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?
BLUEBIRD !
“Dejavu”
…I agree.
James
A shot from range? Hmmm, I now struggle to find a likely sequence of events, though the parking being in a slight gradient and the possibility of the shooter being ‘further up the bank’ may help.
EVENTS(possible)
BMW arrives by car park
BMW parks initially
Zainab (& Saad?) get out of the car
BMW reverses into final position
Shot from range hits the BMW roof
before finally family is killed to leave them in their final positions.
I have ignored SM from this and still the jigsaw doesnt seem to have the right pieces.
[I dont have a decent comment here, but this is a reply to James observation about the mark and I may want to come back to this with further revelations]
Some more (public) ‘gifts’ at http://deadzone61.wordpress.com/ … As the ‘about’ explains, I won’t join any discussion and won’t respond to any query (simply no time for that). Have fun solving the puzzle.
– M
Thankyou M have a great holiday and send us a postcard 🙂
On the telegraph picture the guy in front of the car has a weird stance what do you think he is doing ?
Signs of possible skirmish sign end ?
Is there something on the rock?
Straw44berry
15 Jul, 2013 – 7:21 pm this seems a bit like Sliding Doors or deja vous even. The car was parked up forward of its final position. There is insufficient time when the attack starts for a grand sweeping manoeuvre that EM wants us to believe. SAH and ZAH are outside on the NEARSIDE of the car. This is where the blood stains are. There is only time for SAH to get around or over the bonnet and back into his driving seat. The shooter aims at him escaping having already struck/shot SM. In the process SAH is shot in the back (apparently) Its not enough to kill him as he manages to start the car and reverse. However by this time either the first shooter or another fires two or more fatal shots through the drivers window. The attack comes from the passenger side, hence the bullet holes in the front passenger door, the rear passenger window and the blip on the roof. Some of these could be missed shots aimed at SM and SAH. The rear offside/drivers side window appears relatively un-damaged. The attack cannot start until SM arrives although the attacking SUV vehicle that leaves the tracks may have arrived momentarily before him. SM is not knocked off his bike. His bike appears not to be damaged and he is free of friction burns. Much more likely he is initially struck by the vehicle when it makes its sweeping assault – leading to “Lynda’s” intriguing “kicked in the chest” comment (from what quarter she gleaned this precise description we do not know) compatible with a RTA. The tyre and track width of the vehicle leaving the marks proves it was no ordinary vehicle that would be distinctive to anyone that saw it.
Tim V @ 16 Jul, 2013 – 12:56 am
“…The tyre and track width of the vehicle leaving the marks proves it was no ordinary vehicle that would be distinctive to anyone that saw it.”
You’ve lost me there Tim. Are you saying:
1) the tracks prove it was an unusual vehicle?
2) that it would be distinctive (it what way?)
Correct me if I’m wrong but the glass in the windscreen is different that of the side doors. The former is “laminated” whereas the side glass is only “toughened”. This results in different characteristics when damaged, as when struck by a bullet for example. It is demonstrated by the the contrasting damage on the BMW. The windscreen though struck up to four times does not shatter but records the damage with “white” scarring on the photo. The side windows craze and may collapse altogether as with the near side rear or as a result of a hand through (?) on the drivers side. Meanwhile bullets appear to have punctured both nearside and offside front windows whilst the majority of glass remains in situ. The size of the bullet holes can be seen. They appear not to be inconsistent with a 7.65 bullet. This however does not match the description by Didierjean/Bossy of a “two Euro” (over an inch) head wound. The two can only be accommodated by either the use of “dum Dum” bullets or two or more super accurate shots through crazed (after the first one) glass.
Bleb
16 Jul, 2013 – 1:14 am its impossible to make accurate measurements from photographs. Presumable, unless totally stupid, the police did so. From this alone it should have ruled out Al Hillis vehicle which makes their opinion that it was his car, totally perverse and suspicious. But in addition to ruling out it could also be used to rule in and even narrow the vehicle down to few options which could then be cross checked with witness statements and their other data bases. To claim they still do not know the type(s) of vehicle that would make them is frankly beyond belief. Those are very wide tyres and very wide tracks that might even take it into the Humvee category – I don’t know. The vehicle would be big and imposing for sure and to a trained eye such as WBM, must have been memorable.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/15/missing-man-dubai
Could this have anything to do with Chevaline?
Straw.
Without consideration to the position of Al Hilli, the shooter or Mollier in relation to each other in the carpark.
And without consideration to all bullets fired OR the various positions of the BMW relative to the shooters position.
(To me) the bullets hitting the windscreen and hitting the roof and roof bar (ricochet) would indicate that there was some distance between the BMW and the shooter (although not considerable).
An assassination in which a pistol is used (or other short range weapon)…and in which the targets were contained (in a vehicle for example) would mean the distance between the shooter and the target would be at a minimum. Not “increasing”.
Engineering the “element of surprise” would ensure such conditions ?
I do not know when or how the “first shots” were fired, but I can assume that a volley(s) were fired “at” the BMW from a “distance” prior to the shooter getting closer (or being able to get closer).
For the “primary target” of an assassination, does that not seem odd ?
How did the shots hit the windscreen James when would the gunman have been in front of the car?
Looking at the angle of the car I guess if the gunman was over by where the pink spot is area is, his shots would have hit the windscreen as he moved towards it and thats why SAH’s wheels are turned that way to drive at him would that make sense ?
Pink.
Yes. He would have needed to have been.
And that is odd in itself.
Why would you fire at the front of a vehicle ?
If you can’t get a “good” shot and the car is retreating.
Or if you can’t get a “good” shot and the car is advancing.
Either way ….. it is “likely” due to not being able to get a “good” shot on target. Not really the act of someone that holds the “element of surprise”, which ever way you look at it.
It’s also worth remembering that the BMW and the gunman are “dynamic”.
By that I mean capable of movement (one or both are likely/capable of movement).
If you disregard the “point blank” shots for a moment and only consider those shots that were likely fired at “a distance” (be that “distance” what it may) you can then run variations of the movements of either the gunman, the BMW or both.
From that, the gunman (at a distance) can only be “stood” to the front and to the pax side of the BMW, regardless of where the BMW is/was.
Did the BMW make an “arc” around the gunman ?
Did the gunman make an “arc” around the BMW ?
What variations along those “arcs” exist ?
An aside.
Whilst I was searching just I came across a video that shows a green utility vehicle behind the gendarme 0:47 just clocking it in case .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TE0p8qrzBw0
Fascinating report Mochyn69
16 Jul, 2013 – 3:33 am. It may or not have something to do with Chevaline but he’s certainly the type MI6 would be very interested in as an asset. And of course Dubai crops up as the international nexus between west and east.
James
16 Jul, 2013 – 8:09 am a few thoughts for you to mull over:
Those two, three or more shots through the driver’s door that were almost certainly SAH’s fatal shots, MUST have been point-blank simply because of the location of the car next to the woods.
The main assault appears to have come from the nearside of the car, that is from the upper side of the park but I can see no evidence of your “distance shot”. In fact I think it is quite strongly contra-indicated. Would professionals risk distant shots with a semi automatic? I don’t think so. In addition, if as it appears from photographs the offside rear window is intact, both of the rear seat passengers were likely shot through the nearside where the glass has completely gone. Because of the angles involved, the accuracy of double head shots to both, necessitates very close work.
The scarring to the laminated windscreen indicates three or four bullet impacts. It is not possible for us to say whether these were frontal or side shots but given that SAH had to get back to the drivers side of the vehicle and received bullet wounds to his back, it is reasonable to conclude the impact marks resulted from shots aimed at him as he retreated.
The “blip” to the roof could certainly be a bullet mark. If so it is quite consistent with one of the shots fired at the group of three nd at a total guess from under 15 – 20 feet.
Well spotted Pink
16 Jul, 2013 – 11:11 am. It certainly would appear to be the sort of vehicle that might fit those tracks.
Not sure I agree with Tim about the drivers side I have always thought that was a tight place to get yourself hemmed in the other side makes more sense running in front of the car would be a risk in case SAH got going in a forward direction.
Hey.
Havent been on this blog for seven months or so. Can see it’s still alive. Nice.
Tim…
Yes ! That’s what I am saying !
But those “final shots” at point blank range are NOT the shots I am talking about here.
Unless you are saying that the gunman shot “point blank” first…and then moved away from the BMW…and started to shoot again from a “distance” ????
That can not be correct ???
You have to read what I write.
1. There are clearly shots to the windscreen, yes ?
2. I doubt those shots were made AFTER the fatal shots to Saad.
3. So they would have been BEFORE the “head shots”.
THEREFORE….
4. If it is “more likely” that those shots happened BEFORE the fatal and FINAL head shots, then from where did they come from ?
At “point blank range” ?
Even though the windscreen is “toughened” it would still break had the shots been fired at such a close range.
The mark on the roof (and the missing roof rail) would also indicate a “distance” shot….simply because at point blank range (stood next to the rear window) how could you miss otherwise ?
Note…the term “distance” means “other than point blank range”.
Tim. You can not believe that the “head shots” which were no doubt the fatal shots, were taken….and then the killer walked away, turned once more and fired again at the BMW ???
“The “blip” to the roof could certainly be a bullet mark”.
And also the fact that it likely took out the roof bar ?
“If so it is quite consistent with one of the shots fired at the group of three nd at a total guess from under 15 – 20 feet”.
Fifteen to twenty feet is most certainly not “point blank” and can be considered “at a distance” if we are talking about an assassination.
But “15 to 20 feet” from the “drivers side” would put the gunman in the trees on that side of the car would it not ?
His shot must pass over the car, endure a rapid loss of velocity, clip the roof bar (and mark the roof). That would be a magic bullet.
THE DISTANCE.
It would be far easier to determine that the shots were fired at the “passenger side”….from 15 to 20 feet away.
And at the front windscreen….from approx the same distance away.
Does that to you sound like an assassination on Saad Al Hilli ?
THE ARC.
I would assume that the gunman was at a range of 15 to 20 feet (or more) in the first attack on the BMW….and his line of fire at that distance was along the front of the vehicle and it’s passenger side.
Was the gunman passing the front and passenger side of the BMW whilst firing ?
He could have done. But that would be tricky on a motorbike. So he would have to be in a vehicle.
Could the BMW have reversed in an arc ?
Again it is possible.
But if there was another vehicle at the car park….where was it and how did al Hilli miss it ?
And if the gunman was firing at the BMW as it made it reverse retreat, he surely would have also hit the other vehicle also ?
And that’s what makes me think…… !
Makes me think….
First reports said that the British family were in a BMW utility vehicle. Clearly this was “released” at that stage…and then quickly “removed”.
Now they “seek” this BMW 4×4 (on U.K. plates).
How strange TWO U.K. plated BMW’s are at the same place at the same time.
Taking the Arnand pictures as “true”, then Al Hilli could have made it up the Combe D’Ire “in time”.
And may have been followed by this “other” vehicle.
On arriving at the carpark Al Hilli may have got out of the vehicle to check….it is after all “the end of the road” but without a barrier.
He may have even spoken (in broken French) to Mollier.
With his daughter outside the car, he may have then reversed his car into the parking “bays”.
At that point the other BMW enters (it arcs in front and then to the side of Al Hilli’s BMW)…and starts shooting (first at the front of Al Hilli’s car, then the side…as the attack is mounted).
The gunman then moves to the now “disabled” Al Hilli who is still in reverse….and fires again.
The problem with that is.
What had Mollier to do with it ? (If anything).
What about the motorbike with motorcyclist ?
Why at that carpark ?
Ref. neo nazis
sweden
france
murder
planned atrocity
“the wolf”
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/16/kristian-vikernes-arrested_n_3604768.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cukt4%7Cdl16%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D194840
that’s why I tend to agree with the early police opinion there was more than one shooter. don’t forget the “motor cyclist! in a well planned attack, as this must have been, shooters from BOTH directions, covering both potential escape routes, would be more certain and more likely I suggest
“Pink
16 Jul, 2013 – 1:44 pm”
James
16 Jul, 2013 – 7:34 pm we need to define our terms! “Distance shot” to me sounds like a telescopic sight. I guess we can be agreed that head shots are usually close, measured in inches rather than feet. However when the attack started I imagine the shooter was within feet of the intended targets. It would have followed standard procedure for trained para-military personnel. Speed and accuracy and get out quick. This is supported by the tyre tracks and shot witness statements. Not much more than 30 seconds!
In the clear ….
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/salford-asylum-seeker-clear-over-5108283
Well, what a surprise!
Thanks for the “Nigerian John” link, Tim.
As you say, what a “surprise”. I wonder what information Mr John could shed on the Chevaline case. He certainly seems to be skilled at gaming the UK justice system.