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?
“I don’t think the police remarks were “harsh”. In relation to America and the Boston incident…”
However you did say
“After Woolwich it appears we may be trying to emulate them”.
I think your remarks are more than “harsh”. I find your remarks bizarre.
The “problem” with the “conspiracy theories” you are punting is that by seeking danger in every shadow, you then show everyone else up as a “loon”. Sweeping remarks based on little or no experience provide a foundation for others to look upon anybody that tries to work out what the “truth” actually is….also as a “loon”.
You are doing a great job for “govt.com” !
Bluebird
26 May, 2013 – 9:44 pm I read that blog with interest. Although like you i dont agree with everything, he replicates many of the reservations made here. Blood is always an issue following a killing and particularly if a major artery is severed as in the case of a beheading. There certainly appears to be little blood in the road where the body lay, and there is conflicting eye witness account as to whether the head was intact or not. Then there is the conflicting evidence whether the assailants jumped out of the car or crashed it into a wall. It can hardly be both. Why eight shots at very close range. Is one each not enough to stop a man or were they poor marksmen/women. Who fired? How many hit? Why no blood on the ground where they lay? In this strange Country/world in which we now seem to live, we even have to consider were the shots blanks and the men pretending to be hit? Bit far fetched I know but anything appears possible these days.
“physical overpowering with the use of batons if necessary was not chosen as an alternative”
One held a gun. The other ran at the police to attack them !
If a police officer had been killed that day…by one of those guys whilst he was try to “detain him” what would be said ?
The police (unarmed) were at the scene…but at a “safe distance”.
I have no doubt that it would be possible for non uniformed police officers could have been there.
BUT ALL would await the arrival of the Armed Response Unit. Which they indeed did.
James
27 May, 2013 – 1:14 am for some reason you seem to see no similarity between the use of firearms by police in Boston and use of firearms by police in Woolwich. Why? I would suggest the similarities, though not quite as extreme, are self-evident. What is your explanation for at least eight shots, no audible warning or use of truncheons or tasers for example? Posing these questions is far from “loony” I would say.
“how was he identified as an army man unless otherwise known to be?”
I take it you don’t know that part of London ?
Normally if a neatly turned out, clean shaven, short haired young gentleman …was walking with purpose on a Wednesday afternoon, right next to The Royal Artillery Barracks….I would place a large amount of money on the fact that “he” would indeed be a squaddie !
“What is your explanation for at least eight shots, no audible warning or use of truncheons or tasers for example?”
Unbelievable !
In fact I don’t even think we are on the same planet !
From my time spent in London I have seen SO19 in action. These guys are not “playing around”. And I don’t blame them.
I have watched (in some confusion) an arrest on a busy London street by these guys
If SO19 come to arrest you…they will do so with their feet.
They will not try to pull out a taser. Their hands will not leave their weapons. Their finger will be on the trigger at all times…. hence their feet. And they will be brutal.
You my friend…are living in some strange “cops and robbers” world !
Those “scum” waited for the police to arrive, They did and held off.
Then the SO19 arrived. That was their first mistake.
They tried to attack them. And that was their last mistake.
My mistake…CO19. They went “central” and changed from SO to CO.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMrDCokuQRc
“physical overpowering with the use of batons if necessary was not chosen as an alternative”
I am actually still laughing at your comment !
Cleary CCTV have picked up this incident. And after numerous 999 calls from the public, information must have been flooding into the ARV responding.
And you want them to arrive, reason with these scum and then ask them to sit in the back of a police car…and if they don’t of course, then the armed police would pull out their tasers !
Meanwhile in the real world… you must be an absolute nutter if you decide to run at an ARV full of London armed police officers whilst waving a knife ! Good night Vienna as the saying goes.
Curiouser and curiouser and yet curiouser still ~
What are we to make of this?
On Thursday Mr Cameron announced that the Intelligence and Security Committee would carry out an independent investigation into what the intelligence services knew about the alleged killers.
After visiting the scene of the murder in Woolwich, he then paid a trip to security services headquarters on Millbank. He thanked staff for the work their work on the investigation and other counter-terrorism successes.
However, a senior Westminster source suggested that it was a mistake to go there so soon after the tragedy and amid concerns about potential intelligence failings.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10081969/Woolwich-attack-Cameron-under-fire-as-MI5-terrorism-blunders-emerge.html
Mochyn
From your link above:
Quote:
* Hate clerics could be barred from appearing on broadcasters such as the BBC under government plans to expand the powers of Ofcom, the watchdog.
* Lord Howard, the former Conservative Home Secretary, suggested Labour and the Tories join forces to push through a “snoopers’ charter” against the wishes of the Liberal Democrats.
So we have another good reason for cutting off another part of freedom and luberty for the sake of “security”.
And Cameron sends his compliments and thanks to MI5 for staging another good show. Or for whatelse did he thank them? That they both were on the radar for almost 10 years and that one of them could still go to Kenya for an alleged terror plot?
Tim v
Yes, the Verona house condolence is strange. I checked the flats and this is a house full of immigrants, particularly from Arab countries and Afghanistan. This is a house full of muslims. Apparently in one of the flats Adebowale and his Afghan friends had their drugs office, where his Afghan friend was cut into pieces by Lee James some years ago.
I agree with the question about why they would know that he was a soldier. I disagree with James. He could have been a MD on duty, somebody from the local government inspecting traffic lights, or even a tourist.
I am 100% sure that they knew him and that he was NOT a randomly selected victim.
But why would drug dealers kill him. You must know that the Woolwich Barracks are the main drug business of the Woolwich boys gang. They must have soldiers inside the barracks selling their drugs, too. Remember the ice pick triple killings in Boston and the drugs there? Whatever happened there, it was drug related. Either the gang was deceived (somebody owed money) or somebody else started his own drug business with another Afghan gang after he came back from Afghanistan.
Blood: you are right about that. However, i remember that we did discuss the lack of blood in the al Hilli assassination and in the Tsarnaev boat shooting, too.
Quote
Back to Chevaline. I promised to bring over a comment made very early on at MZT by a Martin Zac who Marilyn knows apparently. I thought some of the observations made were interesting and generally accord with comments made on CM.
The poster Peter found and brought this back up and I am taking the liberty of posting in its entirety (hope that’s OK:
Zak left his comments here
http://www.marilynztomlins.com/articles/chevaline-the-forgotten-victim-sylvain-mollier/
on 9-21-2012 at 22:25:46
I am a psychic and psychological profiler. Marylin has invited me to comment on the murders at Annecy.
I normally draw my conclusions after visiting the scene of the crime (or disappearance). I occasionally work remotely, but almost always with information provided by the police – ie, information that is largely factual and reliable.
Trying to solve cases with only “facts” reported in the media is almost impossible, since much of what is reported is untrue, inaccurate, or incomplete. That is certainly true in this case (which I have been following with professional interest) where there has been a combination of sloppy journalism (fact checking seems to have gone out of fashion), incompetent police work, and deliberately vague and ambiguous police statements. (The French police appear to resent media interest in this case.)
Unless you know the basic facts of what happened, it is virtually impossible to draw any logistical or psychological conclusions.
According to some news reports, the gun used in these attacks was a Skorpion, while others have stated categorically that it was a Luger PO8. Some reports claim that Saad al-Hilli worked on Iraq’s nuclear program, while others reject this claim. Some newspapers cite “experts” as saying that the murders were carried out with “military efficiency”, while others describe the killings as amateurish. And so on. Almost every “fact” one reads about this case is contradicted in the next report.
Much of this might, of course, be deliberate misinformation.
Another problem is that several of the key facts can be interpreted in very different ways. For example, the gun used is one used by Mossad etc. However, it is also an antiquated weapon that was standard issued in various armies all over the world, including the Swiss army. There are literally millions of old Lugers lying around in attics etc.
The fact that the 7 year-old, Zainab, was beaten rather than shot has been interpreted by some newspapers to mean that the attacker or attackers balked at killing a child (even though they did not hesitate to shoot two helpless women), and “spared her life”. Others believe that the only reason Zainab was not shot was because the gunman ran out of bullets.
As others have observed, this case has all the elements of a classical whodunnit or spy thriller. In fact it has an embarrassment of intriguing elements. The victims were Iraqi and Iranian. The father was an expert in satellite surveillance and missile guidance systems. He is rumoured to have worked on Iraq’s nuclear weapons programme before moving to the UK, and he was under MI5 surveillance. The French cyclist is an engineer with specialized knowledge of materials used in nuclear reactors. He worked for the subsidiary of a company that was recently accused of providing Iran with components for its nuclear programme. The person who apparently discovered the scene is an RAF pilot (and, of course, the RAF is one of the main recruiting grounds for top level British Intelligence agents). The weapon is a pistol used by special forces agencies like the SAS, Mossad etc. And the killings took place on a remote car park in the French countryside, near the Swiss border.
These unusual factors present us with a virtual cornucopia of exotic possibilities to consider and explore.
You really couldn’t make this up. If you submitted this scenario to a publisher as the opening chapter of a book, they’d probably send t back to you with a refusal slip and a note advising you that it was too far-fetched.
So what do we know for certain about this case? Well, one thing we know is that the police who are investigating it are merely going through the motions. Either they have known from the outset who carried out these killings, or they are incompetent beyond belief. The reopening of the crime scene to the public after only 48 hours was quite extraordinary. It is simply not possible to properly process a crime scene of this kind in 48 hours.
This crime scene has been treated more like the scene of a routine traffic accident than the site of a multiple murder.
When the police anounced that they were scaling down their investigation after just a week (when they ought to have expanded it), and when they said they believed the reason for the killings was in the UK, I took this to mean that they knew the identity of the killer, who was a local man, and had him under surveillance. As the days have passed without any arrests, however, this assumption appears less and less likely to be correct, and that the police really do regard these murders as an inconvenience rather than a case that needs to be solved. Obviously a brutal attack like this is not good for tourism in the region, and the police may have been under pressure to “make it go away”. But I suspect there is more to it than this.
I agree with several of the observations made by other posters. In particular, that contract killers would be in no doubt as to who their targets were. The killer or killers in this case clearly did not know that there was a child in the car. And if they did know, they did not care.
The significance of this has, I think, been missed. It means that the killer or killers could not have been contracted to kill the entire al-Hilli family. Nor can they have been instructed not to harm the children, since one of the children was shot (this by itself could easily have proved fatal) and severely beaten. It was only by chance that she survived.
This tells us, beyond any doubt, that the professional killers were not contracted to murder the al-Hilli family. Why? Because if they had been hired to kill the entire family, they would have made sure to kill the 4 year-old, Zena (and they would certainly have been aware of her existence). And if they had been instructed to murder only the adults, they would not have shot Zainab.
Therefore they cannot have been professional contract killers.
Incidentally, this thing about killers shooting witnesses because they would be able to identify them is largely unfounded, and therefore possibly a “red herring”. When professional killers want to avoid being identified, they wear a simple disguise – a baseball cap and a pair of sunglasses is enough. Or, if they have an escape route, they wear skbalaclavas or ski masks.
Israeli Mossad agents wore elaborate disguises to carry out an “extrajudicial killing” in Dubai because they knew they would be captured on CCTV. But in general professional assassins don’t even bother to disguise themselves because they know that the chances of being identified from a photofit description are remote. And in the case of state sponsored assassins, they know they will be hundreds or thousands of miles away by the time the police start looking for them. Their faces are not going to be found in police mugshot galleries anyway.
The only time killers murder witnesses is when they are already known to those witnesses, or when they live locally and have distinctive physical characteristics that would identify them to the police. A killer with a swastika tattooed on his forehead, for instance, would certainly want to eliminate witnesses. In general, however, professional assassins are not concerned about witnesses.
This case certainly has more of its fair share of unusual features, many of which have been highlighted in the posts above. One of the things that struck me as odd was the fact that no photos appeared in the media of Iqbal al-Hilli, or her mother.
Red top “journalists” are usually very resourceful when it comes to obtaining photos of murder victims. They borrow, steal or buy them from relatives, friends and colleagues of the murdered person, or grab them from socual network profiles, professional directories and so on. But in this case not a single photo of Saad al-Hilli’s wife has been published, as far as I am aware. This is significant to me because when I am working remotely I find it very helpful to have photos of the individuals involved.
I also found it odd that Sylvain Mollier’s wife refused to give the media a photo of her husband. This is her right, of course; but it is still very unusual. Her husband was, after all, being portrayed as an innocent victim who happened to be “in the wrong place at the wrong time”. Presumably his relatives also declined to give the press photos of him.
Most spouses and relatives have no hesitation about giving a photo of the dead person to the media.
The RAF pilot, William Brett Martin, is lying. I don’t know what he’s lying about, but I do know that he’s lying about something. Or perhaps omitting something in his version of events. This doesn’t necessarily mean that he was involved in the murders, of course.
I found the idea of a bomber pilot who was “panic stricken” by the discovery of dead bodies rather ironic and a little hard to believe. Ironic because this was an Iraqi child, and it was the RAF that carpet-bombed densely populated neighbouthoods of Baghdad in the first weeks of the US-UK invasion of that country, killing and maiming thousands of Iraqi childrern. But I guess when you drop bombs on Iraqi children from 10,000 feet you don’t actually see the injuries you cause.
I note that William Brett Martin’s (originally he was Brett Martin: the “William” was added later) company website, http://www.silverfernsussex.co.uk is “down for maintenance”. This is perhaps understandable; but what is slightly more peculiar is that the archived version of his website has also disappeared.
http://archive.org/web/web.php
In early reports he claimed that he had switched off the engine of the car because he was afraid it would roll over Zainab, who was lying in front of it. In his interview for the BBC, however, he states that he moved Zainab clear of the car, in case it rolled over her. Which is it? If he’d switched off the engine, there was no reason to move her. And if he’d moved her, there was no reason to switch off the engine. It may be a minor detail, but somehow something about this just doesn’t ring true to me.
The business about Brett Martin’s cell phone not having a signal appears to have been comfirmed. The hiker, Philippe Didierjean, also couldn’get a signal, we are told. And yet there are videos and photos taken at the scene of the attacks, in which journalists, policemen etc., are talking on their cell phones.
http://cdn2.wn.com/vp/i/48/7662931244845d.jpg
I have my own ideas about these murders, but they are based on intuition moreso than logic (though of course both have to be consistent to be true), so I will spare you my personal theories. In any event you guys seem to have covered all the angles. Some of the comments here are, I think, very astute.
The police have interviewed Zainab. She knows what happened. Presumably she was able to describe the man or men who did the shooting. He beat her up. She would have told the what they were doing at the car park, how long they’d been there, whether her father was meeting someone, whether there had been any kind of argument or confrontation before the shooting started, whether the gunman was on a motorbike or in a car, and the colour of the car – etc.
So why haven’t they issued a wanted description based on her statement? Again, the usual reason for not making a description public is because the police already know the identity of the perpetrator. The only other possible reasons for not issuing a description are ineptitude and bowing to political pressure.
The police will by now have processed most of the forensic evidence. They should know the order in which the victims were shot. Whether the gun was used in any previous crime. Whether the killer was wearing gloves. Crucially, they would have lifted fingerprints, if any, from the 25 bullets and shells found at the scene. If there were no fingerprints on the bullets, this would strongly indicate that the shootings had been carefully planned. Fingerprints on the bullets would suggest that the murders were not planned.
The police already have this information. They also know whether the gunman touched (and left his fingerprints on) the car. Again, avoidiung leaving fingerprints, or wearing gloves, would point to premeditation. If the killings were the outcome of a road rage incident, for example, or they were carried out by a local gun nut who got into an altercation with Saad al-Hilli and “lost it”, he would be unlikely to have had the presence of mind to put on gloves or avoid touching the car. And the bullets – presumably with his fingerprints on them – would probably have already been in the gun. And if they weren’t, would the gunman think to wear gloves before loading?
If he used three magazine clips, as has been reported (three full clips of 8 bullets, and one bullet in the chamber), did he actually have three ready-loaded magazines with him? And if so, did he take the empty clips away with him? Or did he only have one magazine, which he reloaded twice at the scene? This would take time and an exceptionally cool head.
Incidentally – and in conclusion – one of the most amateurish aspects of these murders was the bludgeoning of Zainab. Most trained gunmen also have an at least rudimentary knowledge of other killing techniques. These include using a knife to cut the victim’s throat, breaking the victim’s neck, and strangulation. Bashing someone over the head is not an effective way to kill someone (as this case proves), nor is it a method that any trained, experienced killer would consider using. A properly trained assassin could have killed Zainab al-Hilli in less than two seconds. Attempting to club someome to death strikes me as something that someone might do who was used to killing animals – a farmer, perhaps, or a hunter.
By the way, there is another angle to these murders that everyone seems to have completely overlooked. But I think I should probably leave that for another post….
Marlin
Interesting piece and a good summary of what we found. Curious about the second part.
On to another scene: Here is an unedited video of the woolwich “terrorist” mobile phone show.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEnMqmk6KmQ
The camera guy definitely leaves a public London bus. Curious: The bus was NOT leaving soon after the camera guy left the bus. Why didnt the bus driver close the doors and continue driving? Did the bus driver wait for the guy with the knives to get into the bus? “Sir, would you like to take my bus? My bus is stopping at Old Baily”.He must be a very charming and polite bus driver. Or else, was the bus driver the camera guy himself? And then the old lady …. What a scene!
Curious!
@bluebird 27 May, 2013 – 8:38 am
What’s weird to me is than an official enquiry is set up, but Cameron goes rushing to MI5 headquarters to thank spies for their work on the Woolwich terror case a day the after murder of Drummer Lee Rigby despite concerns about the failings of security services, as per the Telegraph, and just before he sets off on his holiday.
Is he afraid of them? Did he fear some kind of palace coup while he was away on holiday? Did he need to mollify the spooks for some other reason?
We know Harold Wilson was convinced elements in the security services were out to get him, but then he probably was a soviet agent!
Another bizarre fact, at the time of Chevaline, Cameron was standing shoulder to shoulder with Hollande, at the time of Woolwich?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10074638/Woolwich-attack-David-Cameron-vows-UK-will-never-buckle-in-face-of-terror.html
This is all very, very spooky.
Woolwich IRAQ connection lifted today!
Adebolajo was the best friend of corporal Kirk Redpath who was killed by an IDE in Basra in 2007.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2330169/Woolwich-attack-Michael-Adebolajo-best-friend-war-hero-killed-Iraq-school.html
Kirk Redpath was a DRUMMER , too.
Another significance:
Rigby was killed on May 22nd.
On May 22nd his troups were training in Cyprus. Why did he stay at home?
Just a question regarding statistical probability and logic.
How many drummers are there in the Royal army?
What’s the probability statement’s result that a guy whose best friend was a drummer would later kill a drummer randomly, a guy whom he didn’t know (or did he know him?)
He couldn’t even know that he was a soldier if he didn’t know him, but he clearly shouts into the camera that “this is a soldier”. Why did he know?
What’s the probability that two Royal army drummers had known each other before?
What’s the higher statistical probability?
Any results and answers?
Let’s deal with logic!
And this is when reports become confusing !
BlueBird.
L/Cpl (that’s “Lance corporal” with ONE strip) was not a “Drummer” he was a “Guardsman” in the 1st Battalion Irish Guards.
He may have played the side drum in the “Pipe Platoon”, hence the photo.
As Drummer Lee Rigby is ranked a “Drummer” and badged a “Fusilier” I would assume he is formerly of the Corp of Drums (Catterick) and then deployed 2nd Battalion Royal Regiment of Fusiliers (Cyprus) and later attached to Regimental Recruiting (London Area).
As “The Guards” maintain their own “Pipes and Drums” platoons “Drummer” Rigby and “Guardsman” Redpath would have moved in very different circles.
Importantly they were both not “Drummers” !
WOW ! That was a big one Marlin
27 May, 2013 – 8:50 am. Think I need to replenish my coffee cup first. Looking forward to reading in a minute or two.
“What’s the probability that two Royal army drummers had known each other before?”
The probability that any two knew each other ?
Or that Kirk Redpath and Lee Rigby knew each other ?
One died early August 2007 whilst on tour in Iraq and the other joined the army at some point in 2006 would have to complete his basic training, then Corp of Drums training, then go to 2RRF.
The MAX time overlap is 19 months. The MIN 7 months.
Given “Leave” and “Duties”, I would have thought it very unlikely.
HOWEVER a link could be Kirk Redpath had been a drummer in the
Royal British Legion Band & Corp of Drums Romford in his early years.
‘You raise me up’ was next, which was dedicated to Kirk Redpath, a member of the Corps friendly rivals, the Romford British Legion Band, who recently lost his life on duty in Iraq.
His childhood friend would have known of Kirk Redpath’s passion.
Other than Central London (highly policed), the nearest large military band “HQ” would be The Royal Artillery Band HQ which is in Woolwich.
Woolwich would provide an excellent chance of finding soldiers around the Barracks area…especially on a Wednesday afternoon (Wednesday afternoon is significant in the army).
Anyway !
The overlooked issue here is that the British Govt (Via Hague) is trying to get support for the British to arm “unknown Islamic rebel factions” fighting in Syria.
Whilst at the same time the British Govt are trying to disarm “unknown Islamic rebel factions” and keep them off the streets in the capital.
Wouldn’t you say that was a bit strange ?
Stop political terrorism in one place…and advance it in another !
@Tim V 27 May, 2013 – 2:15 pm
See, Tim, that’s why you shouldn’t be so dismissive of the folks over at MZT, even post there myself occasionally!
James
I totally agree with your latest post. All the recent events only make sense when we look at those in a broader political spectrum. Though we can only speculate about the unknown details of each singular event, it is making sense once you look at it from the perspective of the future and current plans of a (secret?) Government. I would not accuse our governments of foul play. However, i accuse certain parts of the governments of foul play. Foul play for money and imperialism … and once again for money.
They use people for their foul play, and once being used, those people get killed.
Some people once said that it would be impossible to silence all the involved ones in 9/11.
Given all the suicides, whether known or unknown, all the accidents and assassinations, the knowing had been eliminated already long ago. Discreetely and quietly. What we are seeing today is the elimination of other knowing ones from more recent events.
There often is double use for them. Use them for false flags and then eliminate them as the suspects of your false flag op. Doubleplay!
I wouldn’t disagree with you James
27 May, 2013 – 1:53 am. This was always an issue in N.Ireland and other dangerous postings.
However I note your wording : “I would place a large amount of money on the fact that “he” would indeed be a squaddie!”
Yep I agree it might be a good bet but you know the essence of betting is you can’t be sure and indeed in the essence of things more are wrong than right, or all bookmakers would be out of business.
So what are my reservation?
Well a reliable source tells us he was RETURNING to barracks so the killers didn’t trail him from there. So they either knew who he was or guessed like you.
Or alternatively killed any male target and later gave it a political/religious connotation and justification.
They were apparently driving a car – not really the best way to intersect a walking pedestrian. A planned assassination would more likely involve a stakeout on a known route. As soon as you have two moving objects (i.e. target and killer) it becomes far harder to ensure the two meet.
We have the conflicting evidence “that it screeched to a halt and the two jumped out” that they deliberately “collided with the victim then dragged his body to the middle of the road” and then we have pictures of a crashed car and blood on the pavement (no blood apparently where “beheaded” he lay in the road notice) where it is difficult to envision a collision.
These variations on what happened are hard to reconcile not to mention the gory fact that nothing in the photos suggests a detached head.
The victim, as we noted was in casual track suit yet Government immediately are able to identify him as army personnel, and able to confidently assume that the killers also knew, and killed him because he was army – not only identifying it as an horrific murder (which it was) but as a “terrorist attack” breaching the normal reticence of prosecuting authorities to ascribe facts, let alone motivation.
I cannot believe these things were accidental. Too many levels of assumption. Too many breaches of protocol. Too many inconsistent facts. Too many political co-incidences. Then we subsequently we discover through a friend, that these individuals were not only known to MI5 but actively sought as moles. Would MI5 have volunteered this information do you think? Like the Al Hillis, not only do we have questions around the event but we learn the SS are deeply implicated!
If indeed a young man was hit by a car and subsequently brutally murdered, the two callous monsters who did it are a rare breed indeed, making no attempt to run away, chatting pleasantly to onlookers, appearing to intentionally court death from gun wielding police officers, and then surviving up to seven bullets (depending on where the bullets went) without apparently much blood appearing. Just another rather remarkable story don’t you think?
James
I found confirmation of what you wrote regarding Kirk Redpath.
http://www.zoominfo.com/#!search/profile/person?personId=1352242732&targetid=profile
http://www.questia.com/library/1P2-7546294/soldier-dies-days-from-end-of-iraq-duties
Romford is only 40 minutes from the Woolwich barracks.
We still need to find a link for Rigby’s regiment to that band.
Thanks for finding this. I did never believe that the Nigerians did not know Rigby. This guy who rants into the camera shouted “there is a dead soldier”. How would he know for sure if he had not known him?
@James 27 May, 2013 – 2:38 pm
Strange? I’ve never know anything so bizarre ever.
Utterly weird, and very spooky.
It’s all smoke and mirrors but for sure something big is going down ~ a struggle for ‘civilisation’?
@bluebird 27 May, 2013 – 3:46 pm
Now we have a red path ~ what would NR have said about that!?
“That was their last MISTAKE”? James
27 May, 2013 – 2:05 am. Either this was a “Terrorist Attack” or it wasn’t. Death by terrorist is never “accidental” – that is the aim (although there may be accidental collateral injuries/deaths I suppose) However if they remained behind and faced off the police they must have been clear about the likely consequences. I don’t think you could describe it as a “mistake”. Of course this is if we assume it was indeed a “terrorist” event as the Government obviously want us to believe. It seems much more likely to me that these were two misguided, brainwashed hoodlums, possibly under the influence of drink and/or drugs/or something else, who were inherently of violent tenancies (though this conflicts with character descriptions) who wanted to “show off” do something notorious for fame or whatever. It is too random/uncoordinated for a “terrorist” incident though as I have said many times, the fact that the government so quickly wanted us to believe such, I find almost as suspicious as the incident itself. Rather like Boston, this was an incident designed to shock. The barbaric alleged “beheading” was guaranteed to do that. “Beheading” has obtained a potent ritualistic/symbolic character associated with Muslims.
Now as to your latest sling shot about my view of modern policing, I assure you I am under no illusions. It is the lack of illusion about the way our policing is going that makes me very fearful of the future. You questioned my thesis that we moving closer to the “American model”, where incidentally around 150 get killed every year, yet that is precisely where the idea of Police Commissioners come from. Not only pistols but semi automatic rifles are becoming ever more evident. Those with the weapons also appear to be ever more ready to use them as first resort. Is this really what we want as a society? Is it what is required? I too have seen how the police can handle themselves on the streets. Generally speaking the police are indemnified and protected if they use undue force or kill in the course of their duty. I for one want a civilian police force able to protect itself not a state licensed killing machine thank you.
Blue…
Look up “Colin Redpath” and “landrover snatch” and Chilcot”.
How did they know he was a squaddie ?
It was a Wednesday afternoon.
Virtually all the army has Wednesday afternoon off, for sports.
But he’s off barracks…and in a tracksuit ?
Waterfront Leisure Centre is 10 minutes down the road.
Maybe he went for a swim.
Of course this is just speculation. But I try to get the pieces to fit…rather than shout “foul” straight away.
Clearly there are more people involved in this. This isn’t “random”. But I do believe they “could” have targeted Woolwich because it would be a large barracks outside central London. The link to “music” from his friend. And clearly they knew what goes on in the army on a Wednesday.
James
27 May, 2013 – 2:15 am – So what do you think of this one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&v=r9bfmW3iMqk&NR=1
James
27 May, 2013 – 2:35 am – your offensive personal assessments of my character (“you must be a nutter if” which is just the last of a string of such) just because I choose to disagree with you, is getting a bit tiresome. Can you not just stick to reasoning your case on its merits without casting aspersions which is a sure way of ruining the discussion here.
Deploying armed officers might well have been reasonable given the circumstances, and as I have previously said so may have been shooting eight times if they were threatened with a gun themselves. However you surely must agree with so many armed officers an order for the assailants to drop their weapons and fall to the ground should have been given, as should a warning that they would be shot if they didn’t comply.
My general point is that as a society, we should resist the slide into a police state of which an over eager armed response is but a part.
@Tim V 27 May, 2013 – 4:34 pm
Whoaah, steady on, Tim.
A bit of a rush to judgement there as if you read James’ comment he isn’t calling you a nutter!
“you must be an absolute nutter if you decide to run at an ARV full of London armed police officers whilst waving a knife !”
Whose round is it? Haha.