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?
James
5 May, 2013 – 1:41 am perhaps you misunderstood my point. I agree I wasn’t clear enough. SIS need assets to work for them. These are either paid employees working for the service or others with relevant expertise, links or business cover. MI6 are acknowledged masters at the game mainly from long experience in N Ireland where penetrating the IRA and other para-military groups was paramount. On occasions they did use Oxbridge officer class people but this had very obvious drawbacks with some tragic results. Much better to recruit locals, which they did with great success. The thing is the role is invariably a dangerous one – effectively traitorous one way or another, and the question arises how you persuade someone to take it on. The best and easiest I suppose is from a sense of conviction to the cause but frequently this is insufficient, hence less savoury methods have been used. Money is an obvious one as is entrapment – the old Russian (and others) trick of the hetero or even better homo photograph. But other inducements are available. I believe it was significant that SAH got his British citizenship just prior to the 2003 invasion when his inside information would have been at a premium. But in extremis to get co-operation I have no doubt that these organisations can resort to threats. Is it far fetched to assume that TT could have been set up to take the fall for those murders, to extort co-operation on the back of not doing so? Knowing what we know now in relation to 9/11 particularly, I don’t think it is out of the question. I think Chevaline and the other cases we have discussed, proves how desperate these people can be.
James
4 May, 2013 – 10:59 pm one slight but important correction to your post the new BMWX5 appeal contains two time and one location specifics not given by the police before. We have to take them at face value and they do not conflict with our earlier reasoning. However if true (and that with this case is a moot point) they pin down things a bit more. So the two new time facts stated are that the vehicle was seen at “about 2.20” (not 2.28 as you mentioned) AND this was 20 minutes before the shooting took place – ie about 3.40 therefore. Further that it was spotted about ONE KILOMETRE into Combe d’Ire, by which I take it to mean from the entrance sign which states 3 Kilometres to the Martinet layby. If it is before the killing we must assume the vehicle was travelling TOWARDS the layby. As we have been told there were only two cyclists on the road and one of them is dead we must assume that not only was WBM the source of the description but also at 3.20 he was one kilometre up the combe. If we accept his estimate of half an hour to cover the distance is correct and he was a third of the way up at 3.20, then he too would have arrived at the scene of the murder at 3.40 – the same time the British Police now state the murder took place. The BMW that passed him, now has to go somewhere, either on in the same southerly direction or back on itself returning the way it came. However this could only have been minutes, even seconds before WBM himself arrived. Nor is it possible that WBM could not have heard the shooting. He is even less likely therefore not to have taken full note of this vehicle as it passed him on its way back. Significantly there is no suggestion of any threat to WBM’s life by this vehicle or its occupants despite him being witness to it and the events as he discovered them, thus scotching the logic of claiming that SM was shot simply because he was a witness. If WBM arrived at or about 3.40 a further eighteen minutes elapse before the famous 3.48 telephone call initially attributed to WBM that he refuted. He COULD have made the call within the time frame but says he didn’t. Even so it is still unlikely sufficient time is available for PD to have made it even leaving aside all the delays. With the best will in the world, it is impossible to bring forward the time that WBM meets PD to to 3.48 so I still hold to the view that if that call was made at 3.48 as firmly and repeatedly stated, it was made by person or persons unknown.
Good Lord, still here, folks?!! Talk about staying power! Any closer to solving the crime? It seems to have died a death in the media, doesn’t it? Hmn…
Hi
Suhayl Saadi
5 May, 2013 – 12:23 pm. Sure are! We have all made a vow of chastity, poverty and silence until the dastardly crime has been solved.
Have you had that name long? Maybe you have something interesting to add? Come back soon.
Conscious of James impassioned appeal to “get back to Chevaline” and having benefitted from a few hours sleep and dreams of being tortured (!) here’s the intended PART TWO of the implications of that latest BMWX5 Appeal which I think you will agree are quite important and far reaching.
First it is worth noting (again) that this is the first time the BRITISH police have made an appeal or taken a public view of events. It has taken nearly eight months for it to do so despite the fact that this information must have been available from the beginning. It differs significantly from what the French have stated to date and rather undermines their public position. The announcement appears to have been made without any obvious support from the French, which in a stated combined investigation is curious to say the least. Leaving aside for the moment the make, model, colour and drive-side details it is a very limited appeal, which after eight months of intensive investigation may be considered surprising. However the three elements mentioned in previous post (time and location where vehicle was spotted plus by projection, the time of the shooting) tells us quite a lot. So lets see what else it shows.
First IF RELIABLE it pins down WBM’s start and finish times for the climb +- a few minutes either way. Those are start: 3.10 pm; finish: 3.40pm. This is because “the witness” was one third up the Combe when it is said he saw the vehicle.
Now the interesting bit – from this fact we can now nail fairly precisely the time that vehicle would have arrived at Martinet. I timed the recent Alexander car trip from bottom to top at 6 minutes therefore two thirds of this ignoring hold-up, at 4 mins. So we can fairly confidently state if it did not hole up prior to destination it would have arrived at the car park not later than 3.25 pm (3.20 + 5 mins outside). As this predates the actual shooting by a few minutes we must assume it PARKS UP AND WAITS as distinct from shooting immediately on arrival.
Next we have a way of determining the earliest possible time for the first shot to be fired. As we are told SM was shot first it cannot physically occur until he has arrived. To work this out we need to know the time, speed and location he passed WBM. We have to make some assumptions to do this. Let’s assume some outside possibilities to get the VERY EARLIEST he could have arrived.
If we accept he overtook at the beginning of the climb and he was going 50% faster than WBM (remember WBM was a competition fit rider himself) he could not have arrived before 3.30 pm. If in fact SM passed WBM at some later point on the climb or if the speed differential was less than 50% he would lave arrived proportionately later.
So from this calculation, two critical facts emerge: 1. SM could not have arrived at Martinet before 3.30 pm and 2. The BMWX5’s arrival time PREDATES him by about at least 5 minutes. (If this was the killers’ vehicle the only other possibility is that after passing WBM and SM it parked up, allowing SM to pass and arrive before going in.)
Now the final part of the jigsaw – the time the Al Hillis arrived at Martinet? If we know that WBM was on the route 3.10 to 3.40 (the requisite half hour) and at no time has he indicated the Al Hillis passed him at any stage (traffic and road could not allow oversight if it had) the Al Hillis MUST have been ahead of him. To calculate the VERY LATEST TIME they could arrive, given that they didn’t stop off on the way, is 3.10 pm plus six mins max. So they physically could not have arrive later than 3.15 pm shall we say (+- a couple of minutes) As the builders say 2.30 to 3.00 that is quite possible. What is quite impossible is that they could be a few miles away in Droussard having their photo taken at 3.15 as stated by French police!
So now to put it all together: if the latest British appeal can be factually relied upon we have a time line for the “participants” as follows.
1.Probably before 3.00 pm the Al Hillis drive through Chevaline and arrive at Martinet at 3.15 pm at the very latest.
2.WBM starts his climb at 3.10 pm arriving at Martinet no later than 3.40 pm.
3.One Kilomtre in or one third of the way, he is passed by the BMWX5 at 3.20 pm.
4.Not earlier than 3.10 pm but possibly slightly later, WBM is passed by SM, who if we assume he was travelling 50% faster, could not have arrived at Martinet before 3.30 pm and possibly slightly later.
5.Given the time it passed WBM and the distance to travel (2 Kilomtres) the BMWX5 could not have arrived at Martinet later than 3.25 pm. It must therefore have also passed SM on the way and been parked before SM arrived and the shooting started.
6.As there is no suggestion from WBM that the Al Hillis passed him after 3.10 pm the very latest they could have arrived at Martinet was 3.15 and probably if Fillion the builder is to be believed, probably not later than 3.00 pm.
7. We must therefore conclude that the al Hillis were parked up and waiting for about a half an hour before first the BMWX5 arrived about 3.25 and then SM five or ten minutes later. This must cast doubt on the French statement that little Zainab stated the shooting started “as soon as they arrived”.
8. Given the circumstances it is likely that Saad and his eldest daughter were already outside the car waiting for SM to arrive. The fact that the killers had to wait for SM to arrive before moving in, is further confirmation he was a target. He may well have been shot first to preventing him using his bike as means of escape. It also raises the likelihood that SAH perceived no danger from the parked BMWX5, either because he was assured they were innocent tourists like himself, or that he thought he knew who they were and that they posed no threat. Obviously the RHD (British) origins created no anxiety either as he had sufficient time before the arrival of SM to abort the enterprise.
9. As long as the recent appeal is reliable, we can now be almost certain this is the DEFINITIVE TIME LINE. It also, if true, virtually disproves elements of the French version such as the make and model of the suspect vehicle, that this was in fact a forestry vehicle on scene at the time, that the most likely culprit was mentally unstable psychopath escaped from hospital (driving a BMWX5?) acting alone (surely at least two in the vehicle?) or that the family were in Droussard at 3.15 pm. These suggestions are now effectively DISPROVED as is the suggestion that SM was not a target and was accidentally caught in the gun fire as opportunity existed to shoot the Al Hillis before he arrived.
10. This sequence of events is also supported by my interpretation of the tyre tracks from a parked vehicle in the location shown. I have not referred to the motor bike or white Peugeot 206 or 306 both reportedly seen near or leaving the area as too little is known to make firm conclusions as to their role (if any)
Tim V.
Cheers for that.
I re watched the Crimewatch appeal and indeed they do say that the shooting took place at “approx 3.40”.
Therefore 20 mins before is 3.20.
I was going of the time stamp of the “phone call”, 3.48. My bad.
And we have the direction !
If the shooting took place at 3.40 and the BMW was spotted BEFORE (and by Martin) that time at 3.20, then the direction of travel was UP.
From Martin’s interview it has always been a point of speculation as to which direction the vehicle was moving. Well we know at 3.20 which direction it was moving. (Did he see it twice ?)
We also have a rough estimate of Martins speed.
From 3.20 approx he covered 2 Klicks in a time greater than 20 minutes (3.40)…but no less than 28 minutes (3.48).
That’s what they are now saying.
So that’s faster than 2.6 MPH but no faster than 3.7 MPH.
We can also estimate the time Mrtin arrived at the Combe D’Ire.
No more than 14 mins of less than 10 mins before 3.20.
But as it is “flatter” and he is less tired, he may have had a “split time” that was quicker.
However that puts him “at” the Combe D’Ire around (using the faster time)3.10 local.
The French claim al Hilli was in Arnand at 3.15 local.
Therefore Al Hill would have indeed passed Martin ON the Combe D’Ire.
Using the time stamps provided for Al Hilli.
3.15pm and 3.40pm Then he would have moved at a speed no less that 8 MPH…and factoring in “time issues” no more than 19 MPH.
Thats seems fine to me.
And on those basic cals, I get Al Hilli at the start of the Combe D’Ire at 3.18pm to 3.28pm.
He is either just ahead OR just behind that BMW 4×4. He is either following them…or they are following him.
And BOTH vehicles would appear to be IN MOTION as they pass Martin.
Now I’ll put my calculator down and mull that over !
From my calculations, something has just struck me.
If Al Hilli is on the Combe D’Ire at the same time as the BMW 4×4.
And is either being followed OR following IS THIS THE REASON THE “ARNAND PHOTOGRAPHS” HAVE NOT BEEN RELEASED !
They (the family) were all on them together !
So who took the picture !!!!
The latest on world events from CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/05/world/meast/syria-violence/?hpt=hp_c2
Missiles or no missiles? Thursday, Friday, or not at all? Israel claims it has never done anything to interfere with Hezbollah, ever. The U.S. is not putting “boots on the ground”.
This is background, given previous discussions of Israel, Iran, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Sunnis, etc. in these threads. James will be pleased that I did not mention “Boston”.
Tim V, May 5, 3:21 AM and 2;50PM – excellent analysis of the timeline. Yours is so much more lucid and believable than the ones they are trying to thread over at MZT. The reason the good posters at MZT have such trouble with their timelines is partly because they are far more willing to “buy into” the french “disclosures”. For example, they take the time stamp at Doussard at 3;15PM for granted and are willing to accept the “corrected”, later time provided by the builders (after 3PM). That means they get totally tied up in knots, trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole that’s way too small to accommodate it. I tried to follow the reasonings of the posters Max and lars but had to give up because it just can’t be made to fit. I believe one suggestion made was that the Al Hillis did pass the builders – perhaps earlier than 3PM, but then continued to Doussard, where they promptly got out and posed for pictures at 3;15PM, filing back into the car pronto by 3:16PM and driving back upon the road to arrive at the 1/3 point of the climb by 3;20PM. Clearly a bit of a stretch – that would make the al hilli family as disciplined as a m military cracker jack team. The rest of the timeline described at MZT was suggested to unfold as you described, though again with some funny twists. especially the later/earlier arrival of WBM. basically he arrives within a minute or two of the shootings, meaning he must have heard them. Some posters there are indeed entertaining the possibility that WBM was part of the shooters team, though there seems to be not much willingness to carry that further to some obvious implications.
What I find incredible is the willingness on the part of some people who are interested in this case to accept the french accounts at face value. That could be because some of them are French and/or are living in France. Also if one chooses to take some or most of EM’s ever-changing accounts with a grain of salt, that immediately raises the issue of cover-up, which would then – inexaurably lead to the place where we all are here on CM – without answers – yet – but with much more coherent set of questions. Also, if one accepts that the french police are lying on several crucial facts, the question becomes why, or more significantly, why is no one, absolutely no one in the media, points that out.
Interestingly, the MZT people have in the past pretty much zeroed in on the mororcycle (MC1 or MC2, to use their code) as the vehicle for the culprit, with the possible culpability of the vehicle BM has repeteedly seen. that led to lots of speculations about escape routes for the motorbike and the one ONF stopped and the farmer Janis has seen. This is not uninteresting of course, since WBM did claim to have seen a motorcycle, but could well be just a one part of the entire tale.
NR, since you have been appointed as the trusted cross-messenger and liasion between the forums, how about importing Tim V’s two posts over to MZT? I am actually really curious about what their good posters reaction would be and where the differences are. Some of their people have really good insights of their own.
one more thing, Tim V and all -re the obvious point that this information about the BMW X5 being released all of a sudden – 8 months after the fact – from the british side. Without as much as a murmur from the french, yet this information directly conflicts with several key time points released by the French, not to mention exploding a neat hole in that “Forestry vehicle” contention 9one we, of course never believed but some elsewhere – like in the media – were willing to let pass, however ridiculous the claim was).
If anything, this bolsters Tim V’s and my contention that the british and french sides are and always were – at odds. From WBM denying the 3:48PM call (leaving the question open about who did make the call since PD obviousely couldn’t have) to the uncanny silence from the UK side, the appearance of the dark but not-pajaro car – in line with what WBM said in his interview but not with the french account, would seem designed to keep speculation alive and give a good jab-in-the-ribs to the French. It is also an indication the brits are still fuming and that no, they are not going to just “get over it”. There must have been a double cross and an event that took the brits by surprise, an unpleasant one. I think this disclosure rather confirms that.
The question now is what next. I think the UK side is needling the french to come up with something and/or make some sort of an admission. But there are political implications that won’t allow the french to budge. And yes, this must be much much bigger than some local french “strong man” like the Schutz’s uncle.
I can not offer a “time line” but an estimate of “timings”.
They are at approx 3.10 Martin enters the Combe D’re.
At approx 3.18 to 3.28 Al Hilli enters the Combe D’Ire.
At approx 3.18 to 3.28 a BMW 4×4 enters the Combe D’re.
At approx 3.20 both BMW’s pass Martin 1 klick up the Combe D’Ire.
At approx 3.40 Martin reaches the carpark.
NOTE approx is plus of minus 2 minutes for the motor vehicles.
If you follow my reasoning carefully you will see that if WBM was at the Combe entry sign at 3.10 and the Al Hillis DIDN’T PASS him they had to have gone before him up the Combe. Therefore it a PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY they were in Arnaud at 3.15. Therefore the claimed photo timed then is either a fraud or misinterpreted.
That was reply to James
5 May, 2013 – 5:10 pm – sorry.
Tim
We don’t know that the time on the picture is “as given” or isn’t “as given”.
We don’t even no if there actually was a picture.
The point of the timings is…..
What is the reason for Martins interview ?
If the police knew that Martin had seen a RHD BMW 4×4, they didn’t want him to release that.
Yet, the killer(s) must have known that they had passed Martin.
So why his interview ?
To make the killer(s) more at ease ? That their car was not clearly identified ? To stay put ?
The other thing is, I have no clear reason to think that Al Hilli was at the carpark for sometime before the shooting.
Regardless of the “photograph”, I just have no clear reason.
I don’t care is Mossad isn’t at the end of the rainbow !
I just want to find out the truth. The State, The Darkside, a lone wolf…little green men in breathing kit !
But the Al Hilli/Mollier killing is very strange !
Agreed Marlin
5 May, 2013 – 6:38 pm
James/Marlin – I take the view that after 8 months, both Britain and France know far more than they are letting on. In fact they may both have identified both killers and motive. Taking this BMWX5 that they must have known about since the beginning. If they really wanted to appeal for the public’s help in finding it, the description would have been put out immediately. There is a finite number of BMWX5’s of a certain colour, not to mention the fact that they also probably know the registration mark. Even if they haven’t, there must be an even smaller number of RHD models on the continent. If it left Britain every one and their registered owners could be identified fairly quickly, even if someone else was driving it (stolen/rented?) leads would be there. So it seems both Britain and France are hardly being open but France appears the more dissembling. France has pointed the finger at Britain. Britain has obstructed the French investigation on British soil, yet held it is a French led inquiry. The French have seeded failure from the first and have confused every line of enquiry. Britain it seems to me is constrained either in terms of international relations, or in terms of divulging a highly secretive operation. However like Marlin I believe they were let down or worse, betrayed by the French and wish to see them embarrassed without giving away too much. So how releasing a limited appeal after eight months is going to help when they must know far more than the public can contribute. It must be a PR exercise to placate the public (unlikely), genuine (after the passage of time – unlikely) or to scotch publicly the French statements and as Marlin suggests a timely warning across the bows that more may follow unless, in private, whatever assurances are being sought, are given. I would say the last most likely.
One rather outlandish idea to (even at this late stage) to throw in the pot. I haven’t seen it suggested before. How about if the RHD BMWX5 was friend not foe? Could it come and go before shooting starts. The time line just about allows it. Should we automatically assume the BMWX5 = killers? Sorry to throw a spanner into the works.
Tim V )10.06)
Interesting point. As in we are looking at a “RHD, UK plated 4×4”.
And they surely would have known this…and then checked through those cars that crossed the channel.
A simple check back and there would be the “registered” owner.
So…. they can’t find him/her/they !
Was the car sold on ?
UK plated car, the owner moved overseas..and then sold on the car ?
That would of course mean Martin saw the plate ?
Yet he gave an interview quickly.
Were they confident that caputure would be quickly ?
And to prevent him “running”, they gave the “Martin interview”.
If that is so….then we are literally back to square one !
THEORY.
The killer(s) buys a UK plated vehicle. (bought in France, Spain, Italy…or the UK).
Now that IS planning !
Why UK plated ? Random killer ? Toooo planned.
Someone Al Hilli “trusted” ? That maybe.
So the fact they have mae this appeal, maybe MORE significant than first thought don’t you think ????
Infact that makes sense.
A gun you can’t trace. A car you can’t trace (and not stolen).
And no DNA.
Which means the killing is planned
(But which one ? Or both ? Square One again).
Would a “lone nut” plan that much ? Maybe.
Would a professional plan that much ? Certainly yes.
A chicken farm has been sruck in Syria:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2319645/After-airstrikes-Scenes-devastation-left-Israeli-rockets-Syria-pledges-retaliation-declaration-war.html
Warning: contains images of dead chickens, but also a chicken that survived.
The role of chicken farms in Iraq:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein_Kamel_al-Majid
More on chicken farms:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/deception.htm
It gives new meaning to the name Desert Fox.
Q
Very good find about the chicken farms.
I recommend to read that book for further information:
The Weapons Detective: The Inside Story of Australia’s Top Weapons Inspector
by Rod Barton
That book reveals a lot of names.
There are some pages online when you search in google books.
I agree with Tim V.
The BMWX5 (given that it even existed there) looks more like friend than foe. Possibly the other party at the meeting. Today neeting points aren’t arranged by maps but by latitude and longitude. As we know, Saad had been in Annecy before and he probably knew this place and its lat/long coordinates.
As per a meeting you do not discuss any ways nor maps about how to meet but you transfer lat/long coordinates and a time. This is a string of numbers, a simple code. Nothing that is utterly significant when being talked about on the internet.
I dont think that the killers would go there with cars. The bike or a motor cyclist are much more likely.
Therefore the X5 looks like people who did belong to the meeting but their meeting was disturbed by a third party and something went totally wrong.
Bluebird
“Therefore the X5 looks like people who did belong to the meeting”
Al Hilli following…or leading ? By accident ? Or not ?
I am curious as to why Martin gave the interview now.
Clearly “they” thought this was “in the bag” so to speak.
Maybe they knew “the why” but not “the who”.
It’s a case of looking through every and all scenarios, without prejudice. I think sometimes there is a hint of making the crime fit the scene !
For example. We “believe” now that there were two BMW’s on that track. One must have been ahead of the other. How ahead we do not know.
Lets say Al Hilli was a few minutes ahead.
He arrives, parks, gets out, the shooting starts….and ends
And then the BMW 4×4 arrives ! Spins around and escapes.
Followed by the now “bulletless” rider/pax ?
It is possible. Especially as the marque of the vehicles are alike.
One thing I am sure of. All the facts of what was discovered in that carpark have not been released.
Everything therefore is a “second guess”.
@Tim V
5 May, 2013 – 12:52 pm
You should get out more, Tim. Suhayl is a respected long time contributor, not only on the al Hilli threads, but elsewhere on CM.
James
6 May, 2013 – 11:00 am if Sylvain Mollier was shot first the shooting can’t start until he arrives. That’s why the calculation of his arrival time is so important. And I repeat if the Al Hillis didn’t pass Brett Martin at any stage, they MUST have gone up before him I.e. NOT LATER THAN 3.10 pm and probably earlier. If the BMWX5 is the assassins’ vehicle and passes WBM at 2.20 as the police say with two kilometres to go it would arrive not later than 3.25. This means it HAD to park up somewhere for SM to arrive and SAH HAD to park up for about half an hour for SM to arrive and the shooting to start. All this is simple logic IF (and it is a big if) the BMWX5 is the killers’ vehicle.
I agree with you Mochyn69
6 May, 2013 – 11:11 am. Time I went out!