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>
It is just as I thought: BBC Panorama “tracked down” ONF1
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-24476627
before he had given his testimony to the cops
http://www.leparisien.fr/espace-premium/actu/tuerie-de-chevaline-un-nouveau-vehicule-recherche-14-04-2013-2724223.php
Despite their lingering doubts, the cops took his testimony seriously and quickly launched a public appeal for that X5. They had not been keeping that information secret, rather, it was news to them, too.
Given the way in which this canard about the X5 came into being, it is clear that ONF1 is not covering up for X. The cops only approached him after they had seen him on TV. ONF1 is just a fool who couldn’t resist spinning a good yarn for the BBC and found himself unable to recant his story afterwards.
There is no X5. Where does that leave us? With a very, very local crime committed by some nutcase who almost certainly arrived and left on foot.
Pink that is quite old news
By Peter Allen, Paris
2:33PM BST 14 Apr 2013
Do you think Eric Maillaud will give a press conference today
as it is now three years since
The Slaughter of the Horses?
I know its old MN but either they do or they don’t have DNA which is it .
It would be helpful if Eric Maillaud would bring in Claire Schutz
and put her under oath, I expect she would like Maitre Caroline Blanvillian to sit in with her;
I have my doubts that Claire Schutz has ever been brought into the office of Eric Maillaud tp be officially heard.
Claire Schutz must say what reason did Sylvain Mollier give when he rang Claire on 05/09/2012
that was so compelling that she left her business in Grignon, Albertville to drive to Ugine, to take care of their infant so Sylvain could go out on his bicycle to his death at Le Martinet.
@ Peter
I think you are mistaken. ONF1 and the X5 were known from day 1 (first week)
http://www.francebleu.fr/infos/tuerie/tuerie-de-chevaline-un-portrait-robot-bientot-diffuse-par-les-enqueteurs-953684 (second audio clip)
And remember the Crimewatch apeal for the X5. It was april 2013. So 6 months before the BBC Panorama.
Nope, ONF1 gave his statements and the X5 details to the investigators in the first week.
What imho happened is that the ONF witnesses didn’t go public, unlike WBM and PB. So I guees BBC Panorama finally found out who ONF1 was, and ONF1 decided to give the interview. Although with a blurred face and being ‘afraid’
You might wonder … ‘afraid of what’? A UK killer coming after him? If he was that afraid he should have said ‘I have seen nothing’
He gives evidence in full detail (now also on tv) but is afraid? Isn’t that weird?
Anyway, I stick to ONF1 did it. It feels like my final offer. I want to close down the case. 3 years is long enough and I have other things to do.
I really really do hope they will arrest X very soon. That would be a good ending.
@Peter
Didn’t the police “know of” ONF1 before the BBC “show” ?
And “wouldn’t” his initial statement say “he saw a biker and an X5” ?
I suspect the police where “cautious” about releasing that information.
A. It may have been something that was “mission critical” to the police and not in the public domain (like the helmet saga).
B. They may not have believed him and he was a potential suspect.
C. They may thought he was mistaken and it was Al Hilli he’d seen.
Interestingly, ONF1 had “called” ONF2 after the shootings (so he said). I believe they talked about the “unknown biker”.
In theory, if ONF1 hadn’t seen a biker that afternoon, he could surely say he had done so, by the time he ended the call to ONF2.
The very first reports of this shooting, it came out that “the British tourist family were driving a BMW 4×4”. Initially reports are confusing at the best of times….and rumours spread like wild fire.
By the time “corrections” are made, in theory, ONF1 could have said he’d seen the family (in the BMW 4×4). The problem then is, they weren’t in a BMW 4×4.
Again, in theory, it wouldn’t be much for a “witness that wasn’t there” to change the story and say “I still saw a BMW 4×4 ….even though I now know it wasn’t the Al Hilli family”.
Pink
from your BBC link
The French prosecutor, Eric Maillaud, has said there is no evidence as to who the hitman or his accomplices were.
So Eric does believe that more than one person was involved in setting up the slaughter.
Also from that BBC bit it sounds convincingly likely that the motorcyclist was involved, time to bring in LYONMAN for the rubber hose treatment?
The “bizarre” thing would be… the “non presence” of ONF1 would have been noted by the motorcyclist when he came forward.
One witness statement would directly contradict the other.
The ONF statement would read “I saw him parked at the car park” whereas the bikers would read “When I was at the car park, no ranger past by”.
ONF1 would have no idea it would take so long for the biker to be found (Or even that the biker would not automatically come forward immediately).
ONF1 would have had to have seen the biker at the car park (and vice versa).
But IF the story about seeing the Al Hilli family “pass by driving a BMW 4×4” and then LATER change it to “it wasn’t them, but it was a BMW 4×4”, what purpose would that serve ?
WBM’s statement would blow that out of the water. Whilst he was climbing the hill (much later), the Al Hilli family past him.
And it was WBM that discovered the crime scene (not long after).
The only thing about a story (scenario) in which the Al Hilli family were to arrive “much earlier” than Mollier, would be for it to appear that the family were targeted….and Mollier was collateral.
IF Mollier had arrived (and was shot dead) before the Al Hilli family even arrived at the car park, then the case would be…clear cut ?
Bloody hell !
Time doesn’t mean anything, if everyone is dead.
Ten minutes. Half an hour. What’s the difference ?
ONF1 was unaware of WBM.
It’s WBM’s statement that messes the whole thing up.
ONF2 was also unaware of WBM.
He saw Mollier. And he saw no one else. Not even the Al Hilli family.
Then there’s Mr Lyon.
He defiantly should not have been there. But he was.
Say he was stopped (which he was) and turned back (which he likely was).
Then what. Would he really pay attention to a couple of rangers.
Say he “ambles down” behind the unit. Say he even gets to the bottom.
It doesn’t even matter if he is behind or ahead of the rangers.
What’s 3 K’s on a motorbike ? And the time he’ll be saving !
He simple “re enters” the Combe D’Ire and makes his way back up.
That could be where his time is spent.
He overtakes Mollier… but hears/sees a car behind him.
But James, LYONMAN did not see anybody or any bodies, he was the man who wasn’t really there.
click, click … one photo at 377 route du moulin …
FRANCE ramping it up
https://www.rt.com/news/314512-france-airstrikes-syria-isis/
France is considering carrying out strikes against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) in Syria, French newspaper Le Monde reported on Saturday citing an anonymous “high-level source.”
President Francois Hollande will give a news conference on Monday to clarify the matter, but government officials are refusing to comment on the report yet.
The issue was allegedly discussed at a defense meeting with the president on Friday, and over the last few days unnamed top officials hinted to the French paper that the decision had been made.
Bacchus
Damn right. And you know what’s coming !
WBM means the X5 has to appear.
And the 1515 picture…. is at a different time on a different road.
Clunk, click !
@MH
Mr Lyon likely didn’t see “anything”.
But… he is crucial.
He is between WBM and SAH at around 1535. And he sure as hell shouldn’t be.
Now stop at martinet parking …
It’s so bloody simple. So straight forward.
I doubt Al Hilli went up the road twice… but I bet Mr Lyon did.
….and no one knew about it.
You have to remember, it’s a “fuck up”.
So EVERYTHING seen, must change.
…but you can’t change “everything”.
WBM didn’t say he saw Al Hilli pass him, in his first interview.
That kept “everyone” guessing !
Later he did. Strike one “sighting”.
If WBM later saw the Al Hilli family pass him, what time was this.
Now look at the 1515 photo.
Different road. Different time. Strike tow “sighting”.
But here’s the “kicker”.
I doubt the FIB picture is real.
It is (however) there for a purpose.
Way back when, I mentioned that Saad’s pants look “funny”.
The shirt is too long on one side and very short on the other.
The purpose is… it confirms WBM’s “second interview”.
And that interview places the Al Hilli family on the Combe D’Ire AFTER 1515 and BEFORE 1535.
No later ….and most certainly no earlier !
James et al
I am sorry but I just do not buy any of the current ONF1 & ONF2 theories.
The one factoid that, tenuously, keeps them in the frame for me is who ONF2 reported crossing on the way down. Or rather, who they did not.
James summed it up in his 3:06 post:-
“ONF2 was also unaware of WBM.
He saw Mollier. And he saw no one else. Not even the Al Hilli family.”
My view is that SAH stopped briefly on the way up to allow Zainab to get behind the steering wheel. It is a narrow track so he may have pulled into a side track to do so. This caused ONF2 to miss him either because they did not see him at all or they just ignored his vehicle regarding it as just a random car parked up for a picnic. If they saw a child out of the car they may have thought it was not likely to drive further.
If, and it is a big if, one of the ONF crew had a grievance against SM, wanted a ‘few moments alone’ with him, and persuaded a colleague to drop him off and act as a ‘sweeper’, then the failure to spot SAH could be the reason it went pear shaped.
Thus the sweeper would spot SM, then send a good-to-go message if no one else was seen coming up by a certain point, implying a clear window. But SAH sets back off up the combe and is at the parking place to the surprise of the killer.
The problem I have with this speculation is that, after thinking through the timeline, I cannot make it work without them all being in on it.
I just cannot see the others signing up as accessories to murder, not to mention conspiracy to murder.
I could just barely buy my own theory if the aggrieved colleague had a baseball bat and said he was going to ‘smash his stupid bike’ or somesuch.
“I just cannot see the others signing up as accessories to murder, not to mention conspiracy to murder”
And “that” IS the major problem.
@ Max, 5 Sep, 2015 – 2:29 pm
I think you are mistaken. ONF1 and the X5 were known from day 1 (first week)
Yes, you are right. However, I still struggle to accept your ONF1 = X solution, as elegantly simple as it is, because of the DNA issue.
If the gendarmes really do have viable DNA evidence of an unknown perpetrator, I think that their only chance of cracking this case is a mass DNA test of all males aged 18–70 in the area. The French are traditionally not keen on such tests, but they have conducted them in the past, even in order to clear up comparatively minor crimes. They should also reinterview ONF1, of course, since his testimony simply does not ring true.
For the time being, I shall try to resign myself to the idea that the solution to this case might be the most pedestrian one: a random act of violence or a robbery-gone-wrong committed by some ex-military vagrant with anger-management issues who habitually carried that gun for his “protection” or somebody like that.
Who’s going to tell Eric ?
Eric Devouassoux?
The thing about the X5 is…
A. It was there. Only ever seen by ONF1. And remains undiscovered.
B. It was never there.
@ MN
No Eric Maillaud as Peter said “They should also reinterview ONF1, of course, since his testimony simply does not ring true.”
@ all
Note it was Lt.Col Vinnemann who said BM was overtaken by SM to the newspapers that’s what BM told him according to this.
11:00AM BST 06 Sep 2012
Lt. Col Vinnemann said: “The main witness, a cyclist who discovered the grisly scene, said he was overtaken by another cyclist on the climb that leads to the parking lot where the shooting took place.
“Arriving there, he found the cyclist on the ground with gunshot wounds near a car. In the vehicle, a man and two women, has also been shot. On the other side of the car, a child of 6-8 years old was alive. He placed her in the recovery position until help arrived. She had been very badly beaten.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/9524537/France-shooting-Father-named-as-Saad-Al-Hilli.html
@ Pink
thank you very much for the Telegraph piece.
Indeed, if true this shines a rather large spotlight into the faces of the forest people.
If Sylvain Mollier overtook William Brett Martin, ascending the combe of IRE,
then the descending forest people should have seen william Brett Martin and Sylvain Mollier?
The telegraph also revealed though not from an official source that they were shot from as close as 3ft or less its in a story in one of the telegraph links they list .
I never trusted Eric I did trust Lt col Vinnemann so I am surprised
by my own post MN.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/9530821/France-shooting-two-shots-to-the-head-the-killers-were-ruthless.html
“In France, a group of 14 policemen spent time at the murder scene — at a remote car park, set off a steep and winding track above the village of Chevaline — to conduct further searches in the undergrowth.
“We’re looking for anything that might be of use to the investigation,” said one officer, who explained that they were still searching an area within a two-and-half mile radius from the car park.
Police, equipped with rucksacks, maps and hiking boots, said that they were not looking for a murder weapon, but for abandoned clothing or tyre tracks.”