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>
Juicy and your post disclaimer only two minutes later §
All this is a distraction, something that happens when a surge of visitors arrive. I like to look back to the point at which we were getting close to something that spurred the interest.
I do not think this story involved the Capulets. But give Maillaud and Co. More time, and it might.
Is Baroud a Lebanese name?
@ M
A couple of points about the office of Public Prosecutor in general and Eric Maillaud in particular:
(1) Public Prosecutors are concerned above all with whether the investigation can uncover sufficient evidence on which to mount a successful prosecution. Maillaud knows there is insufficient evidence to prosecute Menegaldo (who is in any case dead) and a person in his position has to be careful not to accuse a person, living or dead, when the evidence is purely circumstantial.
(2) Maillaud is not from Annecy. He is an outsider, for whom the Annecy job is just the latest step up his career ladder. As an outsider he has to tread carefully so as not to offend local sensitivities. It’s not that he’s a puppet, or that a tin pot politician is pulling strings. It’s just common sense and good politics. The economy of the Annecy region benefits significantly from tourism. Local murders are bad for tourism. So local people on the whole would prefer to think that the Chevaline killings were imported, not manufactured locally. So Eric’s basic stance is popular locally, regardless of what the rest of France thinks ( I doubt if the rest of France pays much attention any more).
I don’t want to go around the houses again about whether or not Menegaldo was a real suspect, or whether his suicide note was suspicious, or whether there were other suspicious circumstances surrounding his connections with the Shutz (and Mollier?) family or his acquaintance with Claire. Maillaud spent 250 words in Parry’s book explaining why he was suspicious about Menegaldo’s suicide note, but without naming him.
But having said all that, none of this would be sufficient to convict in a court of law. We all know that.
Nevertheless, the circumstantial evidence surrounding Menegaldo, which you dismiss on the basis of Maillaud’s hasty denial when the name was leaked, is still significantly greater than the circumstantial evidence surrounding “Middle Eastern Suit Man”, which you and Peter find so convincing. I am tempted to say that you are only attracted to the reports that fit your scenario, but I wouldn’t stoop so low.
Of course the name of Menegaldo was not handed to Parry by Maillaud, who was embarrassed by its publication. If the person who gave Parry the information wanted the finger pointed in the direction of Ugine, one assumes it was because that person felt that the version of events promoted successfully by the French investigators up to that point was unbalanced and needed to be re-balanced. That is precisely my view too.
Ziyad Baroud and Ramzy Baroud are two well-known Barouds, one from Lebanon, the other from Palestine. FWIW.
Tal Baroud was also the site of a battle in Syria. Talking out loud, probably nothing to do with events in a sleepy mountain village in France.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahid_Khalil_Baroud
Another Baroud who came to public attention.
Romania, Switzerland…Wahid Khalil Baroud’s story touches on elements familiar to us.
Zaid phoned Romania about a maid, so why did Iqbal’s sister phone Romania?
Romania is a transit point. How is Zaid connected?
I’m still intrigued by old, badly I constructed elements of the Chevaline story.
Juicy
You wrote “the circumstantial evidence surrounding Menegaldo, –snip–, is still significantly greater than the circumstantial evidence surrounding “Middle Eastern Suit Man”, which you and Peter find so convincing.”
That may be so however circumstantial evidence is trumped by direct evidence.
Multiple witness testimony has MESM meeting with SAH at his campsite pitch with a subsequent ‘argument’ or ‘discussion’ so loud and vehement that other campers spontaneously intervened.
This occured 2 days prior to the murders. MESM has not come forward nor has he been traced.
Q
Did Zaid phone Romania about a maid? I seem to remember reading on the web somewhere that calls were placed by a ‘maid’ to Romania from his apartment building. I remember that Zaid denied that he had done so.
Why Iqbal’s sister phoned Romania still stands as a question though.
GIP
The evening before, for the animated discussion.
Juicy, without your email address, the avatar attributed by this site remains the same.
You are playing games, no problem I thought it was funny.
I do not defend the prosecutor, I just do not agree with you, I am fully aware of his status and where he comes from, from personal choice I would have preferred the enquiry was handled higher up the chain from the beginning, that would not have pleased everyone either,
If you think I am in anyway trying to direct you or anyone away from your truth, you could not be more mistaken, just makes you appear paranoid.
There are murders by the dozen in Marseille it does not stop people going there, to say it is about tourism, people forget very quickly.
Q on the 16th I posted a photobucket link you can see what she looks like, personally I pay little attention to surnames, the borders have always been a sponge for arrivals from elsewhere for many centuries.
Looking at this young woman as anything other than the Assistant Pharmacist would be unfair, the point was there were two at the time Claire being the other. Chances are she still works there amongst the current team of seven women.
Juicy, I respect your opinion, I do not think you have solved the case, it is possible to debate
Iinitial reports said calls to Romania were made from Zaid’s home. He said that maid made the calls. That is what he said.
Ikbal’s sister also phoned Romania. We don’t know if she phoned the same number that that “maid” phoned.
Is it possible that the events leading up to Chevaline involved Zaid, Iqbal’s sister the pharmacy PhD, Saad, Iqbal, Iqbal’s mother and who knows who else? Tha they were all in on it, and “it” was a matter of urgency for someone needing a passport and transit to France? French passports need no visa to enter the U.S. Romania is a transit point.
What wasn’t found at Chevaline: a passport that we do not know about, a person tha t we do not know about? Did a successful transaction take place before the shootings?
The campground owner murder at Lathuile…travelers, the local connection that did not proceed according to plan?
This was a targeted hit. This involved local and international targets. Claire and Sylvain were not Romeo and Juliet. It was business.
Travelers, Romania.
The Romanian phone calls were mainly from the Claygate house. Zaid says he never made any, Fat Bastard wrote maybe he was looking for an au pair for his grandchildren ?
Juicy, if you want Menegaldo in the spotlight, then Zaid remain a person of interest, read your book again, if new information turns up they will pull him in again, even the British police said they did not have sufficient evidence to charge him.
The same police force also said they are still following several lines of enquiry, of course it was all for show, off.
@ GIP
If an eye witness saw a man robbing a bank, and was able to identify that man, this would be direct evidence of a crime.
But what we have at the campsite on 4th September 2012 is the account of several eye witnesses who say that they saw (and heard) Saad having an animated discussion with another man. It’s not a crime to have an animated discussion in a foreign language in a campsite. But because Saad was dead within 24 hours of that conversation taking place (not 2 days, I think), the eye witness accounts are circumstantial evidence that may or may not be relevant to the crime.
Eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. In this case there were several eye witnesses, which could strengthen the reliability somewhat. But it is also possible that the eye witnesses, perhaps part of the same group of family or friends, reinforced each other’s recollections, giving them a false degree of certainty.
In a recent post, Peter states that this encounter took place in the evening, when it would have been dark, so it is very unlikely indeed that they could have identified the man. (On the other hand Le Parisien says that the meeting took place on “Le lendemain” of Saad’s arrival at the campsite, so it need not have been the evening.)
So what we have is a piece of circumstantial (not direct) evidence that may or may not be relevant to the crime. The eye witnesses assume that Saad and the man knew each other. The eye witnesses assume that they were having an animated discussion. These are only assumptions and may or may not be accurate. The man has not come forward but this in itself does not prove that he was involved in the crime.
By the way, you mention that other campers spontaneously intervened. This story continues to snowball! There is no mention of spontaneous intervention in the original Parisien story, nor in the UK versions. I am not sure who has been the source of the additional embellishments, but these were obviously leaks from someone, someone who wanted the finger fairly and squarely pointed in the direction of MESM.
M.
Catch up post
You noted “much of his story telling very one sided, it is the way we all behave when we want sympathy from listeners..”
Yeah, just like a divorce ‘narrative’.
You also wrote of SAH “no matter what perceived idea he had of all the work he had done it.”
There is a truth there about work personally done and perceived added value. Particularly when relating to a home. Seen it happen and it was almost delusional in nature.
Oddly, it seems like SAH was living there effectively rent-free. Presumably just paying council tax and utility bills plus whatever decorating or maintenance he chose to do.
A very good deal from my perspective!
@ M
“Juicy, if you want Menegaldo in the spotlight, then Zaid remain a person of interest, read your book again, if new information turns up they will pull him in again, even the British police said they did not have sufficient evidence to charge him”.
Sorry, I don’t fully follow what you are trying to say. It’s not that I “want Menegaldo in the spotlight.” What I am suggesting is that he committed the crime, but I am also saying that the truth is unlikely to be revealed (for the reasons given). Had he lived, Menegaldo might have been charged, but with his death, the necessary evidence is unlikely to come to light.
On Zaid, it’s not only the British police, but also Maillaud has said (to Panorama in October 2013) that as of today, if put on trial in either France or England he would be acquitted.
I know that Menegaldo is currently not your flavour of the month, and you are entitled to change your mind, as we all are. But on the Deadzone site as late as 24th May, in another “incarnation” you were speculating in intense and meticulous detail about PC’s involvement. Then Eric popped up saying that he was misquoted or misinterpreted and you promptly underwent a Pauline conversion, instantly concluding (with Peter) that PC was a “dead end”. Not only that, but all the hypotheses relating to the CS-SM interactions on the afternoon of his death were apparently jettisoned. Soon after that the public Deadzone forum was closed. Your apparent readiness to swallow Eric’s line hook line and sinker on 25th May contrasts with the healthy skepticism and creative open mindedness you have demonstrated in your various “incarnations” for the past 33 months. When something doesn’t quite add up, I start to scratch my head.
Juicy
That is pretty much what I would have argued in your position.
However you haven’t even got circumstantial, you only have hearsay.
No admissable evidence that your favoured ‘suspect’ had even met any of those murdered never mind argued with them.
“He was infatuated with her. I am not going to say whether this was reciprocated or not – she is entitled to her privacy now.”
That is very considerate of you. But since you have already revealed his infatuation, perhaps you would like to provide evidence to justify your claim.
Yes, I have not previously heard it said that the eX-Legionnaire/paratrooper/fireman was infatuated with Claire Schutz, I thought he was supposed to be romantically involved with the sister of Sylvain Mollier,
I eXpect I have been misinformed?
So, at the time of the Slaughter of the Horses, where was Patrice Menegaldo working, was it as a fireman, maybe in a nuclear facility.
This has nothing to do with the Slaughter of the Horses but does anyone know what caused this to blow up?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14883521
12/09/2011
One person has been killed and four injured, one seriously, in a blast at the Marcoule nuclear site in France.
Juicy..
Is “M” actually “Max” ?
I seriously doubt it.
For example, “M” has an altogether more logical style.
Max will be messing about with his “play mate” in his private chat room !
That..or walking around his bedsit wearing high heels and his mother best frock.
One important point with regard to the ex legionnaire.
Eric FIRST questioned him “as a witness” (I think the term “witness” is meant in the broadest sense of the word…unless I have missed something !).
It was AFTER he committed suicide (in the manner he did AND leaving a note claiming he “felt under pressure as he was being treated as a “suspect”) that Eric thought of him as a “suspect”.
The SUBTLE thing there is, if the ex legionnaire “felt” he was being treated like a “suspect”…. how the hell didn’t Eric pick up on this ?
In the ONLY interview that Eric says was conducted, the ex legionnaire FELT LIKE a suspect ! And Eric “MISSED IT” !
If a “witness” is question by police….and said witness start “felling like a suspect”, surely a POLICEMAN would pick up on this (I do take it he was actually questioned by policemen ????).
What stunning tunnel vision by Eric Maillaud
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/9748567/French-cyclist-in-al-Hilli-murder-was-in-bitter-inheritance-dispute.html
Quote The Daily Telegraph
Eric Maillaud, state prosecutor in charge of the investigation, has confirmed tensions existed between the Schutz family and Mr Mollier, but he dismissed them, said: “they were not something I particularly wanted to make public. The family is entitled to their private life.”
Mr Maillaud has long held that, “there is no possible reason to imagine [Mr Mollier] is for whatever reason directly implicated in his death. He seems to have been at the wrong place at the wrong time.”
I certainly hope the FRENCH police interviewed Thierry Schutz under caution.
How can Eric Maillaud be so convinced that
Sylvain Mollier was
LOST
IN THE WRONG PLACE AT THE WRONG TIME
and why can he not imagine
that Sylvain could have been involved in anything “awkward”
Top policemen, Bishops, Sports personalities, Politicians, Artists, Scientists
anybody can become involved in something dangerous or “awkward”
so why is it impossible for Eric Maillaud to imagine
does he lack imagination?
Yes, a very good deal for Saad indeed, Zaid owning half the property and you are right about peoples misconception of what their idea of doing a place up adds to a property value.
Menegaldo was in the clear, they looked at his interview again AFTER his suicide to see if they missed anything, the only connect to the murders is the mention of the interview in the letter, I read somewhere just a paragraph, at the time it was said it was not the only reason.
His death was over a year ago, more or less the same information was available then without a name, I do not understand why the name makes so much difference.
MN, it was easier for them to go through the fine details of Molliers life than the British/Swedish/Iraqi family, there are so many Chinese Whispers. If you ever have the time read The Daily Beast articles, does that woman get paid for writing such nonsense ?
Temoin – personne entendue dans le cadre d’une procedure d’enquete et qui n’a pas pris part aux faits incrimine
If Menegaldo was the man, then yes it was The Perfect Crime, so why kill himself, if he felt accused it was either in his drunken paranoia, his military inspired psychological problems or because some vicious bitch in the community was spreading nasty rumours, put that together and you have BANG. Maillaud does not do the interviews, the enquiry team do this, probably not even Vinneman, Menegaldo was small fry, the two hours appears to have been an exaggeration, latest reports 45 minutes.
6 inches and scarlet, knee length and fluid
A Variation on Strangers on a Train?
That is M. of course, forgot to change the Name, still proves my point about the avatar.
@ James
“Is “M” actually “Max” ?”
Yes of course he is, and you know it (at least I hope you do). Would you like to me to give you chapter and verse (“Juicy style”)?
Possibly not. But I probably will.
Witness: What a person is called before police wish to draw attention to them as a POI; alternately, someone who happened to be an innocent bystander to an event, whether they realize it or not.
Suspect: Someone police believe was involved in the commission of a crime.
Person of Interest: What police call a suspect before they want the suspect to know they’re a suspect; alternately, someone who was close to the scene, but whose involvement and intent are not yet clear.
Were the firefighters of Grignon volunteers, or part-time paid firefighters? If they were volunteers or part-time, yes, they would have other employment. And yes, it would likely be in a related field, and yes, that nuclear/metals facility nearby is a major employer.