines of an “EADS military satellite map-maker”. That led to our discovery of ship-tracking via satellite and onboard tracking devices explained here:
http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/view/9529
http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/view/4635
In the world context, is some sort of house-cleaning going on? Ref: Jeffrey Delisle.
Q
9 Feb, 2013 – 8:21 pm That BBC report from November 17th contains some blindingly obvious statements, some inexplicable ones, some new ones, some quite wrong ones. The question is does he make the wrong ones knowingly or because he is badly advised or just incompetent?
“Mr Maillaud added: “Without doubt we are looking for someone who has killed before, someone who puts no value on human life.
(“Obvious”: Does anyone who sets out to kill four adults put a value on human life? Does anyone skilled enough to use a semi-automatic so precisely from distance and close-up not have previous training or experience?)
“We are not sure whether that means it’s a professional hit but if it was done on a contract it was very badly done.”
(“Inexplicible”: Why “badly done”? Where is the supporting argument for it? By his own admission all the killing was done coldly and efficiently in less than a minute. In a fast moving scenario where ppl tried to escape, none did. All were shot twice through the head in a very professional manner. Most of the 25 shots can be accounted for and found their human target despite vehicles and movement. The attack had to happen in daylight, in the open, on targets that we can assume were neither naive or wholly defenseless. Importantly despite the remote location and lengthy escape route, the perpetrators get away and even after FIVE months apparently leave absolutely no trace, despite an international police investigation. How could you conclude from this it was “badly done”?
“There is also a working hypothesis on how the events unfolded, though Mr Maillaud would confirm only scant detail.
“Saad al-Hilli’s daughters both survived the attack
It appears Zainab and her father were outside the car when the gunman approached, firing, from the forest trail above them.
(“New” and “Inexplicible”: “gunman approached, firing, from the forest trail above them”. The trouble is we cannot really trust EM opinion but if true how did they come from “above”. Does he mean to infer they came down through the wood that separates the two trails or on the road from beyond the barrier. And if so why did Al Hilli reverse rather than go forward and off down the hill? Then again if they were outside the car in close proximity to Mollier they had to have been there for some time and his later story that they were at Arnand only 15 minutes before is quite untenable and should never have been officially promulgated.)
“The French cyclist Sylvain Mollier was already at the lay-by or at least close by.
(“Obvious” and “Inexplicible”: Of course he had to be there to be shot. “Already”? What does that mean? That he was there BEFORE the Al Hilli’s? How could that fit builders’ or Martin’s evidence? It can’t unless they are both lying. Perhaps he is just trying to recant his previous opinion that Mollier “stumbled” on the massacre taking place and saying that all the victims were in place before the shooting started? Maybe. In which case how can he hold to the last two paragraphs? It’s quite irrational.)
“In the panic Mr al-Hilli bolted for his car. He reversed in a U-turn at such speed that perhaps he ran over the fallen Mr Mollier.
(“Just Wrong”: In no way can the the semi circle tyre marks be SAH’s. It’s geometrically and logically impossible. All the blood is next to the car. Apart from anything else there simply would not have been time. Nor in any scenario can the BMW be made to strike Mollier. If he was struck, it must have been the killer’s vehicle that fits the tyre tracts. Maillaud must realise this unless he is quite stupid, so we must assume this is intentional misinformation to keep a killers 4 wheel vehicle out of it. This assumption is supported by saying the 4×4 SUV reported by WBM was an innocent forestry one! This in turn points strongly to cover-up and complicity.)
“The car slammed into the bank at the rear of the lay-by where the axle became stuck.
(“Misleading”: A subtle use of partial accuracy to create wrong impression. The car obviously reversed but it was only “stuck” because it was still in reverse. Had a forward gear been engaged there is no doubt it would not have been “stuck”.
The reason why forward gear was not engaged was simply by this time SAH had been shot twice in the head. It is quite likely that being stationary assisted the process of shooting the two back seat passengers. The killers did not “waste time” turning off the engine as they were anxious to get back to Mollier and leave the scene. Nor did they have time, probably to search. If they took the bike rack it was a speedy forced removal by the looks of things. No attempt was made to take the passports very obviously on the floor.)
“And the rest we know. Saad, his wife Iqbal, his mother-in-law Suhaila and the cyclist were shot at least twice at close range.
“The police have ruled out the idea that Mr Mollier was the target.
“We are 99% sure he was nothing to do with it,” Mr Maillaud said.
(“Inexplicible”: No justification was given for this conclusion or ever has, though a partisan approach to the two sets of victims was later made very evident. Why this unprofessional approach, has never been explained either.)
Tim V Feb 8 1:11 AM also 1:28 AM
Thanks for putting the sequence of events that week in sequence with links – so nice and clear. You are henceforth designated titular head of the Research Department Temporal Division (that;s almost as good as being Timelord!).
I think the very closeness of the WBM video and PD’s interview (only one of each – ever, assuming the other WBM video released was coincident with the first – just a different edit) indicates SOME coordination – both within one day of each other. Allusion is made in the reports to WBM’s video being made a day (or two?) earlier, and I imagine that either edited footage, or text summary was made available to the French ahead of time. So the french already knew that WBM will not admit to the 3:48PM call but will mention meeting Frenchman PD at close proximity to the crime scene, PD + companions perhaps. I believe that some of what was said in the WBM video, coming out a couple of days after that PD interview, took the french by surprise: for example the reference to moving SM’s body, to Zainab being all bloodied, to bullets in the head, and the many other inconsistencies brought up by people here at the time and since. Basically, the French were served with a bit of a stew and left to stew ever since.
This is what I now believe,projecting from what little information we have:
1. There was a “PD” arriving on the scene – dispatched as part of the early french clean-up/support crew – there to survey the situation and ascertain state of the survivors. That funky reference to being in a “forestry car” was an inadvertant slip – he really was in such a vehicle. The females may have been sent to collect the kid(s) who by that time were thought to be either dead or injured or d”disappeared”.
2. Since this “PD” was employed in the french security (and/or police etc), as were the two females, there could be no picture or even name of him released, as he would be instantly recognized, leading to all kinds of questions. Thus has the prodigal “hikers” been invented. As Tim V suggested, there was less of a problem with WBM who was not employed in any official capacity and had good cover as a field agent. Hence, we get to see the “real” WBM. After all, if he was a field agent, only those who need to know will recognize him for what he is.
3. The lack of consistency between PD and WBM testimonies irrevocably point to deliberate misleading disclosures between the british and French agencies. The text summary supplied by the brits to the french must have been rather terse,probably more so, and selectively so, as compared with the video that was released couple of days later. Hence PD’s interview is in conflict in several notable areas.
4. The fact that what was in WBM’s video had such glaring contradictions with PD’s testimony (a summary of those would be nice – hint, hint…) was a “shot across the bow” from the british direction, aimed straight at the French. It is indeed possible that the substance of WBM’s statements were such as to belie the fact that the English are willing to go quite far in undermining the official cover-up.
5. Why would the brits want to poke holes in the official script at that time? two reasons I can think of: (a) because they are royally pissed at what took place and are super-annoyed at the french not sharing all they knew about the pre-arranged meeting, (2) because they really wanted Zainab to be back in the UK under their auspices, and the video, as released was a very strong hint that there’s more information that could be put out there, if the French don’t let the girl go. Bingo, the next day, early at 8AM we hear that Zainab was “whisked away”. Ever since then there are just tid-bits coming out of Brittain but everyone knows that more was told by the girl Zainab. Coupled with that tiny “reassurance” that access to her – by relatives – is tightly controlled.
So yes, Q – to your Feb 8, 10:55PM question: I think that having Zainab in UK, in a ‘safe” location, was THAT important. Unfortunately, if this line of reasoning is true, neither Zainab nor Zeena can be ‘released” for the foreseeable future. The Brit ‘authorities” have no doubt mounted quite an operation to convince the relatives that this is what’s best for the girls. Otherwise, it is impossible to understand why they would be so relatively quiet (other than that one little complaint, released for public consumption) and are not mounting a legal case to get the girls back.
@ James 9 Feb, 2013 – 2:40 pm
“So based on the fact that [the police] do “sell” moving images (information) then it is not beyond that scope to assume they may also “sell” (or provide) still photography.”
Good point. Hadn’t thought of that possibility. I looked up Chris Eades and he’s alive and twittering, apparently working free-lance again. He closed down his own photo agency, finding there was no profit.
Media now pay the pros as little as they can and prefer to use as much free photography from “citizen-journalists” as they can — like the “citizen-journalists” who work for free or near-free on the new web-only insta-news pages — HuffPo etc. One reader’s comment on that site lauded their fast coverage and said he now used it as his primary news source rather than the BBC. Fast trumps accurate.
Eades had this link to a blog on press/police relationships and corruption in the UK. Anecdote about press baron Robert Maxwell* pissing on the plebs in the street below from his lofty rooftop.
http://www.fleetstreetfox.com/2012/02/scum-also-rises.html?spref=tw
* “Ghislaine Maxwell: Press baron’s daughter and [noted perv] Jeffrey Epstein’s former lover.” A whole other scandal:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/bizman_sex_rap_looms_x6z2DpmZFOB8X5fhZgogpO
One more comment to my own comment above:
Note that at no time did I assume that ANY of the information released by either PD, or WBM, or anyone else involved in the investigation, was there to “inform” the public or to actually advance the course of “justice”. I know it was often remarked here how incompetent EM was. But that assessment is based on the assumption that he is there to actually “investigate” and is acting in his true capacity as a servant of the public. Alas, the more likely case is that he has been there – from day one – to obfuscate, confuse and pool the wool over the public’s eye, working as hard as he could to cool off interest in the story and make sure, no one will be the wiser. Not once has EM said anything that was meant to inform – like so many here said, it’s been always a continued effort to “move along now, nothing to see here”.
Same with the reporters – they are not asking the “right” questions not because they do their job poorly and are a singularly incurious group of people, but because they do their jobs exactly as they are supposed to. Anyone who dares to ask more than allowed within the pre-dictated parameters is toast. And these journalists/reporters are keen to keep their jobs, no different than most people.
I couldn’t help notice though that while people know all this quite well, sometimes that knowledge does not always translate into the next set of questions. Which is understandable, since amateur detectives by definition, will tend to focus on the “what happened”, even if they know that virtually none of the details they have been provided can be trusted. ie, if we really accept that the desire to inform was NOT the reason for information and/or photos being released, then ALL such information must be interpreted as uninformative, which is kind of difficult. But that;s what I’ve been trying to do in my longish series of hopefully not-so-muddled of posts. I know James does the same in his mercifully briefer and funnier comments, but we each do what we can.
For myself, once I actually processed that what we are – and have been – looking at all this time is a coverup exercise by agencies (that are sometimes at loggerheads), my interest shifted to evaluating the fabric of the cover-up itself, rather than the details of the event the cover-up was meant to hide, ie, the known unknowns rather than the unknowable knowns. Hope it’s been of some use, even if too long by a mile.
Marlin, 10:28 PM, Item 4: should be “to underscore” rather than “belie’. My bad. Thoughts getting ahead of typing skills.
Marlin
9 Feb, 2013 – 8:28 am and 9.41 I read your discussion about circumstances and possible perpetrator states with interest. Also “Q’s” ref. to the million Russians that moved to Israel (presumably with a small proportion of spies and crooks) post-Gorbachev. I note you go along with my earlier suggestion that the two females apparently accompnying PD might have been there specifically with the children in mind. It’s not altogether out of the question that the Rescue service overheard the killers radio transmission, and that they were on scene prior to the plan. In which case PD and co would have “discovered”. If the location had been carefully chosen partly for the fact that it was “dead” for phone cover, the plan might have worked.
Now one curious thing: We have had many different theories eminating from Maillaud, yet NOT ONE has received an iota of public support or corroboration from the British police. Strange don’t you think? Haven’t they been asked? Why if the French have failed to publish photographs of Saad’s wife and mother-in-law, why hasn’t this been done by the British? Very strange isn’t it? I wonder if it will ever appear on Crimewatch?
Thanks Marlin
9 Feb, 2013 – 10:26 pm for appointing me a Temporal Timelord. As you can tell I have a lot of it on my hands. I admire your contributions and think it helps with all the others, to keep this thread going and gradually chipping away will eventually reveal the truth. I know these are only four deaths among million but in some ways I think it is totemic and quite a lot hangs on on allowing it to be buried and forgotten. I never cease to be amazed how despite so many posts, new and ingenious ones keep appearing. However we are in a small pool here and there is a big ocean out there. I just hope that all this is not wasted and people in more influential positions are following and getting the point, that will eventually bear fruit.
*millions
*not allowing
Good work, again!
I am still not understanding why getting Zainab back would be important ,she would return back to the UK in the normal course of events the French are not going to keep her there what is the reason there is an urgency to get her back?
Question
It is difficult to follow the magic bullets ,I have seen Zainab shot between 3 times on Sky to 1 in the shoulder elsewhere, dead and alive ,EM seems uncertain as to which he has to choose .
SM shot 5 times sometimes 7 times ,the family shot 3 times each sometimes twice in the head sometimes once ,Iqbal not shot in the head and in the beginning not shot at all ,bullet casings under car ,bullet casings in the car .
Does the official report say what in fact is true can anyone point to an accurate account ?
Tim V 8 Feb, 2013 – 7:37 pm: ” 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?”
What if it was SM, not BM, who was to provide protection for the SAHs. He stops briefly to tell SAH that BM is just behind, intending himself to move out of sight. Before he can, the assassin(s), not anticipating the SAH’s have any protection, assume it’s BM, one of their intended targets, including the SAHs. BM arrives at the conclusion of or after the killings, and is in shock at the carnage, not to mention the realization he was a target.
Why BM and the SAHs needed to meet at Martinet, as you said someone directed them there, into a trap, or maybe one of them needed “something” that had been hidden in one of the caves to complete a transfer.
While were on far-fetched conjectures, what if the killer was a mini-drone — an upsized Iron Dragonfly fitted with a lightweight weapon, but a barrel and mechanism to replicate marks on bullets and cartridges made by an old Swiss automatic (if that part of the story is even true). Even drop a piece of a vintage Luger to confuse matters. Not unfeasible now.
Controlled by le Colosse, 15 years old and hanging about on a motorbike above the crime scene, all innocent like. Did the forest service check if he had a game controller on him? Was he wearing fashionable, thick, black, hipster glasses, that were in truth a video display? 🙂 Did anyone check if le Colosse exists, or was he a work of fiction to give the story credibility?
Marlin @ 10.26 pm
Point 5
Was the French response to allow the publication of Kate’s topless photos, or is the timeline wrong?
Pink
Do you think the UK were worried that an uninjured Zainab might be paraded on French TV showing what a complete farce the ‘official story’ was and still is?
@Tim V (10.19pm)
To add to your comments.
I have stated before, the word “stuck” is to “impede”.
Did the bank hinder the escape of SAH ?
Only if his escape was to the rear…and through the forest !
But like I said before, only if the vehicle was “in motion” would it present the need for further action (ie. the shutting down of it’s engine).
And if the vehicle could not be accessed in the normal manner, then another method must be found (ie. breaking the window).
I imagine that there would be possiblity for loose micro fragments of material to “explode” counter to the direction of impact (if the impact is of an abrupt nature by a projectile. (Be that impact via a light object at a high velocity or heavy object at a slower velocity).
No doubt if this were indeed true, then there would be a possibly that these micro fragments of glass may attach to “objects” that a positioned behind the direction of the impact.
NOTE. Certainly there would if an “object” came into direct contact with the said material (glass).
The French team managed to get the word “stuck” into their statement, but it is totally misleading.
Maybe the really meant to say the car was “in motion however stationary” ? But that would seem silly.
So you have to have the situation (in order that you can break the window)thus…
1 Presenting a danger.
a) To a person (ie. Mollier)
b) In motion
2 Requiring the action of breaking a window.
a) Normal access restricted (ie. Locked)
The problem yo now have, is how dod you have a vehicle “in motion” and yet “stationary” !
Hey Presto !
It’s in reverse (in motion).
It’s stopped by a rear obstuction (stationary).
“Dead men don’t talk”…so the Hollywood saying goes.
I’ll add, “nor do they keep reversing their car” !!!!
Straw.
A French court allowed an injuction with regard those “topless” pictures (I believe as they were taken in France).
They requested the original and the negatives.
Failure to present these meant a 10K fine, per day.
But (see my bove comments)…..
We need to “see” the car halted by the bank.
We need “confirmation” that the car was “halted” and yet “moving”.
“We” need a picture of the scene !
NOTE.
Eric says it was an “unprofessional” hit.
we disagree.
A job completed. A getaway. No witnesses to the event. No DNA. No suspect. No leads.
HOWEVER it is also worthy of note, a “hit” would also be easier (I assume) if all the people to be hit were altogether and in a confined space. Like a car ?
Seems like at The Martinet the hitman was willing to wait.
Now that takes nerve.
That takes a professional.
@ Felix @ Bluebird Off-Topic JD Norfolk.
Searching on:
+”4201 W. Saguaro Park Lane” +”85310″
then separately
+”3325 W Evans Dr” +”85053″
Throws off two bank reps using address (maybe due to foreclosure before or after sale), and one bank rep linked to a “Holistic Investment Co.” who also heads some type of Irish Business Assoc. Plus there’s the PI biz and the animal charity.
Reports of the real estate transactions give –
For Evans it’s Eric B/Tracy A. D
For Saguaro it’s Eric Paul D and Tracy Ann T
or alternately Eric D and Tracy Ann T
Using http://www.instantpeoplefinder.com
TD gives a list of many past addresses. Can’t go further without paying.
Somewhere along the way there were real estate deals in Lansing, Michigan, mostly foreclosures – couldn’t determine who was seller or buyer from legalese.
Good point Felix made on Icke as to how they transported themselves from London to Norfolk, with weights etc. and if by car, where’s the car? No pics of it hauled away on transporter as evidence.
There’s this from JOSE DE LA ISLA in an opinion piece on the movie “Lincoln” — “People throughout the world come to believe myths and legends more than a verifiable narrative.”
http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2013/feb/09/lincoln-suggests-we-can-handle-the-truth/?partner=RSS
This is part of a 9/11 clean up. Watching the life, tge jobs, the family connections of recent victims of strange deaths and killings you can create an interesting summary:
They were people close to either/or:
1) Close relatives who died (or who were supposed to have died) in 9/11
Lanza, Creegan
2) They were people working close to intelligence groups and in fields close to drone and satellite navigation:
Al Hilli, Williams
3) They were people who knew more than they should have known about 9/11:
E.g. al Awlaki who was assassinated by a drone.
And perhaps some of the thousands assassinated, tortured or detained “terrorists”.
4) People who had contacts to intelligence and who became dangerous because of their disbelief, conspiracy and books (see link of Q above)
There were always claims by those who said that 9/11 was real, that you cannot keep so many people involved silent for ever. Sure, you can’t. However, you can keep them under close surveillance forever. As soon as getting dangerous regarding talking, they will be executes. Accidents, suicides, and assassinations will happen. Those events will be set up with signs and symbols to warn the remaining rest for staying quiet.
That is a logic summary from what we did investigate. This is part of a symbilised silencing of 9/11 insiders to warn others.
NR
I did find earlier a trace of his brother Eric Didier in the UK. I did not mention this finding simply because i could not confirm yet whether or not this is the same guy as the one in Arizona.
We have definitely catholic Irish connections in this Didier family as well as we have French Haute Savoie connections (i am still investigating their french family branch). Remember: Zaid al Hillis wife also had strong Irish catholic connections and then we know that we had talked about Haute Savoie here …
I said before that the Norfolk event stinks.
1) How do you explain your family members about why you are carrying 100+ kg of weights into a boat? You cannot carry such weights with 2 arms only nor can you carry that in a bag. This weight is such significant that it will clearly create attention while being loaded from the car and carried into the boat.
2) A girl 13 years of age will go nuts when you dont allow her to take her mobile phone into the boat. Particularly when she is used to use twitter and fb several times per day.
3) Unless being drugged all the time she would create a mess on that boat to get her mobile phone. Every father of a juvenile will know about what a nightmare this is to take away a phone from a teenager. This is part of their life.
4) A liitle kid will stay silent on a boat for perhaps 1 or 2 days when alone. However, a 13 years old will cry for help on board. Unless she was drugged or traumatized by rape or torture.
I do not believe a single word from the official report, simply because this is not logic and practically impossible to have happened as described. Yes, on sea, 1000 miles off coast such things might happen. However, on a busy small river such things won’t happen.
And once again: A 13 years old won’t go on board without her mobile phone.
And then, you can kill somebody on a boat. However, if thete was a fight, everybody else on that boat must have heard this. How big is such a boat? There is no flat with several rooms and doors. This is not even 30ft. from toe to heel and just thin walls. No way that you would not hear everything happening on board, except when being drugged.
NR
Just an addition to your address listings:
Tracy Ann T is Tracy Ann Tow.
“Tow” is the maiden name of Eric Didier’s wife.
I would really like to know the maiden name of Nora Didier? No wedding ad?
I bet that she is Irish catholic, too.
And what’s about the Tow family? Northern Irish catholic?
NR
Here is a little bit regarding Tracy Tow (wife of Eric Didier) and family
http://www.lookupanyone.com/results.php?ReportType=8&qs=UT&qc=Lansing&qf=Tracy&qn=Tow&recordid=08AYQNE5ESS
http://www.lookupanyone.com/results.php?ReportType=1&qf=fred&qmi=&qn=Tow&qs=UT&searchform=name&focusfirst=1
This is her father (Elton):
http://www.lookupanyone.com/results.php?ReportType=1&qf=nora&qmi=&qn=didier&qs=&searchform=name&focusfirst=1
Unfortunately nothing there regarding nora.
Pride investigations LLC
Tracy Ann Tow, president.
This is definitely her. 100%!!! She is the sister in law of John Didier who came to London for the paperwork.
See my links above. She is it because she has a Herber, utah link there.
So what is pride investigations? Did John work for her sister in law?
Felix, that is hot news for your icke investigation!
Forgot adding link above
http://www.zoominfo.com/#!search/profile/person?personId=1585336989&targetid=profile
This is the link to John Didier due to his sister in law!
Now I know why they wanted to take the focus off the Arizona family in the press:
http://www.prideinvestigationsllc.com/
Was John Didier Annette Creegan’s security guy?
Was WBM Saad al Hilli’s security guy?
Nice summary of the confusion over bullets and injuries Pink
10 Feb, 2013 – 1:08 am. Thanks. I have often drawn attention to this obvious failing on the part of the French authorities. This obvious defect could so easily be corrected by a definitive statement that only incompetentence or intention can be possible explanation. Why does the media not demand an accurate statement of facts?
Perhaps it’s worth noting that if we use the upper of the estimates (although I doubt Zainab would have survived one bullet let alone three – my guess is that if she WAS hit by a bullet, it was a stray one) you get 17 of 25 bullets actually hitting their human target (SM, 7; Z, 1; car occupants, 3 each) in a fluid situation. That would seem pretty “professional” to me.
And as to Zainab’s head injury and the claim that SM had injuries consistent with being hit or run over, which Maillaud conveniently interprets as being the BMW, it is much better explained by the attackers’ vehicle. There is a good chance that it swept around from standing/start at the top of the lay-by, leaving the tyre tracks in its wake, and actually striking the standing group of three. This would have caused initial disorientation and injuries to the body of Sylvain and the head of Zainab.