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>
M.
“A well dressed, square jawed, 30 to 40 year old man, speaking in a language people at the campsite couldn’t identify, animated and appearing to be from a different ‘culture’.”
Oh, a hipster!
@ M
would you be able to let us know do you consider there is an importance to understanding if on 05/09/2012 there was just one motoryclist
as identified but not nammed by Eric Maillaud,
or was there more than one motorcyclist.
Or do you consider this is not relevant?
MN, at first I thought there had to be a second MC, then I thought about it, WBM only saw one MC, if there were two he would have seen Mr Lyon, lower down the Combe and then the second one.
He never mentions seeing another MC.
http://www.au-troisieme-oeil.com/index.php?page=actu&type=skr&news=40574
The article is from Liberation dated the 1st Decemeber 2012, the timestamp given is 15:15, even if this is a bit too early for the MC to cross the path of ONF2, if he leaves immediately, with WBM taking half an hour to do the climb their paths would have crossed.
Then add in Non-Elucide who pinpoints the timings for the ONF2/MC combo as between 15:25 and 15:30, then it is possible for the MC seen by WBM 5 or 6 minutes after he’d seen the large vehicle/4×4, dark or green in colour at about half way through the climb, written off as ONF (which one, is my lingering question).
WBM lists events:
1) car passes him going upwards – SAH, see British Coroners Inquest reporting for confirmation
2) large vehicle/4×4 dark or green in colour
3) light coloured MC
On that basis, both 2 & 3 would have passed SAH, never has it been written that ONF saw SAH.
Unlike Mr Lyon, the ONF were interviewed early on and were able to tell what they ‘think’ they saw.
I’m inclined to think,
1) SAH
2) large vehicle (not ONF) Zainab saw a 4×4, SAH and the vehicle crossed paths on the route
3) Mr Lyon
ONF1 was already off the Combe before WBM started the climb (most likely saw SM as he was the first to arrive at that point in an upwards direction), Mr Lyon was seen by WBM but earlier than the 300 metres written about in the press, I don’t think WBM was ever specific other than the 5/6 minutes after the large vehicle at half way.
So, Mr Lyon was seen before the 900 metres track, which is where ONF2 the 4×4 with two men in it turned (who gave the description for the P-R, unless they saw the man flick open the chin line, it probably just gave the impression of being one, I’ve posted other types that look similar when open, Mr Lyon just raised his visor).
That accounts for all parties without making adjustments to timings, stops etc.
EM has stated they now think the gunman was in place and likey still there or nearby when WBM arrived, by that statement alone Mr Lyon cannot be the murderer.
As I stated previously they have reconciled the MC aspect, and so have I. Whether you follow my idea is entirely up to you.
I have no more to say on the matter.
Case Closed.
MN
Perhaps you missed my question to you at the end of an over-long post I made last night ? [29 Sep, 2015 – 7:22 pm]
Quote Pink 22 September
“I agree with you MN he is trying “to confuse” and succeeding in my case.
I wonder if the MC thought s*** we have shot the wrong bloke if it was true that SM did pass BM and thats the area that Em appears to want to confuse the timeline of BM ,then SM could well have been in the wrong place at the wrong time and they were expecting BM it might even cause some rushing because SM arrived sooner than was expected for BM’s timing .
Or if BM knows more than he says then he may have hidden from MC as it passed and that’s why the rider didn’t see him .”
I thought this may have merit.
That maybe the killers were after W.B.M. and shot Mollier by mistake.
MN
As a long time believer in confusion theory* rather than conspiracy theory I too think that it may have some merit.
So, work through the scenario to see if it conflicts with any of the publicly disclosed details.
The only objection that immediately springs to mind is that SM was on a highly expensive and distinctive velo and also wearing club strip with a bright red shoulder flash. Could he realisticly be mistaken for WBM?
You could counter this with ‘some rushing’ and SM being off his bike talking to the driver of a UK car. I like ‘rushing’ it appears as a concept in most of my more feasible scenarios.
(*) The idea that something went wrong big-time in either the targeting and/or during the chaos of the deed itself.
The biggest shortfall is that W.B.M. continues ( we believe) to reside/holiday in his cottage in Lathuile and also to continue to cycle, in short he has not been liquidated.
Yet if the slaughterers of Chevaline, have themselves been dealt with, this may not preclude this option as being a runner.
@ Goodinparts 29 September 7.22pm
My gut feeling is that there was a meeting between more than two parties.
one of the parties being Sylvain Mollier another being the al-Hilli party, I suspect there was likely one or two other parties.
Why up the Combe d’Ire, presumably convenient for several of the parties.
Perhaps William Brett martin was also one of the parties but he got to the party too late.
Just had a thought.
I think at one stage, we might have been under the impression that Sylvain Mollier cycled up hill much faster that William Brett Martin, over-taking him.
Then, I believe the narrative changed to:
he was not over-taken, Sylvain Mollier was always ahead.
If W.B.M. was ( perhaps) part of the targets,
by changing the story that W.B.M. was never over-taken,
that Sylvain Mollier was always in front, that subtly helps to remove W.B.M.
from being a target?
MN
That ‘impression’ was given very, very, early on (possibly by Vinemann) but WBM never actually said that he overtook SM as far as we can tell from public statements.
The interview(s) WBM gave were pretty clear on that particular subject.
As to ‘subtly helping to remove W.B.M. from being [seen as] a target’ one has to ask who decided upon such a tactic and why?
Essentially (assuming he was actually a target) the issue boils down to:- Did WBM actually know he was a target?
Following the argument through, my opinion would be probably not, after all he could easily have taken precautions to minimise or eliminate risk.
If he only realised after the event that he could have been a target, rather than potential collateral damage, other questions arise.
I mean say he thought to himself, ‘Merdre! maybe that crazy neighbour-from-hell who threatened to have me shot when I asked him to move his caravan wasn’t joking!’ then why did he not tell the gendarmes?
Now, sure, there could be some salacious reason, but the police are well used to handling such matters, in the same way as blackmail cases.
So, who does it help for WBM not to be seen as a target, and why would WBM go along with any such charade?
P.S. What do you think was the purpose of your proposed “meeting between more than two parties“?
the answer to your query Goodinparts
would be agencies of the ENGLISH authorities.
I will elaborate.
Let us say that W.B.M. was to be part of the meet, let us say Sylvain Mollier was never part of the meet.
Sylvain Mollier cycles fast up hill on his outing, he over-takes W.B.M. hSylvain gets to the killing place and is mistaken for Mr.Martin.
The killing happens.
William Brett martin hides in the bushes because he can hear gun fire and he knows the cat is among the pigeons.
As Pink has suggested W.B.M. sees the slow riding motorcyclist with the eyes of a shit house rat, descending
but the motorcyclist does not see W.B.M. or his push bike because the are obscured in the woods.
W.B.M. is very frightened but being the profesional he is he continues to the killing scene and does what ever he has to do, including interfering with the body of S.M.
Does anybody know:
did Sylvain Mollier speak ENGLISH?
MN
I doubt it however there was an ‘odd’ media report, that I remember from the early days, that his father was planning to (or wanted to) emigrate to Britain of all places!
Well if Sylvain Mollier and Saad al-Hilli were chewing over the fat
what would be their lingua franca
I thought as most school children in England since the second world war have been forced to learn french that a reciprocal arrangement would be that French children would learn English,
we do after all share a tunnel?
MN
As I posted recently I advocate confusion theory rather than conspiracy theory (i.e. the idea that something went wrong big-time in either the targeting and/or during the chaos of the deed itself).
So, yes someone mistaking SM for WBM is still in play. . . just.
Because that particular possible ‘mistake’ was clearly identified on this and other forums a long time ago. WBM was the gendarmes first suspect and no, they will not have relied upon reports from the police in the UK.
They will have been all over him like a rash, looking for a connection with SAH. Sadly we are three years on and as far as I know there is nothing to sustain this piste unless you have another ‘angle’.
My view is that if confusion were a significant factor in this, then it is going to be something ‘weird’ like someone mistaking SAH for the driver of the putative X5 and, at the same time, mistaking SM for WBM.
In that ‘compound confusion’ scenario, none of the victims would have any connection with each other or with any suspect under investigation.
It is somewhat disconcerting to think that all these poor people could have been murdered by mistake, for no reason whatsoever.
I have been trying to make sense of some of the previous chatter that was way over my head and I think I begin to see a light I am not worldly enough to know really, BB made a fairly strong case for connections to a certain group who happened to have a major set back to their money laundering operations around that time ,I would not be able to work out the finer detail I will post this link perhaps Peter would be able to say if he sees any connections to whats known of the banking arrangements of the family .
Could they have been trying to rescue some funds or something ?
The money laundering activity seems to involve things that have been on the radar diamonds, poultry, used cars etc .
There is no point in me following it up as I really wouldn’t have a clue I just see ingredients that point to a possible connection.
Mention of some happenings in Paris worth noticing .
I am sure some of you who are a bit sharper than me have already gone down this road I am terribly slow and have not really paid attention to areas that I have no knowledge of as its just words that I can’t match up to anything in my experience ,now as I look back I begin to see how this chatter came about .
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/world/middleeast/beirut-bank-seen-as-a-hub-of-hezbollahs-financing.html?_r=0
@ Goodinparts first of October 9.44pm
Do you think that secret service to secret service would be enough to get the police in FRANCE to knot find anything out?
There has been talk that fiveeyes might be becoming sixeyes.
MN & Pink
I have seen your posts but I am busy ATM. I shall get back to you over the weekend.
@ Pink, 1 Oct, 2015 – 10:01 pm
Privacy-seeking, tax-evading behaviour of the kind shown by Kadhim Al-Hilli is almost the diametrical opposite of money laundering. For the most part, tax evaders are legitimately wealthy people from autocratic countries (Latin America, Africa, Russia etc.) who fear that their respective governments might simply expropriate their assets one day. Their main objective is privacy: what the government doesn’t know about, it cannot take away from them. A second group are affluent misers from stable countries governed by the rule of law, who are too tightfisted either to pay their taxes or to pay for the kind of professional advice that would allow them to avoid having to pay any taxes.
A money launderer has quite the opposite goal. A money launderer has piles and piles of stinking, literally dirty cash (money handlers for the drug cartels often wear respiratory masks because large quantities of cash constitute a genuine health hazard) that he wants to convert into clean, legitimate-seeming wealth. Being “invited” to pay taxes on his ill-gotten gains is the ultimate accolade for a money launderer.
Let’s take an everyday example. Officially, Mr X is on the dole, but unofficially, he is a moderately successful drug dealer. Being a drug dealer is a tough job and, having worked his way up the career ladder from starting out as a teenaged look-out for some street dealers, Mr X feels that it is about time that he started enjoying the fruit of his professional success. He wants the Ferrari, the penthouse flat and the “glamour model” girlfriend. The trouble is, he needs some halfway-plausible explanation of how he came to have all those good things. Therefore, he starts a business: a fast food franchise, a second-hand car dealership, an antiques store, a diamond-trading business, a laundrette – any kind of business where payment traditionally is in cash – and then he exaggerates his income vis-à-vis the authorities. For every £ 100 that his business legitimately makes, he puts another £ 30 from the stash beneath his mattress into the till. His business appears to be booming, the tax authorities love him (finally an honest taxpayer who doesn’t underreport his earnings!), the banks love him (given that this boy earns 30% more than comparable businesses in comparable areas, he must be doing something right!), and thus he should have no problems opening another branch, and another, and yet another. Until he has officially amassed enough money for the penthouse flat and the Ferrari.
On a grander scale, Mr X’s activities would involve various anonymous offshore companies, all controlled by him, trading between themselves until a huge “clean” virtual profit accrued to one of them, which he, as the beneficial owner, would then use to acquire a Bugatti and a beachfront villa in Newport Beach. However, the basic principle remains: lots of transactions, money moving back and forth around the globe in a dizzying whirl – totally unlike Kadhim AH’s dormant Swiss bank account.
Peter, thankyou for your explanation.
If Mr Lyon/MC had presented himself on 6th September 2012, where would the attention have been placed ?
The 4×4, the visitor ?
We all missed the 21:30 arrival at Europa campsite (logically I assumed it was lat afternoon at the best after knowing the place of departure), the ‘Balkan’ could only have been on the Sunday, SAH’s leaving the campsite for his 20/30 minutes a time on the Sunday, on that Sunday the family spent much of their time around the pool complex, according to the site manager, the man was only after a Euro piece to be able to enter the pool area.
The Soudermans comments appear more and more a reflection of their own prejudice, were they the ones who thought the family looked like gypsies ?
SAH did not move campsite to confuse anyone.
Question:
Do you think the people involved in the murders have been following the blogs, no matter what language ?
Thanks for your thoughts Peter HSBC went down a similar route I wondered if there was a deadline coming along that meant they needed to move money around for some reason I suppose it would be SAS’s money if its true she was making accounts for the girls rather than KAH’s money as that was untouchable until the legal stuff was done as I understand it.
Its a bit of a minefield with all the Largarde list stuff and easy to get lost for me as I cannot tell what’s relevant think I will give up on that one.
@M.
2 Oct, 2015 – 7:46 pm
Probably .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24715168
I expect that after three years of apparently finding out nothing,
the FRENCH do not want to find anything.
MN,
If you want to use the FVEY, start looking in the UK.
It puts the Al-Hilli/Al-Saffar family firmly at the centre of their murders. I have no problem with that, as one way or another I think they are.
MN
“Do you think that secret service to secret service would be enough to get the police in FRANCE to knot find anything out?”
I would have said definately not, for the simple reason that there are too many people involved in the police investigation to keep a lid on it.
However, the french gendarmes are not really police, they are actually part of the military and report upwards to the same minister who runs the secret service. There might be a conflict of interest there.
So they might have been ordered to investigate diligently, thoroughly and above all s l o w l y.
Pink & Peter
Peter’s point about ‘money laundering’ is well made. Thanks Peter!
Pink, you “wondered if there was a deadline coming along that meant they needed to move money around for some reason“. A while ago another poster (from memory I think it was George) did identify a tax change at the beginning of 2013 that could have been a driver, however the consensus seemed to be that a good tax accountant could have worked around this.
You also wrote “I suppose it would be SAS’s money if its true she was making accounts for the girls rather than KAH’s money as that was untouchable until the legal stuff was done as I understand it.”
Yes that does makes sense.
I do still wonder whether any monies at her disposal were held covertly on behalf of other members of her family.
Peter previously pointed out that she lived modestly.
We don’t need to Look in the UNITED KINGDOM
this major assassination happened in Haute-Savoie.