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
Didnt WMB testify that the wheels were spinning?
Seems to be impossible to be the truth then …..
@ BB
I thought it was moved or rolled forward from the original discussions ,not sure myself looking at them you could well be right .
I think the Ch 4 doco also showed Zainab on the bank om SAH’s side of the car so I assume if PB stopped to see Zainab and then walked up on SAH’s side he could see SM’s legs on the other side of the car (passenger side)with his body obscured by the car ,does that sound right ?
Another thought is why Zainab was where she was, could she and dad have been on the road towards the next layby down and were running up to the car ?
Spam alert?
Blue…
Really they shouldn’t be “spinning”.
The “transfer of power” from wheel to wheel, as one has a loss of traction in relation to the other… would mean the power “should” not allow the wheels to spin at all (albeit modulated power transfer so a “small” spinning effect on one side and then the other).
BMW AG or BMW M GmbH would provide the definitive answer to that.
But from my experience and knowledge, the wheels (unless the DSC had been switched off, which you manually have to do) would not be “spinning” in the same way that a “non BMW” rear wheel drive vehicle would (churning away relentlessly).
The point is, if Al Hilli knew about cars, which it is suggested he did…and the cars rear wheels were spinning, which it is suggested they were…then he must have disengaged the DSC….at some point.
Many BMW drivers don’t even know about it. The button is on the centre console marked “DSC”.
If he did disengage it, he would have know about its function.
Therefore he would not have done that during his ride up the combe D’Ire….BUT may have done so IF he was leaving his position and was on “wet” ground.
Make of that what you will.
James
When i watch that picture i dont see any wet ground. I can use a 1960 car to get off there smoothly without any kind of problems. This is a serious lie by Eric, and the MSM media buys it.
As discussed long ago, the whole scene could have been staged. While “workers” closed the road, someone could have driven up to the parking lot, and placed (deceased) people on the scene. The “crime scene” may have been the second location. This would explain a lot of things, like spinning wheels, and the photo taken with a date/time stamp in the village, and why it must not be released. People on forums like this do tend to notice things that do not belong, like a sunny photo on a rainy, overcast day.
Another odd thing is that when nuclear scientists and so on go missing and encounter an accident or misadventure, they tend to leave their identification and mobile phones behind at home, or hotel, etc., thereby indicating that they were depressed and planned their own demise. This was not the case at Chevaline. This anomaly continues to be a puzzle. The misadventured nuclear scientists tend to disappear one at a time, so this could be the explanation. Surely a group of related and unrelated people would not all be depressed, leave all ID and phones and home and go off on a misadventure.
Bluebird
21 Jun, 2013 – 9:23 am – the al hillis bmw is rear wheel drive only. The official line that it was “stuck” is misleading and presumably intentionally so. If WBM’s testimony in this regard is accurate, and it IS corroborated by the rubber heat marks, the reason it was there was not because it was “stuck” but because reverse was engaged and the accelerator was still depressed revving the engine and spinning one wheel at least through the limited slip differential If forward gear had been engaged i have no doubt it would have freed itself. This means that Zainab was never in danger from the car lurching forward as WBM claimed though i suppose he might have thought so, and certainly not the dead Sylvain Mollier which creates an element of doubt regarding motivation for moving them. It also means that SAH was still on the accelerator or otherwise the engine would have stalled. A long time ago i suggested this might have been caused by post trauma spasm. Again i ask why do the media outlets perpetuate obvious errors that impact on the story line?
Blue….
Technically speaking if you arrived at a scene of a BMW on mud, wet grass, snow etc….and it had the DSC “on” (which is the default “setting”) you would hear the engine “at work”.
But the wheels would not be spinning. The DSC would be modulating that power output through the rear wheels (hence the “off” button for the DSC).
Martin’s “interview” therefore is correct…to a point.
He says he could hear engine of the car. That would indeed be the case.
However when he continues and says that the wheels were spinning… that would NOT be the case (unless the DSC was off).
NOTE. When the DSC is disengaged (off setting manually selected) and the ignition is turned off, turning the ignition on again would reset the DSC to it’s default setting, that being “on” (engaged).
So where did the mud “spray” on the pax side rear wheel arch (cannot see the drivers side one) come from (indicating a backwards and forward motion) ?
I haven’t a clue.
I can only come up with five possible answers.
1. He was in the vehicle, ready to depart. Facing the forest he disengaged the DSC due to loose ground….
2 He was in the vehicle, ready to depart. Facing towards the road he disengaged the DSC due to loose ground….
3. He arrives at the Martinet with the DSC disengaged due to loose ground previously encountered on the route.
4. There was a fault with his DSC which meant it would never set to the default (on) and was always disengaged.
5. The BMW was raised off the ground by an obstacle to it’s rear, the DSC remained engaged (on) and the tyres being raised above the ground never lost “traction” and merely skimmed the ground with minimum (normal) resistance.
There is a “sixth” option I have considered.
The mud spray on the rear pax arch comes from the BMW being in a different location.
That location contains wet or muddy ground…and may therefore be more “rough” or “rural” than The Martinet car park.
Being more “rural” it may also contain low hanging obstacles, which would account for the damage to the roof rack.
The “story” with regard the vehicle being “stuck” on a bank WITH the rear wheels spinning due to a “speedy” attempt to escape would therefore be false.
A further “confirmation” of this “could be”….
1. The helicopter picture of the BMW in-situ at The Martinet
2. The speed in which the car park was re opened for a “press” visit.
BUT why do that at all ?
If the scene was “invented” then why go to all that trouble.
Why not just “clean it up a bit” and have the Al Hill family just “parked” ?
The answer I think is pretty obvious. Not everyone would be “in” on the story. And even a French vehicle forensic inspector may spot that a murder scene (the car) is rather “soapy” around it’s wheels arches !
Sorry the post is a bit long…and not witty !
The only other thing I’ll mention with regard Rear Wheel Drive cars, BMW’s and the DSC system is….
RWD cars are “tail happy”, before DSC an old trick was to just throw a couple of bags of sand in your car boot/tailgate…and off you go.
With DSC you can still do this…and turn your DSC OFF.
This would mean that your rear tyres “dig into” the ground giving you more grip. Good on uneven or bumpy roads (the DSC is designed to help you when in trouble on smooth/normal roads).
That said…
The BMW was “dug into” the ground at The Martinet !
AND it is said to have “things” in the boot !
The car had been on a “bumpy and uneven” road !
It is said that the wheels WERE spinning !
So…who turned OFF the DSC ????
Option A.
Al Hilli jumps in his car, already wounded he turns on the ignition and starts the car, selects reverse….and has the presence of mind to switch off the DSC ?
Option B
Al Hilli is planning to go up the Combe D’Ire.
Puts weight in the tailgate, turns off the DSC on The Route.
Enters The Martinet….and never turns off his car.
Then “option B” shows a degree of “pre planning” ?
And it shows that it is more than likely he was “just arriving” at the car park.
If that is so, and he is in reverse and about to park his car at the car park (with the DSC still disengaged) when the attack happened, why did the police “state” he had been out of his vehicle at the Martinet ?
And that he had likely been “near” to Mollier (DNA/ blood splatter)?
There is no explanation of this other than the transferring of DNA/blood splatters by person or persons unknown between the seated and/or deceased Sa’ad Al Hilli and the prone and deceased Mollier.
Al Hilli may have of course arrived “just after” Mollier had been attacked. Seeing only Mollier on the ground he could have placed the vehicle in “park” and got out….and then been attacked himself. That would mean that Mollier was the “prime target”.
…or “a cyclist” that was en route to The Martinet.
Every logical conclusion given the evidence presented does not lead to the “conclusion” indicated by the people that released the evidence in the first place (The French Police). And that’s mighty strange.
James
From a point of logic there are more questions than answers:
Why did the killer leave the scene with a car spinning wheels?
Why didnt a killer set the car on fire (or at least he tried todo so?)
What WMB had told us was an “unfinished” crime scene, as if the killer had to run because there was a “disturbance” or else because the killer was heavily injured an unable to leave.
I dont take it that a killer would leave a little girl who could have seen him, alive but seriously injured, when he had already killed “four”.
So then, if what we read is true, why did the killer leave an unfinished crime scene in sort of panic?
Was he in panic because WBM arrived? If so, WBM must have seen him or heard him or he must have seen some kind of car or bike with the killer leaving. Simply because if the killer saw a cyclist then the cyclist must have seen the killer in a col du sac.
On tze other hand, why should a killer panic who just killed another “cyclist” who were obviously just a random “witness”? Killing WBM woukd not have made any difference for him and he would have had time to do what WBM had done later for him (cleaning the scene).
The “unknown” killer did just one part of a professional killers job while WBM did the final part (coincidentally? ) of the killers job. Nobody left the scene according to WBM.
So then we most likely have a seriously injured killer who was unable to finish his job but who mysteriously “disappeared” from that scene, plus we have a random “witness hero” who finished the job of the killer before he even thought about calling 911.
Plus we have a load of “workers” and a truck, blocking the only road up to that scene for cars for a certain amount of time, mysteriously exactly at a time while the event happened since when they had blocked the street earlier, Saad would not have had a chance to drive uphill.
If WBM was a random bypasser then he must have made the killer panic and disappear somehow without letting him hear any kind of motor noise or visibility. I do not understand how the killer was able to do so and i do not understand why WBM made the killer panic while SM did not make him panic, hence he even started to shoot while SM was almost there and clearly visible?
The workers were part of the “stay behind” setup to close the street after Saad was passing by.
According to Itv news the investigation covers 15 countries and it will take a year to sift through the data but EM is sure its a family track and that it was because SAH was trying to reclaim property in Irac ,I thought SAH had already sold the property in Irac after he went back and got punched by the tenants?
Blue….
That’s the problem. More questions than answers.
And that’s if we only take the “DSC” question.
Like you say, why would a “killer” leave a scene unfinished.
Maybe he was finished. He started and finished with Mollier.
….and then Al Hilli arrived.
If what the police say IS true (and that’s a leap of faith) in that Martin told them the wheels were spinning when he arrived, then the logical questions can only be….
1. “Who disengaged the DSC ?”
2. and “when was it disengaged ?”.
Answer that and we can start to piece together a “timeline”.
Just found the story.
http://www.itv.com/news/2013-06-21/search-for-answers-continues-after-french-alps-massacre/
If the DSC was disengaged by Al Hilli (the most logical answer), then there are only three probable “when’s”.
On the route up to The Martinet he disengaged the DSC.
The reason, road being bumpy so he wanted more grip in those conditions.
Which would then mean the BMW was never turned off at the car park as the DSC system would reset to default (DSC engaged).
OR
He disengaged the DSC as he was making his “speedy” escape.
The reason, he depressed it when he was shot after he had started the vehicle and whilst he was trying to select reverse.
OR
The DSC was not operating at all and did not default to “on” when the ignition was started.
I can only say that in my view all are “possible”…BUT
The first statement is the most likely.
The third statement is likely.
The second statement is unlikely.
DSC is not just a limited slip diff, it is a highly active system that directs power to any number of wheels as it senses e.g. lateral forces and skidding. It even applies the brakes selectively to any of 4 wheels. You would not need to turn it off for rough ground as it would if anything still be helpful from a safety point of view. I don’t know why all are assuming the wheels wouldn’t spin with the DSC on. If the car was in reverse with back wheels in a soft bank, with any input from the pedal, why would the computer not assume the car needed to overcome a small obstruction and apply limited traction, moving the wheels? Someone needs to conduct an experiment before reaching any conclusion.
Also, re finishing the job and other possible witnesses. If the killer beat the girl with the gun, breaking the grip, he may have been out of ammunition even before turning to the child and therefore as witnesses arrived had more reason to flee.
Intp
With 21 bullets shot he cannot be out of ammunition.
Even with 25 bullets (other sources) shot he cannot be out of ammunition.
Only with 8, 16, 24, 32 bullets having been shot, the theory of being out of ammunition could be considered.
In the only logic i would consider, the killer became unable to finish the job (due to injuries?) and the substitute who did hide in the background as his backup did finish that job for him.
@Intp1
1. “DSC is not just a limited slip diff”.
Never said it was a “limited slip diff”.
It is a “dynamic” system.
I’m a pilot and a graduate engineer.
I know my positraction, believe me …and how “dynamic systems” work. Please don’t even try to look “smart” and confuse the issue !
2. “It directs power to any number of wheels”.
Tell me how many wheels does it direct power to on a rear wheel drive, non 4×4 (non AWD) vehicle ? Two ? Or more than two ???
3. “You would not need to turn it off for rough ground”.
No you don’t. That’s for sure.
There are reasons why you might turn it off in those conditions however. And that’s because it’s “dynamic”.
Can you explain why you would turn off a “dynamic” diff system on an uneven surface ?
4. “I don’t know why all are assuming the wheels wouldn’t spin with the DSC on”.
Err…Because they don’t !
That’s why BMW came up with the DSC system !!!! That’s what it does.
BMW come up with a system…..and it doesn’t work ????
It doesn’t “do” what it says it does ????
Don’t believe me.
There are many forums on BMW’s you can research.
Or call your local dealer and ask them for an overview of DSC.
Call BMW AG or BMW (UK) if you’re in the UK.
They will be more than happy to explain the DSC system indepth.
FACT. The engine could have been revving. The wheels would not be “spinning” in the manner suggested.
Nitpt1
“directs power to any number of wheels as it senses”
Like I said earlier. It’s an “ABS system in reverse”.
It actually “brakes”..
The power (torque) is reduced.
Given the yaw rate, the management system will “power down” and “brake” the effected wheel. It will not “direct power to any number of wheels”. That is just insane !
Given that “both” wheels lose traction (no yaw) guess what happens ????????????
Wish these f*ckers would study !
The problem may explain why interaction with ads is
higher, too. If you are job-hunting, it is widely used to market most any
type of business that you have the capacity to log in using their buy
twitter followers, although it’s a lot more. Posterous simultaneously relays all your posts #FF Follow Friday lists? This, and the correct thing to do is to deliver content – business relevant good content.
intp1 @ 22 Jun, 2013 – 5:08 pm
“… If the killer beat the girl with the gun, breaking the grip, he may have been out of ammunition …”
“If” is the operative word.
There are other explanations for Zainab being found unconscious and bit(s) of the weapon being left behind:
Maybe she was struck by a moving vehicle?, maybe she fell and hit her head? Maybe the gun was dropped?
“pistol whipped” makes a nice headline for the press.
As TimV pointed out earlier in this thread, We have had all of the following reported:
from EricM:
Dead!
Shot once twice?
Pistol whipped.
Orbital bone fractured.
Possible brain damage.
Possibly lose sight.
Unconscious.
Sedated in hospital.
from WBM:
Staggering.
Covered in blood.
Unconscious.
Groaning.
Breathing normally
from PD/B:
No blood visible.
Unconscious.
Not responding to clap.
Within a little over a week:
Released from hospital, moved straight to foster parents, not hospital, so apparently fully recovered from her “severe injuries” with no side effects yet despite her trauma familiar family member are denied access!
For example, you can follow. Feeling disappointed that his song Perform This Way,
at first, but is filled with parents and” drama. Now here’s how Buy Twitter Followers is going to trend or not. 5 buy twitter followers accounts from 200 followers to over 1900 in about 6-7 days in that time it took another account from absolute zero followers to over 1800 in the same field and follow their followers. The third cluster, in the public spotlight. For example, some people share such details because the whole world.
I hear you engineers but I just think rather than rely on theory, it should be physically tested to see if DSC feedback would keep the wheels from revolving At ALL, INDEFINITELY, once stuck in a soft bank rut with the pedal depressed. Because if it does, that is a rather silly outcome for anyone e.g. stuck in a snow bank.
Also on the ammo, two non-absolute assumptions a) that we actually know # of shots fired and b) that the killer arrived with all clips containing the exact, full, optimum quantity of bullets.
To add up to the recent discussion about that surprising mention Bill Brett made of the “spinning wheels” that supposedly led him to break into the car and turn ignition off for “safety reasons”, a few extra notes:
– I always assumed the al-Hilli BMW is automatic transmission. Just because with a manual gearbox the car would probably have eventually stalled when getting stuck with a dead person at the wheel. But there has never been to my knowledge any official confirmation of this. How do we know for sure?
– assuming the car indeed is automatic transmission, the selector might have been either in Drive or in Reverse when operator lost control after being fatally shot. If in Drive, I totally agree with a former post of yesterday: DSC would certainly have prevented both rear wheels from spinning as soon as they lost grip, unless it had been manually disabled, which sounds very unlikely considering the stressful circumstances. But if in Reverse, I have the feeling that that DSC is disabled by design, as backing-up is limited to a low maximum speed, when skating effects may be deemed insignificant. I am not 100 pc positive about this point, but it sounds quite likely that software engineers at BMW took this into consideration. If so, there could have been a minimal “spinning”, even though even in that case I tend to think that pressure on the gas pedal must also have been minimal: yes, there’s cadaver rigidity, but on German cars pedals have rather powerful return springs, so I would think the engine could have been idling at best.
Long story short:
IF manual transmission… Story doesn’t make sense.
IF automatic, shift in DRIVE… reeving engine possible, but spinning wheels VERY unlikely.
IF automatic, shift in REVERSE… reeving engine possible, spinning wheels ONLY IF my above assumption is valid (if anyone can call BMW to make sure whether or not DSC is functional in Reverse, that’d be great)
Besides, it’s interesting to note that assuming the car was engaged in Reverse, fearing it might “lurch forward” is inconsistent. Even assuming it was in Drive, blocking a front wheel with a large stone like those that can be seen near the embankment was just as efficient as cutting ignition and easier to do: you don’t have to break through the window of a locked door. Isn’t this the parking procedure for airplanes, even for large passengers jets? An airman would know. Not to mention that on automatic transmission cars, you’re supposed to shift the stick into Parking before turning the key to the off position or using the Start/Stop button. Rather cumbersome with a cadaver in the driver’s seat.
AGrainOfSalt
23 Jun, 2013 – 10:09 am
“- I always assumed the al-Hilli BMW is automatic transmission. Just because with a manual gearbox the car would probably have eventually stalled when getting stuck with a dead person at the wheel. But there has never been to my knowledge any official confirmation of this. How do we know for sure?”
…
Pink
This is what his friend said on the other forum about the car if it helps .
……
Fat Bastard 5-21-2013 at 23:21:48
“saad drove a BMW 5 SERIES 525d SE 5dr Diesel
NOT an X 5 and not an automatic, automatics are not good for towing” – See more at: http://www.marilynztomlins.com/articles/chevaline-shootings-saad-al-hilli-sylvain-mollier-brett-martin-philippe-d-xavier-baligant-2/#sthash.dHPXbXh6.dpuf
Intp1
But that’s the point !
“Because if it does, that is a rather silly outcome for anyone e.g. stuck in a snow bank”.
That is why there is an “off” button.
I agree with you that it should be tested …as the traction control system is not designed for a car that’s path is blocked an obstacle. That would give us an insight into how the car would react.
Maybe that is why (the system being “on”) the car did not climb over the bank ?
I am open to all theories. As long as they are not “blank statements” like “it can’t do that” (and no “because of XYZ”).
@AgrainOfSalt
Good question….and “I don’t know” would be my answer.
I would assume that the DSC would be “on” which ever gear was selected. It is meant to be only disabled at low speeds, as that is where you’d need to disable it.
However…and this may (contradict myself but getting to the truth is bigger than egos) when Martin said “in case the car lurched forward” THAT maybe to do with the DSC !
The power/braking effect would “modulate”. Therefore it would be “under power” at some point, then “under no power” the next.
against a bank/obstacle that may appear as a movement backwards followed by a movement forwards (a rocking motion).
That could indicate that the DSC was “on”. And it works in a reverse gear.
Martin would hear “more revs” on the engine than the output to the rear wheels. That would cause anyone to think “this thing is going to move in a minute” would it not ?
Bleb
23 Jun, 2013 – 12:53 am I agree with your observations regarding little Zainab. In fact I suggested the the hit-by-car possibility here many months ago. The idea is not pure speculation either. It is potentially supported by a number of objective evidential indicators from the aerial photo and statements.
1. It has been stated that in addition to being shot, SM was struck by a vehicle. EM says this was SAH’s BMW but try as I may I find this quite implausible. Impossible even given that in the time frame his car could only have reversed in a straight line to where it ended up and SM was found to the near side. If he couldn’t be hit by SAH, it’s reasonable to assume he was hit by the killers’ vehicle. If he was hit and Zainab was outside with him, it’s a reasonable assumption that she might have been hit too.
2. The semi-circular skid marks end abruptly at the very point at which there are distinct blood stains on the ground.
3. The French interpretation put out to the press the claim the tyre marks were made by the Al Hilli vehicle and that SM was found sprawled to the front RHS of the car, both of which are contradicted by reason or subsequent statements by WBM and others. If they can’t be relied on for these two crucial facts, I see no reason why we should take on trust their statement that Zainab was struck by a gun rather than a moving vehicle.
4. Head injury is a recognised child injury from vehicle collision even at relatively low speed.
5. There was a direct conflict of evidence between WBM and PD/B as to whether Zainab was “covered in blood”. Also a conflict in reports as to whether WBM first saw her staggering or thinking her dead when he first saw her although this may just be down to journalist sloppiness who knows?
6. The speed of her recovery and repatriation, not to British hospital but to foster parents, rather suggests the early reports of fractured skull, loss of eyesight and brain damage were overstated not to mention a bullet wound.
Perhaps I should clarify I am not ruling out the possibility that Zainab was struck by a pistol, only that there are other possible explanations. Given the unreliability, changeability and secrecy of the French Authorities via EM, nothing he says can be taken as read. (The examples are too numerous to list yet again) Further there has been a strange absence of independent, reliable, medical opinion. Where was the hospital statement or the surgeon on the steps answering questions on the injuries, treatment and progress? There has been similar medical silence since they returned to the UK. As far as I am aware, completely absent from start to finish not to mention EM’s early recorded inexplicable blunder that “one child had died”!
Just a word on the wheel spin.
I think maybe a long time back whether this car was manual or automatic was determined. “Fat Bastard” as quoted was seen on the C4 programmed interviewed as SAH’s long term friend. If he says it was manual that’s a pretty good source. Now correct me if I’m wrong James (I’m sure you will not hesitate!) but on a rear wheel drive manual gear box car with a limited slip differential (necessary for going around corners as one wheel travels further/different speed than the other) under power in theory the wheels will spin if traction is lost until either all the fuel is used or the engine stalls? Usually a car is under the command of a driver, so for example on ice and a gradient, when you know you arn’t getting anywhere fast, you give up. But until that time the wheel(s) spin. In practice one spins more than another because of the LSD. The engine only stalls if there is frictional resistance at the driving wheel and the power is insufficient to overcome it. So after all that, I believe WBM’s description could be accurate. The car at some stage had to be in reverse to get back there. The gradient was too acute to climb and the grip in the soft ground too limited. If it had been in forward gear with out the bank to obstruct it would have come forward. The driver was dead inside but this did not prevent his foot being in contact with the accelerator and depressing it. Indeed post trauma spasm may have actually extended the leg. WBM may well have reached in and turned off the ignition which was just about accessible on the RHS of the steering column. I for one see no major problem with his account on this score.
Tim…
Kind of, yes.
If you had a “fixed” axle, you would find it pretty damn hard to go around a corner….hence why you don’t.
DSC (or ASC+T of any “traction control system”) acts to stop this excessive slippage (or spin).
Clearly when you corner wheels travel differing distances and at different speeds. The “balance” of the vehicle has an effect as does the road surface….this is why people use “traction control”.
ANYWAY have checked two sites. Both come back with…..
Th reg number OE04WJZ comes back as a BMW 530d SE Touring (with a manual gearbox) ! Can someone else also check please.
Now then !
This is a problem. I thought his car was an AUTO !
Most 5’s ….and especially 5 Tourings with the bigger engines would generally be AUTO’s.
Jeepers, I bet it was a bargain ! A manual on a 530 Touring !
The gearbox must have killed it.
BUT that’s not the point. The point is…..
A manual, in reverse, against a bank…. and it doesn’t stall !
I have always “assumed” it was an auto. I’m sure someone put the plate in before and posted that it was auto.
The car, the size, the fact it didn’t stall …..must be auto.
But a MANUAL !!!!????!!!!!????