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?
Whether significant to Chevaline or not, undoubtedly Iran’s nuclear activity provides multiple links. We have the US and Israel working clandestinely both to assassinate leading nuclear scientists, carrying out explosive sabotage, considering military attack, and infiltrating computer systems that destroyed a significant proportion of centrifuges. No doubt these efforts continue despite revelations.
Then we have a sophisticated operation to actually include explosives charges, Iran claims, to Siemens’ essentially metal equipment. Meanwhile Siemens’ deny the claims, stating they have had no dealing since pre-revolution days. Very strange. What unofficial route must have been used, for example equipment ostensibly intended for one country, diverted to another. But this still doesn’t explain how explosive charges would be introduced to the component does it?
Germany as we know is supplying up to six nuclear subs to Israel which it is alleged have been modified to fire nuclear cruise missiles. This might provide a heavily camouflaged route. Could it be a topic requiring Ben Zygier’s exit from the scene, front companies and all?
Then we have the fact that in addition to Areva’s claimed links with Iran, it takes over the firm (Siemens) claimed to have supplied exploding parts.
Britain is not wholly in the clear either apparently allowing zirconium ore stopped in transit in 2006. We all remember the big gun to Iraq issue that also resulted in a European assassination of Gerald Bull in 1990 generally regarded as a Mossad operation. As they say, they have “previous”.
The Iran’s continue to develop their nuclear technology and know-how but they have hurdle to jump and enemies to battle. They have fabricated their zirconium tubes. They have increased their uranium concentration facilities. Have then encountered technical difficulties for which years of practical experience may be valuable. Or even the pretence that they were required.
Then in the car we have advanced knowledge of computer and satellite technology, aircraft design, and passing knowledge of nuclear technology, with anti Israeli views and clear familial links to Hezbollah and Iran. We have even got highly qualified dentist and biologist there that might easily be of value in relation to radio active contamination.
We have a location where all the active partipants could meet and mix without anyone raising an eye brow. Meanwhile the first person who comes on scene once flew fighter aircraft, trained their crews and since employed in broadly psychological training of those engaged in the industry which may or may not provide convenient cover for SIS activity for the British.
And they all just happen to come together in a five minute window when four adults are shot very precisely in the head? How far can you stretch the concept of “co-incidence”? And how naive or perverse of those on sites such as MZT to resolutely reject any suggestion of international intrigue and pour scorn on those that do with the derogatory label “conspiracist”?
If Al Hilli made a reverse turn….in a “lazy arc” or otherwise, can anyone suggest “where was the other car parked” ?
There are only three possible places.
The other thing. Al Hilli had a “taser gun” in his house.
Was this “protection” for if anyone “called round” to see him ?
Like a “debt collector” ?
He was the one that froze the asset (the house)which was contained in his fathers Will, therefore was not in the control of Sa’ad.
And yet it is claimed it cost him 15K GBP to bring home his father (August 2011).
On Shtech’s turnover, where did the 15K come from ?
Maybe a quick visit to a Swiss Bank would help.
I doubt that “asset” was declared in the Will.
It is also claimed that “11” bullets were found in the road or in the forest.
So the “not a shot was wasted” claim is far from true…if there was 11 bullets found.
Not a marksman then. And with an “old” gun and a moving target, who would be ?
There was not one mention of the “Swiss Account” until Zee Germans found it.
I have a scenario.
Sa’ad went to collect some money from Geneve.
He didn’t go there just to see how it was “doing”.
This he had on him (or on the car) when the incident happened.
The broken roof bar ?
Mollier wasn’t lost. The Col Du Cherel is a recognized biking route.
http://www.cycling-challenge.com/top-5-cycling-climbs-lake-annecy/
Number Three in this guys blog.
The guys is skint.
He owes money.
The deeds of his house aren’t in his name alone.
He has access to “undeclared” assets overseas.
He’s stressed.
He has a “taser”.
After his death a “scammer” tries to access his (an) account.
And there is never any mention of a “broken roof rail”.
Not an amazing story or conspiracy…but likely.
James @ 5 Jul, 2013 – 6:01 pm
“… Not a marksman then. And with an “old” gun and a moving target, who would be ?”
Old gun maybe but an old gun with a reputation for being very accurate.
“Although outdated, the Luger is still sought after by collectors both for its sleek design and accuracy”
source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luger_pistol
The moving targets, yes. I think the shooter(s) knew their business.
This caught my eye today – a report into the Met Police fatal shooting of an unarmed suspect.
“… However, 0.2 secs later shots three and four were fired. Another 0.2 secs afterwards, shots five and six, a “double tap” shot, struck Rodney in the right ear. “These could only result in fatality and did so”, the report found. …”
source:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk-news/2013/jul/05/azelle-rodney-death-metropolitan-police
Presumably the firearms officer had been trained in “shoot to kill” techniques.
“… Based in part on advice from the security forces of Israel and Sri Lanka …”
source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom
It seems a possibility that the Chevaline victims were finished off in this manner which, if true, suggests to me a shooter(s) with specialised training.
“with specialised training”
Bleb… One thing is for sure, he/they remembered to put the used magazines away. (not heard they found them).
http://www.randovtt.com/trace-randonnee-vtt/gps/vtt-vers-le-col-de-cherel_46291.html
Interesting GPS route
The car park is for the waterfall ? Or a dead end ?
James @ 5 Jul, 2013 – 8:53 pm
Did you watch the video of the route up to the car park?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwNfZSqoX8c&feature=youtu.be
Alexander Cartier (one of the contributors on MZT) drove up there this April with a “dash cam”
Bleb,
Yes, saw it. It seems to “cut off” towards the end then re started.
He’s French ? Hmmm ?
I have the OS map…and a route taken with a “garmin” user.
It shows that “dead end”.
10.02 to 10.06 ?
What happened ?
There is a corner ahead…then no corner ! He’s at the carpark !
The “walkers” car park is at The Martinet. It’s not marked as a carpark.
The carpark that is marked…is situated before. (see the O/S map).
Anyone sitting in ambush would be at the “waterfall” carpark.
Which is marked on an O/S map.
Al Hilli was either followed.
OR Mollier’s route was known.
It is not an ambush. Plain and simple.
James (5 Jul, 2013 – 9:34 pm)
I dont dispute the facts per se (carparks marked on O/S map etc.)
I do however think that a different chain of events is at least possible.
My guess is that SAH had his conversation with the campsite receptionist, got the recommendation “go to Le Martinet” then got out his samsung android smartphone and pulled up the map app.
Now irrespective of where the carpark may be marked, “Le Martinet” itself should be on the map, because it is old name. I have found this name on what looks like a scan of an old pre-war map.
(Cant find the old map link right this minute, but if you want it I can dig it out over the weekend.)
I think that SAH used his smartphone app for route directions. I also think that his smartphone and/or his google account was hacked.
Thus his planned destination and his actual location could potentially be followed in real time.
The putative much-cheepness one-pound-hit roumanian hitman(*) could sloth in his stolen X5 until he saw they were going somewhere off the beaten track.
What I am saying is that SAH did not need to be physically followed. He already told the world where he was going. Someone could easily get there before him and ambush him.
(*) or whoever you think was the ‘one bad man’.
P.S. ‘Master key’ to Android phones uncovered
For the record I think the google hack more likely.
P.P.S. James, did you get any extra attention coming through Northolt this week?
GIP
I not nothing in Northolt this week. No checks at all.
I had no checks in Paris either (FBO).
I don’t think “FB” is “FB” to be honest.
MZT are just a “private club”.
Theres another thing on the Ugine list…. I’ll come to later. I doubt it is related.
Mollier is “WELL” known in Ugine. Very well in there. Hence the “secret”.
No one has said “where the other car stopped” yet ?
The route is a “bike” route, It us known.
The Waterfall is where the parking is at. The IoM guy at the same campsite also went there. He said that. He said “he passed the carpark”.
He did…but it wasn’t the same one.
This ain’t an “ambush”. This isn’t a “meet”.
It is Mollier OF Al Hilli
Saad “missed” the carpark.
Al Hilli is the one that “took the wrong route”.
2 K’s in, Mollier knew the Col du Cherel climb. It is known.
It may not be the route he wanted…but it is known (by another name).
“My guess is that SAH had his conversation with the campsite receptionist, got the recommendation “go to Le Martinet”….”
My guess is that completely that.
Go to “the waterfall”. That’s what the other camper did.
Look at the Garmin route. He didn’t go the right way.
The “back track” is The Carpark.
The enterance to the Col Du Cherel is different.
“MZT are just a “private club”….”
She sells sea shalls on the…. well she sells books. That’s her income.
Iy is “purely” an income thing.
She said “I have had people that wish to comment not do so because it has become like Craig Murray” !
Bullshit !
She’s trying to make cash.
Is FB THE fB ? She holds the cards there. That’s your answer.
Pure “marketing”.
Google her…she’s not a “name” ! Her accounts don’t show much.
James @ 5 Jul, 2013 – 11:48 pm
“… It is Mollier OF Al Hilli”
I assume “OF” is an acronym? Please can you explain.
James
5 Jul, 2013 – 5:50 pm you say:
“If Al Hilli made a reverse turn….in a “lazy arc” or otherwise, can anyone suggest “where was the other car parked” ?”
I have pratted on about this so many times yet people still support frankly impossible scenarios. Of course our reconstruction relies on a number of “givens” such as the reliability of the lab reports, the genuineness of the aerial photos, the fact that the tyre tracks were made by recent implicated vehicles, not unrelated visitors or rescue services.
In respect of none of these can we be absolutely certain. We make judgements on a “balance of probabilities”. Would the lab say the victims we together if they weren’t? Would the press go to the trouble of doctoring falsely the photos? Would the emergency services have ploughed into the crime scene; fresh tracks; why would the police claim they were made by a reversing Al Hilli if they suspected they had been made by some one else?
I am personally convinced that those tracks at the top of the lay-by were made by the attackers and NOT by the Al Hillis but clearly not everyone shares my opinion. So one last try:
Let’s do a mental reconstruction based on the BMW 530/525 being parked at the top end facing in to the woods. (It would most definately have had to be facing in, if it was to do a semi circular reverse manoeuvre to end up facing out as is claimed) Then it has to be a very long way in with its front wheels over the moss/grass because the car is rear wheel drive and the two spinning drive wheels are clear to see.
So now let us get back to the events at about 3.30 a shooter starts firing from what ever direction. Of course if it was Al Hilli’s car at the top about to reverse to the bottom, the killer’s vehicle, if there was one could not have been in the same lay-by. It would have to be parked up either above or below.
We have to place Sylvain Mollier, Saad al Hilli and Zainab together where the heavy blood stains show where SM fell and died. So now we have about ten seconds (the estimate time the shots were heard) for SAH to run back to his car under fire, around the other side, get in, start up, engage reverse, whilst no doubt his wife and mother in law were screaming “What about Zainab – Zainab! – you’ve left her behind.” Despite taking body shots he leaves no blood trail which may possibly be explained by virtue of his clothes but a bit unlikely I would say.
So now he does a semi circular manoeuvre under full revs causing the rear wheels to spin on a “left hand down” lock yet leaves no trace of the front wheel on the soft ground ahead of him. Not only does he have to get to the bottom end of the car park and miraculously line the vehicle up neatly with straight tyre tracks whilst under fire, the whole operation from the first shot to the final two in his head, for which the car presumably at the end of the manoeuvre, has to be completed in 30 seconds.
I say again, I don’t believe this is a rational explanation of what happened. Indeed I say it couldn’t have happened that way.
Good In Parts @ 5 Jul, 2013 – 10:53 pm
I think your scenario of SAH using a smartphone to get directions to Martinet and this being intercepted via hacking / or “security” service interception is a good one. I don’t think the possibility has been raised previously.
So now take a look at this video of the Rodney killing by police in n. London. Eight deadly shots. Prior to it the police shout “Attack Attack Attack” and when the office hears the reports he is heard to state “Sweet as”. I think this gives us a very accurate indication of how trained gun professionals or in the case of Chevaline – killers – would approach the operation. The only difference at Chevaline that two of the targets were outside the car and likely to take avoiding action. At least the police had the arguable excuse that they thought the man was armed. Watch the video and then reset it for Chevaline and I don’t think you will be far off.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23195349
Bleb
It should be looked at… as “he” had said he could be tracked.
Tim
Make the point boy ? Too much waffle I can’t read !
Where was the second car parked ?
Tim
But there wouldn’t be.
“So now he does a semi circular manoeuvre under full revs causing the rear wheels to spin on a “left hand down” lock yet leaves no trace of the front wheel on the soft ground ahead of him”
Tim… I have to put the answer before the long “quote”.
Yet I will ask…why would the front wheels on a rear wheel drive car leave any mark ? They wouldn’t.
Having seen Alex’s video of the car park, I dont think the small car park and narrow road with an immediate slope down to the river on the opposite of the road that Saad would risk his family by driving recklessly in that location.
The final position of the BMW initially suggested to me that he reversed in to that space on purpose to allow Zainab to get out and pee in the corner, probably even shielded by an open rear drivers side door. That would explain why he would try to reverse as far off the road as possible. I struggle to then understand how Zainab would be unable to get back in the car.
My next idea was that Saad drove beyond the car park decided to turn around maybe where Alex did on his video passed the car park once more heading back towards Chevaline when he encounters a vehicle coming toward them. However although reversing to let the other vehicle pass could explain reversing into the soft bank this fails on 2 aspects. Zainab would be in the car and there is another sizeable layby barely 10 yards back towards the village.
But if he was trying to meet Sylvain who was running late, decides he isnt going to show, starts to drive back to Chevaline and meets him cycling towards the car park. Saad reverses back 100 yards or so into the final position. Saad and Sylvain start talking. Zainab gets fed up of sitting in the car and gets out.
I still dont buy the idea that Zeena likes to sit in the footwell of the rear seats and has been there at least since the photo stop in the village. Unless Zainab had been in the child seat between the 2 women on the back seat and Sylvain had sat in the front passenger seat to talk to Saad.
I am convinced that EM had 1 instruction at the start of the investigation to never allow the spotlight to fall on SM or any suggestion of a meeting between SM and SAH. He has done this to such an extent that I often wonder if EM himself has an alibi for that afternoon.
I was just reading the other site and FB offered the most plausible
reason for SAH being at the layby so far, geo-caching my own kids do it its a cheap way to have a bit of fun with the little ones .
Zainab would be the one interested in searching or hiding more than Zeena so jumped out of the car with dad.
http://www.geocaching.com/
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC27C6H
James
6 Jul, 2013 – 12:53 am I once had a Triumph Vitesse. It was renowned for it 25 ft turning circle. It always left marks if you did!
Look at that arc. JUST LOOK AT IT. If the vehicle was REVERSING it goes straight then suddenly violently to OUR left. That would require a full left hand lock that given the lateral forces under that degree of acceleration on loose gravel, would have undoubtedly have left traces. Much more sensible to interpret it as a vehicle coming out FRONTWARDS. The RH spinning front wheel suggests a 4×4.
If it was SAH why would he park in frontwards? Who wants to park up with passengers facing dense woodland?
If it was the killers, they would park to drive out FORWARDS without a doubt.
If it was a vehicle skidding to a halt on an arc you could expect the the lateral forces to produce elements of a sideways skid which in my opinion rules out an in-coming vehicle and braking skid marks.
From all points of view that’s a vehicle coming out frontwards.
I posted this on MZT before I “resigned”.
I make the arrivals and likely times as follows:
1st. Al Hilli 3.00 pm
2nd. “X” 3.25 pm
3rd. SM 3.25 – 3.30 pm
SHOOTING 3.30 – 3.35 pm
4th. WBM 3.35 – 3.40 pm
5th. PD/B 4.00 pm?
6th SAPEURS 4.15 pm?
7th AMB/DOC 4.20 pm?
8th GENDARME 4.25 pm?
We don’t know the number used to call the emergency services. We presume 112. Fire & accident/Sapeurs Pompiers it appears have a separate number (18) from landline. Presumably they arrived first because they were closest rather than being directed to be there first or telephoned direct?
http://paris.angloinfo.com/information/healthcare/emergencies/
Tim
Likely or unlikely, the fact remains… Saad had a 50/50 chance of parking facing forwards.
But you’re not reading what I’m getting at.
I don’t give a hoot about the skid marks….at this point.
If Saad was parked facing the forest AND he reversed in a powerful arc to where he ended up….
Then where was the other vehicle parked ?
It surely must be somewhere there. But where.
It can’t be at the end of the car park. Saad’s car is there.
It can’t be at the other end. Saad ended up there.
And it can’t be at any point in that “arc”.
So where was it ?
You have to think about it… like the Jewish guy complaining to the waiter in a restaurant about his soup..
Have you tasted this soup ?
Sir there’s nothing wrong with the soup.
Have you tasted the soup ?
Sir the soup is fine
Have you tasted it ?
Sir the soup is fine.
Taste the soup !
Sir the soup is fine, but I’ll taste the soup. Where’s your spoon ?
Ahh, now he asks ! I haven’t got a spoon !
The point is, if the police say that Saad reversed in a hurry, then where was the other car ?
It’s possible Pink
6 Jul, 2013 – 8:32 am.
Maybe taking a photo when you find the location is part of it?
EM claimed they took a pic at Drossard yet incredibly wouldn’t release it because it was “too morbid”!!!!! What? Then I and others throw time-line doubt on it and low and behold it’s not “3.15 pm” any more but “sometime between 3 and 3.15”. We were told the photo was timed so how could it be so wide a margin?
This was yet another example of EM’s ability to significantly change the narrative without a word of explanation or the slightest hint of a blush.
He told us about the alleged Droussard photograph but what about all the others on cameras and phones? Not a word about those.