The previous thread was overloading WordPress due to the number of comments. This thread has been opened to replace it.
Allowed HTML - you can use:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Max I can see how the colour could be confused when seen in different lights and shades ,but what about Sylvies white she was not unsure and they seem to have both seen the same car ?
Pink, EM has said (on tape/interview, see link) that only 1 person saw this X5, namely ONF1. That was one of the problems, that there was only 1 witness.
http://www.francebleu.fr/infos/tuerie/tuerie-de-chevaline-un-portrait-robot-bientot-diffuse-par-les-enqueteurs-953684
Iirc Sylvies 16h white car was accounted for, by being one of the builders ‘escaping’ because he supposedly was panicking when seeing/hearing the army of pompiers/gendarmes arriving. Weird story, but it was something like this (M knows the details)
@Max
A “funny” part of the “SAH = LFR – Martinet(1) – FIB – Martinet(2)” route is the timing (and who was there).
As in 1540 LFR. FIB 1517.
If he is ascending the route post 1440 (and passes ONF1), then has visited the car park and has descended the route by 1517…what was the MC doing ?
You see, if the guy “from Lyon” was the guy that ONF2 spoke to…and ONF2 later saw SM (who was “sighted previously” by WBM), then the guy from Lyon has to be (!) the MC spotted by WBM ? (the argument of the “close proximity” of the unrelated individuals WBM/SM/ONF2/MCL)
Therefore the ONF1 MC (at 1440 + a few minutes, going off SAH passing LFR) is either “MCL” or “MC?” (or “MCX”).
Unless it was “one and the same”….then what was “the guy from Lyon” doing at (and around) the car park from “1440 + plus a few minutes” until 1540 (or thereabouts).
MAX The quote I gave was April 14 2013 it wouldn’t have taken that long to eliminate the builders who must have been prime suspects as well as witnesses.
They saw SAH and they knew where he was heading they also were expecting a BMW owned by MR Bewick .
It sounds like they think Sylvie was wrong about the make of car.
“They are now on the trail of another vehicle, a white off-road car BMW . Investigators were cautious Investigators quickly had knowledge of this 4 x 4 wheel quickly and having almost hit another vehicle in the village of Chevaline. But this testimony, citing a driver “brown” was considered too vague as collected under the influence of emotion. So he left them wary investigators until another person evokes in turn that white off-road traveling at high speed. This new witness, an officer of the National Forestry Office (ONF), assured having crossed what he described as a model of X5 type of the German mark. A car with an unusual pattern on the narrow roads of Chevaline. The two men who discovered the killing, a British cyclist and hiker French circulating a little before 16 hours on the road of Combe d’Ire, have not crossed this car.”
http://www.leparisien.fr/espace-premium/actu/tuerie-de-chevaline-un-nouveau-vehicule-recherche-14-04-2013-2724223.php#xtref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.marilynztomlins.com%2Farticles%2Fchevaline-saad-al-hilli-sylvain-mollier-murder-most-foul-part-14%2F
Max
It seems to me that one can see the effect in your photos when they are displayed on a PC monitor and viewed under normal lighting condition (eg daylight or room lights) however if one were viewing the cars in person under the ambient light in the forest itself, then colour constancy would negate the effect.
“Color constancy is an example of subjective constancy and a feature of the human color perception system which ensures that the perceived color of objects remains relatively constant under varying illumination conditions.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_constancy
I guess that strong sunlight producing dappled lighting conditions could have a different effect. I dont know how strong the sunlight was at the time.
James
To me it looks like “Fat Bastard” didn’t know as much as he thought about SAH (certainly “family business”).
Just the ‘perspective’ that SAH gave.
And yes, maybe someone heard.
Max & Pink
The builders’ story is indeed weird. Leaving to ‘avoid the questions’.
Why the panic?
There was a photo of LFR leaning over a wall in an interview (not the video interview) and in my opinion, he looked like a worried man who hadn’t been sleeping at all well for some reason.
But hey, it could just be noisy neighbours.
Peter
“Because he had maintained the property while Zaid lived elsewhere, Saad believed he was entitled to sole ownership.”
So, ‘unusual’ beliefs and ‘wild accusations’.
Do you think there is any more insight to be squeezed out of Saad’s narrative?
@James and others
Of course I have to be critical at my own ‘double visit’ scenario, regarding times/locations
I seemingly run into trouble with LMC, the guy hanging around Martinet for 45 minutes?? Therefor I came up with another solution, bringing back Janin’s MC to life (with Janin being wrong about the time, the is the only thing I need)
—
14h40 SAH goes up (seen by LFR)
14h50 ONF1 sees LMC, sees X5=SAH
15h00 At Martinet LMC goes up, SAH goes down
15h05 LMC bumps in to ONF2
15h10 LMC goes down, and SAH is now at FIB
15h20 LMC is gone from Combe d’ire (unseen by WBM)
15h20 ONF2 slowly (slower than LMC, patrolling?) makes its way down Combe d’ire
15h25 WBM sees SAH go up
15h30 WBM sees ONF2 come down
This means that I need another MC, namely
15h35/40 WBM sees MC
This could be Janin’s MC. If Janin got the time wrong (but had the direction right) then MC/X came from Col de Cherel, to meet/bump into his target SM. In essence Janin must be wrong by a large margin.
Google maps gives Col de Cherel – Martinet = 9 kms / 20 minutes
So Janin must have seen MC/X around 15h15 (and not 16h which Janin reported)
—
This all follows from SAH with double visit. Goes without saying that everything has to be checked against the facts. Janin must have had the time wrong, and ONF1 must have mistaken SAH’s red WBM estate for a dark/grey/new X5 … far fetched … but remember that those witnesses where not primed. Very difficult to remember exactly what happened hours before when you are not primed. Try it yourself.
For WBM it was different. On arrival at Martinet he knew things were terribly wrong, so he only had to go 30 minutes back in his memory to dig up all ‘elements’. But Janin and ONF1/ONF2 had to dig much deeper. Several hours, if not more.
Also in this respect I rate LFR’s 14h40 high.
The FRENCH farmers are angry, there are a lot of angry people in FRANCE.
French government caves in to farmers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33621278
Quiz. What do you think?
SAH and family, key elements
– BMW
– Estate
– Red/Bordeaux
– SAH driver (right/UK)
– Zainad in front, women and Zeena in the back
– Liked speeding
ONF1 reported
– BMW
– X5/X3
– Grey
– 1 Driver (right/UK)
– no mention of other passengers
– Speeding
= = = =
Now we know the trouble is that to get ONF1 seeing SAH there is the X5/Estate and the Grey/Red problem
Now … suppose ONF1 would have said that the car he saw was
– Red/Bordeaux (in stead of grey)
What then would you conclude?
|
Or suppose ONF1 had said that the car he had seen was
– An Estate (in stead of X5/X3)
What then would you conclude?
|
Suppose ONF1 would have said he saw a red/Bordeaux estate (BMW, 1 driver on the right, speeding)
What would you conclude?
= = = =
You see. If only ONF1 would change 1 extra property of the car he had seen … and well … just conclude from your own answers to the above questions:)
Max,
I conclude you mean on the first trip up to Le Martinet, Saad, had deposited the al-Hilli family before driving up, no bad people spotted,
then back down, picked up his family
and back up to Le Martinet, ready for the drop/pick-up or whatever,
meanwhile bad people come down from above.
However, that scenario,
would only make sense if the person undertaking the “business” was not Saad, him only being the driver?
@MN,
No I mean that ONF1 overlooked little Zainab in front, and didn’t see the people in the back.
Remember the X5 (SAH in this case) was speeding, in a shady environment.
I dunno. Maybe everybody is overestimating ONF1 capacity. The guy did drive his own car. On a small road to pass a speeding upcoming car you need attention for your own car. So, I guess he was not 100% gazing/focusing on the upcoming car, but also minding his own car business.
The car (X5 … SAH?) passed in a flash. ONF1 got the BMW right, he got SAH right, the RHD aspect. Somehow he remembered it being grey. And he remember the X5 aspect
I simply doubt this X5 aspect
But everybody is free to believe this X5 aspect.
Previously someone mentioned colour blindness could explain the colour difference, look under Dichromacy at this page there is a chart that shows the changes .
http://www.colourblindawareness.org/colour-blindness/types-of-colour-blindness/
It reminds me of me seeing a pink bike where there wasn’t one I have no idea how that happened I was convinced I saw a pink child’s bike behind SAH’s caravan I have seen the pictures many times since of the caravan and there is no pink bike yet I was sure I saw one .
My only explanation I can come up with is maybe because I was focusing on the bikes a lot I had a dream of the bike there and so thought I had seen it memory does play tricks.
The car
The thing with the “BMW 5 touring” Vs “BMW X5” is… on the morning after, the television news even got it wrong.
So there are “rumours” and “what not” running rife in the “press pack”. There are stories flying about. And they broadcast the British family were driving a BMW 4×4.
Lest not forget, a car approaching a car (under a canopy of trees in the daylight), your mainly going to see 1. the grill. 2. the windscreen.
Windscreens reflect alot of light. They distort colour.
But WBM believes (or “he thinks”) he saw SAH ascending.
If ONF1 is mistaken (and saw SAH instead of the X5)..
…how didn’t he see WBM.
The motorbike
A bit more tricky. And a little less “subjective”.
The motorcyclist “has an idea” what and who he saw. We’re in the dark.
Janin sees one on the Col
ONF1 sees one at the car park
WBM sees on descending the route
And ONF2 had turn one around.
we ask, are they all the same bike and biker ?
Say if Janin’s and WBM’s were one and the same ?
Could the sightings by ONF1 and ONF2 of MCL have happened “much earlier” ?
The problem again is WBM.
He says he was “close to” SM through Chevaline. If the sightings by ONF1 and ONF2 were earlier, how did ONF2 manage to see SM.
It “all” could be possible “IF”
1. ONF1 and ONF2 turned off the route (ONF1 b4 SM/WBM) (ONF2 b4 SAH/WBM)
AND
2. The chap from Lyon also turned off the route (b4 WBM ….)
Janin’s MC becomes WBM’s MC
SAH made two visits
ONF1 is mistaken with his BMW’s
Throw an “IF this happened….” and I guess anything will fit !
I wonder if little Zainab remembers if the bad man wore a side-opening motorcycle helmet?
I wonder, if in fact, it was Zainab who gave the description to the police artist?
I can’t remember if Eric Maillaud has ever categorically stated which person/s
gave the description to the police artist?
Lyon farmers are no longer angry, they are furious
http://www.france24.com/en/20150723-french-farmers-block-lyon-hollande-bids-ease-crisis
Is FRANCE becoming ungovernable?
I think it is instructive that Eric Maillaud
does not seem to have categorically stated which person or persons gave
their description/s to the police artist,
this is very important.
Eric has been evasive on the issue of
are we still looking for the bearded motorcyclist with the side-opening helmet?
If, as we have thought, the Forest guards, stopped and reprimanded a motorcyclist above
Le Martinet on 05/09/2012 are the persons who have given the distinctive description of the bearded motorcyclist with the side-opening helmet to the police artist,
and we are now expected to understand that, that motorcyclist was the business man from Lyon,
with a penchant for hang gliding, has now been found, after three years, even though no likeness of this person, nor his name has been known to the public, we have not been told to STOP LOOKING for the E-FIT-SKETCH.
So, what does this tell us.
If we are not being duped by Eric Maillaud,
it MUST tell us that the origonal description of the bearded motorcyclist with the side-opening helmet, is NOT the motorcyclist from LYON.
Aparently the motorcyclist from LYON has told Eric that he was not wearing a side-opening helmet.
HENCE – their is at least a second motorcyclist,
this motorcyclist is likely to be X
and the slow riding biker that frightened William Brett Martin,
as W.B.M. rode up to the tragic scene.
So, we are still looking for the motorcyclist with the beard and the side-opening helmet
and this is NOT the person from LYON.
So, it has to be either or both
Zainab
William Brett Martin
who provided the description to the police artist.
@James (and all)
I do not need that many if’s
For the SAH double visit to work I only need
– SAH doing the double visit 🙂 … but this is a given
– ONF1 mistakes SAH (on his first visit) for an X5
– Janin having the time wrong about MC (by 45 minutes)
Everything else can stay intact, give or take a few minutes. Everything else(!)
Suppose ONF1 only said ‘I think it was a BMW, and I saw the driver on the right’
Suppose Janin said ‘Hmmm, I think it was around 15h30’
Suppose they both give in a tiny little bit … and hey presto, everything fits. And the killer came from Col de Cherel on an MC
Of course ONF1 and Janin won’t give in … but if Zainab ever talks about a double visit, you can read the whole timeline in the previous posts.
In logic terms (my scenario):
If Zainab says ‘double visit’
Then the killer was Janin’s MC and came from direction Grignon to kill SM
(btw, I’m off for holiday. You’ll miss me for 2 weeks. Have fun:)
for memories 03/07/2011
http://www.biladi.fr/071173041-le-lac-dannecy-un-adolescent-noye/
Max,
do you think the killer could have come by motorbike from the
Sapeurs-pompiers,
adjacent from the Pharmacie Schutz-Morange?
@MN and Mx
It comes back to an old question I raised before…
….how did the killer get to the car park and then leave ?
On foot ? On bicycle ? On motorbike ? In a car or 4×4 ?
The killer must have arrived and must have left. So how did they do that.
Janin saw a motorbike on the Col
ONF1 saw a motorbike at the car park (and a BMW “4×4” on the route).
ONF2 spoke to a motorcyclist at the hairpins.
WBM saw a motorcyclist descending the route.
ONF2 stopped and spoke to a motorcyclist. He (the rider) revealed his face when the unit spoke to him. This is what we are told. The E-fit of the riders face therefore MUST HAVE come from that event.
AND YET when the “motorcyclist from Lyon” was revealed to the media by the police, we were all shocked that he hadn’t come forward before !
How could this be ?
Surely the rider would have known that it was he who had been stopped by this patrol ? Indeed, once the E-fit had been released (forced) by the police, he would have been “beyond a doubt” that it was he they were looking for. The face. The goatie beard. The distinctive helmet.
Note ….and we no longer have to speculate what language he spoke in !
Eric Maillaud, if interested in getting to the bottom of the Slaughter of the Horses?
should be forced to say, who gave the sescription of the distinctive bearded motorcyclist with the special side-opening helmet to the police artist.
The only people who can do that is his superiors.
The deafening silence leads me to conclude that the superiors of Eric Maillaud do not want the public to know who gave the description to the police artists.
Now why would that be?
Eric Maillaud, if interested in getting to the bottom of the Slaughter of the Horses?
should be forced to say, are we still looking for the E-FIT-SKETCH?
It would be quite simple for Eric Maillaud to announce that we are no longer searching for the E-FIT-SKETCH because that is the picture of the unnamed business person from LYON
who has been eliminated from enquiries
but Eric Maillaud doesn’t say that, does he?
“Note ….and we no longer have to speculate what language he spoke in !”
No, Er I mean Non!
I have residual doubts about MCL not coming forward but it is entirely possible that this bloke really did not get the connection. Given that he was indulging his hobby on a weekday afternoon, my guess is that he was working ‘unsocial hours’ and thus could easily miss the main news reports on TV.
Good In Parts
he would have to be a criminal or an imbocile
not to have wanted to make the connection
or somebody employed in the service of the FRENCH STATE
who knew to keep him trap shut!!!