The mainstream media for the most part has moved on. But there are a few more gleanings to be had, of perhaps the most interesting comes from the Daily Mirror, which labels al-Hilli an extremist on the grounds that he was against the war in Iraq, disapproved of the behaviour of Israel and had doubts over 9/11 – which makes a great deal of the population “extremist”. But the Mirror has the only mainstream mention I can find of the possibility that Mossad carried out the killings. Given Mr al-Hilli’s profession, the fact he is a Shia, the fact he had visited Iran, and the fact that Israel heas been assassinating scientists connected to Iran’s nuclear programme, this has to be a possibility. There are of course other possibilities, but to ignore that one is ludicrous.
Which leads me to the argument of Daily Mail crime reporter, Stephen Wright, that the French police should concentrate on the idea that this was a killing by a random Alpine madman or racist bigot. Perfectly possible, of course, and the anti-Muslim killings in Marseille might be as much a precedent as Mossad killings of scientists. But why the lone madman idea should be the preferred investigation, Mr Wright does not explain. What I did find interesting from a man who has visited many crime scenes are his repeated insinuations that the French authorities are not really trying very hard to find who the killers were, for example:
the crime scene would have been sealed off for a minimum of seven to ten days, to allow detailed forensic searches for DNA, fibres, tyre marks and shoe prints to take place.
Nearby bushes and vegetation would have been searched for any discarded food and cigarette butts left by the killer, not to mention the murder weapon.
But from what I saw at the end of last week, no such searches had taken place and potentially vital evidence could have been missed. House to house inquiries in the local area had yet to be completed and police had not made specific public appeals for information about the crime. No reward had been put up for information about the shootings.
Behind the scenes, what other short cuts have been taken? Have police seized data identifying all mobile phones being used in the vicinity of the murders that day?
The idea that the French authorities – who are quite as capable as any other of solving cases – are not really trying very hard is an interesting one.
Which leads me to this part of a remarkable article from the Daily Telegraph, which if true points us back towards a hit squad and discounts the ides that there was only one gun:
Claims that only one gun was used to kill everybody is likely to be disproved by full ballistics test results which are out in October.
While the 25 spent bullet cartridges found at the scene are all of the same kind, they could in fact have come from a number of weapons of the same make.
This throws up the possibility of a well-equipped, highly-trained gang circling the car and then opening fire.
Both children were left alive by the killers, who had clinically pumped bullets into everybody else, including five into Mr Mollier.
Zainab was found staggering around outside the car by Brett Martin, a British former RAF serviceman who cycled by moments after the attack, but he saw nobody except the schoolgirl.
Her sister, Zeena, was found unscathed and hiding in the car eight hours later.
Both sisters are now back in Britain, and are believed to have been reunited at a secret location near London.
There are of course a number of hit squad options, both governmental and private, which might well involve iraqi or Iranian interests – on both of which the mainstream media have been very happy to speculate while almost unanimously ignoring Israel.
But what interests me is why the Daily Telegraph choose, in the face of all the evidence, to minimise the horrific nature of the attack by stating that “Both children were left alive by the killers”? Zainab was not left alive by design, she was shot in the chest and her skull was stove in, which presumably was a pretty serious attempt to kill a seven year-old child. The other girl might very well have succeeded in hiding from the killers under her mother’s skirts, as she hid from the first rescuers, and then for eight hours from the police.
The Telegraph article claims to be informed by sources close to the investigation. So they believe it was a group of people, and feel motivated to absolve those people from child-killing. Now what could the Daily Telegraph be thinking?
I still have a logic problem with Zainab’s statement and with WBMs and Bossys’ s statement.
Zainab saw only one bad guy. Only one.
She did not mention any “good guys”.
What is her testimony regarding SM?
Also, when there was one bad guy, where did he disappear?
Martin must have seen him coming down. He did not mention anybody coming down, did he?
Bossy did not mention anybody driving/coming down either.
So then, where was that bad guy?
My logic says that the bad guy must still be present at the scene when Martin and Bossy arrived, whether or not they are telling the truth.
Blue.
If you re listen to (or read) Martin’s interview (remember it isn’t testimony) we assume he is passed once.
But if you listen to it with the consideration that he is actually passed twice (a vehicle(s) going up and the same vehicle coming down)…tell me “from his own words” that is not the case !
“I was sort of grinding up a steep hill on my mountain bike, pretty much just looking down at the road in front of me, because of the sort of steepness and sort of exertion needed.
And I had a recollection at some point of probably a four-by-four coming past me….”
Not “coming towards me” just “coming past me”.
He continues
“And again a motorbike at some point passed me going down and that’s really,they were the only noticeable things for anybody coming down before I reached the car park”.
The motorbike gets a direction. The motorbike is “going down”.
Later on in the interview he is asked
“If the police were to say to you “can you identify anybody in that vehicle or on the motorbike?”, what would your response be?”
No, I mean the motorcyclist had a helmet on and the car.. I was more looking down at the road ahead of me.
Because it was a single track road I was sort of trying to keep to the edge, to sort of make space for the car to get past me”.
And it’s that statement that makes me think it past him on the way up (and also maybe on the way down).
He said previously that his head was down, looking at the road.
Yet he was making space for a vehicle to pass by.
How could he see the vehicle to make that space ?
You can “hear” a vehicle and be aware it is behind you.
You would make space for it to pass you, you know it’s a vehicle afterall, you can hear it’s engine.
Just my thoughts on something that has never been clarified by “Le Press” or “Le” and “The” Police !
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=221659&page=82
@James
23 Jun, 2013 – 2:35 pm
I think the confusion on ,manual/auto started on David Icke orginally as they were talking as if it was an auto and then someone fed the the reg into one of these car firms and it came back as manual,as people come and go they may not catch every updated post and so it was always a bit of grey area until FB clarified .
There was quite a lot of discussion on this subject on here and on DI but I don’t know where as it was so long ago,when I get a chance I will see if I can find it.
@James
Have you factored in the effect (if any) of the towbar with respect to the wheel spinning and rocking issue?
Please don’t hit me with the engineering stick – I haven’t done any research because I dont know how to go about it.
So, I guess that a sharp reverse may raise the rear of the car slightly. As the wheels climb up the steepening slope the towbar would plough into the ground slightly above the point it would have done so if rolled backwards slowly.
Whether the towbar or bottom of bumpers stopped the car I don’t know (it could have been SAH applying brake). But it may be that the towbar got lodged on top of a tree root or a rock, de-weighting the rear end and acting as a pivot point.
Pink.
Cheers for that. I put the reg in and it came back a 530d SE manual.
At least it clears that up.
A manual gearbox has more “control”, so I doubt he would have disengaged the traction control at all. Therefore that discussion doesn’t get us anywhere !
Now for a manual “stalling” when it is up against an obstacle, in gear, with power going through the rear wheels…and traction control “on” ?
I would imagine it would/could have stalled, but it clearly didn’t.
It dug into the ground.
Reviewing the pictures how long do you think it would take for the wheels to dig that deep ? I guess it would be down to “how far was the pedal pressed” ? And “that” we do not know.
Another “dead end” !
@GoodInParts.
I guess it could do. Even if the towbar was just lodged in the bank.
You see the thing is, you need a lot of power to dig your wheels into the ground. That area is “forest” (although it is a compacted area used as a car park)it isn’t “concrete”.
A 3.0 litre BMW should be able to do that…with enough power supplied through the rear wheels.
I recall a French news item that showed the car on a tow truck. It was of the drivers side. That rear drivers side wheels looked deflated. That would be “in line” with both tyres “digging in” square on to the bank (or near enough square on).
I think that Martin’s account about the wheels spinning and engine revving has to be true. Ever option otherwise has failed examination.
So now the question is…..
…from where did it reverse ?
And (this may sound odd) why was he in reverse ?
I once played with the theory that he was chased up the route.
But then he would not of selected reverse. The chasing vehicle would be to his rear.
Was he merely reversing his car to park ?
Had he parked….and was fleeing the shooter ?
But if he was facing out, why flee in the direction of a bank ?
If he was facing in, why flee and leave your daughter outside the car ? (Tim, leave the arc out of it for the moment, lets test theories)
Could he have reached the barrier (which was not down) and was reversing leaving his daughter reading the sign when the attack happened ?
They say he had been out of the car at the car park. Is this possible ? Then to get in and reverse ?
My original thoughts on the picture of the lay-by tracks which involved nothing scientific, just my reaction to what I saw was that the Bmw didn’t make them,and that the car wouldn’t get stuck where it was ,then all the various arguments about it started and I kinda gave up trying to work it out and left it to better brains than mine.
There was motorbike tracks as well as car tracks at the sign end of the layby but no way of knowing when they were made .
I am still wondering where Zainab was lying after collapsing as described by BM that seems to be another grey area ,has anyone pinned it down with any accuracy?
Well Pink…. lets look at that.
The car is well back from the road.
Martin is riding, I assume using caution (pilot) so he’ll be on the far right. He’s already had “vehicles” passby, so unlikely he’ll be in the centre of the road.
When could he see the girl ?
His line of sight would give he the advantage I would guess. The car is on the left (but pushed back) and he is on the right (France).
Given that…and the picture of the reporters walking up to the car park…. I guess he had a good line of sight.
But why would he think she was playing ?
Running and screaming ? That’s more like “play”.
Staggering and falling isn’t.
I am thinking that the interview…and the “hospitalization” of the girl is a “cover” to suggest that neither “saw” anything.
Here’s a thought…
If Martin was passed by the vehicle going “down”, why didn’t that car just hit him ? They would have known the time to escape would be now reduced. They (it is said) already “clubbed” the girl.
The same attack twice ? Is that a problem ?
I don’t even know if the eldest girl actually died.
OR indeed if Martin was actually there.
Is/was Bossy the “star” witness ?
He was at the car park. He made the call ? He was “hidden” ?
Martin…with the 55 Princess Gate lot could have been “called in”.
The reason I have stopped bothering is because the facts are so slim, there does not seem to be anything that can be relied on and even if we were as informed as the French and British police the killer would still be at large as they haven’t caught him/her/them.
I haven’t thrown in the towel I am just awaiting developments not really expecting any though.
The scammer trial is coming up lets see what that throws up .
We can’t ALWAYS be right James
23 Jun, 2013 – 2:35 pm. Even you and me. LOL
James I really don’t know where Zainab was or whether BM could have seen her I got the impression from the channel 4 doco that BM was cycling around the bend going downhill(sign end) towards Chevaline when he saw Zainab staggering across the front of the car towards chevaline it shows Zainab lying on the edge of the road chevaline side of the car at 2.53 if you want to check, and Sm lying passenger side of the car feet by front passenger wheel and head towards rear of car .
Bm rides downhill for help he meets PB and he and PB return to the car where PB then reports see’s SM legs BEHIND the car .
The bike is a little way across the layby towards the sign .
Back in 2012 the orginal reports also seemed to show BM riding from the sign end downhill and then at some point it became uphill and I have no idea which is true just like everything else.
I’m with you part of the way on that Bluebird
23 Jun, 2013 – 3:54 pm. Zainab seeing only one “bad guy” comes to us via how many levels of “minders”. Clearly it’s only two words out of possibly thousands. I think we should keep that in mind. It’s rather like edited video that can give a completely different impression. True but false.
As to WBM not seeing the retreating killer(s) surely that is where the SUV that passed him just before he arrived, comes in. However there is a big question mark over the voracity of the passing vehicles. We are not even sure there was one. What is in the public domain about vehicles other than the al Hilli’s BMW?
1. According to the builders, no vehicle was following them as they set off from them about 2.50 pm.
Q. Did they drive straight to Martinet or did they double back to Arnaud for phot and THEN back to Martinet?
If the former they would arrive M. c. 3.00 pm. If the latter they would have had to have driven at speed and not via Chevaline and be shot the second they arrived if the 3.15 time on the photo is true. If not true, why did the French police promote it?
2. On the basis of WBM’s own estimate he was on the Chevaline/Martinet route between c. 3.05 and 3.35 pm.
3. If as reports say, he was passed by a 4×4 on his way up at some point, and in the opposite direction just before he arrived, the former must be between c. 3.10 and c. 3.25 (because if it was the killers they had to be at Martinet before the shooting started at 3.30) and the latter must have been between 3.30 and 3.35 pm.
4. This vehicle WBM describes as a green SUV. There is conflicting evidence between EM who despite it is said a six hour interview with WBM immediately following, at a subsequent press conference he speaks in the future tense that they are hopeful WBM, given his background, would provide detailed description of the vehicle that passed him. This contrasts with WBM’s own statement that he took little notice and could remember less.
5. WBM also suggests a motor bike and rider followed the SUV going down at least. Later it was described as having a white appearance.
6. The suggestion that this was the killers’ vehicle was seriously undermined by EM’s much later statement that it had been identified as a Forestry vehicle unconnected with the event. Even so if WBM is telling the truth it must have passed the scene just as the shooting was taking place which makes them critical witnessed to the event. In which case EM dismissing the importance of this vehicle is quite inexplicable.
7. Soon after the event an appeal was put out for a Mitsubishi Pajero. It was assumed reasonably that this related to the vehicle that WBM reported passing him. However if THAT vehicle was said to be a forestry vehicle and identified, to what did the Pajero appeal relate? If the Pajero was not the forestry vehicle it must mean more than one SUV was on the road and passing WBM or the Pajero was a fantasy.
8. Then eight months after the event an appeal is put out for a completely different vehicle – a grey/dark BMWx5. Strangely however the time and place it was said to be spotted by a “reliable witness” is virtually identical to the previous green SUV, this being 3.20 one Kilometre into the Combe. Both British and French agree although the French apparently prefer a 15 minute window 3.15 – 3.30. Beside a small reservation as to why given one reliable source and therefore one story, why it was that that there should be two slightly different versions, another fundamental problem is that it appears to add another passing vehicle to that stretch of road. In addition the Green SUV and motorbike must have met it at some point which has never been claimed.
9. Finally we have the evidence of the “hiker” PD/B that “nothing passed them either people or vehicles” as they walked/drove? up the Combe. This does not present a problem if as was initially suggested, they arrived after 4.00 pm as the other vehicles could have cleared the Combe by then. However as has been recently suggested PD/B made the 3.48 call it must bring his entrance time into the Combe to about 3.35pm and even earlier if we have to factor in the reports that he did not call until AFTER he had spent maybe ten minutes or more visiting the scene first. In either circumstance he could not have avoided passing the retreating vehicles described. Either he made the 3.48 call and must have lied about not passing vehicles OR vice versa OR the various described vehicles did not exist.
What is quite certain: all these various representations of the story line cannot be true. So which is/are the false one(s)?
Tim, Tim, Tim !
Okay !
There are many points you make, but can you clarify them please.
Where does WBM say it was a green SUV ?
Where is it that WBM says a motor bike and rider followed the SUV going down ?
AND evidence of the “hiker” PD/B that “nothing passed them either people or vehicles” as they walked/drove?
Is it evidence ?
Is that what was said ?
We just don’t know.
What we do know is… not a lot !
Martin maybe telling it as it was. He saw nada.
Did the “third cyclist” identify the “large car” as a UK reg car ?
Of course it seems likely that it was WBM that ID’d the car as a UK reg one.
So why was that not released…or mentioned in his INTERVIEW (not evidence).
Tim
This is a setup story with lots of lies and false evidence.
Was Bossy a cyclist or didnt he drive by car, accompanied by 2 ladies who stayed in the car while he was meeting Martin?
That story changed almost monthly. It looks as whenever we found something that did oppose logic or timing, they were coming up with a slightly new story then.
What Martin said was BS. He belongs to the #55 circle and to the “5 eyes” group that is USA,Canada, UK, Australia and Newzealand. He is not whom he pretends to be. For me that is for sure. Neither is SM the guy the media pretends to be he was.
I believe that now it is time to look for new evidence regarding SM. Are there any of the other SM characters still existing whom we believed to be the wrong ones? Have they been removed? Do they show any additional activities? were they fake (setup) characters?
I believe that it is a waste of time to consider the scripted lies of WBM as facts. He was one of them, although we do not know his part of the job yet for sure.
A 54 year old man arrested for Al Hilli murders…Sky News. 11am. 24/6/13
“Police arrest a 54-year-old man in Surrey over the murders of three members of the same family and a French cyclist near Annecy’
http://news.sky.com/story/1107468/alps-murders-man-arrested-in-surrey
Oh god…….it’s Zaid !
Intetesting switch.
Let’s wait to hear what Zaid is saying. I’m sure that he is going to deny Any arrests in Romania, too? is it really Zaid? So far no confirmation but speculation by MSM. What’s the age of WBM btw?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/french-alps-shooting-brother-al-hilli-1987155
Zaid, confirmed by police. Arrested 7:30am in Chessington.
Now what was the motive BB ?
I still don’t believe it to be about money. I strongly suspect Zaid is Mi5 .
Saad was shouting his mouth off…my theory on NA [ who also has security links ] still stands.
Katie, i dont think that somebody kills a familly for 800.000.
There must be more of a reason. We do not know very much about the property in iraq, do we? The next weeks might become interesting ones.
More news (more orless the same)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10138822/Brother-of-Alps-massacre-victim-arrested-on-suspicion-of-conspiracy-to-murder.html
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/french-alps-massacre-brother-held-over-murders-of-british-family-and-cyclist-8670971.html
http://m.thelocal.fr//20130624/breaking-man-arrested-in-britain-over-alps-murders
Somehow Off topic:
Killed Hastings was investigating the Patraeus – Jill Kelley affair and he had a meeting scheduled with a Kelley representative.
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-76382569/
BREAKING NEWS: BBC “BBC: “A 54-year-old man, thought to be Mr al-Hilli’s brother Zaid, was arrested in Chessington.
He had previously denied there was any feud between him and his brother.”
Strange. Strange. Strange.
What happens if he is subject to British due process? Does this block French access to him?
Is it significant that the Stephen Lawrence story breaks at the same time? (“Burying bad news” and all that jazz?)
Further to mine of Tim V
24 Jun, 2013 – 12:50 am
10. Of course as I have pointed out many times before, if the 3.15 Arnaud photo is true, the Al Hillis MUST have passed WBM on the way up. Some have suggested that the BMWx5 about 20 mins before the shooting, was in fact the Al Hilli car and mistakenly described as an X5 rather than an 503. However if this is the explanation WBM’s failure to mention it has to be explained. Either the photo is true and WBM didn’t tell the truth or vice versa.
Agreed, BB.
The reports have recently tried to play down the value of that Iraqi problem. The motive has to be ‘historic’… in my view.
We await further news.
There will be exciting weeks for that blog. Media around the globe are reporting. Hopefully the truth will come out. However, we must always consider that arrest does not mean that somebody is guilty. He could be totally innocent. Waiting for news from Romania. When his Romanian contact was involved and when it was a planned arrest, then there should have been arrests in Romania at the very same time. No reports yet, though.
I am curious about mr.ford’s statement regarding the latest updates.
had concluded in recent weeks that daylight would never be shone on this episode.
So what of today? EM said, I think on the C4 documentary, that he was hampered by having to deal with other jurisdictions than France. And that there was no question but that if Zaid was a French resident he, EM, would have had him arrested and questioned. He was frustrated that UK law was different and got in the way of this, something to do with getting a warrant, applying to a magistrate – AFAIR. However he, EM, said he was being patient and accepted he would have to wait for the appropriate procedures to be followed. Not such a surprise then that ZAH has been arrested. But apart from questioning him, is there going to be a trail of evidence from ZAH to a hired killer? A crucial step forward or just another appearance of progress by the French investigation?
I tried to send this reply to one from Marlin on the MZT site. All attempts to get through to that one have failed so I hope you don’t mind if I post it here instead? I hope it’s not breaking any cardinal blogging rule. It just seemed a shame to waste it. You may not agree!
“Nice one Marlin
6-24-2013 at 01:34:08. Words are not just sounds and marks on paper. Every one carries connotations and emotion when eventually finding its cerebral target. This is why military types are so fond of euphemisms. “Neutralise” is much more acceptable than “murder”; “extraordinary rendition” than “kidnap”; “enhanced interrogation techniques” than “torture”; “ethnic cleansing” than “genocide”.
Such a word is “conspiracy” and “conspirator”. For generations it has had dark overtones and was used almost exclusively by governments to describe those who plotted against it or the law abiding. In recent years it has had a strange shift to almost a term of abuse aimed at those who were critical of government actions and explanations and indeed redirected back on government itself.
One only has to label someone a “conspiracy theorist” to immediately undermine and disavow whatever they might suggest. It is an established method of distracting attention from inconvenient facts and arguments.
“Conspiracy” is in fact only one stage removed from “planning”. The two concepts are inseparable. The only difference, and I grant you it is a big one with potentially huge consequences, is that the former involves something prohibited or otherwise illegal. Murder clearly falls within this category.
Murders are not always planned or conspiratorial. They may be an unpremeditated reflex by just one individual. However Chevaline must almost certainly involve a degree of conspiracy, even if no State interests or agencies were involved. Indeed the arrest of Zaid al Hilli on “suspicion of conspiracy to commit murder” would appear to confirm it.
However I cannot but help feel uneasy about arrest and charge. Are we allowed to have such feelings and express them these days without being similarly charged?
Undoubtedly if Zaid was involved a conspiracy would be essential, for no other reason than he was in Britain (as far as we know) and the murders took place over 600 miles away in another country. Presumably he would have to employ assassins, which is an exceedingly risky and costly business, particularly in a high profile case such as this. Threats of blackmail, further violence or leaking information are all very real possibilities.
Would family members not have an inkling and warn Saad? Is Zaid so cruel and insensitive as to put women and children in the firing line – even if he had animosity to his brother? Then again if the motivation was money, why were child beneficiaries both missed and spared? Why all the added complication of a French location? Why kill SM an innocent bystander but spare WBM only moments later?
Why use an expensive top of the range RHD vehicle (if one such existed) that would immediately direct attention back to the UK? And do hired killers usually ride around in such on the continent? Why the old Luger? Surely assassins would not chance such an old model given the huge choice of modern weapons available to the criminal fraternity? Brand new car/old gun just doesn’t add up.
How did the killers know the Al hillis were where they were? Was Zaid party to their movements or was this a detailed surveillance job? Again hardly the mark of cheap Romanian killers. Romanians riding around in Annecy not known to the police, not attracting attention?
All these things point away from Zaid I would have thought. But hey the police know far more than I do and it’s highly unlikely they would have taken this serious step without good reason we hope.
It still doesn’t explain why the British sent a troop of SAS down there, or why all the critical evidence was not collected before the press was allowed in, or why so many reported facts have changed so many times – the most recent being SM now shot 5 times not seven, 21 bullets found not 25 and the BMWx5 mysteriously appearing after nearly eight months! Or why British police kept the French investigators away from Zaid for so long, or made such a big point of protecting him with serious weaponry?
Marilyn you have categorised me, I am sure benignly, as a “con·spir·a·cist”. Looks as if the British are taking a similar line.”
Now let’s see if this site is still working?