The mainstream media for the most part has moved on. But there are a few more gleanings to be had, of perhaps the most interesting comes from the Daily Mirror, which labels al-Hilli an extremist on the grounds that he was against the war in Iraq, disapproved of the behaviour of Israel and had doubts over 9/11 – which makes a great deal of the population “extremist”. But the Mirror has the only mainstream mention I can find of the possibility that Mossad carried out the killings. Given Mr al-Hilli’s profession, the fact he is a Shia, the fact he had visited Iran, and the fact that Israel heas been assassinating scientists connected to Iran’s nuclear programme, this has to be a possibility. There are of course other possibilities, but to ignore that one is ludicrous.
Which leads me to the argument of Daily Mail crime reporter, Stephen Wright, that the French police should concentrate on the idea that this was a killing by a random Alpine madman or racist bigot. Perfectly possible, of course, and the anti-Muslim killings in Marseille might be as much a precedent as Mossad killings of scientists. But why the lone madman idea should be the preferred investigation, Mr Wright does not explain. What I did find interesting from a man who has visited many crime scenes are his repeated insinuations that the French authorities are not really trying very hard to find who the killers were, for example:
the crime scene would have been sealed off for a minimum of seven to ten days, to allow detailed forensic searches for DNA, fibres, tyre marks and shoe prints to take place.
Nearby bushes and vegetation would have been searched for any discarded food and cigarette butts left by the killer, not to mention the murder weapon.
But from what I saw at the end of last week, no such searches had taken place and potentially vital evidence could have been missed. House to house inquiries in the local area had yet to be completed and police had not made specific public appeals for information about the crime. No reward had been put up for information about the shootings.
Behind the scenes, what other short cuts have been taken? Have police seized data identifying all mobile phones being used in the vicinity of the murders that day?
The idea that the French authorities – who are quite as capable as any other of solving cases – are not really trying very hard is an interesting one.
Which leads me to this part of a remarkable article from the Daily Telegraph, which if true points us back towards a hit squad and discounts the ides that there was only one gun:
Claims that only one gun was used to kill everybody is likely to be disproved by full ballistics test results which are out in October.
While the 25 spent bullet cartridges found at the scene are all of the same kind, they could in fact have come from a number of weapons of the same make.
This throws up the possibility of a well-equipped, highly-trained gang circling the car and then opening fire.
Both children were left alive by the killers, who had clinically pumped bullets into everybody else, including five into Mr Mollier.
Zainab was found staggering around outside the car by Brett Martin, a British former RAF serviceman who cycled by moments after the attack, but he saw nobody except the schoolgirl.
Her sister, Zeena, was found unscathed and hiding in the car eight hours later.
Both sisters are now back in Britain, and are believed to have been reunited at a secret location near London.
There are of course a number of hit squad options, both governmental and private, which might well involve iraqi or Iranian interests – on both of which the mainstream media have been very happy to speculate while almost unanimously ignoring Israel.
But what interests me is why the Daily Telegraph choose, in the face of all the evidence, to minimise the horrific nature of the attack by stating that “Both children were left alive by the killers”? Zainab was not left alive by design, she was shot in the chest and her skull was stove in, which presumably was a pretty serious attempt to kill a seven year-old child. The other girl might very well have succeeded in hiding from the killers under her mother’s skirts, as she hid from the first rescuers, and then for eight hours from the police.
The Telegraph article claims to be informed by sources close to the investigation. So they believe it was a group of people, and feel motivated to absolve those people from child-killing. Now what could the Daily Telegraph be thinking?
james, 5:52PM
How right you are about that interview. Why indeed did it happen when it did and just that once?
I picked up on a date coincidence for what it’s worse: EM went to England on the day before the interview. Correlation? who knows?
Why no mention of the BM appearance – or indeed any reference to his interview in Lazarus’ docudrama?
like you say james, it sure is funny that WBM is referred to as ex-RAF – something he was done with like when – 20 years before? didn’t he become a pilot trainer or something for Boeing later? why can’t he be ex-Boeing? ex-commercial pilot?
Conclusion: ex-RAF is code-speak, That much we can be pretty sure of. Code for what, you ask? well, proof is in the pudding – ex-RAF, alone on the scene, with blood on hand/glove, surrounded by very dead bodies, “almost” punched by Bossy/Didierjean – who then gets things “explained” to him pronto in the broken french known to ex-RAF types the world over, walks away with nary a complaint. Cleared in a jiffy – faster than you can say jack Robinson – two days and back in England is he.
more thoughts on the way the aftermath of Chevalin is playing out (like a game, right?):
Something they drew my attention to this point over at MZT: WBM gives his testimony, denying that he made that 3;48PM phone call. Provides some estimate of time it took him to ride up to the Martinet (not clear from where). That annoys the Eric Clouseau big time. Those vehicles too – ONR, MC whatever – up and down they go, making more rabbits to disappear, and evermore for the hapless EM to explain away – what dark green maybe pajaro? oh that – just a forestry vehicle. What MC? what’s a MC anyways?. Quelle merde! let’s give them British blokes one for the road, go the French – something for those non-cooperating stiff-upper-lipped to chew on – and voila! picture perfect photo at 3;15PM sharp – in Arnand of all places (sorry no can show, only tell…morbid, you know…). Now this allows poor SAH just barely enough time to make it to the Martinet to promptly get shot upon arrival (oh, there’s that builders testimony? no problem – let’s move the time – after all they were just “builders”, not time experts!). So the game continues…
Brits retaliate – depriving EM of access to girls (now well spirited out of the way), or to Ziad. Who knows what else? now when was that interview given by PD to Le Parisien? before or after the information release on the 3:15PM pictures? there were probably more small hints – just enough to let EM have lots of rope. fast forward to may and we have the call for the dark BMW X5 with RHD. Cute, that. And now Phillip Bossy appears, talking up a storm.
Basically, like Tim said times enough before – with my enthusiastic support – if there is one thing we can be sure of it’s that the French and the Brits are not quite singing from the same page, and are, in fact, at something of a loggerheads. So what we are seeing two, may be three agencies (one in the background) going at each other, landing a few here and there, not quite playing dirty yet, but perhaps threatening to any minute. I believe that we here, and elsewhere in commentariat universe play the role of the Greek chorus, pretending to referee a match, the rules of which no one bothered to appraise us of. Alas, our numbers were thinning and interest began to wane – after all – it’s just a bit of a hobby for [most of] us, right?
Along comes Lazarus with the Bossy scoop, the impressive “hiker’ formerly known as “Didierjean” (perhaps) whose role it is to add 6-7 minutes to the timeline (after promptly disappearing the lady companions). More confusion galore, so sad, right? well, not if the purpose is to confuse….I say, point to Tim V and the Brits here (and may be our Bossy is a Brit field operator? whyever not? that would explain about that “non-punch” – kind of an inside joke? is WBM laughing somewhere? can he laugh? is he having tea with NR cracking jokes over crumbling scones with a bit of maple on the side?).
Sorry, this post started out well enough but somehow escaped me….
http://www.cryptogon.com/?p=35568
Note that France is not part of the Five Eyes.
One possibility could be that Martin did not what to be identified.
The French authorities complied with this request
Remember Martin’s interview was to a TV crew. He was not under the guidance of the police (well, in the interview he appears not to be). But he does not add any significant information to what was already known…and already written.
He certainly did not mention being passed by the Al Hilli BMW (which he indeed could have been) NOR did he make mention of the BMW 4×4 (if it was indeed him that identified it as such, although it is highly likely that it was).
So why the interview. It could have been issued that the witness was so distressed by the situation that The Press have been asked to respect his privacy.
So who was the interview aimed at ?
The French authorities ? We’ll name our witness, you name yours ?
Or the killer(s) ? This guys says he didn’t see anything, but you know he did. Here’s his mane, lets see what happens ???
ALSO the “docudrama” says there were 21 shots fired. (7 bullets x 3 magazines). When did this point get clarified ?
Wiki still holds that there were “25 shots” fired. (The references are on that site). I recall that there was some debate of as to 3 magazines (7 bullets in each) with “one in the spout”.
The docudramarama…also puts Eric’s view forward.
No, not the “lone nut” theory, but the “a killer from far away, a weapon from near to home”. I mean it could be just that.
But that would mean a degree of planning was needed.
Also I would imagine access (via, via, via) to the “local” criminal collective in that area.
It could also indicate that neither Al Hilli or Mollier were the actual targets.
Who could have been the targets then ?
Another BMW on British plates ? OR another cyclist on that track ?
We have those don’t we ????
Is this then the reason for the Martin interview ?
If Al Hilli was on the Combe D’Ire “by chance” AND Mollier was “lost”….
…was Martin lost also ?
And what of the “third” cyclist briefly mentioned ?
Of course this throws up yet another question.
A killer sent to take out a cyclist and a car on an isolated track….with only a pistol !
It would be like taking a penknife to a gunfight.
“Of course this throws up yet another question.
A killer sent to take out a cyclist and a car on an isolated track….with only a pistol ! It would be like taking a penknife to a gunfight.”
Sound observation James. This was a planned assassination. No other explanation fits. In such a remote setting that inevitably requires details planning and co-ordination. You have to know precisely when your targets are in place which either involves pre-arrangement, a spotter or some other surveillance method. You have to have a plan “B” or even “C”. You have to get you targets to the intended location at the required time – not that easy. You have to get your assets there as well which means transport. This is not St Mark’s Square in Summer, this is remote with strictly limited access/escape so feet or even bicycle would be almost certainly ruled out. Escape routes have to considered, maybe even by helicopter? Significantly there was no burnt out vehicle as far as we know, invariably used if a vehicle might have been spotted. This indicates either arrogance or confidence that it wouldn’t be. Or alternatively that the vehicle did not exist. To do all this, knowing that there were at least four targets, who would send just one man and/or ONE weapon? Who would require the killer to also drive the vehicle? Who would not plan to block BOTH escape routes, knowing the targets had a powerful vehicle and that there were two such, north and south. This by definition would require a second vehicle/ person (motor cyclist or Peugeot 306?) So by my calculation you do indeed require a three man team to pull this off professionally and extensive pre-planning and technological back-up that only big crime syndicates or governments can provide. Had it been crime syndicates we would have seen a totally different approach by the French police. There would have been immediate road blocks, issuing of vehicle details, discovery of the burnt out vehicle, the trawl of known criminal, a likely list of suspects or organisations, even a statement acknowledging the action down to some political cause or other.
The conclusion is obvious. This must have been done by government. The targets cannot be accidental. The cause is known but cannot for the moment, anyway be revealed. The fact that the British have not moved against any of the remaining family indicates they do not consider them suspects contrary to what the French are saying. Indeed their robust action to remove and protect the girls, prevent the French speaking to them or Zaid for months on end, and demonstrating that they are prepared to bring out their heavy weapons to protect Zaid, shows 1. they consider they also may be at risk of assassination 2. they do not trust the French 3. they are not prepared to let the same thing happen to any of the remainder of the family. This virtually proves SAH was working for the British. That they have not charged or implicated WBM and must have facilitated his exit and return to France, plus gave permission and orchestrated his TV interview proves he too worked for British Intelligence in some way. If it had to be state inspired just a few fit the bill which by a process of elimination and modus operandi becomes ever more inevitable.
As sure as eggs are eggs, the British know who was behind the operation and probably also the individuals who did it. I am also sure, despite all the outward signs of “entente cordiale” the British are pissed at the French for letting it happen. This is a SERIOUS breach of faith on apparently close allies intent on sharing ever more detailed military secrets and operations including the most sensitive relating to nuclear and satellite communications. The interesting question is why Britain has remained utterly silent and refrained from pointing an accusatory finger. If we knew this the pyramid of cards would collapse. It would also have seismic consequences for international relations for both friends and foes. So we have to rely on the “hints” as Marlin and I have suggested. I am sure there will be more to come but these are largely for an informed audience. They are not intended to solve a crime but to provide a warning, to cause embarrassment, to say there are inevitable consequences to treachery even amongst spies and to discourage similar in the future. This I believe was the significance of the belated seepage of the Ben Zygier affair. It certainly wasn’t the family that let it slip, nor for that matter the Australian Government for whom it was equally embarrassing. Is the same at work in relation to this? http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-leaks-israeli-arrow-3-missile-secrets/ The West supports Israel, but it is also important they arn’t allowed to get above them selves and start a third WW as the vid I posted above describes (almost).
Further examples less than a month before Chevaline:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19272737
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4269110,00.html
Then for the bird fanciers among us (blog passim) the Times reports (4.6.13) the following:
119 killed and 50+ injured of 350 at work in a fire at the Baoyuan chicken slaughterhouse. It began at 6 am after locals heard three explosions.
anti biotic resistant bird flu – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22689601
British create a flu-resistant chicken.
If Bibi launches his air strike, as he wanted to three years ago, watch out those chemical and biological stores in Iran and Syria. As if nuclear Armageddon wasn’t bad enough, it could also unleash world wide plague as well. Perhaps there is more to Revelation and the Four Horses of the Acopalypse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Apocalypse) than meets the eye?
sorry meant to post this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12181382 and this http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/05/28/concerning-development-new-china-bird-flu-resistant-to-tamiflu/
Apropos Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse – maybe we have the “Four Horsemen of Chevaline”?
I repeat, France is not part of the Five Eyes, and would not have been privy to information gleaned by the Prism internet monitoring scheme (unless the five member countries decided to make it so), nor to the logs of Verizon calls. About that Prism, it would have included monitoring of phone calls made by VOIP. Some have referred to such matters in reference to the recordings of phone calls made by one of the Boston bombers to his wife. How did authorities get access to those recordings so quickly? Possible answer: they already had them, and VOIP calls monitored by Prism would not mean obtaining a warrant through the regular legal channels.
Remembering that Prism was aimed at monitoring the activities and communications of non-Americans.
We’re back to birds and eggs, again are we? That always takes us back to the al-Hilli family, and their diverse business interests, including a chicken farm in Iraq. One thing’s for sure: the al-Hillis didn’t put all their eggs in one basket.
Tim V June 8 2:35AM
“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.”
I think these discrepancies are well noted. Interestingly, the actual documentary as shown did not have the element of Bossy “almost” attacking WBM that were mentioned in the preview. That means that it was edited out for some reason. One must wonder why.
” 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?”
Interestingly, the journalist quoted in the documentary (name escapes at the moment) appears to be the one who had the original PD interview in Le Parisienne (got this little bit from reading through MZT commenters – the question was raised – and answered). So, the same reporter, now with two seemingly different stories, to the same journalist (who is also, BTW< the one who mysteriously got access to files of the french police that are supposed to be kept from prying eyes – but somehow this guy got a peek at them. Right).
As you say, Tim, it's back to the swamp. But that's the purpose, ain't it?
That's why I suggest looking at most of the disclosures, documentary included, as part of a "game" being played out between the agencies. There are "moves" being made here and the thing we should look at perhaps is the usual "who benefits". Seems to me that the primary purpose of bringing out Phillipe Bossy (sans WBM) is to add that 6-7 minutes to the timeline. As you noted, if Bossy was met by WBM cycling down, gesturing wildly and speaking broken french (as PD has supposedly recounted) is true, then your original timeline becomes all the firmer. In fact, this would totally accord with that 4:10PM time we discussed long ago which is when the emergency vehicles started arriving. Either that or a second call by PD – can't quite recall now.
If, OTOH< we believe the PB "came upon the scene" with WBM still there, it allows time for that fated phone call but ONLY if WBM arrived earlier than we postulated, ie, he was there by 3:30-3:35PM when the shots rang. II'll see if i can bring in the timeline reconstruction a commenter did on MZT for this scenario (need to check again who). Bingo, big problem right there, puts WBM at the scene at the time of the killings. No more innocent hero ex-RAF, right?
Lo and behold, that version IS NOT in the actual documentary. May be there was a threat of libel suit by WBM? may be a demand by PB himself? or may be another move by the Brit side that includes an implicit threat to take to the next level?. In my agency game theory, this means that the French reporter is on the French side, but PB could well be a british field operative, whose job it is – at least at this stage – to mess-up the french a bit. The reporter of course, is not in the know and hears what he hears. Not including the segment about PB coming upon the scene means that attempts by the french to wrap WBM back into the killing mix were not successful. Point to Brits. next move – Frenchies. I think they'll try something very soon.
Two more comments on the documentary:
21 bullets now, not 25. Three loadings. Sure, why not?
The "disappeared" women companions of the "Hiker". First they were there with PD, then we hear nothing from PB (may be he said something and it was edited out?). Note of interest: RAH in a car with two female companions, followed by a bicyclist. All killed. WBM, a bicyclist followed by a car driven by a man ("hiker" alert!) with two female companions. All alive and well. What's to stop us from thinking they could have all been there together? not that either PB/PD or WBM would tell. But cit couldn't it be that PB+ companions +WBM were the targets? or a complicated (overly so) extraction scenario went wrong when someone who wasn't supposed to be there showed up?
A swamp is a swamp, what can I say?
@ Marlin – 9 Jun, 2013 – 9:04 pm
Marlin, totally agree about possibility of wrong combo of “Hiker+2women” and “Cyclist” being killed – I call this my “wrong trousers” hypothesis, though really it should be called “wrong lycra”. As-is there are 4 possible combinations of car and bike.
However I think I remember that in the documentary, aired last Thursday, it was stated that there were actually three cyclists there that afternoon. Did anyone else hear that, or am I mistaken?
If there were three cyclists, who was the third man?
GIP – Yes, I heard the reference to “three” cyclists that “afternoon”. Indeed, where did that pop up from? have any of us ever seen or heard of the “third” cyclist?
Now all we need is another car (perhaps even a BMW, darkish in color?), may be with another set of one man + two women occupants? I mean, think of the combinations!
Say, didn’t we hear something about a 4×4 lately? one that could not possibly be a forestry vehicle – being RHD and all? now, if only “they” could tell us something about the occupants! Where is Sylvie LeCoeur when we need her?
May be we should issue a UBD (United Bloggers Demand) to Inspector Closeau – let the third cyclist go!
BTW, GIP, do you like my latest (oh, so idle) speculation about SM perhaps never existing at all? (the” there he wasn’t and there he isn’t” line) I mean, how do we know? what proof have we got in the face of such deep vows of silence? no internet traces of either him, or anyone referring to him (including his social son, Leo, who twitted about nearly everything else). I am taking my cue from “Blow Up” of course, transplanted to the digital age. Well, it is a curious thing that with so many hard working and capable on-line detectives, if not their more hapless “real” media counterparts (the lazy bums! the un-Greenwalds) not a single hint of SM’s physical existence has ever materialized.
James
8 Jun, 2013 – 7:02 pm You may like to know that copy has been blocked on You Tube.
I liked yours of Marlin
9 Jun, 2013 – 9:04 pm. I think you might well have hit upon (either by intent or accident!) this purpose for this latest French version. I think its very significant that they have used the same Le Parisien reporter if what you have gleaned from MZT is correct.
This shows it is a French SS operation. It also demonstrates there can be no excuses for the variations in story as the “journo” would have picked up on them. He is obviously being used as a convenient and compliant “channel”. Why did he not challenge the apparent changes? It also tends to confirm that Philippe Didierjean and Philippe Bossy are one and the same, as how could the same journalist not have noted the fact if it was a different person before him?
So also very significant is the fact that he was not named in the new film, but very co-incidentally a new name IS made public from quite different source at just the same time but BEFORE the film is transmitted publicly. In other words the Swiss prosecutor knew the contents of the film prematurely presumably and saw fit to name a witness, knowing this conflicted with the earlier French story. You would expect the Swiss and French to be closely aligned. This appears more like subtle sabotage to me along the lines of the British.
So if the new Bossy story line is orchestrated by the French, subtly and immediately undermined by the Swiss/British, what is the purpose of the change. It could, beside pointing an accusatory finger at WBM, shift the timeline as you suggest Marlin. Are they trying to meet the unanswerable objection to the 3.48 call by cutting out the panicked meeting down the hill altogether?
As I argued way back, and as later reports suggested, WBM arrived no later than 3.35. If it took him half an hour from the village (rather than from the entrance sign) which is more believable, it places him on that road from just after 3. Therefore if the police are right that the Al Hillis were in Arnaud at 3.15 (which I personally doubt) they would have HAD to pass him on his journey. So significant is this fact, his failure to report it must either mean he was intentionally misleading or they MUST have been in front of him and arrived before 3.05. It would have to mean that the killer’s vehicle if there was one, had to be right on the Al Hillis tail, a point specifically denied by the builders.
I am sure we have proved (beyond reasonable doubt?) the Al Hillis arrived about 3. The killers 4×4 went up just before 3.30 and having passed WBM either passed SM and parked up, waiting for him to arrive, or arrived just seconds after SM had arrived and dismounted, disembarking and starting shooting almost immediately.
Now back to your suggestion Marlin, if the story now is that Bossy comes upon the scene shall we say ten minutes after WBM, cutting out the cycle meeting, there is just about time for him to make the call at 3.48. Is this the reason for the changed version of events?
Of course it would mean they would have to find some excuse for the previous story line and admit it was a fabrication. They would also have to explain how they could confuse Martin and Bossy making the call and Martin’s claim that he could get no reception. In addition Martin’s story also becomes untenable.
What a bleedin’ mess they have got themselves into. If it weren’t so serious it would be laughable.
@Tim V 10 Jun, 2013 – 2:15 am
With the greatest of respect Tim, I don’t think we’ve ‘proved’ anything here, let alone ‘beyond reasonable doubt’!
I’m afraid all we have to work with is gossip, innuendo and hearsay. So no concrete evidence of any sort whatsoever!
Mochyn69
….and even the “official” unofficial, official line keeps changing. 25 bullets. Now 21.
That’s NOT from the French police, but from the French police file that they legally cannot show, but did show to a journalist, that told a producer that made a progamme for a television channel.
That takes “hearsay” to a whole new level !
It reminds me of “The mafia”.
The Boss would “whisper” his instructions to his Underboss.
The Underboss in turn would “whisper” those instructions to the Consiglieri
The Consiglieri would “whisper” those instructions to a Capo.
The Capo would engage a Soldier. Who may in turn engage an Associate.
….and then the deed would be done.
A perfect system as the “blame” could never be classed a a “conspiracy” NOR could it be “tracked back” to “The Boss”.
The investigator puts the “a note” in a legally blocked file.
The file has a “guardian”. The “guardian” shows the file to a journalist, the journalist reads the note and tells a producer the content, the content is then used …and gets published by the commissioning television channel.
If the published content (in this case the number of bullets fired) is questioned…at each level upwards there is a “built in redundancy”.
“I broadcasted what had been produced which is what they had been told by someone who had seen it….and they had seen it in a file that is not allowed to be viewed”.
Total denial ! It’s perfect.
Admiring the time and effort you put into your blog and in depth information you offer.
It’s great to come across a blog every once in a while that isn’t the same unwanted rehashed material.
Excellent read! I’ve bookmarked your site and I’m
adding your RSS feeds to my Google account.
Forget the official story.
There was no 4×4. There was no car at all. Perhaps there was Bossy, but the street was locked by a builders truck to avoid unnecessary disturbances. Only when le chef de l’equipe gave the signal that the job was done, Bossy was allowed to pass the truck.
This was a “stay behind” op. NATO isnt just the french. It is tge British, too.
However “stay behind” isnt connected with french police. Eric is a poor guy.
There are witnesses who are “stay behind” shills giving wrong statements and wrong reports to him. “Speeding 4×4, etc.
In that OP there were 2 people at the scene: SM and BM. Nobody else. BM was hiding in the background for the job being done. SM was previously instructed to give the gun to BM for the “scene cleaning”. After handling the gun over to BM and turning away to leave, SM was killed by BM. Typical GLADIO killing. Kill the killer.
Remember: Zainab saw only 1 bad guy! No good guy. Due to the false police reports, she should have seen SM. She did never mention him, except when he was the one bad guy.
The Luger came from a “stay behind” depot hidden in the Col d’Ire region since WW2.
Probably that gun is back there as per yet. Only a few selected Savoians do know tge coordinates of that depot. Ask that farmer whose cow was shot dead!
Shortly before they took the Luger from that depot (the farmer?) and handed it over to SM. As you need to test an old gun that was hidden in a storage since 1946, SM shot the cow.
No 4×4, no motor cyclist. Just a few Savoian “stay behind” shills as false witnesses to confuse Eric’s work. Nobody speaks in Haute Savoie about SM simply because they all know their Annemasse “stay behind” activities, particularly regarding Roger. Their North African links even more so support their “Annemasse stay behind” network since 1946.
“Stay behind” does not kill randomly. Saad must have been a danger for NATO, for peace or for NATO plans. Either by planning or executing a terror plot or else by leaking secrets to enemies. He was setup to go to that hidden place at Col d’Ire and there was a warm welcome by SM whom he attacked and hit with his car in order to defend himself. BM did the rest and the scene cleaning. Bossy was the first witness being allowed to pass the road and to confirm the official story.
Apologies Mochyn69
10 Jun, 2013 – 8:02 am for being guilty of “over-egging the mix” with the word “proved”. It was silly of me to use shorthand to such a discerning audience. What I should have said was “More likely on a balance of probabilities”. I stand chastised and corrected.
Welcome from all of us I’m sure
Garaż Blaszany
10 Jun, 2013 – 10:25 am. Glad you like and look forward to your contributions soon.
Compare and contrast
From the Telegraph 1.6.13
” In graphic testimony, a witness who arrived on the scene, hiker Philippe Bossy, tells the programme how he saw Mr Hilli with a hole “as big as a two Euro coin” in his head.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/10093647/Alps-murders-prosecutors-reveal-fresh-details-of-inheritance-war.html
From the Mirror 3.6.13
” The hero cyclist who found a family massacred in the Alps was attacked by a Frenchman who thought he was the killer.
British airline pilot Brett Martin, 50, who helped save a little girl shot in the attack, dodged a punch thrown by Philippe Bossy, 41, the first person he saw after finding four bodies.
In a TV investigation into the killings of Saad al-Hilli, 50, of Surrey, his wife, mother-in-law and a local French cyclist, Mr Bossy admits: “I linked the English plates on the car with the Englishman I was standing next to and thought the worst.
I went to punch him… he shouted, “It’s not me! It’s not me!”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/french-alps-murders-hero-cyclist-1928124#ixzz2VoFb9nH
Compare and contrast Professional or not?
Guardian 7.9.12
“French investigators say the murder of a British man and three others on the edge of a secluded Alpine forest bears the hallmarks of a professional assassination”
The Telegraph 17.11.12
“Renewed attention is being focused on the possibility the gunman was a lone psychopath, rather than a professional hitman.”
The Week 22.11.12
“We are not sure whether that means it’s a professional hit but if it was done on a contract it was very badly done. We are looking for unbalanced people – capable of extreme violence.”
Read more: http://www.theweek.co.uk/crime/annecy-shootings/50222/new-al-hilli-murder-theory-it-was-tourist-hating-serial-killer#ixzz2VoIa2uX2
Catharsis Now 27.10.12
“This has led to angry tweets from Ducos, who says he stands by his source. In an email to The Week, Ducos claims the hypothesis is “probable” and makes the point that Maillaud has not denied that Saad al-Hilli and his daughter were outside his car when the shooting started, nor that Mollier’s body was moved, nor that the evidence points to a non-professional killer.”http://fredw-catharsisours.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/saad-al-hilli-murders-still-clear-as-mud.html
WIKIPEDIA “In October 2012 confidential police files on the case were leaked to a French newspaper, showing investigators believed the killings were carried out by “a lone and psychologically disturbed killer”. One of the reasons given was that the killer used a pre-World War II Luger Po6 automatic pistol, a weapon unlikely to be used by a professional assassin.”
The Mirror 3.6.13
“French prosecutors suspect a contract killer was responsible for the bloodbath near Lake Annecy because, “not a single bullet was wasted”.
Another quote I can’t for the moment locate states the shots were random and proved the shooter was an amateur.
Contrast and compare. The DNA fiasco.
Independent 22.11.12
“Police were unable to find any DNA at the scene”
Booman Tribune 24.12.13
“A professional killer? The gun was an antique: a Swiss army Luger from the 1920s or earlier. It fell apart in the gunman’s hands. Fragments of it were found at the scene. One of them has recently yielded a trace of DNA, which may yet help trace the attacker. On the other hand, that DNA may belong to Zainab al-Hilli, aged seven, who was beaten and left for dead.
[Killer X left no traces of dna on the victims or at the crime scene. This would indicate a well planned and military or professional hit – Oui]”
Telegraph 13.4.13
“Alps murder: DNA found at scene ‘could be that of killer. Now Annecy prosecutor Eric Maillaud has confirmed that “unidentified DNA” was found on “elements at the scene”.
The Week 15.4.13
“But by lunchtime yesterday, the “breakthrough” was history. And those who have been saying since before Christmas that Inspector Clouseau would have made a better of fist of catching the al-Hillis’ killer appeared to have got it right.
The Telegraph posted on its website an updated article stating that the DNA had been found to belong to a member of the police forensics team who had accidentally contaminated the evidence during early investigations at the IRCGN. It took the Bordeaux lab to spot what had happened.”
Read more: http://www.theweek.co.uk/world-news/52481/al-hilli-murder-breakthrough-inspector-clouseau-needed#ixzz2Vob2E0wm
Blue..
I can see where you’re coming from, but can’t get my head around it to be honest.
Clearly the best “stay behind” networks would have been well funded around the years of the “Cold War”. So why use a Luger (type weapon) ? Why not an older (newer compared to the “luger”) NATO issue weapon which no doubt would be widely available ?
Question. Has the Luger some significant meaning in relation to Mollier ? Or the family of Mollier ?
A link maybe François de Grossouvre and his “secret armies” though to the “stay behind” networks.
He died in 1994 (*suicide* Two bullets in the head).
However Captain Paul Barril claims it was murder (he should know, he liked “secret armies” also).
And from Barril to Rwanda….and of course genocide.
But then where ?
Recent French military activity in Africa is really centred around Mali. A different “kettle of fish” altogether.
If anything in the C4 piece can be believed (big if) a couple of things struck me.
i) It presented SAH as concerned about having to sell his house in order to settle probate yet we know there is a million Euros in the Father’s Swiss account plus his Spanish flat. Surely if SAH wanted to keep the house there were still these more or less equivalent assets to offer his brother. Or was the Swiss account in some way a risk? Not to be disturbed without potential consequences? Or did SAH feel entitled to keep the house and the money? Is inheritance to eldest son only, such a strong custom?
ii)In the C4 piece the lawyer guy with Iraqui connection didth protest too much for me about how it was obvious that no Saddam account could have been secret, that the CIA would know about all moneys that Saddam had stashed. I don’t buy that. There were many things Saddam managed to keep from the West and squirreling way a secret million doesn’t seem at all un-doable to me. The question is why only a paltry million? Insignificant by 10^4, I would have said, in the Saddam scheme of things.
Unrelated:
This may have been covered before but the TheWeek link references a Jan 2013 article in The Sun
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4742429/Motorbiker-is-the-top-suspect-over-Alps-murder-of-British-family.html
which quotes BM as describing a motorcycle leaving the scene that had “a white engine”
That sounds like an extraordinarily custom (and traceable) feature?
Here is a Paris outfit that does such modifications:
https://www.facebook.com/rivegauchekustoms
Of course, I think any and everything BM is ever said to have said is also very suspect, as any way you look at him, he is not as portrayed.
As a supplementary comment to Bluebird’s first comment on this page, I’d like to bring this over:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/06/the-omniscient-state/
Sharing of information is the key. These agencies cooperate with each other. So when they claim to follow their countries’ respective rules about not spying on their own citizens, it’s a moot point: they get their partners to spy on their citizens, then share the information. The agencies know what happened at Chevaline, IMO, but dear Eric is not likely privy to the information, being a local authority. This lends to the authenticity of the operation by letting the hapless local authorities “investigate” in the dark.
Those caves, of course, would have played a role in the storage of old WWII weapons.