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?
“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”.
I certainly do not agree with you in the slightest.
It would appear that an ARV arrived on scene…and there was little or no time whatsoever to issue any warnings.
A request for the “assailants to drop their weapons and fall to the ground” (as you put it) would have probably meant that there would at least be ONE seriously injured police officer, if not a dead one.
Information would have been incoming to those officers as they responded. Information passed from a control room gained from 999 calls…Probably information from police officers (unarmed) on the ground and most likely information from CCTV operators.
For once The Met performed in a manner I would have expected…especially if a butchers cleaver wielding, blood stained lunatic was approaching at speed.
IF this were the US police…I am sure that they would have kept on firing. This shows the professional nature of the CO19 officers involved that afternoon.
As for the youtube clip. That is just a ridiculous comparison and not worthy of comment. Try to compare “like” with “like” !
“One senior Westminster source suggested the visit was a mistake. He said: “I just wonder what he was going to thank them for. While they [the Security Services] did tremendously well during the Olympics 10 months ago a number of pieces of information have come to light since then. The interesting question is how much David Cameron knew about the potential intelligence failings when he went to see them.””
This is from the spook connected Telegraph. It is a hint of the continuing division within the Conservative Party. There is little doubt that there is a sizeable chunk (witness the gay marriage revolt) that would like toease Cameron out and replace him with May. Now see how Woolwich plays to this. It happens whilst he is out of the country meeting the deeply unpopular socialist Hollande. May takes immediate control, chairing COBRA without delay. Cameron reconvenes it when he returns prematurely on Thursday. He then does a tour of the site and Millbank to assert his authority but is criticised for it from inside his own government! Then off on holiday on Sunday but big point of “staying in charge of the Country”. Not you notice handing over the reins to his Deputy as previously, the Security Bill Opposer Nick Clegg. Now consider the event occurred when he was out of the country, and then will be out again for a week following. Remember Margaret Thatcher’s big mistake to put a foreign trip before her leadership contest? All purely coincidental of course.
That was a response to yours Mochyn69
27 May, 2013 – 7:30 am
Marlin
27 May, 2013 – 8:50 am that’s a pretty comprehensive summary that I could have written myself!!!! Good on old Zak. Most of the substantive points have already been made here though perhaps with a few refinements and insights. It only reinforces what we have observed here: that Chevaline is not only an bizarre crime it has been followed by the most incompetent, atypical police investigation ever. Given the high level commitment by Hollande/Cameron (see how their fate appears bound up again) there can only one explanation for this. I wonder if the “slip-ups” referred in that Telegraph article was a camouflaged reference to Chevaline?
“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….”
Did he post this later Marlin?
Just got to yours at Mochyn69
27 May, 2013 – 9:45 am. I see you made the point earlier that I made above re Cameron/Hollande on BOTH Chevaline and Woolwich. These strange coincidences just keep happening don’t they?
Bluebird
27 May, 2013 – 10:04 am
The BIG question in relation to Woolwich (and not for the first time in relation to other incidents discussed here) is who were the two “killers” working for – a terrorist organisation; themselves; or British Intelligence?
Mochyn69
27 May, 2013 – 4:49 pm Ooops! Looks as if I misread there. I take back what I said and send an apology to James though he may still be laughing at my suggestion. I appreciate his contributions. I think generally we are still on the same side.
However I still think you could tone it down a bit James
27 May, 2013 – 5:16 pm. I know you are rooting for the law enforcers. Do I assume you are coming from a services background? They may have just arrived but as you say they would have been well briefed and had time to organise themselves. For example you might have expected them to position themselves behind their vehicles rather than appearing to get out from the same side of the vehicle to which he advanced. I’m sure you will correct me if I’m wrong.
Tim.
Look at it in this way.
You’re in the ARV and battering through traffic.
You have the location…and you probably know which end of the street you will enter.
You have the “required” information, but not an up to the second “situation report” of where the suspect are.
Your vehicle pulls across the road. You exit the vehicle on the right.
1. There are numerous people (General Public) all around. To the front, to the rear and to your right hand rear.
2. As you are exiting the ARV one suspect is rapidly approaching from the front (to the front / right) waving a cleaver and is bloodstained.
3. Further to the right the other suspect is moving along the wall and flanking your position (and pointing an object).
You are about to be attacked from the front…and flanked on one side. Could you imagine “retreating” from harms way (if you were lucky enough…and finding yourself in a running battle from the front of the vehicle and from the side of the vehicle …with the general public right in your line of fire ALL BECAUSE YOU TOLD THEM TO DROP THEIR WEAPONS !
The situation was “rapid” and they responded to a clear threat in the manner that they have been trained to do.
“I think generally we are still on the same side”
“I know you are rooting for the law enforcers”
Tim
Just to make it “crystal”.
I am not on anybody’s side but my own.
Some of the police are good. Some police are bad.
Some “govt” works well. Some of the “govt” is plain rotten.
Some “conspiracy” people are worthy. Some are simply crackpots.
Who was it that said “just because you are my enemies, enemy…does not make you my friend”.
And on that note…this Bush N’ Blair War which has been hammering on in that great sandpit has done more to recruit “Islamic Radicals” than anything else in modern history. That threatens my security when ever I step foot in London or Paris or Madrid.
That’s why I am interested in this “Al Hilli” saga.
Believe me, I want it to be a “lone nut” or some kind of “personal vendetta”. Because if it something to do with the “growth of” or “spies within” a “radical” form of whatever…I’ll be very afraid.
Hague has slipped into Europe trying to gain support for arms to Syrian “Rebels”. I’m sorry for the lives lost there, but that is “their civil war”, nothing to do with “Europe”.
“KEEP OF THE GRASS”
Deal with whoever “wins” in the end. But Do Not get involved….which is being ignored !
I tried to find Home Office guidelines on the use by police of firearms. I couldn’t although there was plenty on firearms in general. Presumably if they exist, as I’m sure they do, they are confidential. The following study considers the factors that may influence whether firearm officers pull the trigger.
“Conclusion
The AFOs who were primed with the threat briefing information before either
the shoot or no-shoot scenario did not respond significantly faster than those who
heard the neutral briefing, although there was a trend in this direction. No shots were
fired in the no-shoot scenario, regardless of which briefing was heard, even though
one of the suspects in the no-shoot scenario was armed with a handgun. This result
suggests that the AFOs did not base their decisions to shoot entirely on the briefing
information; they also observed the cues in the scenario and responded accordingly.
Further investigation would be required to identify what those cues might have been.
Although briefing type had no overall effect on the accuracy of shots fired, this
study concludes that because briefing information is not always accurate or a current
representation of the incident, great care must be taken when emphasizing aspects
of a briefing to officers. This is an important topic for further study, because in all
countries, the safety of the public can depend on the decisions made by armed police”
officers. http://www.abdn.ac.uk/iprc/documents/Firearms.pdf
Tim
The deployment of armed officers ?
Or the use of force by an armed officer ?
The first will be under
ACPOS
The second will be under
The Criminal Law Act 1967
Article 2 ECHR Section 3 (1).
Criminal justice and immigration act 2008 section 76
Be my guest !
tim V 5:59PM : “Did he post this later Marlin?”
That was my first question too. I don;t know that Zak did. I did not follow their board closely at the time (did not even know about it till later, I think).
And I agree that much of that post goes over the very kind of questions we had, plus a few additional insights I( haven’t seen elsewhere. In any case, I thought it’d be good to know that people who come from the psychological profiling direction (which is the one I also tend to follow, among many others – all tended to see the same yawning gaps in this case. In fact, anyone who uses logic will arrive at the same general questions – they are that glaring and it’s that clear that the investigation of Chevaline by the authorities is a “sham”. In fact, my direction from the very beginning was to try and trace the dots in the cover-up more than the event itself, simply because we could hardly trust almost anything we were told, and what we saw in photos and released information was remarkably sparse.
just one little example – again inspired by MZT’s recent discussions – no one has ever seen Sylvain’s bicycle. Some conjecture it was in front of the BMW – but that’s all it is, a conjecture. It is therefore fair to ask – why, oh why won’t the authorities release the most minimal information about the bike? This would not in any way compromise their “investigations”, such as they are, or there is no compromise only if one assumes there is a “real investigation” going on. One must therefore conclude that there’s method to this madness and that, for whatever reason, they consider information about the bike found at the scene off-limits. Now, why is that? because it wasn’t that expensive road racer or because it was? either way, someone thinks we shouldn’t be privy to this bit of information.
This line of reasoning tracks with the questions we all had – on every board that discussed the case – why was the public not allowed to see the the 3:15 PM photo? can we count on one hand the number of people around the world who believe this was due to “morbidity”?
I vaguely remember, way back, trying for a little summary of the “known unknowns” and “unknown knowns” as we called them, and you did quite a bit of that too, Tim. The 3;15Pm was just one of those “known unknowns”. Which meant that, without knowing anything, it would be fair to ask – why was the 3:15PM information so important for them to release? you suggested at the time (if I remember right) that it was key to establishing that SAH arrived at the martinet later, rather than earlier. Which then begged the question – why was that bit of timing so important to fix? or, asked another way – why and how could an earlier arrival of the BMW on the scene unravel whatever tall tales were being weaved? i think you had an answer to that too, but the discussion then moved on and others here did not care so much to pick up this train of thought (well, for good reasons perhaps. It doesn’t exactly lead to any answers, just to more questions).
What the good posters at MZT did not care to pick up on (so far that I saw) is the divergence between the british and french sides – something that’s obvious to us but perhaps is not so glaring to others.
http://tna.europarchive.org/20100419081706/http://www.police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/operational-policing/useoffirearms2835.pdf?view=Binary
Finally, since I wouldn’t mind getting back to chevaline (even though we don’t have much new information), I have one more question (which we all had, I’m sure, at one time or another): why are we all so willing to continue to dismiss the possibility that WBM was part and parcel of the “killing team”? sure, they let him go, but we already suspect the France had their reasons for covering up whatever happened, so letting him go could be just part of that. And the UK must have had reasons not to disclose what they know either. So, of course, if WBM (originally just “BM”) was part of the “kill team” that leads immediately to the conclusion that the french and UK police colluded in covering it up. Obviously then they have a dog in the fight and it becomes an obvious state agency business – not one but several.
Yes, i know lots of people here early on and recently raised the obvious question – just why exactly did the french police let BM go so quickly and why didn’t they hold him as a potential “material witness”? was his story THAT convincing or was it just “convincing enough” for the gullible public to buy it? and if WBM was not treated as a suspect – which he obviously wasn’t – how did the police know and what did they know exactly to remove the cloud of suspicion? or, asked the other way around – if they knew he was one of the perpetrators AND let him go, then obviously they had agency in what went down. that’s TWO, not one country that would have to be in on something.
Why am I raising this possibility now? I think it’s because I just realized that I haven’t seen a thorough enough analysis that would logically lay out the timelines and the sequences following the hypothesis that WBM is a perpetrator (likely not alone but with back-up). The interesting part of such a hypothesis is to try and connect the dots in the cover-up that followed. And/or see whether it gets us to a logical bottleneck, in which case this possibility can perhaps be dismissed, once and for all.
The other thought I had was that even the most conspiratorial of conspiracy theorists can be sometimes strangely beholden to a semblance of authority. in this example, it’s funny but though we are perfectly willing to assume that EM, the french police, MI5 and whatever other british agency are “in on it” up to their little necks, we are not quite willing to go the next step and assume that “they” would actually let a murderer go scott free. Or may be it’s not funny at all?
Marlin
“WBM is a perpetrator (likely not alone but with back-up)”.
And why ?
My thought was…he smashed the window. And was inside the car.
DNA wise…he is everywhere.
My other issue is (and by now all know I take “words” and “detail” seriously) why would a “four bar” (BA Capt) say he was ex RAF ?
That was 20 yrs ago.
For my part (and in the same job) IT JUST DOES NOT RING TRUE THAT YOU WOULD SAY THAT.
And that for me…is a problem.
There is a Martin that was ex RAF ex RAF F4 pilot.
There is an ex Boeing triple 7 capt by that name…..
But I just don’t get why you would say something that was from Twenty Years ago !
Tim !
I am taking a punt on this….
You read other peoples posts…and then re post the same thing
OR you just post things ?
11.54pm ! It’s a “thanks James for showing me what I didn’t quite get, but I’ll just delude myself and post this as it doesn’t quite cover the regs but I may loo quiet bright”
OR
You are taking the Michael !
Whatever, you are to me becoming annoying.
Tim….
Just to be “polite”.
The information I posted earlier for your SOLE benefit…..
…. with regards to the discharge of a firearm by an officer qualified
…IS THE SAME FECKING REFEREBCES YOU HAVE PROVIDED IN YOUR “POST” ……AND OF WHICH I ALREADY WAS AWARE !
Are you doing this to take the p*ss ?
Is this a p*ss take that somehow I have missed being in on ?
Or are you just in a Care Home and forget to read the relevant answers to the questions you pose ?
You are becoming like someone that was on here once, but no longer…and he was an ars*hole too.
You never know your luck in a big city….but I’ll cross my fingers and hope !!!!!!
Your fate, God forbid, will not be like his.
One can only dream ! Xx
Order, order!
Let’s have no more ad hominem in here, please.
Meanwhile ~
@James 27 May, 2013 – 7:51 pm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/28/uk-forced-eu-embargo-syria-rebel-arms
France and the UK yet again wanting to go to war in another Middle Eastern country. Why, oh why must they interfere in the internal affairs of other countries?
And then they wonder why seemingly otherwise normal people become “radicalised” and go out killing others and create mayhem in our country.
James, Tim V, I second Mochyn69 – no more fighting over British police tactics – whatever they are/were/will be – Woolwich incident raises plenty of questions.
I already shared my theory about Boston – an obvious one, really – that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was “managed” probably by the “not so good FBI”, even as other parts of the FBI and/or CIA had absolutely no clue this was going on. neither were the Boston police informed. for all we know, tamerlan was recruited as Quid pro Quo for letting the triple murders in 2011 ‘slide”. The trip to Dagestan was part of his “job”, ie, he was supposed to infiltrate one or other militant group. Trouble is, the Russian FSB was right on his – and the FBI/CIA’s – heels, every step of the way – taking advantage of whatever contacts Tamerlan made among the Chechen radicals to off a few of those pesky radicalized foreigners. They probably traced him to Georgia too, if he went there for that “Friends of Chechnia’ neocon group. Of course, the Russians let him out back to the USA, figuring that whatever he would be up to better be done on US soil. As for the FBI handlers, chances are they were a bit disappointed with what Tamerlan accomplished – or not – in Dagestan/Chechnia – perhaps figuring that he is a lost cause (such as the cause is).
This is where things, according to my theory, are getting a bit murky. I don’t know of course whether Tamerlan went “rogue” on his “bad FBI” handlers, or whether something much worse took place (in which case, “rogue’ doesn’t begin to describe how bad it is for us all). I prefer not to do an Alex Jones here. What i am pretty sure about is that the friend Todashev’s killing was an execution of someone who knew too much and could embarrass the FBI.
Coming back to Woolwich, I guess I would watch what happens to the friends of the perpetrators, like the guy who was arrested following the interview on BBC, where he mentioned MI5’s attempts to recruit Aboledah (sp? sorry, botched it). May be MI5n succeeded and we have another case of someone going off the deep end due to some bad experiences in kenya? either way, there are enough credible reports of MI5 attempts at recruitment of muslims to make anyone worry. how many more will flip and did they flip on their own? were there drugs or some shady mind altering things going on?
Marlin
Your Q: Why didnt we consider that WMB was the killer?
Answer: i think to remember that some of us did discuss that possibility. However, as a matter of fact, he is looking to nice, too clean, too old and too nice as a killer. We are all of us brainwashed by Hollywood and our conclusions are all based on what is the experience in our brains.
Would WBM look like Tamerlan Tsarnaev, Lee Jemes or Adebolajo, then i guess that he would be the center of a discussion as a suspect as being a quadruple killer.
As for Woolwich I am 100% sure that this had to do with drugs and that it was a normal gang stabbing that happens almost daily in Greater London.
Since his car was broken, there was no way to escape. I dont know whether or not the religious shit he shouted into the camera was a previously planned script or else a sudden idea. Maybe he was setup. I strongly believe that he was on drugs due to his strange behaviour. Was this his own idea or was he setup?
The Woolwich Boys gang is the private security force for islamic hate preacher Choudhary. There are several independent sources stating (previously unrelated to Woolwich) that Choudhary is a MI5 asset and set up by MI5. That would fit with the two Nigerians working for MI5, too.
They were known drug dealers and they owned a great part of Woolwich, Greenwich and the Barracks as their drug territory. However, none of them ever went to court. Why?
I agree with James that guys like him receive the “don’t go into jail” card as soon as they are working for the government. Thats a great way for doing save drug business.
Of course i dont know whether or not Rigby was the barracks dealer or simply just consuming drugs and owing money, or else if he perhaps met new friends in Afghanistan and tried to connect the worthy barracks drug deals to a new drug gang as a competitor for the Woolwich boys.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4943557/Were-going-to-take-a-male-out-of-your-family.html
Tamerlan Tsarnaev was a drug dealer, too. And he got the ‘dont go into jail” card, too. Apperently he was involved in a triple drug killing with another drug dealer, too.
There are a lot of similarities with Woolwich.
Once those assets are getting useless due to uncontrolled behaviour, extensive drug consuming or whistleblowing, they will be used and set up for a last plot, then getting jailed or killed.
Coupd we find a link of that nigerian al hilli account scammer with the woolwich boys?
Mochyn69
“And then they wonder why seemingly otherwise normal people become “radicalised” and go out killing others and create mayhem in our country”
That’s the thing ! Is that “the grand plan” as it just seems unbelievable what is going on.
Oh “breaking news”, they (Hague) got the embargo lifted I see.
A small mention on the news. a few pics of dead babies in a sandy street….and we “all” approve of sending weapons to “the good cowboys” to beat “the bad cowboys” !
Two quite interesting woolwich background essays. Drugs, pole dancers, fake breasts. Not very Islamic to say the least. Rather that is a typical drug and prostitutes mafia life.
http://aangirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/woolwich-boobs.html
http://aangirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/the-terrorists-behind-woolwich.html
Help for Heroes sponsored cycle ride starts from Paris with the blessing of the Duchess of Cornwall and leading French Army Officer “united in their fight against barbarism”. A French soldier was stabbed by an Islamist following Woolwich apparently.
France and Britain had a joint role over Libya. The EC Syrian arms plan is a Franco/British initiative. Plans for ever closer army and navy integration including the nuclear fleet. Britain’s energy generation and supply reliant on French firms and technology as with water and transport.
Close ties on commercial aircraft manufacture and attempts to combine arms manufacture. Close co-operation on science and technology in relation to space and fundamental research. Yet these trends in policy are seldom discussed in Parliament or the media. Instead what we hear about in the media is “Euroscepticism” and the intention to pull out of the EC.
Where is all this leading and who is in charge of it? Confusing it may be but it casts a strange light on the wider conflicting forces at play in the Chevaline investigation.
Perhaps it is worth contrasting the response to Woolwich with that of Chevaline. In the former, less that a week later at least ten arrests. In the case of the latter after nearly NINE MONTHS no arrests, no descriptions of wanted persons, no convincing rationale or hypothesis, not even photographs of a majority of victims!
Just ONE appeal for ONE vehicle that differed from earlier descriptions. This despite all the resources of at least two national governments (that are seen to be working so closely together to fight “barbarity”) their security and interception facilities, and a working team of up to eighty detectives? Who is fooling who?
When will the British and French public, through their press, demand a truthful explanation for that particular example of “brutality”?
I dont want to create another conspiracy, and therefore i say that this is just coincidence.
The stabbed french soldier Cedric Cordiez lives close to Grenoble in district Haute Alps. He is a cyclist and his regiment are the “chasseurs”. He has a young girlfriend Aurelie (22) (not married) and a young child. I dont know whether or not this child is with Aurelie or if it is from a previous woman. I say that this is just coincidence and not worth being discussed any further, but i read that same script before in French media ….
Bluebird
27 May, 2013 – 8:38 am. Re. Verona and Michael Adebolajo both have established drug connections. Afghanistan is accepted as one of the major suppliers of opium/heroin, the production of which has actually increased under NATO supervision! There must be established trade routes known to western governments. Presumably they are overland through Iran and Pakistan. And out of the country by air. We know CIA were deeply involved in drug smuggling in SE Asia in the 60’s and 70’s and Central America in the 80,s in which the American government, c/o Col North and Co. used drug receipts to clandestinely fund the Contras and provide Iran with arms. Are we naive enough to believe that these things don’t happen now when such huge sums are to be made?
Meanwhile the nice little girl “scout leader from Cornwall” who’s bravery took all our breath away, is now showing a slightly different side to her character apparently. The Daily Mirror reports:
“By Andy Rudd Woolwich attack heroine believes Lee Rigby’s killers should be “beheaded” and “die a painful death”
28 May 2013 10:49 Courageous Ms Loyau-Kennett says those responsible should face a “severe punishment” Woolwich attack heroine Ingrid Loyau-Kennett believes the men who hacked to death soldier Lee Rigby should be “beheaded” and “die a painful death”.
Mirror.co.uk http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/woolwich-attack-heroine-believes-lee-1917338#ixzz2Uas6TVBt
Does anyone else think it a tad strange that for every atrocity there is a hero figure conveniently on scene? It could be just our natural desire to ameliorate disaster with something positive. It could also be by design.
Marlin
28 May, 2013 – 12:10 am – I don’t blame you for revisiting a question that must arise. I for one discussed this issue a long way back, as I am sure did others but I am happy to reiterate my thinking which is as fallible as anyone else.
On the face of it WBM must be a chief suspect for several classical reasons: he was one of the last to see one of the victims (SM) alive; he was incontrovertibly on-scene at or about the time the murders took place; he was by his own admission first on-scene following the events; he interfered with the crime scene, moving bodies without need; he moved a dead body and checked his pockets, rearranging the body, without apparent justification; he altered his account, or it was altered by others, as to significant details in relation to timing, what he saw and what he did; there are unbelievable elements to his emotional and practical responses given his background and training; he contradicted the official French account of his actions; his reported emotional panic stricken state when first meeting PD; the fact that he was apparently prepared to abandon a badly injured child; the fact that his cycle ride afterwards might be construed as an attempt to escape the scene; a subsequent (ammended) report by PD that his hands were covered in blood; the co-incidences related to being in the same cycling club and in a remote location with SM, a victim; a conflict of evidence that he was wearing gloves; his hasty return to the UK.
However despite ALL of this conventional circumstantial evidence, I personally do not believe he was instrumental in the murder or complicit in it, though I do believe he was there for a purpose and most likely acting for the British Government. I believe that on the basis of the adage “that if you need to lie, make sure it is as close to the facts as possible” is one that shaped what was clearly a drafted and cleared story line before the BBC/Sky televised interview.
What leads me to believe that he was taken by surprise by the turn of events and was not party to them but to some other is his background. He was ideal recruitment material for observing, reporting, facilitating, mediating, liaising but NOT killing. Insofar as Britain has these people, they tend to be drawn from combat forces (paras/marines etc.) not retired RAF pilots. His age: too old though still very fit and strong, I don’t think he was there in a bodyguard role. Timing: it appears to put him at the scene immediately AFTER the killings. Weapon: if he was the shooter you have to explain how he carried the semi automatic and magazines and perhaps more importantly what he did with them afterwards and why he made no attempt to clear up after him. Transport: would an assassin choose a push bike in those circumstances? Surely not. Behaviour, although strange in some respects, a killer does not waste time tending to the injured (if he did) or returning with a stranger. And had he done the killing would he have stopped when he met PD’s car and pleaded with him to call the police (if he did)? More likely he would have kept going and used the time delay and poor mobile reception to get clear of the scene.
However the actions, or lack of them, by both killers and French police is instructive. Clearly the assassins had no scruples or compunction about killing and/or injuring men women and children in a most deliberate merciless fashion. Do you really think they would allowed a witness to arrive on scene so soon after, potentially putting the whole operation at risk, for the sake of one more death? Not for one moment. I am convinced WBM survived not by chance but because he was protected. The assassins knew who he was and who he worked for and he was positively OFF-TARGET by instruction. This means that British and Swedish citizens of Iraqi descent could be “neutralised” but not NZ/UK person in Government employ. This has consequences as to likely assailants.
Then there are his actions on scene, which although not implicating him in the murders, implicates him in the operation, whatever it was. No unconnected bystander would move a dead body, rearrange it and check pockets!
Then finally there is the reaction of the French Police, immediately turning him into the hero of the hour before they could have made a proper assessment and in spite of all the factors listed above that superficially, point to his guilt. Then they lied about him phoning in to the emergency services, and although later changing the story, never explaining how such a fundamental mistake could have been made. Then promoting a timeline that still could not be true. Then there was the way WBM was treated subsequently which in the context of the killing was highly unusual. You might have expected both PD and WBM to have been immediately detained as witnesses at the very least, and their co-operation sought as to fingerprints and DNA for exclusion purposes at least. Seizure of their mobile phones items of contaminated clothing etc. and a protracted interview. It is not at all clear what happened although it seems WBM went home first before attending the police station! Then as he was allowed almost immediately to return to the UK out of the French jurisdiction and prior to a “reconstruction” on the following Sunday fore which he had to come all the way back again. Clear suggestive evidence of special treatment and UK backing.
http://www.africanews.com/site/list_message/31938
Is it better to be “known” as a “potential terrorist” OR a child “kidnapper” !
James
28 May, 2013 – 1:57 am I try not to bite but I find this offensive. The link which you did not post, is there for anyone who wishes to pursue the issue of Home Office Guidelines on use of firearms. I found it using Google not your list though I am happy to confirm you posted a list of references. You seem to be hoping that I get knocked down and killed or something? That doesn’t seem to be a particularly nice or rationale response to posting a web reference. I have been adding my comments here from early on and stand on their merits as do yours. As far as I am aware, I have not used a single idea of yours in all that time. I have no desire to enter a private slanging match with you. My thoughts are open to everyone to consider and dispute if so desired.