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?
He was “brought to life” Tim !
Bluebird
7 Jun, 2013 – 9:03 am thanks for picking up on my GLADIO posts. That’s a fascinating idea relating to SM being the killer. I have before highlighting both parties lost their father with deep political connections. “The sins of the fathers will be visited upon the children” and all that. However if Sylvain was the killer we should have to get round the fact that he “was shot first”. As you say it also poses the question who shot him? If the story of the 4×4 were totally fabricated to throw the blame, it would leave on WBM. Still then the problem “Where did the weapon go?”
sorry about the “verbal scribble” in that last one including * “ONLY WBM”.
“If the story of the 4×4 were totally fabricated to throw the blame, it would leave on WBM”
If of course Bossy is to be true ?
james @ 11:29 PM ” there he wasn’t and there he isn’t” – that was me, I’m afraid. Like you say – was there ever a Sylvain Mollier? how do we know? Right now, the way things look, 9 months later, we know more about one anonymous “james’ for example, an erstwhile pilot and commenter on the illustrious CM blog than we know about a Sylvain Mollier, a supposed French bicyclist, working class metallurgy worker, partner to the beautiful Claire Schutz, father to sociable Leo, and one who supposedly met with untimely demise. has there ever been an individual less photographed and less seen or heard than our ghostly Sylvain Mollier, son of Roger the WWII hero?
As to 11:22, you are right james. we should not refer to WBM’s account as “testimony”, as that would imply a known questioning entity, perhaps a location, perhaps a questioning party, and perhaps a “repeat” evidence giving. First on the scene, moves body, reaches into car, disturbs crime scene, but is never a suspect. not for a minute he isn’t because as the indomitable ex-RAF personages never are. To say ex-RAF is to be above suspicion, whether robbing a bank and “happening” upon a scene of a murder most foul, within minutes if not seconds.
And now we have the “hiker’ singing like a nightingale, looking every bit the good-natured agent to me. But hey, what do I know?
Over at MZT, Marilyn says she is back to the “lone” nut. understandable – which of us following this case is not seeing nuts now and then?
You got my point James
8 Jun, 2013 – 12:08 am. (John 11; 1 – 45) The appropriately named Executive Producer.
Bluebird 11:16PM – Sylvain as the killer, Gladio as background – these are fascinating new angles.
Our indication that SM was shot first comes from the French prosecutor office, not EM for sure. In the documentary this was brought up only by the journalist peter Allen. EM seeks to cast doubt upon that contention – and always had.
Upshot is we have no independent confirmation about who was shot first, just as we have no independent confirmation of anything WBM said, including the passing car and MC.
It is of course possible that if there was a conspiracy of “silence” such would have extended to the prosecutor/investigating offices. In which case, it is possible an individual, in on the plot, would have sought to divert attention from SM’s role by unveiling a ballistic report supposedly showing him to be the first to be the first to be killed.
that’s the trouble with this case – it’s hard to rule anything out or in – because the facts as they are shared with the public cannot be trusted.
James, this is the link where the text of “rain” comes from.
http://andrewgough.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2260&f=5
The “stay behind” theory has some reason because of the following facts:
1. The “annemasse/haute savoie” link of Roger Mollier and a part of the Mollier family.
2. The silence of the Mollier family and the silence of the Savoians.
3. The revelations of Mr. Kramer who did present documents that his father Johannes Kramer worked for German BND and for GLADIO (stay behind) and that he organised bombings in Germany, Belgium and Luxemburg in the 1980tees due to orders by the CIA and NATO (here we have the “second CIA”). Kramer said that his father introduced him into “stay behind” and he trained him in diving, parachuting, shooting and self defence as he wanted to make him a follower of his father for Gladio. I think that the same could have happened for SM through his father Roger.
4. The use of an old gun. (“Stay behind” got weapon depots after WW2 that were hidden in the woods, mountain cages and mountain huts). Weapons being used in WW2 were stocked there. The Luger was used in WW2.
5. The typical “stay behind” scenario to kill the killer.
6. Zainab telling that there was “only one bad guy”. She never said anything about a good guy. At least they havent told us.
7. The quick arrival of a investigation British team.
8. The deliberate disinformation and the lies presented by EM.
9. The weird coincidences regarding WBM and silver fern with an address close to Blackwater companies and the strange behaviour by WBM in the interview.
10. The professionalism of the killing and SM being the typical patsi (like Tsarnaev) who became useless after his father’s death and who knew too much.
11. SM having been hit by the car. I hit a killer by car but i do not hit a cyclist while the killer is shooting. The cyclist would not even be there when somebody is using a gun and shooting. He would run and hide in the woods. While he was hit by the car, the gun was damaged.
Conclusion: SM was the patsi who killed and who finally was killed by the “chief de l’equipe”.
Where is the gun? I do not know. Perhaps it is exactly where they took it from. In a secret weapons depot where it was since 1946 in the woods of Col d’Ire for “stay behind” clandestine operations. These depots still exist.
Straw44berry 9:24AM – apparently all the blogs by the same individual are down as is his web site. can you remind me where we came across this? I seem to have saved the site and recall reading some conspiratorial stuff there but can’t recall what exactly now.
Marlin
7 Jun, 2013 – 6:49 pm I must admit I missed that Bossy “6-7 mins” bit. I don’t however think it makes much difference to what I suggested all those months ago – that the official French story couldn’t have happened the way they told it, even after they amended it to make PD the caller. Once we had proved it MUST be a lie, the French become deeply implicated and untrustworthy and their investigation a sham.
However with this latest C4 programme I think the issue has shifted somewhat. I do not think it materially alters the time line even though PB’s “6 or 7 mins” is more than I allowed for, making my case stronger if anything as you have pointed out.
No, the issue now is more “Is any of the previous story true?” I say this because Bossy’s version appears on the face of it to be so different. He is only a “hiker”. There is no mention of a car or two female companions. No reference to the dramatic meeting as WBM careered down the hill in a state of panic. No mention of the threesome’s intention to go camping overnight.
Now they only appear to pass the scene. The distinct impression is given that Bossy comes on the scene with Martin in situ. How otherwise can his story that he was tempted to assault WBM be explained? This was never an option on the earlier story. Why? Because at that stage Bossy could have had no appreciation of the carnage he would later see. Nor is it believable that having walked back together, no doubt discussing on the way, he would have then had the urge to attack Martin.
In my mind this latest account only makes sense if Bossy comes on the scene with Martin there, possibly still hunched over one of the victims, and he immediately jumps to the assumption that this is the perpetrator before him, who he has to disable to save his own life.
If this is a correct assessment of the interview (and I need to watch it again somehow) we are back into the swamp not knowing what, or if any version can be trusted. And as always the secondary question, why was fabricated story put out there in the first place? Was the PD story created only to fill the holes created by the WBM TV statement? Is this Philippe Bossy the same individual who gave a statement to Le Parisien?
Lastly the film was made for Channel 4 not by them. The company that did make it appears to be 1. American and 2. Jewish controlled. Can we be assured of it voracity and independence from State influence?
@All,
I am not sure I buy into the SM as killer theory,but of course can’t rule it out.
But I am being troubled by the thought, what if the owls are not what they seem? What if SAH and SM were of the same cultural heritage, the same faith?
Where might that take us??
BB, can you point us back to your research on SAH’s ancestry? In the absence of a search facility on these blogs,it’s like looking for a needle in haystack.
Looking for that though has caused me to go back to the earlier parts of the blog, and it’s amazing how prescient and astute much of the commenting is. It’s even got me wondering about the D notice thing, right at he very outset? If it wasn’t true, why would anybody plant that so early in the unfolding of what would have been just another crime story?
Tim
“why was fabricated story put out there in the first place?”
The nail, the head, then hit !
That is my point in a “nut shell”.
And it is something I can’t stop coming back to.
@Tim,James,bb
Why indeed?
Meanwhile, over at the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/national-security-agency-surveillance
Not at all off-topic, but very much to the point. Weren’t we told EM couldn’t get access to SAH’s internet records from the US? Bet GCHQ could have!
Mochyn69
8 Jun, 2013 – 11:41 am – I have never had any doubt that GCHQ and the Americans had the ability, before and after the Chevaline events, to monitor and retrieve all the telephone and internet traffic of individuals and geographical areas. These latest “Prism” revelations have only confirmed it.
” The documents were said to show that the British agency had generated 197 intelligence reports through the system in the 12 months to May 2012 – a 137% increase on the previous year.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22813893
There is little doubt that if this report is reliable, one of those reports will relate to Chevaline and Al Hilli given the background of the participants and top-level political involvement.
What we may wonder is the cause for all the recent Cameron/Hollande meetings? There is Syria of course but has Chevaline been discussed as well, particularly as Marlin and I both agree it has been the cause of massive upset in French/British “spookilations”.
We have referred to the “Five Eyes” here before which has been in operation since 1946. Other European countries (including France and Germany in particular) but they no doubt had and exercised their own channels. So was Maillauds complaint over not being ably to access these real or imagined? Was it put out there just as a diversionary and excusitory device to cover French apparent ineffectiveness? If Britain feels unable to share with France what it knows, why? Presumably because they are singing from different hymn sheets, whilst pretending to be united in aims and methods. (The 2004 helicopter/IRA event referred to above may be a practical example of this)
We all know that that British Government from the 70’s onwards tracked and recorded all telephone traffic and this was extended to the internet as it developed. How though are they to pick what is relevant from the limitless amount available to them? Clearly this will be focused on persons otherwise known or who make themselves known as in “chat rooms” such as this. I have little doubt they have a “profile” on all us here for example.
But this would not be sufficient for their purposes insofar the very people in whom they are likely to be interested, are likely to be the very ones to take extra precautions. We have applied this principle in the past to suggest the very fact that Saad expressed extreme views, is itself an indicator of probable manipulation.
Automatic recognition of “key words” is used extensively as is communication between key people. The fact that I pose no terrorist risk, has I hope dropped me from the suspect list, though no doubt this post will no doubt join all the others on some government magnetic disc somewhere, ready to be recalled should the need arise.
So to get back to the point, any claim of ignorance of either telegraphic or computer traffic surrounding the Al Hillis, Martin, Mollier, Didierier/Bossy, the victims assailants or the police and rescue services, as a reason for lack of progress in the investigation, should be treated with the contempt it deserves.
Corrections to above:
*Other European countries (including France and Germany in particular) WERE EXCLUDED but they no doubt had and exercised their own channels.”
“There is little doubt that if this report is reliable, one of those reports will relate to Chevaline and Al Hilli given the background of the participants and top-level political involvement.” I MEAN OF COURSE IN A SUBSEQUENT SIMILAR REPORT
…..and if you don’t believe me how about Ewen MacAskill, Julian Borger and Glenn Greenwald
(Thursday 6 June 2013 23.55 BST) in the Guardian article quoted by Mochyn69 above?
“As technology has evolved, so has the NSA’s capacity to intercept an astonishing variety and volume of communications. Satellites scoop up calls and emails in the ether and beam the information back to earthbound receiving stations. One estimate suggests that each of these bases hoovers up roughly one billion emails, phone calls and other forms of correspondence every day, and the agency has up to 20 bases.
“This is not science fiction. It is happening now,” a source with knowledge of the NSA said.”
“With every passing administration, the NSA has ballooned. One well-informed estimate of its staffing levels is 100,000, of whom about 30,000 are military and the rest private contractors. Its headquarters is a vast edifice of smoked glass in Fort Meade, in the leafy Washington suburbs, with sizeable complexes in Georgia and Texas and overseas bases in Japan, Germany and the UK.”
“While the NSA is by far the biggest surveillance agency in the world, it shares some of its work with four other allies: Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Collectively, they are known as the “five eyes”. Of the five, the biggest after the NSA is Britain’s General Communications Headquarters (GCHQ).”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/national-security-agency-surveillance”
One of the issues is “Can we trust our own governments with this information?” That’s why Chevaline raises issues above and beyond a gruesome murder and we cannot let it rest.
Most violent outrages (9/11; 7/7; Boston; Woolwhich) lead to immediate calls to tighten “security” and increase surveillance powers. What distinguishes Woolwich and Chevaline is a question that may lead us to some interesting answers. There was as far as I am aware NO calls for increased powers after Chevaline in distinct contrast to Woolwich, despite it could be argued far greater violence.
“Ex RAF man” No name, no rank, no number !
That was the first report concerning Brett Martin.
So why did the “unknown ex RAF man” go public ?
“Here is the man that found the bodies. Dreadful as it was, this man a normal man. All must be normal. This was just an insane random act”
Of course “TV” news always interview people that have witnessed the “latest disaster”. But a few days after ? Was this merely the News Station pulling off a “scoop” ????
Clearly they cannot change the fact that “this man” did not want to be identified….. but then he somehow gave a “full and frank” interview (which of course he didn’t).
But why ?
Money ? Was Martin offered a “nice” sum of cash ?
Could there “be” such a sum ?
“We’re not really sure who killed these damn people in this brutal and horrific manner. You say they were driving a U.K. 4×4… ? But would you mind awfully going on UK TV and telling the public your story ?”
“…and yes, sorry about that, it’s terrible I know but we will have to release your name”.
Why did this interview happen ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKfYjjBK3A4
The documentary.
You have to remember that “by law” in France the files of this and other crimes are kept confidential, ….that’s what they said in the documentary.
Yep, I get that. Okay.
But there is a journalist that has seen the file (WAIT A MINUTE !) and is prepared to reveal it’s contents (WAIT A BLOOMIN MINUTE).
He’s broken the law then ? Or the chap that showed the file to him has ? And no investigation !!!! (WHAT !)
….A “Murder Inquiry” lead by what must be THE most “two faced” legal system known in the Western World.
Let’s hope that the French solve this. Then maybe they can move on to solving Worldwide Hunger OR Speed of light teleporting !
11.26 in the documentary.
There are two tow trucks leaving the Combre D’Ire.
Why is that ?
One is carring the Al Hilli BMW.
The other…. why is there another ??? One car ? Two tow trucks ???
Three cyclists on that route …that day. (I assume “at that time”).
One would be Mollier, another Martin, the third ?
I also note “The Hiker” (we know as “Didierjean” OR “Bossy”) is NOT named in the documentary.
This brings me back to “why did Martin give his interview” and “why did his interview…give so little of the information he (I assume) knew (namely the UK plated 4×4)”.
There are TWO further points stand out.
1. Mollier was given the route by Claire’s father…but (it is said) that the Combe D’Ire was NOT part of that route.
So did Mollier “cover his tracks” by asking for a route….with the intention of NOT following it….but climbing the Combe D’Ire ?
2. The Swiss Bank account opened in 1984.
The deposits came when ? Any withdrawls ?
1984 is relevant. Ali Al Hilli was in England then. He was qualified as an Aircraft Engineer….and went to work for (drum roll) Iraq Airways !
Your father has been captured, tortured and left disabled…..and you go and work for Iraq Airways ?
Iraq Airways has an interesting history.
And in the 80’s who knows what cargo they moved !
Oh… and “Fat Bastard” is James Mathews.
So who is the “Fat Bastard” that wrote here and had written on MZT ?
Not sure it was “James Mathews”. Yet “they” managed to get pick out the name “Fat Bastard”.
From what we here know of James Mathews, it would be easy to verify.
On MZT they are more the “tea and cake” brigade.
Here…we’re more “facts and figures” type people.
Sooo come back “Fat Bastard”, I am interested who you actually are.
I suspect you’re not James Mathews….but you’ve picked an “interesting” name.
James
8 Jun, 2013 – 8:38 pm
“I also note “The Hiker” (we know as “Didierjean” OR “Bossy”) is NOT named in the documentary.”
You might have missed my point at Tim V
7 Jun, 2013 – 2:13 am
“For example we were able to SEE for the first time Philippe Didierjean/Bossy for the first time, and nice chap he was too. Though unless I missed it, I don’t think he was named. I think we have to thank Mario Zanni, the Swiss Prosecutor for that.”
The American/Jewish documentary doesn’t give the name “the hiker”. We are left to assume he is one and the same as “Philippe Didierjean”. However up pops the Swiss Prosecutor (remember my post about the close links between MI6 and Swiss underground?) who gives a 50% different name “Philippe BOSSY”! The COMBINED story from these two sources (film and Zanni) is enough to undermine the French story of Didierjean’s.
So again I pose the question is this sabatage of the French story-line or are we dealing with a different ADDITIONAL player not previously mentioned by “Didierjean” or Martin?
I think we should be told.
Damn! Sorry should read “doesn’t give the name OF “the hiker”.
Ex Royal Air Force. Why say that ?
Why not “ex British Airways, living in France” ?
But then give an “interview”.
And once his name is given, anyone with any sense can find him.
So all know this guy is ex SpeedBird.
I fly with numerous pilots that are “ex military of every other nation in the world dot com” nobody ever says “I’m ex whatever”
…apart from some Yanks, but that’s a “mano mano” thing !
IF we say Martin was there….first reports indicate that he does not want to be known. So what happened ?
*sabotage
Tim V 9:51PM:
“I think we should be told.”
Now, that’s funny…..I can only hope that those who follow this blog – and MZT, no doubt – are getting a serious kick out of this timely demand.
So, how about it guys – just one more tiny little hint? please? we have been so good and so steadfast and so entertaining too (well, were a bit more so when NR blessed us with his/her/its presence).
All, more later…..must go on urgent bike ride (on a forest road!) and do some bird watching first….
Are these the half-forgotten stakes? I’m not agreeing with its conclusions in any way. It’s an election propaganda film designed to increase fear and sway voters away from Obama. We didn’t get war as predicted but we did have Benghazi and Boston, not fogetting that Silicon Barb thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cslur-TOTmA
Marlin
9 Jun, 2013 – 12:26 am – It’s my family motto – “Je pense que nous devrions dit” – ha ha.
I know we talked about the caves of the Haute-Savoie and the French Resistance in WWII, but I don’t recall that we ever discussed the caves of the Dordogne:
http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/adventure/2012/05/resistance-to-nazis-in-a-land-riddled-with-caves/
What was it with Saad al-Hilli visiting these areas with caves, and spending so much time there? An interest in the unique prehistoric cave drawings?
Just a point of curiosity.