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?
That vnnforum ref. to a 2008 story above, is pretty fascinating BB
“An MI5 agent has resigned after it emerged his prostitute wife engineered the tabloid sting that exposed Max Mosley, son of British Union of Fascists Leader Oswald Mosley and the president of motor racing, as having taken part in a sado-masochistic orgy.”
Now lets get this straight – an MI5 officer marries a prostitute who is engaged in trapping Mosely? Rather convenient that. “Honey Trap” springs to mind. Was this a regular MI5 set-up to trap people of interest to use as informers? Of course MI5/6 wouldn’t possibly say. The MI5 man we are told resigned. We arn’t told if he was employed again tho.
One thing we can be certain of in connection with the Chevaline (“the so-called Chevaline Massacre” as the French judge put it) is tha SOMEBODY knows “whodunnit” and why. We, the public can’t be sure who those people are beyond the unidentified killers and their bosses. However beyond that we can identify individuals who WILL know all there is to be known, we can be sure. Who would they be? Even only a cursory examination reveals some common threads.
DIRECTOR GENERAL MI5 (UNTIL 2013) SIR JONATHAN EVANS
“In 1985 he moved to the protective security function, dealing with internal and personnel security, before switching to domestic counter-terrorism in the late 1980s.[4] For more than a decade he was involved with the effort to combat the domestic threat of groups such as the Provisional IRA during The Troubles.
In 1999, with the violence in Northern Ireland greatly reduced due to the Good Friday Agreement, Evans moved to G-Branch,[5] the section of MI5 which deals with international terrorism. There he became an expert on al-Qaeda[6] and other branches of Islamic terrorism. He rose to head the section in 2001 (only a few days before the September 11, 2001 attacks), a position which put him on the service’s board of management. In 2005, he became Deputy Director-General before being promoted to head the organisation in 2007.[7]” WIKIPEDIA
FOLLOWED BY ANDREW PARKER
“Parker was educated at Cambridge University where he studied Natural Sciences.[1] He joined the Security Service in 1983.[2] He was seconded to HM Customs and Excise as Director Intelligence in 1999 before becoming Director, International Terrorism at the Security Service in February 2005.[3] After leading the Security Service’s response to the 7 July 2005 London bombings and the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, he became Deputy Director-General in 2007.[2] He went on to become Director-General of the Service in April 2013.[4]” WIKI
Tim
I can see the Moyne/Mosley family traditionally and historically being close to MI5/6/SIS.
They are no enemies of the kingdom although they share a different ideology than the zionists do. I believe that the SIS is undermined by zionists like it is the CIA and consequently we are having 2 CIAs and 2 SIS who subsequently fight and even kill each other within the same organisation. This is all about mafia money and power but it is not about protecting the government or democracy. Thats just the joke behind.
I believe that the MI5 agent you refer to did not have an official order but he did this per order from ….. the city of London/tel aviv? That is why he had to resign. There wouldnt be a reason to resign if he had an official order from vauxhall house. He happily resigned because he probably received a lot of $$$$.
VEILED THREAT: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10193204/Former-head-of-MI6-threatens-to-expose-secrets-of-Iraq-dodgy-dossier.html
HEAD OF MI6 SIR JOHN SAWYERS
“Sawers joined the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 1977.[6] In his early career, Sawers worked in Yemen and Syria, on behalf of MI6.[7][1] He became Political Officer in Damascus in 1982 and then returned to the Foreign & Commonwealth Office to take up the roles of Desk Officer in the European Union Department in 1984 and Private Secretary to the Minister of State in 1986.[6]
He was based in Pretoria and then Cape Town in South Africa from 1988 to 1991[6] during the first part of the transition from apartheid. He returned to the Foreign & Commonwealth Office yet again to take up the roles of Head of European Union Presidency Planning Unit in 1991 and Principal Private Secretary to Douglas Hurd in 1993.[6] The period was dominated by war in Bosnia, crises in the Middle East, and the debate in Britain on the European Union.
From 1995 to 1998 he was in the United States and spent a year as an International Fellow at Harvard University[6] and later working at the British Embassy in Washington D. C., where he headed the Foreign and Defence Policy team.[6]
From January 1999 to summer 2001 he was Foreign Affairs Adviser to Prime Minister Tony Blair,[6] dealing with all aspects of Foreign and Defence Policy and working closely with international counterparts. The period included the Kosovo War. He also worked on the Northern Ireland peace process and the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. He reviewed the Iraq sanctions policy during this period and issued a document that included consideration of regime change.[8]
He served two years in the Middle East as Ambassador to Egypt from 2001 to 2003,[6] and for three months was the British Government’s Special Representative in Baghdad[6] assisting in the establishment of the Coalition Provisional Authority as the transitional government during the Occupation of Iraq.” WIKIPEDIA
DIRECTOR GENERAL MI6 (2004 – 2009) SIR JOHN SCARLETT
“Recruited by MI6 and served in Moscow, Nairobi (1973–1976), and Paris. In 1994, after a tit-for-tat row between the UK and Russian authorities, Scarlett was expelled from Moscow where he had been MI6’s “Station Chief”.[4] He retired from MI6 as Director of Security and Public Affairs in 2001, rejoining in 2004.”
“Scarlett took on the role of head of the JIC one week before the September 11 attacks.[5]Scarlett became the head of SIS on 6 May 2004, before publication of the findings of the Butler Review.[8] Although the review highlighted many failings in the intelligence behind the Iraq war and the workings of the Joint Intelligence Committee, it specifically stated that Scarlett should not resign as head of the Committee and SIS.[9]
On 8 December 2009, Scarlett gave evidence to The Iraq Inquiry. He denied he was under any pressure to “firm up” the September Dossier, and claimed there was “no conscious intention” to mislead about Iraq’s weapons but it would have been “better” to have clarified battlefield munitions not missiles were meant.[10][11]” WIKIPEDIA
It is said there was no love lost between Dearlove (his predecessor in the top job) and Scarlett and that there was a good deal of disquiet in the service over his appointment, seen as reward for supplying what the PM required and for backing TB subsequently. This appears confirmed by the threat reported above.
“Ever since World War II, the chief of the London station of the United States Central Intelligence Agency has attended the JIC’s weekly meetings. One former US intelligence officer has described this as the “highlight of the job” for the London CIA chief.[2] Resident intelligence chiefs from Australia, Canada, and New Zealand may attend when certain issues are discussed.”
AMBASSADOR TO FRANCE – SIR PETER RICKETTS
“Sir Peter Forbes Ricketts, GCMG (born September 1952[1]) is a senior British diplomat who currently serves as British Ambassador to France, in succession to Sir Peter Westmacott.
On 24 June 2011, the Prime Minister’s Office announced that Sir Peter Ricketts would replace Sir Peter Westmacott as HM Ambassador to France effective January 2012, with Sir Kim Darroch taking Sir Peter’s old role as National Security Adviser.[2]
Prior to his appointment as National Security Adviser, Sir Peter had been the Permanent Secretary in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Before he took over that position in July 2006, he served as the Permanent Representative to NATO in Brussels. He was also previously the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, leading him to give evidence to The Iraq Inquiry in November 2009.[3]
Sir Peter began his career in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 1974 and served as the Assistant Private Secretary to former Foreign Secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe. Apart from Brussels, he has been posted to Singapore, Washington D.C. and Paris.” WIKIPEDIA
Of course Sir Peter made a point of being at Grenoble and presumably also the crime scene itself immediately after the event. Although Ambassadors are not always kept fully “in the loop” on security matters, as the Zygier case demonstrated, we may assume he was and is fully briefed regarding the British side of the investigation and least. Has he had to explain to people in the French Ministry of the Interior if and why the British have been obstructive?
Bluebird
22 Jul, 2013 – 4:52 pm don’t wholly agree with your perspective there BB. Shopping Mosley must have been sanctioned by MI5 if her husband was an officer I should have thought. Nor is it really possible that she could have carried on that trade or profession without them knowing. Much more likely she was used by them to trap people but this could never be admitted so employee had to take the fall. A resignation pricks the balloon and it seems to have worked in this case. To be engaged in such an activity as an MI5 officer if not known and sanctioned would undoubtedly lead to dismissal and even prosecution had it not been. As I said we do not know what happened to them both subsequently. Quietly re-employed would be my guess or handsomely retired.
Bluebird
22 Jul, 2013 – 4:10 pm There is a chance (I won’t put it any stronger than that) that the two Al Hilli brothers provided links in several “terrorist” directions. The more we look the more we find. There could be links into N Ireland. You have uncovered two effectively through Zaid’s wife and employer.
As we have said a Golf Club could potentially be a very good front for all sorts of things including meetings (who ever suspects or overhears the chat on the fifth hole?). We have links to Swedish extremism and Hezbollah through mother-in-law and possibly brother in law.
You’ve probably seen the latest on this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23397003
Then we have links to Iran and Dubai through Suhaila and of course to Iraq, Britain and the US through the Al Hillis themselves with family links to Australia and Algeria and via there back to France full circle. As you say all this is unlikely to be just co-incidence.
Ireland the PIRA are linked to Gadhaffi and Libya on weapon running for which sources must have been required to intercept and Libya embroiled in British flip-flopping and rendition depending whether Gadhaffi was “in” or “out”.
Bluebird
If Zaid is an accountant, is he a type of qualified accountant? If he is shouldnt there be a lot of info about his exams and when he passed them.
I would like to digress for a moment and explore – yet again – the “professional ‘ vs “non-professional” angle to the killings at Chevaline. This, in light of a long time poster, James, having gone all out for “non professional”, somewhat abruptly. In the process seemingly seeking to precipitate what I call a “squabble” with another long time poster, Tim V. Something about addresses, I recall, brought on rather disproportionate invectives, which strayed into the personal attack territory. That was unseemly as well as uncalled for. My reading of this behavior recalls other patterns I’ve seen before, where a poster-in-good-standing, one with unique style all their own, seems to suddenly flip, in the process going all personal against some other poster, provoked by something only they can see (leaving the rest of us scratching heads in puzzlement).
The personal notwithstanding, my reading of the “pattern” is that it does have something to do with the “professional” angle. One that is becoming more entrenched and not just on this blog. Hence my desire to go over the case for “professional killings”, even though Tim V has done so quite ably just recently. That was however in the context of a Challenge from james, which may have discouraged others from paying attention.
After this long pre-amble, here are IMO the key elements that strongly point to a professional team (emphasis on “team”) that carried out the killings, as I see them (this is offered by way of summary only, not as something original since it’s all been discussed plenty times and at length):
1. Four people dead, each with multiple hits, using mere 21 bullets, from a supposedly old gun. Of these 21 (the count they are now giving us) at least 15 “found their mark” in the victims’ bodies. That, as Tim V has said before is remarkable, given that there was a highly dynamic situation involved, with saad making a break for the car, succeeding in getting in, putting in gear, etc..
Note: my count is as follows: Saad: 3 (1 in the back), Iqbal and Suhaila – 2 each, Zainab 1, Sylvain 7. So, only 6 bullets “wasted”: maybe 2-3 grazing or hitting the windshield, as saad goes over the hood, escaping, others hitting side windows, roof.
2. There is good reason to believe the hit was carried out by at least two individuals, one driving the SUV originally parked at the top of the martinet, the other getting out in time to deliver the coup-de-grace shots. Possibly earlier shooting at Sylvain and saad. This conclusion follows naturally upon the assumption of the tarc tracks at martinet belonging to the killer’s car. No way one could execute such a violent car maneuvre while shooting accurately enough to prevent saad’s BMW from moving pmuch past its original location.
3. The more we look at the timing, as we know it, the more strangely precise it seems to be. With WBM and PD/PB arriving “just in time”, one upon the hills of the other. Anyone who looks at those timelines, especially following the sudden ‘revelation: of 3:15PM family photo, cannot but puzzle over it. It’s literally one minute this or that way, and the whole incident becomes undone. At some point we have to admit that if it looks planned, maybe it’s because it was.
4. The post-crime behavior is bizarre and out of all keeping with any kind of “normal” crime. This include the casual treatment of the crime scene (openning it up in no time to reporters), letting WBM just go home pronto, the failure to seek the public’s help through notices, the lack of photos of the victimes, and, of course, the endless contradictions from the French investigators, especially EM.
5. The strange reluctance on the part of authorities either in france or UK or even Sweden, to at least try and elicit sympathy for the victims, cut down in the prime of life. Normally stories would be running around about the lives and histories of the victims, and photos shown in attempts to juggle memories. None of that happened. The victims’ prior lives, especially Sylvain and the two women have been, for all intents and purposes erased. That just simply doesn’t happen if authorities really suspected a “normal” crime, committed by a non-professional.
6. The two girls were flown to England, apparently ASAP, with Zainab manifesting a miraculous recovery (from ‘almost dead” to “good to go” in less than a week!) and being under protective custody for over 10 months now. This is not what would happen had the killer(s) been suspected of being “non-professional” and/or “local”.
7. Finally and most significantly: if it was a “non-professional” who did the deed, it sure was one of the all time remarkable “get away with it”. Left apparently, no evidence, no weapon traces (yes, there was that “part” that was broken. now, what was that exactly?), no DNA, no car plates, no ‘tracks”, no signs in the woods and absolutely no leads. Now that’s one well-executed crime, especially for a non-professional, who apparently made no mistakes whatsoever. If it was a “non-professional”, I*’m sure many professional teams the world over would be seeking his services, as we speak.
There are many other smaller details that all add up to a planned hit that was professionally executed with whoever did the deed, escaping unmolested and unknown, with the authorities entrusted in the investigation covering up the tracks as best they can.
The 7 elements listed above may each have a short-coming or some embedded assumption, and indeed those intent on pressing the “non-professional” angle have over time tried to undermine the elements one at a time,. Therefore hoping to cast doubt on the entire narrative. This is, of course an obvious and natural tactic used to press one’s case: undermine one detail hoping that the whole will come tumbling down. Alas for them, the structure is not exactly a house of cards. It’s what these elements taken together point to, not any detail contained in any one of them. In fact, I claim that no matter how many strikes one aims at any one ‘element” the whole will remain because the narrative itself is stronger than the sum of the parts. take down any one details and logic itself comes to the rescue by filling in the gaps, so to speak.
Examples:
Element 1: the shots were helter-skelter, going every-which-way, hitting the windshield which “every” professional knows is ineffective, etc. I think we can count the ways in which such arguments don’t add up, from moving car and running assailant trying to stop Saad from getting into the car and driving forward, to Sylvain’s blood on Saad, indicating the two stood originally next to each other, to the early admission ts that victims were “shot twice in the head” to the strong possibility that not one, but two cars were moving and kicking up dust.
Result; no amount of conjecturing about “shots from a distance” will add up to undermine the plain fact that the majority of the bullets found their mark and that, by definition, the shooting was “successful” with 4 victims quite dead, and one, the girl, quite disabled.
Element 2: No other car parked at Martinet (Zainab said! or did she?), tracks made by BMW (in direct contradiction to what was visible), shooter arriving “on foot”, only one shooter (Zainab said “one bad man”!) etc
Easy to rebut; (1) may be the tracks were not made by the killer’s vehicle or may be they were. But they were certainly not made by the BMW, therefore any conjecture as to the original location of the parked BMW is just that – a conjecture with nothing to rest on. Nothing at all. (2) how much are we willing to believe that Zainab actually said? it’s the easiest thing to attribute statements to her, if in fact, as we believe there was a cover-up. Or, better still, no need to attribute statements – just don’t share the whole statements, leaving us all with the most partial information (3) shooter arriving on foot – OK< why not? but why yes? just to support a contention that there was no other car atthe scene/ after all, not one item ever pointed in the direction of a "shooter on foot, coming from the woods". Or do some people know more about what Zainab said than they care to disclose?
What these examples illustrate is that trying to undermine any one of the 7 elements collected above, will not help , since the overall structure, with ALL the elements taken together still points – quite strongly – to a "professional" hit, followed by a deep and very serious cover-up by at least two countries. In all likelihood, the hit was carried out by a team of at least two, who, in all probability, arrived by car, even if one chose to get out and 'stretch legs" for a while, and/or only one was the actual shooter.
Stated another way: the "non=professional" theory (which includes someone trained in use of guns, but may be not "professionally") is the one that makes for a house of cards, because it is built on many more assumptions, and entirely unknown facts, than the "professional" theory. The two can therefore not be treated as equivalent, except by those who prefer fiction and/or have an agenda all their own.
OK, this was my channel. back to BB's.
Marlin @ 22 Jul, 2013 – 8:37 pm
Good summary (and interesting first bit).
Do you have any thoughts on the apparent inconsistency of:
1) the two girls, presumably, being protected from the killer(s)
2) the apparently deliberate attempt not to find the killer(s)
I could understand 1) if the investigation suspected someone in the AH family but I can’t square 2) with that.
I could understand 2) if it was known at a political level that a “friendly” state was involved but I can’t square 1) with that. I don’t believe anything the girls could remember and say publicly would lead to political embarrassment (ie they are not being “silenced”). Nor that a “friendly” state would be so outrageous (not even a state that has a track record of outrageous behaviour) as to pose a threat to two children in the UK.
Bleb, those are good questions, and ones several of us have been wrestling with for a long time. They are also interesting questions in the sense you point out: the logic doesn’t add up to internal consistency (ie, if this, then that, or if it’s this it can’t be that so must be the other).
If you followed my recent comments (and if you did, given the voluminousness, should I apologize? eh, no…) I am one of a small group here (along with Straw44berry and feret, who kind of disappeared lately) who believe that the possibility of extraction cannot be excluded. Indeed, logically that is a fact – the two main arguments against it are (1) way complicated, and (2) what about the children? Alas, when it comes to the children, no scenario makes sense, whether a massacre or extraction. Just as you have pointed out there’s a bit of a logical conundrum here.
My theories/conjectures (and that’s all they are) – these do not necessarily go together, they are just possibilities for mix-and-match):
1. The British are protecting the children from the french investigators, who they believe are too much in thrall to the killers’ agency (whichever one it is). It’s not just what the children can or cannot tell. It’s what someone(s) THINK they can tell. For example, so where exactly was Zeena for 8 hours? under her mother’s skirts?
2. Releasing the children to relatives will not be sufficient to guarantee their safety and especially, inaccessibility. Perhaps, if Zeena was kidnaped once (for 8 hours?) she could be again? what exactly was promised or threatened to get her back and by whom? the British?
3. Alternatively, releasing children to relatives can be problematic if some within the larger “relatives” circle cannot be trusted, whether or not they had anything to do with the killings. For example, Saad may have been working with MI5 all along, as was possibly Iqbal. Or they could have been working at counter-purposes, unknowingly. Or the MI5 unit for which one or both worked was penetrated by another agency (hence the killings), but not knowing the extent of the “penetration:” that now casts a shadow over the safety of other family members. Indeed, there’s even the possibility of some complex negotiations going on behind the scenes with the children as pawns.
4. The children are being used by one british agency as their ace-in-the-hole against another agency. So while their hands are tied (due to political considerations) from “outing” the killers’ agency, the brits are fuming over what happened and are in a waiting mode, while holding their ‘cards’ in the form of the poor children. Sounds cynical? yes, But then, if there’s any truth whatsoever to this scenario, imagine how dangerous and ruthless that killer agency is. After all, there may even be a split in the SIS ranks with one part not trusting another, or one part gone rogu and working in cahoots with that third agency to the detriment of british interests. We do suspect something like a split in the ranks happened with the CIA and the FBI. Why not SIS MI5? not out of the question, but definitely not proovable ( hear that good Prism people? me know notin’).
5. Finally, if it was an extraction that happened (or, partial extraction/assassination or even “rendition”?) then the children represent something that did not go according to plan. Perhaps the plan was to have them “dead” as well but the substitutes were determined – at the last minute – to be inadequate to the task of impersonating them? all kinds of dead adults can be found – and disguised by “disfigurement” – when needed, but children – not so easy. As an aside, using children “actors’ was suggested but that’s kind of hard to visualize. How long will they have to “act” for example?
Ok, may be that’s a bit more than you asked for, but, as you can see, there are ways out of the logical conundrum, though none that are simple. Worse, yet, none of the scenarios suggested are compatible with disclosure to the public, ever. Which means that if I am right on any or combination of the above, then it’s as good as saying we’ll never know, and that the children, if they are in protective custody, are doomed to remain there for a long time.
So, if I am right, there’s no hope of use ever knowing what happened (at least not for the foreseeable future). but also, unfortunately the children’s lives are screwed – many times over. the only hope I’d be able to offer (again, if I am right, and I may not be) is that there are indeed some protracted “negotiations” going on, and at some point, a resolution will be found and the children will get to live a normal life. may be after their memory of the events was sufficiently tampered with.
Sad, eh?
and speaking hypothetically IF a business was a front for laundering tainted money, or disbursing it to tainted organisations, or doing both;
and IF the owners of said establishment held extreme nationalistic views that he supported financially and further links into the Irish and English pub market
might not he and it be of interest to the British SIS?
so how to get “inside information”?
how about an accountant with access to all the books?
and aware of all the members and who they met as guests?
might that not be a useful asset for the British SIS?
ALTERNATIVELY ….
Marlin, “… there are ways out of the logical conundrum, though none that are simple. …” Indeed.
I can sort of buy your 1. & 2.
You may know that in the UK there is a political party UKIP (UK Independence Party) that campaigns for UK “independence” from the European Union. I’d vote for them if they were campaigning for UK independence from the USA (and its friends).
There are no doubts that intelligence was involved to suppress information.
Had you ever tried to delete your own fb site? Your twitter account? Your linkedin?
It’s a mess and you’re lucky to succeed. Deleting fb etc. from a dead relative takes ages. You need notary documentation etc.
All the al Hilli family is on fb. Even the old guys. Most of them are on linkedin.
Saad was not? The computer expert who did “rant in forums” was not on fb? You’re kidding. Of course Saad and Iqbal were on fb, probably Zainab, too.
They were removed in less than 24 hours? By whom? We shall believe that this is normal?
SM’s family was on fb, even his children were. He was not? Who should believe that?
And then. No photos. The families dont want photos being released. BS!
When there is a normal crime, police would use MSM to publish their last photo with questions: who saw that family? Where had they been since they came to france?, etc.
But here? Nothing!
That is completely illogic. That is no normal investigation. That investigation is suppressed by higher powers. The same powers who were able to get rid from fb pages plus getting rid all photos of saad and iqbal from the internet in less than 24 hours.
And finally, ask Fat Bastard about Saad’s nickname on the internet and his email addresses.
If he could contribute something useful for an investigation, then it would be that. Otherwise he is just trolling.
There is now a “Zaid A.” on linkedin with connections to e.g. hussein al hilli. He is from Surrey.
This is one of the few linkedin profiles without a clear name.
There are no data regarding education and previous work except that he is an expert in economy and islamic banking business.
Perhaps the word “accountant” was a bit deep stacked.
An ” intelligence” Golf club “front business” for middle eastern money laundering and “sponsorships”?
I always said that you need a Meyer Lansky for such kind of business.
Why the raid in the golf club? Did met police have a suspicion or do the french know?
Perhaps this is somebody else. However, why just “A.” as his name and why connections to al Hilli?
This is the link of Zaid A.
uk.linkedin.com/pub/zaid-a/59/390/383/
Interesting is the latest project of “islamic …….. date september 2012” with 6 team members but only 4 of them listed (2 profiles erased?), one of the 4 remaining is hussein al hilli.
Interesting is also the Romanian contact on this page with the Romanian Elena Corina Celoiu who is president of the Kings College computer science club (both Saad and Zaid went to Kings College).
http://www.wall-street.ro/tag/elena-corina-celoiu.html
Once again: i do not know whether or not Zaid A. Is Zaid al Hilli in that profile. However, thete are traces and tracks leading to him. Possibly …
Bb
Maybe it is interesting to know the other 2 guys of the team of six project “islamic economics created in september 2012:
One member is Zaid A. (Could be Zaid al Hilli?)
Second member is Hussein al Hilli
Third member is Mehdi alKatib
Fourth member is Hayder A.
Fifth and 6th member are erased (dead?).
Mehdi al Katib is research analyst at QIB company, London, Middle East affairs.
Mehdi al Katib worked from July-September 2012 at the permanent mission of Iraq at the UNO in new york. Practically he had the same position as Hashim al Hilli had 50 years ago. Coincidence?
Hayder A. works as an Iraq and Middle East analyst for Aegis Defence systems in London.
So we have a group of 6 (today are only 4 of them listed) who created an “islamic economics” project in september 2012.
Can we make something of that info?
Well done BB on the factual research and conclusions drawn. It all supports the the opinions I have been banging away at since the beginning. And your findings about the “Islamic Economics Group” are highly relevant and may even support my musings at 10.31. particularly the links of “Hayder A.” to middle east defence and “Mehdi al Katib” to UN, which as you note, weirdly replicates Hashiem’s old role.
Then there is the date it started – the very time of the massacre!
Your reservations regarding the name “Zaid A” reflect well on your approach but what are the probabilities it is Zaid al Hilli? High I would say wouldn’t you? Rather like “TimV” in fact!
One small point that name “Haydar” has cropped up a few times in connection to the al Hillis hasn’t it? There was ” Haydar Thaher, 46,” Suhaila’s violent son who was hospitalized in England (why in England?). Then you will remember a Haydar from Sweden prominent in the Iraqi anti Zionist conference in London with an Al Hilli there as well? (Sorry I can’t now find the precise reference without searching for hours) Thaler appears to be a popular Arabic name, though not without family indicators possibly?
The “Iraqi National Congress” under Shalabi, was supported by the Americans prior to invasion to the tune of at least 10 million a year and there were big accounting problems. (see http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/15006.pdf)
And then there was the ten BILLION dispersed in US dollars post invasion has never been adequately explained or accounted for or the whole UN “Aid for Oil” programme. Plenty of scope here for the work of an good accountant at the top of the émigré social order with long established links to British and American Intelligence eh?
It rather makes MZT’s “Poirot discussions” look rather trivial, even malign, doesn’t it?
We have rather overlooked the older brother Zaid haven’t we and even the possibility that it was he who took on the family’s political/clandestine role.
Or the possibility that with an internal family dispute over money, the soured relationship was seen as a potential threat to his position, role and function by others, for which SAH’s removal was the only and best solution.
It’s not a theory I have seen suggested before in all these months so it might be worth considering. Lured to a meeting in a remote spot by the promise of access without hassle to the 800000 in return for a specific task that involved SM, the aim being to eradicate all?
Marlin
22 Jul, 2013 – 10:27 pm I think it might be true to say we think along similar lines, except perhaps your belief in abstraction perhaps? You may of course be proved right eventually but as you know I have never really understood a convincing rationale for it. Abstraction of just a few? Abstraction of all? Abstraction to where? Abstraction why and for what purpose?
For interrogation by a foreign power to obtain valuable information? To allow a group to disappear from public view with an explanation for their demise using replacements or just pretending they had been killed? I just don’t get it.
Going to all that trouble abroad? The possibility of multiple leaks? Families “bereaved”? Hospitals? Continuing interest. Abandonment of the children unless that is all contrived as well in which the Sussex Police and Social Services would have to be roped in as well. Surely an more plausible crime ridden scenario would have been chosen? Serious car accident or carbon monoxide poisoning in the caravan perhaps to name just two?
Anyway I liked your cogent arguments for this not being a “normal crime” and the largely fatuous debate around, and misinterpretation of, crime scene details on the MZT site, which I entered briefly. As you know as these have been the arguments I have used all along as I battled with the doubters and I did get a strong sense of deja vous! I am pleased that you have recycled and reconditioned them, and that they have come out shining. With BB’s unarguable points in relation to FB and internet manipulation, I can only conclude that the only ones who now do not see, are those who WILL not see.
With the passing of the fearless Helen Thomas (aged 92) in the United States recently, I am ever hopeful that a journalist somewhere, of equal stature, gets to read this blog, and is persuaded by our arguments to pursue the issue in a more accessible domain. Maybe between us we could come up with a plan to actively advertise its existence on other news blogs in the hope that somebody will?
No one appears to have picked up on that Dearlove threat I posted. He was head of MI6 before and after 2003 and spent his time flying backwards and forwards to Washington/Langley when he wasn’t in conference Tony Blair. It is clearly a shot across the bows that if Chilcot places all the blame on defective intelligence from MI6 and none on the “sexing up” bit by the JIC – aka Alastair John Campbell.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10086837/The-whiff-of-suspicion-over-the-Chilcot-Inquiry-grows-stronger.html
As Watergate was to Richard Nixon, so yet may Iraq prove to Tony Blair (or even David Cameron should it prove he were part of a cover-up)!
sorry I missed the last bit of the first para off – should read:
“- he may go public with what he knows. And that folks is virtually all there is to!”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Combat_System
Hi Everyone longtime no look! whats been going on?
“Result; no amount of conjecturing about “shots from a distance” will add up to undermine the plain fact that the majority of the bullets found their mark….”
And with “zero” consideration as to the location from where they were fired from !
Unbelievable !
But it does show how “blinked” this discussion has become with Tim and Marlin at “the wheel” !
Adieu !
Just to see for what companies “2 team members” currently work:
One of the biggest security firms
http://www.aegisworld.com/
The biggest Islamic Sharia bank world wide:
http://www.europeanfh.com/
http://www.europeanfh.com/html/our-shareholders.asp
The other 2 team members are Zaid A., a banking expert whose name we dont know, and Hussein al Hilli whom we stumbled across already many months ago.
That project team of 6 that was formed in september 2012, has got only 4 people today, the remaining two dont exist any more. Of course we can only guess about who the 2 “lost” project team members were?
Let us guess about why?