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>
Apologies to Q: he beat me to it on her PhD! My congratulations to him.
‘sans histoire’ means many things, not least not known to the Gendarmes.
Saad al-Hilli has also been described as ‘sans histoire’
Michael, maybe I should call you Zaid, because your distrust and distate in anything FRENCH is the same way the latter comes across in THAT book and Press publications.
Juicy, your words ‘Mollier was killed because he was the premeditated target, for reasons that still remain to be fully explained’
Surely that statement can be used regarding the family. I always admire people who have such conviction, Jehovahs Witness for example, do I think they are right, only the Lord knows.
AND NONE OF YOU QUESTION THE UGITECH REFERENCE IN THE PRESS ARTICLE FROM THE FAMILY, Tom Parry continues later in THAT book to reference CEZUS.
I try to sit on the fence, without proof none of us have the definitive answer, they are just opinions, ideas and imagination, correct ?
Peter, Iqbal Abdul Amir al-Saffar/Saffar/Zafar, what name did she use in the UAE ?
@ M
I get the feeling that the FRENCH state is keen to hide facts.
No doubt very like other states, U.S.A. being the most obvious.
However some basic facts might help, like where Sylvain was employed.
What Sylvain did to earn his living. Was he just a welder or was he more?
Where did Sylvain set off from on his last cycle ride.
What bicycle was he riding on his last outing.
Was he carrying a gun.
Was he carrying cash.
MN,have you visited FRANCE ?
Here is my take on your theory:
Thierry Schutz, paid Patrice Menegaldo, who worked at the Pompiers in Grignon, the building beside the Schutz-Morange Pharmacy, to do away with his future son-in-law, only 10 weeks after his daughter had given birth to their child.
You know it is him, because of a light coloured Motorcycle parked up beside said building on Google Streetview.
Scutz gave Menegaldo a cleaned up old weapon, three magazines loaded with 7 bullets and told him never to touch it without gloves. The reason for so many bullets was in case Mollier was tooled up or he needed to get rid of any witnesses when he sent Mollier to his execution some 20kms away at the other side of Les Bauges. Riding his new vélo de course, dastardly offered by his daughter to her love.
Before this Thierry Schutz arranged for the Mayor of Doussard, Deronzier to be pushed off a cliff edge whilst he was hunting, this was 2010, because he already wanted to muddy the waters over Molliers forthcoming demise. Mollier was shot in 2012, Nicole due to her husband being on the Council and involved in looking after woodland, during an attempted burglary was shot after the release of the condemning sketch in 2013 of Menegaldo.
Last year, Mollier-Thomas was encouraged to drive over the edge of a road, because he knew the secret and of course Menegaldo had to be shot in his own flat, made to look like suicide because he was in the forces with Schutz many years ago.
Forgot, Frederic ‘Brindille’ Brun, some sop who was on the Combe d’Ire that day, his brother Jordan and a friend escaping from the car, the friend of course must have been Menegaldo.
Sounds more like a plot for MIDSOMMER MURDERS.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/06/12/uk-usa-kerry-idUKKBN0OS1X120150612
@ M
you are correct, it is The Daily Mail
Reuters think he had his cycling accident in FRANCE.
I did not know the Daily Mail is read in U.S.A.
It is usually thought of as ENGLISH
|@ M
most enjoyable
and with a possible hint of reality.
Yes, there are astonishing co-incidencies,
in that part of FRANCE.
Yes, I have visited many parts of FRANCE,
many times over the last Thirty Years
and enjoyed the place.
I once hitch-hiked with my girlfriend from my home in ENGLAND to Bordeaux,
then hitch-hiked back, on a shoe-string.
Many persons in FRANCE seem to be tooled up.
Has Eric Maillaud
actually claimed that Patrice Mengaldo committed suicide.
Has he claimed with what weapon / weapons?
MN, then you’ll know the people and the place are no different to the rest of us.
Pleased you liked the story, it is tempting to think it is plausible.
For me it is the precision and savagery, firing so much into several witnesses inside a car, fire once or twice, disable the vehicle, crackle the windows so the people inside can see no more, to shoot, shoot and shoot, changing magazines and continue is where I have a problem jumping the fence to think Mollier was the ultimate target.
Although, Juicy has a point if the killer was annoyed, if the man was not expecting such a turnout, he pulled himself together pdq, 21 shots fired 17 into humans inside and outside the car.
@ M., 13 Jun, 2015 – 12:52 pm
Peter, Iqbal Abdul Amir al-Saffar/Saffar/Zafar, what name did she use in the UAE ?
Iqbal, Ikbal, even Kelly – I have googled the lot and came up with absolutely nothing. Parry’s book gives very specific information about one of her positions:”From January 2001 until at least April 2003, when Saad arrived, she was a General Practitioner in the Faculty of Dentistry at Ajman University of Science and Technology.” Yet I haven’t even been able to find her there. Plenty of her colleagues who would have rubbed shoulders with her during that time, but not her. Either I am too dim or she was using a completely different name.
What is a conundrum is the goings on of William Brett Martin.
eX-R.A.F. cyclist.
He is living a spit away from the family Communal-Tournier.
He is a cyclist.
He is eX-military.
Mr. Martin’s home in ENGLAND is only a few miles from the family home of Saad al-Hilli.
Apparently even though he did not hear any shots, did not have mobile phone reception, he did not see any killers or anybody being killed, he innocently came upon a massacre scene, seconds after it had happened.
A vehicles had the engine running and the wheels spinning backwards, yet he thought it appropriate to first move the 5-7 times shot body of the only local casualty out of harms way.
Then he smashes the vehicle window to turn off the ignition.
But he now has his DNA / dabs on the little girl, Sylvain and the vehicle inside and out, did he perhaps also move the cycle of Sylvain?
He is let to go back to ENGLAND straight almost away.
He is an honourable cyclist, just like the honourable motorcyclist from Lyon?
What does honourable mean in a murder investigation,
does it mean “untouchable”?
Suhaila was born in Persia. That is my recollection, however I am busy so cannot check.
@ M.
You wrote.
Juicy, your words ‘Mollier was killed because he was the premeditated target, for reasons that still remain to be fully explained.’ Surely that statement can be used regarding the family.
Yes indeed it can. Let’s reverse the order of Scenario 3(b) in my post of 13 Jun 3:41 am.
a. If the Al-Hillis was killed because they were the premeditated target, reasons must be found to explain the improbability of the crime happening when and where it did.
b. If Sylvain Mollier was shot merely by accident, as an incidental victim, reasons must found to explain why, according to the crime scene evidence, he was probably ambushed, shot first, in the back – presumably running away; received more bullets than any other victim, and was finished off with a bullet between the eyes.
I have yet to see any convincing answers to any of these questions. On the other hand, if we assume that Mollier was the main target and that the Al Hillis were killed for the reasons I have suggested, we have a scenario which matches the known facts more closely than any of the alternatives.
@ M
Like Michael, I enjoyed your satire and delicate use of irony. Nicely written!
But I am still thinking – taking stock, as it were – that perhaps Michael is asking some of the right questions, even if we are yet to find the right answers…
Yes,
two possible vehicles over the edges, resulting in two deaths.
Brun & Nicholas Mollier-Thomas
One manslaughter / murder by guns
Nicole Communal-Tornier
One possible suicide / murder by guns
Patrice Menegaldo
Two people from Lathuile arrested in connection ( with either the Slaughter of the Horses or Nicole or both)
One an local eX-policeman /motorcyclist/arms dealer
second his mate builder/backwoodsman/shootist
Five other locals for the shooting of Nicole.
Then there is the recent utterly bizarre court hearings to find guilt on behalf of the media for trying to think through what happened at Le Martinet.
In short lots of local connections n’est-ce pas?
And not forgetting William Brett Martin the corpse mover?
And not forgetting the Honourable Businessman / parapentist / motorcyclist
from Lyon, who is so honourable that he is faceless and nameless?
All
Just read the book.
It is certainly worth buying. A big thank-you to Tom Parry for writing it. I hope that not only will it be a commercial success for him and MG but that it will act as a catalyst to resolve this tragedy.
My initial comment may sound like a criticism but it is really a question about censorship :-
Why is the editing so scrappy?
Sure, there are deadlines and a significant last-minute re-write to incorporate the discovery of the biker but even so…
One can almost touch the void(s).
“The Mollier family and his employers have hired a lawyer to monitor French and international media” Mr Juicy quotes this in his 12 Jun 8:35 am post – see above for more.
Here is the kicker, the book says that the employers of SM are paying for all this.
WTF !
So we have PM giving media handling advice to his niece (who personally asks locals not to comment), The Wall of Silence and now the legal attack dogs paid for by SM’s employers.
This book has been advertised for a while. I understand and respect that some details may have been removed at the request of the police or are otherwise prohibited by court order to protect the children.
My question is, What was edited out as a result of lawyers letters?
@ Good In Parts,
next question,
who would be the employer of Sylvain Mollier who is doing the legal string-pulling
It is my understanding that CEZUS is owned by AREVA
notforgetting
Areva, which had a loss of 4.8 billion euros in 2014.
Now the ultimate owners of Areva are THE FRENCH STATE.
So Have Cezus decided to employ Maitre Caroline Blanvillian
http://www.barreaulyon.com/fiche-avocat/detail/caroline-blanvillain
or is it actually THE FRENCH STATE
we may be getting nearer.
Also, notforgetting Caroline is based in Lyon, so it could just be possible she has knowledge of the honourable businessman-parapentist-motorcylist from Lyon.
Or Ugitech ?
http://www.ugitech.com/pressmedia/videos/ugitech/
The family tribute said UGITECH, Tom should have queried this instead of just following the CEZUS line. See_bee on MZT said he had been in touch with people at the plant, he reported they said Mollier had worked at UGITECH for some 20 years, as had his father.
Talk of people in SSTL asked not to comment, that was immediately after the murders.
Tom says Saads friends and ex-colleagues have been asked by the police not to supply any more photos to the Press.
Good in Parts, there are errors, I put that down to him mainly using The Mirror articles rather than a broader view.
Le Dauphine Libere is the only outlet to question the timing of the Motorcyclist in the sketch and not seeing anyone.
Because if that is true and he was on the Combe around 3pm, then he was not the Motorcycle seen by Brett Martin.
MN, Martin acted correctly in looking after the victims on the floor first, he had a gloved hand when he pushed in the area of drivers side window near the wing mirror, left hand probably. Would he have left DNA, not sure.
To be fair, Saad’s employers did the sa.. er, wait a minute…
Quick post before off out:-
Someone I know looked at the book “feels like P.O.D.” ie Print On Demand – but no real proof of this. Cynically added saves pulping if they get sued.
However if POD or short initial run, it could mean that Tom Parry could clean up the spelling and formatting and incorporate new material as it emerges. Hope they somehow give a clear version number of some kind.
My delivery date was put back twice and only cost £6.99.
I came to the same conclusion.
To put Gips comment into context, page 185 reads:
“They are working alongside the family to ensure nothing derogatory is said about Sylvain. The local newspaper even received a legal letter simply for covering a service in his honour, saying it was a breach of his private life. His siblings, his in-laws and his employers have all shut down. It is difficult to understand why. To everyone here, it seems implausible that he could have been the target. He was not an intellectual scientist with access to nuclear secrets; he was a factory worker.”
These words are attributed to local journalist, Jean-Francois Casanova.
@ Good in Parts
I was interested in GIP’s comments on the scrappy editing and the idea that this is a Print on Demand or short print run edition. Without implying any criticism of the author’s professional skills, I would agree that much of the book shows signs of having been finalized at the last minute, as events continued to unfold. I think Parry expects to make significant revisions for the next edition.
I am guessing that Parry had prepared a rough draft of the book, but made extensive changes and additions after his visit to France and his exclusive interview with Eric Maillaud. We do not have a precise date for that interview, but I assume must have taken place very recently – in April or even May.
I am struck by the length and extent of the comments ascribed to Eric – all in quotation marks and therefore almost certainly verbatim. The articulate and distinctive voice of Maillaud, occurring as it does in almost every chapter, is so persistent and at times so dominant, that one might almost describe him as co-author of the book!
The Maillaud view is quoted in support of all the key judgements, often prominently as if giving a seal of authority. And on most of these issues there seems to be barely a tissue paper of difference between the two men, except that Parry allows his imagination to roam on some of the more outlandish theories, such as the idea that it was Saad (!!) who ordered a contract killing of himself and his family.
I have previously suggested that Maillaud said more than he should have to Parry about the legionnaire being a real suspect, and had to correct himself on the lines of “If I said that I was misquoted” (!). But apart from that slip, in all other respects, I think the Prosecutor handled the interview brilliantly, furnishing Parry with numerous quotable quotes, and steering the journalist in exactly the direction he wanted him to go (namely firmly away from the idea this was a local affair with Mollier the target).
A public prosecutor and an investigative journalist are not natural allies, but on this occasion their interests have coincided perfectly. Maillaud needed vindication of his early decision to focus on Zaid; and Parry needed justification for his inability to penetrate the “Wall of Silence” that he evidently encountered from anyone connected with the two families.
Good in Parts also raises the interesting question of whether material was edited out of the book for legal reasons. That’s hard to say, but I do believe that not only the Mirror Group, but also the Prosecutor’s office, are treading carefully when it comes to making allegations about the Schutz and Mollier families, whereas no such constraints seem to apply to the family of the British victims. It’s disappointing that Parry glossed over this stark contrast, and swallowed Maillaud’s line on the French families so uncritically – but perhaps he had no choice
Peter noted (a couple of days ago): “ Zaid is a rum cove…”.
Yes indeed. Maillaud told Parry (with breathtaking indiscretion):
“There are other members of the family who are convinced that it was Zaid who killed his brother and they have even said so to the investigators”.
Other family members, in-laws and close friends, although not convinced that Zaid was responsible, make it clear that they do not have a high opinion of his character.
Zaid’s Panorama interview, in which he came across evasive, insincere and unnatural, was a PR disaster. While trying to clear his name, he succeeded only in convincing more people about his guilt. Other actions, such as his refusal to go to France, add to a catalogue of circumstantial evidence and suspicions.
For all these reasons, it is understandable that Maillaud, and probably his British counterparts, were initially convinced that Zaid was their man. And it’s quite usual for police investigators, once they get it into their heads that they have their killer, to give undue weight to that hypothesis, and to pay correspondingly less attention to other leads. The Barry George case comes to mind, as one of many.
But if Zaid was guilty, why would he have subjected himself to an on the record interview with Tom Parry (who admits that he never expected Zaid to agree to this)? By April 2015, Zaid was “off the hook” in the sense that the British police had confirmed that they had “no firm evidence” linking Zaid to the murders. If he was guilty, the logical and rational thing to do would have been to keep his head down.
Instead, Zaid met Parry, knowing that he was writing a book about the killings. I would argue that this was not the choice of a cool, rational killer, but rather an emotional decision of someone driven by the injustice of what had happened to him. Parry brings this out clearly, when he notes that “his pervading emotion throughout our chat was one of deep anger: anger with the French investigators and with M. Maillaud in particular.”
So let us assume that, despite appearances and the existence of a clear motive, Zaid has no connection with the murder. In that case, proponents of the view that Saad and his family were the prime target have a problem, because there is no firm evidence (indeed no real evidence at all, as far as I can see) to support other theories that could explain why they were the target. None of these tentative theories, however interesting and ingenious they may be, adds up to a convincing alternative to the Zaid theory. Maillaud seems to acknowledge this in his interview with Parry, playing down the significance of Iqbal’s background and describing the possibility of the involvement of Suhaila as “extremely remote.”
Given all this, and where matters now stand, the most fruitful line of investigation would seem to be to focus on the alternative explanation, namely that Mollier was the prime target, the victim of a local killer, for local reasons.
It would not surprise me if this is also what the French investigators are now doing (secretly), in spite of what Maillaud has said publicly. Maintaining the line that Zaid is the “official” suspect conveniently takes some of the pressure off the French side, because they can deflect attention across the Channel, while they await developments closer to home.
Before someone points this out, I should hasten to acknowledge that, in his interview with Parry, Maillaud does not say that Mollier was shot first. He says that they have no way of knowing in the order in which the bullets were fired, or who was hit first. He thereby apparently contradicts earlier leaked reports from the French investigators, based on the ballistics evidence. This admittedly removes one plank of support for the theory that Mollier was the prime target.
However:
i. The fact that an earlier report has been contradicted is in itself puzzling. Assuming that the leaked report is not a complete fabrication, the investigators must have had some basis for the view that Mollier was hit first. One could reasonably suppose that a difference of view exists between experts, based on different interpretations of the evidence. This would be normal and natural. But Mollier does not explain and Parry does not ask.
ii. The question of the order in which the bullets were fired should be considered together with other crime scene evidence such as the position of Mollier’s bicycle, whether or not his blood has been found on the bicycle, on the road etc, and the blood stain evidence generally.
iii. But in any case, even Maillaud does not exclude the possibility that Mollier was hit first, and he does not deny that the first shot that hit him was in the back.
I personally would have thought that the crime scene evidence would have yielded far for clues than have been made public, and the relative paucity of forensic information is another curious aspect of this case.
@MN: All I read was”medical isotopes”, and for some reason it took me down memory lane to Lachlan Cranswick and the Chalk River nuclear facility
again.