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>
GIP
I agree.
Interesting questions.
Interested also in, why ONF1 came to the fore on the BBC programme.
Self preservation ?
As in “Look, I didn’t see anything and I’ve even got the BMW description wrong”.
Remember, the killer may be watching !
So… moving on. How did this second biker arrive ?
And who was the target ?
(Plus…. Eric’s “LMC was 99.9pc not involved”. That’s easily understandable now)
James
Yeah – ONF1 was ‘messaging’ all right.
“How did this second biker arrive ?”
Assuming the gendarmes ‘tested’ Janins mumbling testimony adequately, not from over the Col.
Antoine claimed that two mobylettes passed him. He is a retired long-serving cop and so what I would call a ‘good witness’.The first mobylette was probably the trailbike rider.
I don’t think LMC was riding what I would describe as a mobylette. I also think (but have no supporting evidence) that LMC arrived at the combe via Chevaline as did SM. This would likely be the signposted route.The gendarmes will certainly have asked LMC during his interrogation.
So, voila une extra MC – seen by Antoine and described as a mobylette.
One caveat would be that Antoine, as an ex-cop, may be using a specific legal definition of a mobylette that may be wider in scope than my schoolboy french understanding permits.
Busy now – back tomorrow sometime.
GIP
Again…. agree.
I think that “biker X” appears travelling up the route (not the Col).
That idea puts two things to the fore.
1. The time difference between the departing ONF units (there was a time difference)
2. The ultimate arrival of the victim/victim (still undecided on that).
The killers view.
There was “malice of forethought”, but how much ?
The “Caroline Dickinson murder” some years previous demonstrate how the French conduct a “serious crime”.
So their reaction is “natural” (although bizarre… in the view of many British folk…and probably “Western Society”…but that is how it is done in France).
Pushing “a little” forward, if what we assume is what happened….the killer may have been “ahead of” WBM (never mentioned in his interviews as MC(X) would have been unseen by him) but behind SM (if SM was sighted by ONF1…which we don’t know).
That still would not make SM the target. Only that SM was likely overtaken by the MC(X). as he climbed, but not by WBM.
I say this (as I think) as there must have been some “premeditation” on behalf of the killer (MCX).
But was the “target” selected “one minute” ahead of time…or “days before”.
As in….
A “killer” could have “known/confirmed” SM was en route, overtaken him….and lay in wait.
But also, a “killer”, may have seen SAH heading from the “Flat Iron” building, and headed along that route ahead of him….and “laid in wait”.
Eric (initially) used the term “ambushed”.
But that has many means ! Only “ahead of time” is the meaning.
James
Again…. agree.
We do not have all the information that is available to the gendarmes. Right now, I don’t think we can determine which of the options (if any) is correct. However we may be able to infer that some options are more probable than others.
So, on the basis that I am speculating… you noted:-
“A “killer” could have “known/confirmed” SM was en route, overtaken him….and lay in wait.
But also, a “killer”, may have seen SAH heading from the “Flat Iron” building, and headed along that route ahead of him….and “laid in wait”.”
The wide bit of road by the FIB would be a reasonable place to “lay in wait” if waiting for SM but I have more difficulty in understanding how SAH could effectively be followed, his route away from the FIB observed and his final destination reliably inferred.
If Panorama is to be believed in this matter, his route away from the FIB was convoluted. The computer graphics apparently have the BMW heading north away from the FIB and away from the combe then doing a big looping 180 turn to enter the combe via Chevaline.
Now, they could have gotten the route wrong, it does seems contrived to include passing the builders. But still, if true, it could certainly explain how a bad actor might be surprised to find the same carload of tourists up at place Martinet as he had seen not 10 minutes earlier heading away from the combe from the FIB.
As to heading up the combe ahead of WBM but behind SM, then passing SM on the way to place Martinet. That is my preferred ‘slot’ but a close second would be passing (or seeing) WBM then riding on to pass SM and estimating that the grimpeur would have opened a sufficient enough gap over WBM by place Martinet for his purposes.
Who knows how many abandoned runs there had been?
URANIUM for AREVA comes from the SAHEL
OPERATION BARKHANE
The operation is “to become the FRENCH pillar of counterterrorism in the Sahel region.
“According to French Defence Minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian, the main objective of Operation Barkhane is counter-terrorism:
“The aim is to prevent what I call the highway of all forms of traffics to become a place of permanent passage, where jihadist groups between Libya and the Atlantic Ocean can rebuild themselves, which would lead to serious consequences for our security.
” French President, François Hollande, has said the Barkhane force will allow for a “rapid and efficient intervention in the event of a crisis” in the region.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barkhane
French soldier killed by landmine in northern Mali
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-36025945
Two French soldiers have died in Mali after their heavy armoured vehicle hit a land mine, taking the number of people killed in the incident to three, French President Francois Hollande’s office said on Wednesday.
http://www.france24.com/en/africa/
GIP
Very interesting !
You’e theory unwittingly answers (possibly) another “curious event” which is said to have happen that afternoon.
During SM’s climb, he answers a call from his ex wife.
What that call was about is unknown (to us at least), but the consequences are far reaching (possibly).
If SM stopped to answer that call, then many things change (or become, what they became) !
Simply put, SM becomes “delayed” by an outside event.
If “observed” entering the climb, his “reaching the top” could be estimated (even approximately).
We can also assume, when SM passed the FIB (or general area) he was “well ahead/out of sight” of WBM.
That time/distance will be later “decreased” by SM stopping (the call).
In theory, a motorcycle “could” have set off from the lower reaches of the Combe D’Ire AHEAD of SAH.
Overtaken SM on the climb
And reached the car park in time to be spotted by ONF1
Moreover, the slower moving (and delayed SM) would reach the car park AFTER the arrival of SAH
It remains curious that ONF1 “doesn’t see” SM or WBM….
HOWVER if the police INCLUDED in their summary, the fact that “ONF1 saw SM and WBM”, then the fact that it is “HIGHLY LIKELY TWO MOTORCYCLIST WERE ON THE HILL THAT AFTERNOON” would be clear !!!
Saying “there were two” publicly….and “neither could be found” wouldn’t be something that would “aid” an investigation !
James
What do you mean unwittingly ! Ya cheeky… no wait, that’s your line.
Anyway, continuing the speculation…
“It remains curious that ONF1 “doesn’t see” SM or WBM….”
HOWVER(sic) if the police INCLUDED in their summary, the fact that “ONF1 saw SM and WBM”, then the fact that it is “OBVIOUS THAT THE ONF SIGHTINGS HAVE BEEN REVERSED” would be clear AS WELL !!!
The gendarmes surely cannot be completely incompetent, can they ?
When ONF1 “doesn’t see” SM or WBM… Is it “doesn’t see”, “doesn’t remember” or “doesn’t report” to les flics ?
As always in this case it is “Oui, mais…” Perhaps one should not be surprised that a van driver didn’t see one cyclist, two cyclists or indeed any cyclists ever .
However failing to report those two cyclists, if seen, would enable the ONF reversed sighting charade. The only real beneficiary of which would be the putative motorcycle rider seen by ONF1. Their proximity to place Martinet being shifted 10 minutes earlier in time. The ONF2 sighting of LMC parked above place Martinet then takes their place and becomes the focus of the investigation.
Is that all there is ?
Your proposal that “In theory, a motorcycle “could” have set off from the lower reaches of the Combe D’Ire AHEAD of SAH.” etc. is essentially the option described as “my preferred ‘slot’” in my previous post. It works a treat but it comes at a price.
The ‘price’ is that unless the timeline is deliberately tweaked, the ONF2 pair should also have seen the motorcycle near the bottom of the combe or on the way home to Arnand (my assumption is that the motorcycle came from that direction).
That would be a lot of mouthshutting then. They would have to be tight.
Maybe they swore by the banjo.
several options for the intriguing E-FIT-SKETCH ( half a year tardy)
1) Machiavelian activities had been employed to place Eric Devouassoux in the frame.
2) the E-FIT-SKETCH was of a different motorcyclist, who may have been the shootist.
3) the E-FIT-SKETCH is a good likeness of the unseen or unnamed LMC ( presently unverifiable by the public)
4) the E-FIT-SKETCH is of no known person, just put out “to confuse”
More modest proposals…
Les gendarmes knew for certain that there were ‘issues’ with the timeline from very early on.
The award winning Sunday Times article by David James Smith dated 3rd December 2012 notes on page 25 that the gendarmes “were unhappy with aspects of Martins account, in particular his timings” One can infer that that the french investigating officers weighted the testimony of ‘Team ONF’ above that of WBM.
http://www.pressawards.org.uk/userfiles/files/Winners2012/entries-30120614-01154.pdf
In retrospect the apparent coherence of the ONF statements was likely a consequence of (mis)communication between ONF1 and ONF2 which established the 10-minutes-after mantra.
When WBM effectively did not cooperate fully and bring his narrative into line, they chose the next weakest target for convergence i.e. ONF1.
See my posts from early November last year (/#comment-560136 through to /#comment-560337)
Plus /#comment-566036 is a good summary.
several options for the intriguing E-FIT-SKETCH ( half a year tardy)
Now let us imagine, that there were no shenanigans with the image of the E-FIT-SKETCH,
it was just that poor Eric Devouassoux bore an uncanny resemblance to the likeness portrayed.
So one or more ONF people assisted the police artist to make an image that they agreed was a likeness of the motorcyclist they had stopped and spoken with.
They were specific about the special – side – opening – helmet.
LMC has “apparently” claimed he/she was not wearing that type of helmet that day and has never owned a helmet like that described.
1) the motorcyclist spoken with by the ONF person was not LMC
2) ONF have been economical with the truth
3) LMC has been economical with the truth
4) the authorities have chosen to portray events, differently from what they were.
OPERATION BARKHANE
The moment was solemn, emotion yesterday at Tom Morel neighborhood in Cran-Gevrier, where more than 450 soldiers had taken place on the parade ground. All had an appointment here to participate in the official ceremony of creation of the western desert battle group, which will start in May for northern Mali, join the French troops engaged in the operation barkhane.
With General Bizeul, head of mountain troops, the 27th BCA commanding officer, Lieutenant-Colonel Frederic Vola, took command of the detachment which have a total of more than 700 men and women, more than half hunters “27”.
350 men of the 27th BCA leave
“Every start is heartbreaking for families, explained Lieutenant Colonel Vola. Moreover, we organized Wednesday an information meeting for spouses, to prepare the four-month absence, how to live and how to keep the links … Within one month of departure, it is normal tension mounts and fear appear … “especially after the death of three french soldiers killed in the explosion Tuesday in a mine near Tessalit. “These deaths and this risk is present in everyone’s head, Lieutenant Colonel recognizes Vola. Mali remains dangerous ground, but we also know perspective. The French involvement in Mali, these are 3500 soldiers deployed present continuously, for two years. Of this quota, we deplore 7 deaths, including 3 Tuesday. The risk exists, but we are ready. ”
On site, in addition to operational missions, the soldiers will also be responsible to educate and train local troops and will also have to face an extreme climate: “We will arrive during the two hottest months of the year and continue with the rainy season … Whatever tensions there, the conditions will be difficult in any way, but we are well prepared to deal with. ”
http://www.ledauphine.com/haute-savoie/2016/04/14/les-chasseurs-prets-a-partir-pour-le-mali
Only one option would make the FRENCH look good
that is that the person spoken to by the ONF and depicted in the tardily released E-FIT-SKETCH
is not LMC
and is likely to have been THE SHOOTIST
I am plumping for
1) Machiavelian activities had been employed to place Eric Devouassoux in the frame.
http://www.bfmtv.com/societe/info-bfmtv-chevaline-un-homme-interpelle-place-garde-a-vue-713932.html
ANOTHER SKETCH EXISTS
BFMTV
• More arrests expected? The prosecutor, however, that “this inquiry may not remain single.” According to Dominique Rizet, another sketch exists in the investigation, that of a man without a helmet. And according to the investigation file, the gendarmes are already interested in ten people locally.
Dominique Rizet
https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominique_Rizet&prev=search
No wonder Eric Maillaud hates his guts
The “timeline” is a bizarre (and quite possibly) unjust epitaph I don’t quite get.
I am trying (it is not hard) to keep an open mind.
The “GIP Version of Events 1.0” are extremely interesting.
Moreso than other presented.
The “were unhappy with aspects of Martins account, in particular his timings” are perhaps damming ?
That either “condemns” Martin…..
…Or “condemns” ONF1
I sincerely believe the latter is at fault.
That then is a “cover up”. Or at least it must be explained.
And I think it should.
On a lighter note…..
I have (or partly) made the minister in Belgium resign (me…and others).
Having had “issues” in January 2015 (quite serious enough for “their” lawyers to complain directly) I passed my “issue” to the Belgium CAA. (I complained officially, they disregarded the breach, I forwarded their correspondence to the Belgium CAA authorities)
In answer to an “official” complaint on “airline security” they are “duty bound” to respond.
They did not (under frequent questions to “do as such”).
The Brussels “airport police” were informed…. and refused to investigate.
The “breach” was ample enough (unauthorised baggage loaded onto an aircraft bound for the USA), I also informed the US authorities.
During their (uninformed and they don’t need to inform me under regulations) it transpired that……
I refused to operate through “Brussels” due to a “security risk”.
Since passing the “conversations/emails and information” on to the EU Commission, I am “delighted” that pressure has come on Brussels for them to “sack” a high ranking person.
This is however “not enough”.
I said in my communications that “aircraft security has been breached”.
NOTE…. I have documented emails that ALL communications (and names).
I personally, refuse to travel through Brussels.
It is unsafe.
I will provide ALL comms to those that wish it.
I have note sighed anything that prohibites this.
I will openly and honestly say…. (and they can sue if they wish… I relish the chance)
NEVER FLY BRUSSELS AIRLINES OR USE THEIR GROUND SERVICES
DO NOT TRAVEL THROUGH BRUSSELS AIRPORT
THOSE TWO CONCERNS HAVE COVERED UP “”SERIOUS AIRLINE SECURITY RISKS”.
There should be a “MAJOR BOMB THREAT” placed on that airline, departing that airport.
I said it here…..
Oh…. I am a pilot (Capt)
http://www.ladepeche.fr/faits-divers/tuerie-de-chevaline/
Publié le 06/03/2015 à 09:57, Mis à jour le 06/03/2015 à 09:58
Chevaline : le motard, un temps suspecté, n’est pas impliqué dans la tuerie
Tuerie de Chevaline
Le motard, un temps suspecté d’avoir participé à la tuerie de Chevaline en septembre 2012, a été mis hors de cause par les juges d’instruction d’Annecy, rapporte ce vendredi France Info. Les enquêteurs s’attèlent désormais à identifier les occupants d’un 4X4, vu non loin du lieu où la famille al-Hilli a été abattue.
Exclu de la liste des suspect à 95%
L’homme, originaire du Lyon, a été entendu le mois dernier par les enquêteurs de Chambéry. Il leur a expliqué qu’il s’était rendu à Chevaline, le 5 septembre 2012 pour pratiquer sa passion : le parapente. Sur le retour, vers 15h15-15h40 (l’heure du quadruple assassinat,) il avait emprunté un chemin interdit aux véhicules et s’était fait réprimander par deux gardes forestiers. Il avait alors rebroussé chemin et était passé devant le lieu où la famille al-Hilli et le cycliste français ont été tués.
Selon des sources proches de l’enquête, citées par la station de radio, le motard n’a « pas donné d’éléments permettant d’identifier d’autres témoins ». « Son profil personnel et professionnel l’exclut de la liste des suspects à 95%, mais des vérifications doivent encore être menées », a indiqué un acteur du dossier. Aux enquêteurs, il aurait également assuré ne pas avoir fait le rapprochement entre lui et le portrait-robot diffusé en novembre 2013 par les enquêteurs. Sur celui-ci, le suspect était présenté avec un bouc et un casque assez rare, fabriqué à seulement 8000 exemplaires.
Identifier les occupants d’un 4X4
Après avoir mis hors de cause, en février 2014, un policier de Haute-Savoie de 48 ans, dont l’ADN ne correspondait pas à celle retrouvée sur les lieux du drame, les enquêteurs se concentrent désormais sur l’identification des occupants d’un 4X4 aperçu près de l’endroit où Saad al-Hilli, son épouse, sa belle-mère et un cycliste français ont été abattus.
Le 5 septembre 2012, Saad al-Hilli, un ingénieur britannique d’origine irakienne de 50 ans, sa femme Iqbal, âgée de 47, et la mère de celle-ci, 74 ans, sont tués de plusieurs balles dans la tête, alors qu’ils se trouvaient à bord d’une BMW garée au bout de la petite route forestière de la Combe d’Ire. Un cycliste français gît à terre, le corps criblé de balles. Une fillette est retrouvée blessée à l’épaule près de la voiture. Sa petite sœur, cachée sous les jambes de sa maman, est retrouvée saine et sauve.
LaDepeche.fr
So my question is can anyone spot what the update was, after six months?
Publié le 06/03/2015 à 09:57, Mis à jour le 06/03/2015 à 09:58
Sorry, misslooked, the update was after one minute.
The two times I’ve been through Brussels I’ve found it the dirtiest and most inhospitable city in Europe. Havig said I’ve only ever been mugged in Paris
James
“That then is a “cover up”. Or at least it must be explained.
And I think it should.”
I too think it should but pragmatically justice (and closure) for the victims needs to be served first. Witnesses will be needed at trial. If EM can state with a straight face that LMC didn’t make the connection then he can find a way to keep other witnesses on-side.
Below is my posting from 3 Dec, 2015 – 1:40 am.
I have bolded two paragraphs. I stand by my assertion that the ‘explanation’ will become case study material.
My feeling now is that if any conscious back pedalling did occur, it was done to avoid unnecessarily dropping the ado in the poo.
—————————————————————————————————–
LMC discovery fallout part two.
Convergence, conferring, conflation and contamination.
The testimony of LMC, taken together with the results of the gendarmerie putting his life under a microscope, will have revealed that some aspects of the statements made by the ONF employees led to an almost unprecedented misdirection of police effort. I think it is worth considering how this occured.
Firstly, in my view, the ONF employees have to be considered as a team.
I have posted previously about the pressure for convergence of accounts and the pressure to avoid contradictions. Not only that, but they actually conferred by telephone a few hours after the event.
I may be wrong, but I think the ‘ten minute gap’ concept originated on this call. Again I may be wrong but I don’t think the ONF sightings were actually separated by ten minutes.
This agreed ‘ten minute gap’ plus the dubious interviewing methods of the gendarmes seems to have pushed ONF1 to step-by-step modify his testimony so that an international appeal was launched for an X5.
To be clear, I think he sincerely believes in his (latest) account. How he got there is going to be case study material.
Was this simply confabulation on the part of ONF1 due to some element of pressure by the interviewers to eliminate inconsistencies in accounts?
There could also have been an element of conflation occuring. I think that ONF1 could have subconciously seen the vehicle driven by PB shortly after exiting the combe. His description of the vehicle he saw is essentially a composite of the estate driven by SAH and the 4×4 driven by PB.
Further witness contamination could have occured when the 4×4 appeared in the reconstruction.
I will note that it did appear at first that ONF1 was back pedalling from his initial statement, possibly to protect his colleagues or the motorcyclist.
.
.
Turning for a moment to the ONF2 pair, how on earth did their two pairs of eyes observe, and end up robotising, an obscure helmet, the search for which must have consumed many hours.
A helmet which, apparently, LMC did not own.
Was this then, deliberate misdirection?
It seems more likely to me that the preconceptions of the gendarme robot operators led them to perceive something that was not there. Something however that made sense to them and they half-expected.
Still, two witnesses… Obviously best practice was followed and two separate robot portraits were developed, weren’t they?
.
.
Out of time now, the motorcycles will have to wait.
The FRENCH government is “completely committed” to constructing the Hinkley Point Somerset nuclear power plant,
the FRENCH economy minister has told the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36063561
They are beginning to sound desperate.
Almost all businesses involved in the nuclear game in France are largely owned by the FRENCH state.
If they don’t go forwards they will in effect be going backwards and this will diminish the FRENCH state,
The FRENCH nuclear deterrent / place on the permanent security table,
the FRENCH nuclear engineering / nuclear power
are essential to the FRENCH state
they certainly would not hesitate to remove persons from visibility, should they become a concern.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuerie_de_Chevaline#cite_note-44
It does seem a little strange that the media who were condemned to pay a fine for their “Disclosures”
of “The Slaughter of the Horses”
have not edited Wiki to put the most recent court turnaround position, in their favor.
Could that mean that another reversal of fortunes is in the wings?
If the FRENCH state effectively owns and controls AREVA and EDF
could the FRENCH state be behind the decision to take Hervé Béroud and Dominique Rizet
to court over The Slaughter of the Horses?
Hollande confirmed as most unpopular FRENCH president – EVER
Unpopular FRENCH President François Hollande will fail to make it past the first round in 2017’s presidential election in most realistic scenarios, according to an opinion poll published Monday.
Against all the leading mainstream right-wing contenders, Hollande will fail to take second place, with Marine Le Pen of the far-right National Front coming first in all but one case, the TNS Sofres-OnePoint survey found.
http://www.france24.com/en/20160418-no-hope-hollande-he-stands-election-poll-finds
Hollande widely rejected
Only 11 percent of voters want Hollande to present himself as a candidate at all, according to the survey.
How much do we really see?
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-04-how-much-we-really.html
Not as much as one may think apparently…
I am remembered of 2 old commentators with this portuguese news.
https://www.publico.pt/sociedade/noticia/relacao-de-lisboa-absolve-goncalo-amaral-de-pagar-500-mil-euros-ao-casal-mccann-1729519
Marilyn and Lynda on MZT.
UK gang bought guns from same shop as Charlie Hebdo terrorists
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/21/gang-found-guilty-of-uks-largest-known-gun-smuggling-operation
How much do we really see ?
We mainly “fill in the gaps” in reality. We are “terribly good” at being “terribly bad”, unfortunately.
In this case….
…motorcycles here, there and everywhere.
And /4×4’s/large vehicles/BMW’s.
Several….?
But “one and the similar” as the saying nearly goes.
In one box… ONF1 LMC (and a partial sighting of SM)
In another box… WBM, SAH, his BMW, ONF1, SM and XMC .
Two “boxes” and two different times.
What are the “unknown (to us) knowns (to the police)” ?
So now more than two years have passed since five persons were indicted but as yet unnamed for the killing of
Nicole Communal-Tournier in the Camping Ideal, in Lathuile, a stones throw from the holiday home of William Brett Martin, the discoverer of The slaughter of the Horses and six days after the release of the mysterious E-FIT-Sketch.
How bizarre that more than two years after these individuals have been in custody, they apparently have not yet been named nor made an actual court appearance.
Would this incarceration without a court appearance not be against their human rights?
James
Good question. One I had asked myself. Here are some ‘known unknown’ factoids I came up with:-
.
.
Antoine’s sightings of the two ‘mobylettes and a car’. Timings and descriptions.
LMC’s route from the parapent carpark to the combe and back (and anything he saw).
WBM’s account of who and what he saw around the time he started up the track*.
ONF2’s account detailing whereabouts they saw SM.
The Teenage Trailbike rider’s own account.
.
.
Together, the above should be sufficient to falsify my half-baked theory.
The gendarmes must also have a significant amount of additional material that we are not aware of. They would be ‘unknown unknowns’ to us.
(*) I think WBM was overtaken by a motorcycle heading up the combe. Plus he may have seen a motorcycle and a large vehicle descending.
Just can’t believe this ongoing rubbish, reduced now to what posters might have seen about the murders when not one of them was anywhere near the site when they occurred.
The best evidence still concerns William Hershkowitz – i. e., who he was, why he went to Israel, what kind of work was he doing there, where was he days before and after the killings, what was his dispute with his supervisor, why did he have nightmare, and increasingly bitter disputes with his fellow recruits, etc.?
Hinkley Point C Somerset, ENGLAND Faces State Aid Legal Threat
Organisations including Greenpeace may go to court if the FRENCH state hands financial support to the nuclear plant project.
http://news.sky.com/story/1683409/hinkley-point-c-faces-state-aid-legal-threat
GIP
Looking at LMC (and what he saw/didn’t see).
Eric was “keen” to find LMC, but probably not “over keen”.
Was there really a “manhunt” on for him ?
Eventually he is found….and Eric declares “he is innocent”.
I’m not sure Eric thought he would ever find the killer, when he eventually found LMC.
Was it just a search for “additional information” that Eric was pursing ?
If so, Eric probably had “drawn a line through” ONF2 also.
Given that WBM and ONF1 had “gone public” (albeit in a candid way) by then, what is Eric searching for ?
If a “known, unknown” is/was ONF2 had departed the car park well before anything happened (and by that definition, so had LMC), what was it Eric hoped to “shed some light on” ?
A “Perfect Crime” isn’t really so perfect, if all you’re doing is searching for a motorcyclist, who you have a detailed description of (including a description of the distinctive helmet he wore and the language he spoke).
The question comes down to, what do they have (or what do we have…which will be limited).
The car park was occupied by ONF1 (first) and WBM (second). There is a time difference between their being at that place. In that time SM and SAH (and family) arrived there. The two other components are “the sinister motorcyclist” and “the mysterious BMW 4×4”.
I can’t imagine ONF1 speaking to WBM (at that time or in the future). Yet both would have provided statements to the police and prosecutor.
If neither of those saw LMC, but both did see “a motorcyclist”, then it has to be confirmed “there was another motorcyclist” on that route, at that car park, on that afternoon, at that time. Seems logical.
If we assume that neither party are lying, then just taking WBM’s “statement to the general public, on camera”, we can see (or are shown) SAH in his BMW went up the Combe D’Ire and later a motorcycle came down.
As we know the fate of SAH, then we assume the motorcyclist must be “the last person to see/be aware of SAH that afternoon” (and have been involved in the murders that took place….although there is no direct evidence that points to that).
ONF1, on the other hand, says (paraphrased) “I did see a motorcyclist (which we assume wasn’t LMC) but I didn’t see SAH in his BMW at the car park or en route to the car park (I saw a 4×4, which was a BMW, but that was not that series/type of BMW as driven by SAH)”.
We can play with the assumption that “Zut Alors! ONF1 was mistaken when he says he saw the BMW 4×4. He infact saw SAH, who had passed WBM but moments earlier…..”
At this point, all the police need to do is to say “…..the large vehicle that passed WBM on his climb up to the car park was ONF1. And ONF1 did not see (or “we have asked him not to say”) he saw WBM”.
But the way this has been portrayed is different to that…. and that’s the bizarre thing.
It could be inferred that the vehicles WBM spotted/was aware of were “MCX” and “BMW 4×4”.
The former arrived (and was seen) by ONF1 at the car park. The latter was en route (and was seen) by ONF1.
Without WBM acting as a “cross-check”, ONF1 statement would have to “stand-alone”.
That would be “I was the last person to pass thru the car park, there I saw a sinister motorcyclist. Later, as I travelled down the route, I was past by a BMW 4×4 ascending at great speed”.
Without finding the “sinister motorcyclist” or “the BMW 4×4”, one could conclude “these two parties acted together and were the murders….and they likely escaped by driving back down the route together”.
Case closed (however, we are sorry, but we can’t find either of them).
Was/is WBM the “spanner in the works” ?
The “large vehicle” he became “aware of” (but “cannot say what it was”), is either
1. the Citroen van 2. ONF1 or 3. the BMW 4×4
It has to be one, but it can’t be two or all three.
Then we have the “curious addition” of ONF1.
The “I saw a BMW 4×4 …..and I conclude it must have escaped over the hills”.
What does he mean by this. For him to make that statement, he has to have been told that 1). there was another cyclist on that route, namely WBM and that 2). that cyclist did not see a BMW 4×4.
Or (and perhaps more crucially) it could be that 1). ONF1 knows he was the vehicle that past WBM. And if there was no “BMW 4×4”, then he would know it would be impossible for “it” to pass WBM.
Whichever way we look at it, ONF1 “has to know” WBM was NOT past by a “BMW 4×4”.
One wonders if this is the reason for WBM’s first “public statement” ?
FRENCH STATE – BRITISH STATE both in CRISIS
EDF has pushed back the final investment decision on the Hinkley Point nuclear project in the UK until after it has consulted its hostile unions, a move that could cause a delay of several months.
At a board meeting of the French utility on Friday, Jean-Bernard Levy, chief executive of EDF, said management would consult the company’s central works council before making the final decision.
The consultation would be a 60-day, non-binding statutory process in which the board would “work with the [council] to define detailed steps to reach a conclusion this summer”.
The final investment decision on the £18bn project had been expected on May 11.
One person close to the company said the decision was now not likely to be taken until “after the Brexit referendum” on June 23. The works council is made up mainly of union members sceptical of the project.
EDF issued a statement late on Friday following the board meeting, saying that it planned a €4bn capital raising. This was in order for the company to meet its long-term strategic targets in the face of “adverse market conditions” in the energy sector.
The company added that the recapitalisation would make it “possible for EDF to proceed with its strategic investment programme — including Hinkley Point C”.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fc1c57ce-08bc-11e6-a623-b84d06a39ec2.html#axzz46dnGOMWD
I guess it will be utter confusion from now onuntill after BREXIT and after the Hapless Hollande has departed, for good.
Really amazing that the mods allow personal attacks like this to go undeleted when such terrible, unsolved murders are allegedly being discussed.
James
I haven’t got time a.t.m. to do your post justice.
Here is a quote from a post of mine to you back on 5 Nov, 2015 – 12:04 am
“The subsequent elaboration of his [ONF1’s] description is just him trying to fit in (hey everybody was doing it!). Every piece of additional info made his sighting less likely to be of SAH.
Every.
Piece.”
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/not-forgetting-the-al-hillis-continued/comment-page-165/#comment-560165
Today, I can still just about make the case that ONF1 ‘painted himself into a corner’ or was otherwise ‘boxed in’ by statements made by colleagues. That is to say he is basically guileless and that the gendarmes bear most of the responsibility for not detecting and correcting the ‘seen by my colleagues 10 minutes later’ misapprehension.
I am not sure that many would buy it though. Unless he did Rural Studies at school.
Let us imagine, that it was THE FRENCH STATE ,
behind the employer of Sylvain Mollier,
who “guided” the prosecution of Hervé Béroud and Dominique Rizet,
they were “keen” for the public / media not to ask the question
“What was Sylvain Mollier doing up the Combe of Ire on that day?”
Now why would THE FRENCH STATE not want this question asked?
Quote BBC
“It was not until 23:00 local time (21:00 GMT) that police found out from the family’s neighbours at the campsite that the family had a second daughter, and launched a search involving a helicopter and police dogs, one report said.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19506853
So the day after The Slaughter of the Horses, the BBC claim that police dogs were on the scene.
I expect these dogs were able to sniff out the escape route taken by the shootist.
So, from the day of The Slaughter of the Horses, the French authorities would have known ( police sniffer dogs)
the escape route taken by the shootist.
Strange that Eric Maillaud has never thought to mention this snippet of valuble information.
They are taking the public for idiots.
michael norton
A frenetic night-time search for a missing child, the dogs given some of her clothing from the caravan for scent ?
I think even the french could be forgiven for not elucidating the escape route of the killer during that search.
Interestingly, dogs were not the only animals at the scene shortly after the shootings. Some locals on horseback ‘visited’ the scene the next day. Presumably the cordon did not include the forest trails.
Good in Parts,
Obviously on getting the telephone message that four people had been shot dead and a child was injured, the authorities first secured the life of the child.
There were many hours after that call and the finding of the other child in the vehicle.
During that interval, you would have thought the sniffer dogs were tracking the shootist?
Another shooting – murder in South East France
http://www.ledauphine.com/isere-sud/2016/04/25/fusillade-dans-le-quartier-teisseire-a-grenoble-un-mort-et-plusieurs-blesses-graves
Shooting in the neighborhood Teisseire in Grenoble: one dead and several seriously injured
A shooting occurred on Monday just after 10 hours in the neighborhood Teisseire in Grenoble. Rescue and police services are on site. The first assessment reports a deceased person, a person in cardiac arrest and another seriously injured. The area is currently sealed off by security forces.
michael norton
This dog won’t hunt.
“During that interval, you would have thought the sniffer dogs were tracking the shootist?”
With respect, I would not have thought that. Rightly or wrongly the decision was made to freeze the crime scene awaiting a forensic team from HQ.
As far as I am aware, the only viable scent source would have been the expended cartridges and I cannot immediately see a way to give the dogs the scent without compromising evidence that held the potential to yield DNA or fingerprints.
Besides, the initial debrief of WBM may have led the gendarmes to assume that the murderer had departed on a motorcycle.
Good In Parts, so are you suggesting, right from the off, the French dismissed the notion that the shootist left by foot?
As it happens, I have just reviewed the (extremely sparse and weak) scientific data on sniffer dogs for an upcoming trial. In short, they are not all that they are cracked up to be.
In the case at hand, the gendarmerie would have ideally used a mixed team of mantrailing and cadaver dogs to search for Zeena – cadaver dogs because they must have feared that they were looking for a body. Most cadaver dogs react both to blood (of living and dead beings) and to certain chemicals released during the process of putrefaction. Unless the killer himself had been injured during the murders and was bleeding, the cadaver dogs would have been equally useless at tracking him and at finding Zeena, who was neither dead nor bleeding.
It is a different story with the mantrailing dogs. If cued with an item of Zeena’s clothing, for example, they would have pointed at the Al Hillis’ BMW, that being the spot with the highest concentration of the corresponding odour. They almost certainly did so and were told off by their handlers. That would have seriously confused the dogs, indicating correctly and being told off for doing so. Metaphorically speaking, they would have been scratching their heads, wondering what the heck they were supposed to be looking for, if not that scent. However, it would not have been strictly necessary to cue the mantrailers with an item belonging to Zeena. Rather, they could have been instructed to pick up the scent of anybody who had recently left the scene of the crime on foot. In that case, they would have followed the scent of recently disturbed soil and foliage, that being a much stronger source of scent than the specific scent of the person who disturbed the soil. This would have allowed them to trace the killer’s escape route over a few kilometres at least, if he fled on foot. Thus, whether or not the dogs were able to pinpoint the killer’s escape route depends not only on how he fled, but also on how they were cued by their handlers.
Thank you Peter, very helpful.
What we should remind ourselves: we had been told that the French were not looking for another child for some hours but they should have been looking for the shootist?
It depends upon the situation on the ground. If the gendarmerie had reason to believe that the killer had arrived and/or fled on foot (e. g., footprints in the woodland near the scene of the crime), it would have been a sensible move to bring in mantrailing dogs as early as possible and have them search for his trail, in the form of disturbed soil.
If, however, they only brought in the dogs later on, the search for Zeena would obviously have taken priority over the search for the killer. In theory, the best way to cue the dogs searching for Zeena would indeed have been to cue them with her individual scent, using a worn item of clothing or a cuddly toy, for example. Yet, as I have argued, such a specific search was doomed to failure from the start, since the dogs would always have pointed at the BMW and their handlers would have misinterpreted that.
James
“Was/is WBM the “spanner in the works” ?”
Yes, yes he was. You are right.
As to the “curious addition” of ONF1. The “I saw a BMW 4×4 …..and I conclude it must have escaped over the hills”.
What does he mean by this ?
To me his ‘messaging’ was twofold. Firstly the ‘MC seen by my colleagues 10 minutes later above place Martinet’ was there to prop up the ‘reversed ONF sightings’. Secondly the ‘it must have escaped over the hills’ was there to sustain, in play, the proposition that a a BMW 4×4 was there in the relevant timeframe.
Qui Bono ?
I wrote up-page:-
“…. the ONF reversed sighting charade. The only real beneficiary of which would be the putative motorcycle rider seen by ONF1. Their proximity to place Martinet being shifted 10 minutes earlier in time. The ONF2 sighting of LMC parked above place Martinet then takes their place and becomes the focus of the investigation.
Is that all there is ? “
All these shenannigans just to avoid unnecessarily dropping the ado in the poo ?
I am certainly not an abbdiara theorist, another motorcyclist is my preferred option.
GIP
In the “early days” (when the story broke and the examination/inquisition began), it was important to keep an open mind, even amongst the “tin-foil hat brigade” and the shouts of “we don’t know what conspiracy, but it’s a conspiracy…probably by Mi6/Mossad/CIA/UKIP/NASA etc, etc, etc”
The question was (in my mind at least), was the “key witness” involved in the murders.
It is a reasonable question, due to circumstance/situation/location etc, of the crime….and lets face it, “key witnesses”, discovered at murder scenes, have “sometimes” been the murderer themselves.
Or was it that “key witness” turned out to be a “spanner in the works”.
As we don’t know “who the target was” (or if indeed, if there was one), we were/are “more in the dark” than if this was a “normal” murder (if you get my drift, with reference to a “normal murder”).
The problem is, with WBM as a “spanner in he works”, other “situations/problems/aspersions” come to mind.
And here we have “few factoids” to use effectively.
For example, if WBM had not gone on his bike ride, or taken a different route, he would not have discovered the crime scene….and nor would he 1. seen the motorcyclist descending and 2. not seen the BMW 4×4.
It begs the question, who else would have “seen/not seen” things ?
Assuming LMC is 100 percent innocent, then ONF2 would still have had to “come forward”.
ONF2 would not have known that LMC would not make himself known to the police (at an earlier point).
I imagine it would have been a “tad embarrassing” for ONF2, if LMC approached the police and said “I was in that area but am not involved…. I was stopped by an ONF unit and I even spoke with them”.
However, that didn’t happen.
And that “mix up” (why didn’t LMC make himself known immediately) still remains at least “suspicious”…
….or at best “unusual”.
But, we can “park that” for the moment. We can say (for example) that exchange between ONF2 and LMC happened “sometime before” the murders took place.
And that brings us to WBM and ONF1. And here, there is a certain amount of “conflict”.
Taking WBM’s “statement to camera” (which isn’t a “statement to police”).
He puts himself on the climb at a place and time he could be over-taken by SAH.
Of the descending vehicles/people, he says he saw a “large vehicle” and later a “motorcycle”.
So ahead of WBM (and descending) we merely need 1x “large vehicle” and 1x a “motorcycle”.
Assuming there was “another motorcycle” (and not LMC) and this could probably be “X”, then we need a “large vehicle” and it has to be descending.
We have “three”. 1. the Citroen van 2. the mystery BMW 4×4 and 3. ONF1. So which one was it ?
To turn the question on it’s head, whichever one you pick, you have to provide an argument as to how the other two departed the area, without being seen by WBM.
Quite a puzzle….
At this point we can make it more of a puzzle….
ONF1 steps in and says (paraphrased in essence), the vehicle that was descending and past WBM was NOT the BMW 4×4….in the view of ONF1 (from whatever he has been told/knows/has gleamed), that BMW 4×4 must have escaped “southwards” heading over the hills and faraway !
ONF1 is saying, WBM’s mystery “large vehicle” is either “me” (ONF1) or the Citroen van.
But strangel, ONF1 says (or doesn’t say) he saw WBM,
The “Spanner In The Works” theory.
The vehicle that past WBM ahead of the motorcycle is either 1. ONF1 or 2. the Citroen van.
If it is the Citroen van, then why wasn’t ONF1 seen.
If it is ONF1, then why is his description of SAH’s BMW Touring so badly wrong.
The kicker is….and it’s almost missed, in WBM’s very first interview, he paints the “large vehicle” that past him in such a vague way. It’s pretyy much missed by him.
A large vehicle.
Heading towards him.
On a single track road.
He under a canopy of trees where he may not be seen.
Riding on a pot-holed uneven surface.
It would be a “clear and present danger” to him.
And we are expected to believe he did not once look up ????
For some unknown reason (and I don’t know who it was), that “large vehicle” is key !
Interesting point I wonder what they did use as Zeena was still in the car and wearing her clothes and how would they know what toy belonged to which child ?
Peter said :in theory, the best way to cue the dogs searching for Zeena would indeed have been to cue them with her individual scent, using a worn item of clothing or a cuddly toy, for example.
Worn knickers would have been the very best choice, as the pubic region is the most scent-rich. Zainab and Zeena probably took different pant sizes, and the cops would simply have gone for the smaller size.
@Peter Maybe that was why the boot was open .
Good thinking, Pink. If the gendarmes took the item of clothing out of the car’s boot, that would make the search dogs not finding Zeena hiding inside the car even more of a black comedy.
Handler: Where is she?
Dog: There! (Confidently pointing at the BMW)
Handler: I know that’s where she was, but where is she now?
Dog: There! (Again pointing at the BMW)
Handler: No, she isn’t! Go and search elsewhere!
Dog: ???
The French Authorities have claimed that they did not even know about a second child until eleven o’clock.
So, they had the best part of seven hours to hunt for the shootist.
I would have thought they could have had mantrailing dogs at Le Martinet within say two and a half hours after the initial call about the massacre, this would have given them more than four hours to tail the shootist before they became aware of the missing child.
So did they get mantrailing dogs to the scene of the slaughter, before they became aware of the missing child,
it has got to be either yes or no
it can not be maybe?
Pink, Peter & MN
The boot did not appear to be open on the BMFTV pictures.
James
“To turn the question on it’s head, whichever one you pick, you have to provide an argument as to how the other two departed the area, without being seen by WBM. “
Some of the animals are more equal than others ! And some are more expensive than others !
The ONF can ‘access all areas’ and do wtf they like…
If you chose the BMW X5, you also have to provide an argument as to how it managed to drive up the combe without being seen by WBM (or others).
That is a very considerable cost. WBM was interviewed early and at length. Presumably re-interviewed multiple times, his testimony put under a microscope.
I don’t think they liked what he told them but I think they now accept it.
PS I seem to remember some references to what WBM saw shortly after starting his climb up the combe, which I cannot now find. Can anyone please help?
So has Prosecutor Maillaud made a statement about the aquital of BMFTV and
Hervé Béroud and Dominique Rizet?
http://www.ozap.com/actu/tuerie-de-chevaline-bfmtv-et-dominique-rizet-relaxes-en-appel/490071
En mai 2015, le tribunal correctionnel d’Annecy avait condamné la chaîne et son spécialiste police-justice à payer des amendes de 10.000 euros chacun pour avoir publié des photos de la tuerie de Chevaline. Cette sanction avait été prise dans le cadre d’une procédure engagée pour violation et recel de violation du secret de l’instruction suite à la diffusion le 18 février 2014 de photos de la scène de crime de la tuerie de Chevaline issues du dossier d’instruction.
Dévoilés et commentés à l’antenne par Dominique Rizet, les clichés montraient notamment le corps flouté de Sylvain Mollier, le cycliste français tué au cours de ce quadruple meurtre commis en septembre 2012 en Haute-Savoie. Hervé Béroud, en sa qualité de directeur de l’information de BFMTV et Dominique Rizet avaient été reconnus coupables en première instance de recel de violation du secret de l’instruction par le tribunal correctionnel d’Annecy
Une décision “courageuse”
La Cour d’appel Chambéry a finalement décidé aujourd’hui d’infirmer le premier jugement du tribunal correctionnel d’Annecy et de relaxer les mis en cause. “Le grand message de la Cour d’appel, c’est de rappeler qu’un journaliste doit être jugé dans le cadre de règles qui encadrent la liberté d’expression et non pas en se perdant dans la recherche de délits de droit commun retentissants”, a déclaré Me Pierre-Randolph Dufau, l’avocat des prévenus, à l’AFP, saluant une décision “courageuse, rigoureuse en droit et novatrice”.
Neither Hervé Béroud nor Dominique Rizet have re-set their profile on Wiki
This court re-versal has been quite played down
where is the sqeuling from Maillaud?
A decision “courageous”
The Chambéry Court of Appeal ultimately decided today to overturn the first ruling of the Criminal Court of Annecy and relax in question. “The great message of the Court of Appeal, it is recalled that a journalist should be judged in the context of rules governing freedom of expression and not getting lost in the search for common crimes resounding “said Mr. Pierre-Randolph Dufau, the lawyer of the accused, told AFP, hailing a decision” courageous, innovative and rigorous law. “
The FRENCH STATE does not want us to know what Sylvain Mollier was doing up the Combe of Ire on that day
WHY?
James
Have your cake and eat it !
There is one ‘arrangement’ whereby ONF1 could be telling the literal truth. If the Citroen van is the ‘large vehicle’ seen by WBM at approx half way and also seen by Zainab close to place Martinet, then the descent of ONF1 could be moved earlier in time to a ‘slot’ where he could possibly have seen an MC and a BMW X5.
However to find a ‘slot’ that does not generate unreported sightings, his descent would have to be pulled back to almost 15:00 or earlier which is, er, pushing it a bit.
The Citroen van then may become an object of suspicion, didn’t it supposedly have two occupants?
If ONF1 did drive home at approx 15:00, why not just simply say that ? No-one would be surprised. He could mumble some guff about checking the trees at the bottom of the combe or something.
I think the French Authorities need to bring in all the ONF people who were up the Combe of Ire of the day of The Slaughter of the Horses
and give them a very hard time,
beat some truth out of them.
I’m sure the police could manage that?
michael norton
I once rashly suggested that the botched investigation would afflict more than the crime itself. This affair has claimed enough innocent victims, more would be a tragedy.
There certainly are ‘issues’ with the sightings on the combe based on what has been publicly released however some, or all, of these may have been resolved by the gendarmes.
I still reckon that broadly this is the right track if only because of the response of EM post the identification of LMC.
Joshua 24:26
“And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God, and took a great stone, and set it up there under an oak, that was by the sanctuary of the LORD.”