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>
What is this ?
Giphar Tarentaise.
La Lechere.
73260.
http://www.societe.com/societe/giphar-tarentaise-390264281.html
http://translate.google.es/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://french-leader.com/report.php%3Fsiret%3D39026428100028&prev=search
Member: CHEVALIER Marie Lise
Member: Gabaude Management Controller Florence: Florence Gabaude modified 24 January 2013
Administrator: Lise Marie CHEVALIER Controller of accounts: SCHUTZ Nathalie Claire Hélène depending January 24, 2013
??
“administration of loyalty programs produce verbatim transcripts or stenographic recordings of the proceedings of courts and transcribing subsequent recorded materials activities of independent auctioneers other support activities typically provided to businesses not elsewhere classified services barcode printing coding services barcode for addresses fundraising services on behalf of third parties of parking meter coins collection services data entry services captioning services coded real time (simultaneous) of live television broadcasts, made at meetings or conferences and broadcast in closed circuit but excluded the provision of captioning services (cf59.12Z) records transcription services (cf82.19Z )”
No idea what that means.
TS was also a director
“SCHUTZ Thierry est aussi Administrateur de la société GIPHAR TARENTAISE situé au LECHE RE VILLAGE 92 PHARMACIE DE LA 73260 LA LECHERE. Elle a été crée le 08/03/1993 et enregistré au Greffe du Tribunal de Commerce de CHAMBERY sous le numéro 390264281. Il s’agit d’un société dont la forme juridique est GROUPEMENT D’INTÉRÊT ÉCONOMIQUE et dont le capital social est de 731,76 euros. L’activité principale de GIPHAR TARENTAISE est Autres activités de soutien aux entreprises n.c.a.”
Peter
I agree with you generally re Ugitech/Cezus.
You note “the motive is extremely unlikely to have had anything to do with his work”
Iwould have agreed with that until very recently. However having read Parry and discovered that “his employers” are funding the legal attack puppies, I now have a nagging doubt.
The funding of lawyers by them just seems ‘weird’ to me.
http://s215.photobucket.com/user/sys_config/media/ScreenHunter_06Dec162350_zps27621b24.gif.html
It is a group of Independent Pharmacies
http://www.pharmaciengiphar.com/pharmaciens-giphar/qui-sommes-nous
Thierry must have been working or had his own business elsewhere before Grignon, he was 60 ish when the murders took place, the Pharmacy had been his for about 11 years.
Peter, Saad, not the women and children , they may even have been instrumental in his sole demise, although with every new piece of information, I am not fixed on that.
Good In Parts, the compnay, Cezus or Ugitech are very employee centred, socail clubs and the likes, sports days, I reckon they would go to the length of watching media, because everytime Mollier is mentioned so are they.
I do not see that as being particularly of note.
But it is important, if the emplyers of Sylvain Mollier are funding the briefs to do dirty work for them, pretending that it is on behalf of the family of Sylvain Mollier,
what family?
Are they meaning the uncle of Claire Schutz
Pierre Morange?
You see, there are threads within threads in this French saga.
guns, murders / suicides / money / intrigue /motorcyles / bicycles / SILENCE
Have you considered “secondment” for Mollier? Employee on loan…
Juicy
The ‘right’ to three years paternity leave was introduced in Ftance approx four years ago. At the time of the tragedy it was new-ish and seemingly little used.
I don’t know about qualifying requirements but SM had been with the company for a long time so I guess he would have met them.
@ GIP
Not paid paternity leave, presumably?
On the question of the employer funding the lawyer, my guess is that this could have been Mollier’s trade union getting the bosses to help the family defend and protect his reputation. I don’t see anything sinister in this. I don’t therefore think that Mollier’s death was work related in the sense that he was involved in secrets etc. It is possible that it was Claire who was involved, as it seems that she was the one who was most concerned about his good name.
@ Peter.
Re the “Middle Eastern Man”
Thanks for this. I recall having read about it, but was puzzled that there was no mention of it in Parry’s book – and it’s all the more puzzling because of its potential relevance.
I’ve gone back to the original source – Le Parisien of 25th October 2013. Why did it take over 13 months for this snippet to emerge and why at that particular time?
http://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/chevaline-a-la-recherche-d-un-etrange-visiteur-25-10-2013-3257705.php
If you strip the story down to its bare essentials, what we have is as follows:
“According to a (French) judicial source, several witnesses at the Solitaire du Lac campsite saw Saad al-Hilli having a conversation with another man, for about half an hour, on 4th September 2012.”
The rest is embroidery.
The man is described as “a mysterious stranger.” (un mystérieux inconnu / un étrange visiteur). I suppose the words mysterious and strange equate to “foreigner”?
This is media hype. He was a man, not identified by the campers, presumed to be a visitor from outside (as he quite possibly was). There is nothing in the Parisien report to suggest that Saad previously knew the man, except the implication that since he was a “stranger” he must have been invited into the campsite.
The conversation in the British newspapers is described as “heated argument.” This is a mistranslation of the phrase in Le Parisien which is “une discussion animée mais pas décrite comme véhémente.” It was an animated discussion. We know that Saad was quite animated by nature.
The judicial source adds “Mais chacun à son interprétation de ce qu’est une dispute en fonction de sa culture.” What this actually means is that, whilst the eye witnesses may have assumed they were having an argument, this may not have been the case at all.
There is no mention of the language they were speaking in. It is merely assumed that they were speaking Arabic, because it is assumed that they were both Arabs. It is also possible that that the visitor was speaking heavily accented English, and may not have been an Arab at all.
Peter, although you may think so, I am not making these points merely to be negative or pour cold water on your hypothesis. I am just trying to evaluate, and put an alternative, balancing view. Apart from the Telegraph and Mail, both of which borrowed from Le Parisien, are there any other sources for the “Middle Eastern man”?
Juicy
I don’t know about pay.
When this was discussed on one of the prior threads the consensus, (which I agreed with), was that it was entirely rational for the couple to prioritise CS’s career from a financial perspective. Thus SM taking three years off to act as carer was not an act of someone sponging off his girlfriend.
Clearly, some people living in a provincial french town may not see things this way.
Peter, further to my post about “Middle Eastern man”, I suggest that the piece of evidence that is most relevant to your thesis is that on 3rd September, two days before his death, Saad made an appointment to go to the bank in Geneva. This is a fact, confirmed by the Swiss prosecutor, Dario Zanni, who describes the proximity of these events as “troublant”.
Questions that occur to me: did Zaid ever visit Switzerland, and if so when?
Do we know whether Zaid had any business partners or any other al-Hilli relatives in the UK or elsewhere? Prior to his marriage to Geraldine, was he previously married?
We need a firm Iraqi connection that would provide a link between “motive” and “means”. Otherwise, in the absence of any such link, I would stick to my hunch that despite all appearances to the contrary, this fraudster is innocent of murder and that the solution must be found in the locality of Chevaline.
@ GIP
Yes, it’s rational. But some people would call it sponging. That’s why I think Claire wanted to put it on record that he did not stop work entirely and still had employment at Ugitech.
I wonder if the pressure on Mollier to take paternity leave came mostly from Claire herself? Along the lines of “it’s your baby too, you can’t expect me to give up the pharmacy, you must play your part.”
I wonder how Sylvain would have felt about the prospect of being a stay at home carer for 3 years? Would he have embraced the idea wholeheartedly, or would this macho guy have sought ways to escape domestic routine and perhaps “prove” his manhood in other ways?
If the paternity leave is with Cezus then that is the company he worked for.
If the paternity leave is with a different company, then that would be who he worked for
simples.
Juicy
I think your ‘Zaid or Chevaline’ may be a false choice.
Yes, Saad did make an ‘appointment’ but this was primarily for his mother-in-law who apparently intended to open accounts for the benefit of her grandchildren.
I guess that Saad may have had a ‘secondary objective’ of talking to the bank about his father’s account. However the account was frozen pending probate and no amount of talking would sway them into handing over cash.
Saad would have been aware of this, so his intent may have been to discuss the ‘process’ and how it could be speedily brought to a conclusion. Zaid would also be aware that the account was frozen.
Thus if there is a connection between the appointment and the shooting it likely does not involve Zaid.
My opinion? The spyware and the break-in at Tumba are “troublant”.
It ought to be comparitvily simple for a journo to find out if the patenernity leave was granted by Cezus.
It ought to be comparitively easy for a journo to find out if Cezus is funding the brief.
But if Cezus – Areva are funding the brief
what could be their motive
could it be secret instructions from an arm of the FRENCH state?
If persons working for the FRENCH state have put the bite on Cezus to pursue litigation against the media “on behalf of the family of Sylvain Mollier”
that would be intriguing
n’est-ce pas?
Michael Norton
Perhaps someone, somehow, is trying to make ammends.
Many of us here think, that in one way or another, ‘things went wrong’ and/or there was a ‘mistake’.
I do too.
@ Good In Parts, sorry, I have no idea what you mean.
Could you eXplain
someone, somehow, is trying to make ammends?
The well dressed element came in JMDs Tweets, a fellow journalist had a go at him for not putting it in the article, JMD says he did not have space.
Since then Dominique Rizet has descrbed the man as being between 30 and 40 years of age and square jawed, who tapped the bonnet of the car.
The witnesses did not understand the conversation, as for the interpretation of the ‘culture’, I would say that to the witnesses it ‘looked’ like an argument, but may have just been an animated way of discussion based upon the ethnicity of the two men.
Whatever it was about, THE MAN HAS NOT COME FORWARD, hence he remains a mystery and being well dressed (suit) he was an odd sight amongst the caravans and tents at Solitaire.
I would have liked to post you the Twitter feed, got fed up of scrolling back. This element was introduced two days after The Sunday Times article and Panorama aired.
Sylvain went there on A purpose
What was that purpose?
Michael Norton
You asked the question :-
“But if Cezus – Areva are funding the brief what could be their motive could it be secret instructions from an arm of the FRENCH state?”
So, let’s say it was. Now considering that the profile that Eric and company have put together fits a former (or current) servant of the french state like a glove, irrespective of whether said former (or current) servant were acting on the orders of the french state, someone somewhere might try to limit the consequences of media exposure to the family of a french citizen killed in this affair.
@ GIP. Re my false binary choice. Fair point. There’s a third horse in the race. I’d agree that the spyware and Tumba break-in are “mystérieux.” And that Saad had more than one objective in travelling to Geneva.
Saad is reported to have made numerous “bursts” of phone calls to Spain and Switzerland. Now the innocent explanation is that he using some cheap VOIP system, and the line kept dropping. But assuming these were all substantive, connected calls, why so many? It only takes one or two calls to make an appointment with the Swiss Bank. Do you think the other calls to Switzerland, and those to Spain, could have been related to Iqbal?
@ M.
Thanks, that fills in the blanks for me about Middle Eastern suit man.
Why would these two men (whether they be members of the extended family or business acquaintances) hold a conversation about a (presumably) sensitive subject in the middle of the campsite, for all to see and hear? If by that point “suit man” already had it in mind to kill Saad, why draw attention to himself by coming to the campsite and engaging in an animated discussion? Why not sit in the car or caravan?
Just asking.
@ James’s Question: “Has the investigation team in France has been “undermined”?
I think the French investigators got off to a very bad start in 2012, by jumping to the conclusion that the killings were everything to do with the al-Hillis and nothing to do with Mollier. This led them to make a number of initial errors, some of which were excusable given that they were in uncharted territory, some much less so. The blogosphere punished Maillaud mercilessly, with frequent calls for his resignation etc.
But by 2013, and certainly from the Panorama programme onwards, the French team have made up most of the ground they lost initially. Their basic stance – to suspect that Zaid is behind it all – is no doubt popular amongst the majority of French. And they can now blame the failure to make progress on that front on the slowness of their British counterparts to arrest Zaid sooner, which gave him the chance to destroy evidence. (The Swiss prosecutor says this too.)
At the same time, they can claim – with more conviction than at the outset of the investigation – to have investigated the background of the the Mollier and Schutz families and to assert that the solution does not lie in France. Maillaud seems to have already persuaded Panorama’s Jane Corbin of this in October 2013, and I have already commented on his masterly handling of Tom Parry.
I don’t believe that the French investigators are involved in a sinister state sponsored or politically motivated cover up. But I do think that Maillaud respects the constitutional rights of French citizens in respect of privacy; and is scrupulously careful to avoid saying anything that could be construed as defamation of innocent parties, particularly ones that are well connected and supported by lawyers. So his public line, so skilfully articulated, is one of open-minded and intelligent bafflement, with more than a soupçon of suspicion in the direction of Zaid. What he thinks privately is another matter.
The internet discussions were definitely instrumental in undermining the initial stance of the French investigators and holding them to account. I have no doubt that detectives on both sides of the Channel followed the forums meticulously (and indeed infiltrated them from time to time). In that way, the veterans on this and previous sites (as distinct from Johnny Come Lately upstarts like me) have performed a valuable public service. They still do, by keeping the debate alive and helping to prevent complacency on the part of the investigators.
So my answer to James’ straw poll is “yes” initially; “no”, not now.
In 2012, French pharmacists must have already known that there was a movement afoot to break their cozy little monopoly by selling OTC medications in grocery stores and letting foreign chains and foreign investors into the market. This must have been disconcerting to people like Claire Schutz, a new proprietor whose fortunes could be seriously diminished by such changes. This must have been especially worrisome to Claire, with a new baby, a conjoint on parental leave, and his other children to support, not to mention his expensive taste in bicycles. Independent pharmacists like Claire Schultz banded together for a general strike this year to protest. I don’t know if Claire Schultz herself was involved in the general strike.
Meanwhile, back in 2010, water was an issue. As a 100-year-old monopoly agreement fell, municipalities took back their water. Local councils banded together and formed companies like O des Aravis, which employs Laurent Schutz, brother of Claire. According to links already posted, water has been a source of corruption at the local council level and higher in France, as various companies vied for business in ways that were not always legal. This is not to say that local politicians who fall off cliffs or into gorges are involved in water corruption.
Interesting that the company that employed SM is a supplier of stainless steel tanks, pipes, fittings, etc. for the water treatment industry. Interesting, too, that the Annemasse treatment plant had some leakage issues, due to faulty welds. I wonder who supplied the equipment for the Annemasse treatment plant, who did those welds, and if the faulty work involved lawsuits. Was this some experimental technique, or just shoddy workmanship?
As stated long ago in these forums, welding can involve lasers and x-rays in some applications. This trade is high-tech science.
You don’t suppose a welder would do faulty welds on purpose if certain corporate interests operating beneath the radar provided incentives that would make them seem like knights in shining armor coming to the rescue, do you?
You don’t suppose such a scenario would cause enough Ire for murder, do you?
Doctors also took action against pharmacists, who will be allowed to provide vaccinations, thereby reducing doctors’ incomes.
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://m.thelocal.com/20150313/french-doctors-strike-in-protest-over-health-reforms&ved=0CBwQFjAAahUKEwiUrtqR6JXGAhUFOYgKHVx4AFU&usg=AFQjCNF4dfnO-5mBhxCWMEVMUjhu8aE2IA