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>
http://www.ledauphine.com/haute-savoie/2015/08/23/le-public-convie-a-la-passation-de-commandement-du-27e-bca
I wonder will they remember their old mucker
Patrice Menegaldo
http://www.ledauphine.com/haute-savoie/2015/06/23/la-soeur-de-l-ex-legionnaire-d-ugine-sort-du-silence
The murderers of Nicole Communal-Tournier have been held in custody for sixteen months now
https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.ledauphine.com/societe/2014/04/17/meurtre-d-une-gerante-cinq-arrestations&prev=search
what is the hold up in their court case,
could it be that this court happening will be on or about the third year of
the Slaughter of the Horses
so that the press focus on that rather than Chevaline
or is that being too cynical?
http://uk.areva.com/EN/home-466/zirconium-processing-in-nuclear-fuel-manufacturingnbsp-areva-uk.html
http://www.japantoday.com/smartphone/view/national/huge-fire-breaks-out-at-steel-plant-near-haneda-airport
AREVA/CEZUS bought into Zircoproducts Japan. The fire near Haneda Airport is at a division of the company that made the deal with AREVA/Cezus for an interest in its zirconium production. Zircoproducts Japan is a joint venture company.
http://www.areva.com/EN/operations-926/research-center.html
I wonder is this the place where Sylvain Mollier actually worked?
It does seem “strange” that confusing stories of the work activities of
the lost, just passing, wrong place at the wrong time, cyclist, SYLVAIN MOLLIER
are still some what of a mystery.
Why, if he was only collateral damage,
should his employment status be a mystery, still, after three years.
SYLVAIN MOLLIER
1) back history virtually unknown
2) likeness – only allowed photograph ( black & white)not in any context
3) apparently living with Claire Schutz of Pharmacie Schutz-Morange fame
4) Pierre Morange, her maternal uncle is an old mucker of Nicolas Sarkozy,
who was President of FRANCE untill, just before the Slaughter of the Horses,
intriguingly, it is said that after the slaughter of a senior policeman, old mucker
of Pierre Morange, Pierre, now carries a shooter.
5) Claire, apparently, according to her brief Maître Caroline BLANVILLAIN,
from “LYON”, left her business to go home, so SYLVAIN MOLLIER could go out for a cycle ride, from which he did not return.
Anyone think hat David Cameron sometimes asks the FRENCH
“How are you getting on, solving the Slaughter of the Horses, it’s been three years,
come on, get your fingers out”
Peter
I wonder whether, with the core crimescene already compromised by les pompiers, a better use of the laser scanning technology would have been to scan the soft transition zones throughout the combe. I mean the unpaved side tracks, verges, footpaths etc that border the tarmac road itself.
This could have revealed tyre tracks from cars or motorcycles, as well as footprints or even handprints.
Of course, it would have been nice if a herd of cattle had not been driven up the combe (and I don’t mean the carloads of journalists described by Parry).
I may be becoming mildly paranoid after following this case for so long. I actually started musing about how terribly convenient it was that the cows trampled their way up the combe to the alpage.
Then I wondered, were the cows in on it?
“The unnamed motorcyclist with a goatee was seen by SEVERAL WITNESSES near the scene”
“In the days after the murder, at least THREE forestry workers were among those who helped police put together an identikit image of the suspect.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2487209/French-police-release-image-Alps-massacre-gunman.html
“Mr Maillaud is now facing questions as to why he did not release the image to the public in the days after the murder, when it had grabbed the attention of the world’s media.
The prosecutor in turn defended his decision, saying it was kept out of the public domain for STRATEGIC REASONS
we did not want this person to go into hiding”
The helmet opens from the side to allow a wearer to have a conversation without removing the whole helmet.
But despite checks with manufacturers over the past year, no-one has been able to track down the helmet’s owner.
Police investigator Benoit Vinnemann confirmed that the wearer of the helmet is POTENTIALLY THE PERPETRATOR.
Yes, MAX is right,
ERIC MAILLAUD, really must do better.
He should tell the world was there only ever one motorcyclist
or was there more than one motorcyclist.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34055713
France train shooting: Attack was ‘premeditated’
Ayoub El-Khazzani, 25, was carrying 270 bullets for his assault rifle and a bottle of petrol, prosecutor Francois Molins told reporters.
https://www.rt.com/news/313386-france-roma-shooting-dead/
Another mass shooting, adjacent to a police station, one of the dead is a policeman.
http://www.france24.com/en/20150825-shooting-roma-camp-france-leaves-three-dead-roye
Ok, another try
A Luger … doesn’t work against a ‘tank’ (BMW)
To stop a driving BMW (‘tank’) imho the Luger is not the best choice of weapon
Yet X had a Luger
Now, if SAH was X’s target, X only could/should strike with SAH out of the car. So X should have known in advance where SAH would be/get out of the car.
We know SAH went to Martinet, and he got out of the car.
So … the question becomes … Did X know that SAH would go to Martinet AND that SAH would get out of the car?
That is possible if e.g. SAH was lured to Martinet.
Still, we also know that SAH was not killed with the first clip of ammo. Worse, SAH nearly got away. SAH got back into the car and it seems he nearly escaped.
Conclusion:
– A Luger is not suited for stopping a BMW (tank)
– The logistics of getting/knowing that SAH would go to Martinet AND get out of the car is cumbersome
– Even with these 2 things happening, X still managed to fumble the opportunity … making SAH nearly escape (only SAH’s bad luck got him/SAH stuck and become an easy sitting duck target)
In other words
– BMW vs Luger is cumbersome
– SAH vs Martinet is cumbersome
– SAH as target vs SAH’s escape is cumbersome
Or … in yet other words … SAH was not the target
– – – – –
Because with SM as target we don’t have any of these problems
– A luger goes very well with a biker in a shirt
– Martinet is an ok spot to wait for an arriving target on a bike
– SM had no chance at all, and was probably dead by the bullets from the first clip of ammo
– – – – –
End result / Final simple conclusion
SM must have been the target of X
@ Max
“SAH was not the intended target, therefore SM was”, is a non-sequitur. They both could have been targets (rather unlikely) or neither of them (more likely). In my opinion, the most parsimonious explanation is that this was a robbery-gone-wrong and that there were no “targets” as such, only panic, confusion and deeply ingrained violent habit.
Be that as it may, in other news, these guys
https://www.facebook.com/CSILA90210
are doing a sterling job investigating the recent Bangkok bombings. It is quite amazing what crowd-sourced intelligence can achieve.
@Peter I can’t buy that it’s a robber what would he be expecting to rob in the woods with a loaded gun where people are mostly hiking or cycling not carrying the crown jewels ,the only thing I can see worth taking is SM’s bike.
@ Pink
Generally speaking, robbers are after cash (of which holidaymakers tend to carry more than locals) and ATM cards, smartphones, notebooks and cameras, not after distinctive, difficult-to-sell high-end bicycles. Depending upon the putative robber’s connections, he could also have planned to take SAH’s BMW to a chop shop and have it stripped for parts.
Max
In a post to Peter a few weeks ago, I put forward the
opposite argument, namely that the calibre (and thus the weapon) was particularly suitable for shooting the occupants of a car. A stationary car that is, not a “driving BMW(‘tank’)“.
Planning or happenchance, the shooter played to the weapons strength (and his own) placing accurate aimed shots through the side windows.
He did not try to shoot the engine block, tyres or, as far as I can see, through the laminated front windscreen. This man knew his limitations.
The case can also be made that this would not be the weapon of choice to stop a fast moving cyclist. Even with it’s apparently excellent ‘pointability’.
So, the cyclist would need to have stopped for some reason, or have slowed considerably, say at a hairpin. . . But it would be still a risk, even injured the target could dive into the woods. Then the weapon really would be at a disadvantage.
However having said all that, I still think that (un)traceability was the primary factor in the choice of weapon.
@Peter The only way I would put robbery on the table is if it was someone who knew there was something worth stealing i.e the jewels that were being fenced around there ,drugs ,or the possible stuff that links SM and SAH that I wont get into as I have no idea about it ,far more likely IMO is that it was intended to send a message “cross us and this is what happens ” type thing, the overkill is crazy for a robber no one was armed, he was determined whatever the reason to kill everyone he was also cool enough to effect a successful escape.
I wonder how hard they looked at the people watching Mastro those two events in such a small area is very suspicious.
@ Good In Parts, 28 Aug, 2015 – 10:46 am
I understand your argument about energy density, defined as a projectile’s kinetic energy divided by the area of impact. However, it is a very theoretical argument. Much more important in terms of penetrating power than bullet diameter are bullet shape (pointy vs. blunt) and bullet material (red brass or brass vs. lead). Yet you are essentially right: the shooter obviously happened to use (or had carefully selected) the right kind of ammunition for this particular purpose, and he obviously happened (or had been taught) to shoot at a pretty much perpendicular angle to the BMW’s side windows. Likewise, as you rightly point out, he knew the limitations of his weapon.
Ascribing any of this to foresight or planning is a step too far in my opinion, though. The easiest way to stop a moving BMW “tank” is not to shoot at it, but rather to flag the driver down and make him lower his side window. “Excuse me, sir” … bang! Once the driver is dead, any remaining passengers are like fish in a barrel. How one disposes of them – by opening one of the car’s doors, by shooting through the still-open side window on the driver’s side etc. – is purely a matter of personal preference.
If however,
Saad al-Hilli had deposited his gang at the Flat Iron Building
at Les Vignes/Arnand, to clown around, while Saad popped up to Le Martinet to see who was there, why did this Slaughterer not eliminate Saad, while he was on his own, why wait for him to go back down the combe to Les Vignes, to collect the family and drive back up the hill,
so that the Slaughterer had to kill innocent people, including Sylvain Mollier, what do you think the killer got away with, FRENCH STATE SECRETS?
Suppose it was some nutter. But a nutter with a plan. What was his plan? What was so special about SAH?
Well, I just had a simple thought.
As far as we know SAH was ‘the first tourist’ to arrive at Martinet that day
We know there was ONF1/2 and LMC. But LMC possibly was not marked as ‘tourist’ by X
We know from WBM and PB that they did not see other people/tourists coming down … so we could guesstimate SAH was the first tourist to arrive at Martinet that day or at least during the last 1 hour … otherwise ONF1/2 LMC and WBM and PB would have remembered this.
So … suppose X was simply waiting for the first tourists to arrive and kill them …
– He would leave ONF1/2 unharmed
– He would skip LMC
– But he would jump into action upon seeing SAH and family
– He might have wanted to take down this biker (SM) as well. Could be a tourist
After he left the scene he bumped into WBM coming up. But he left WBM unharmed (lucky WBM)
– – –
Isn’t this extremely simply???
X, with a grudge against tourists …
A lone nut….
….with a plan (against tourists/dark people/gays/cyclist/whatever).
But what was the escape route ? And how did he arrive ?
The biker looks like the only biker.
And everyone else (but X ?) has been accounted for.
Eric said early on “the killer came out of the woods”…and so we assumed or mused that the biker parked up and came back through the woods.
Afterwards, X ran back to the bike…and took off (back thru the car park and down past WBM). But if that isn’t the case… then how did X escape ?
There aren’t many options open.
A cycle. A motorbike. A car. A 4×4. A van. Hot Air balloon. Paragliders parachute. Aliens.
He did escape didn’t he ?
X was WBM’s MC … and LyonMC is not WBM’s MC
That is the only simple explanation. Otherwise you have an X who did strike in the ‘4 minute window’ between LMC (as WBM’s MC) and WBM’s arrival at Martinet
It is the eternal (MN) question … Is LyonMC equal to WBM’s MC?
(even more simply would be LyonMC = X … but appearently this is not the case)
If the guy from Lyon says (and he has spoken to the police) “I left the hairpins with ONF2 (ahead of behind), I passed through the car park (and saw “no bodies” the same as ONF2) and then I passed a cyclist (Mollier), the a car (Al Hilli), then another cyclist (Martin)” then what ?
One biker ?
If Eric has some “evidence” that X came from the woods, then what ?
Another motorcycle was hidden in there…along with it’s rider.
The killer has to arrive. And they have to leave.
Either this was done “unseen”. Or they were “seen”. It’s a simple as that.
It would help immensely if we knew (hear from EM) for sure that WBM’s MC is indeed Lyon MC
And I have to assume, is already known to EM.
EM never mentions another MC, so it seems like WBM’s MC = Lyon MC
If that is the case, I would opt for a killer X on foot (prefer this over a killer in X5, where X5 escapes unseen over the moutains). From there one could muse if X was on foot all alone, or if X was dropped off (e.g. by this mysterious X5 … which only had 1 driver!?)
Thus far, the investigation team has provided no “solution” as to how the killer arrived…or departed.
There “best guess” was that it was linked to the motorcyclist.
He arrived (ONF1). He remained (ONF2). He departed (WBM).
Those sightings are either linked (the same biker) or not (two bikers).
My “best guess” as to why there was only one biker is… an unknown (hired) killer, riding a motorcycle would not need to move anywhere once he has arrived at the Martinet.
That place provides enough “cover” for no questions to be asked. He merely is “another tourist, reading a map, at a public car park”.
Perfectly hidden…in plain sight of anyone and everyone. Infact “hiding” would provide an opportunity to be discovered.
…and that is a problem.
A “walking in” killer (who then hides in the woods) would be “slow” to arrive….and “slow” to depart.
He would need to know the “victim(s)” would arrive.
Of course a “tourist hating killer” needs only to arrive “early enough” and then wait. But if the victim(s) were either/or Al Hilli or/and Mollier, then there is a problem (a BIG “it is pre planned” problem).
@ James, 28 Aug, 2015 – 4:29 pm
Eric said early on “the killer came out of the woods”…
If we take that statement at face value, it doesn’t mean that the killer arrived in a 4×4 and briefly hid behind some shrubbery, it means that the gendarmes and their tracker dogs found traces of him approaching the Martinet from the woods. That can only mean one direction, coming downhill from the East. It is about a one-kilometre uphill hike from the Martinet towards the parallel road to the East, roughly following the course of the Ruisseau de la Bourgeoise. Guessing, I would say that this parallel road was where the killer originally came from on foot and where he had stashed his bicycle or scooter. He probably returned there after the deed, too.
IMHO, everything else would have been either physically impossible (e. g., hiking up the Col de Chérel) or just plain stupid (e. g., heading towards Chevaline). In particular, the killer would have quickly noticed that the road both downhill and uphill from the Martinet was too busy for him to be able to effect his escape along that road. Whatever he may originally have had in mind for that day – a robbery, shooting up some tourists whose appearance he did not approve of, whatever – putting some distance between himself and his victims and/or any other witnesses and not letting anybody see his escape vehicle would have been rational tactics for him. The easiest (or the only?) way in which he could have accomplished the latter would be for him to have made the first leg of his escape through the woods, on foot.
@Peter
I agree. And hence I (like) to start by always asking “How did X leave”.
That is because he is leaving “chaos” behind (if the killing was indeed premeditated). In departing, he would be a “greatest risk”. To simply walk the complete distance from the Martinet to “home” or safety (a “crowded place”) would seem bizarre.
But even here there are caveats !
Was the body(ies) to be hidden and so “undiscovered” for some time (thus allowing a “longer” escape possible) ?
Even then, such a scenario would include it’s own problems.
If we believe what happened that afternoon, wasn’t suppose to happen… then what was ?
Was X to kill his victim (perhaps Mollier) and then move his body (and bicycle) to some “out of sight” location ?
That area would provide such an opportunity (certainly in the short-term).
But then, would there be some evidence of a “pre prepared disposal sight” left behind ?
How X escaped, would (could) throw light on his intentions after a shooting. And therefore (possibly) who his victim was intended to be.
What about escaping on a horse .