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>
Thanks Q
well stated
In the Slaughter of the Horses
GRIGNON
is in the middle,
not geographically.
Hmm …
http://www.mr-juicy.com.hk
“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”)?
Oh please do, Jean-Pierre. Whilst the Internet is full of random morons who have issues with the FRENCH nuclear industry and the FRENCH people in general, trolls of quality are such a rare breed that they deserve to be humoured.
That’s jolly sporting of Europe
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/UF-EBRD-launches-uranium-mining-legacy-fund-1806157.html
18 June 2015
A new fund set up by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) at the request of the European Commission will finance projects to rehabilitate former uranium mines and processing sites in Central Asia.
perhaps the FRENCH will do similar in NIGER?
LEFT IN THE DUST NIGER fourth poorest country on the planet, where the FRENCH get their Uranium from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioRtzOWm07A
@ Q
Yep… that’s what I thought.
So the ex legionnaire, who wasn’t a “suspect”, but wasn’t a “witness”, later blows (his own ?) head off….because he “suspected” he was a “suspect” ?
Answers on a postcard…. to BBC Drama Dept, “Silent Suspect” (or is that “Silent Witness”…. I do get so awfully confused with these terms !!!!).
So the witness…that blew his head off….was mad (ish) ? And liked guns.
And it never dawned on Eric’s team, he was mad !
But they are looking for a “professional madman” who likes to shoot “lost” people ????
@Peter….
Is “M” …. “Max” ?
How bizarre (if it is). He’s changed his whole “persona” ?
Could it be ?
It can’t be, surely.
He has gone to extraordinary lengths to “hide” his style, if he has.
And why was Juicy writing in “google translate” Chinese ?
That’s a bit odd.
His VPN isn’t so good, it gave the same avatar.
And I can’t shake the thought of Max….in his mothers frock !
Anyway.. beautiful morning here. Off for a dip.
They have nets up so the “salties” don’t bite. Guess where I am today !!!!
@ James
Australia, I’d guess. I’ll take a stab at Cairns… Timing fits quite well too.
At least you’re a straight down the line guy, James – unlike most of the characters here.
@ GIP
The circumstantial evidence for Menegaldo’s guilt revolves around the facts that he knew the Schutz family (father and daughter); knew the Mollier family (dated Sylvain’s sister and lived in the same apartment block as Sylvain); also that he left a suspicious suicide note and appears to have been familiar with firearms; had a history of violence and was mentally not in good shape. The French investigators may know much more about him which could add to the body of circumstantial evidence.
There is no evidence, not even circumstantial, as far as I know, to prove that “he was infatuated with her.” The French may have hearsay evidence along these lines, but have of course not published it. The statement “he was infatuated with her” is pure conjecture (there’s a lot of that on this site) in the interests of developing or illustrating a hypothesis. I am sorry if my earlier post did not make that clear: you were right to pick me up on it.
@ James
Lest you get me wrong, I was not trying to imply that M. is Max. I was merely quoting that bizarre suggestion by Mr Juicy.
The latter is an interesting character who could contribute much valuable knowledge to this debate. Alas, he appears to have taken exception to the French-bashing going on here and decided to turn this debate into a farce.
@ Peter
Good try. There’s an awful lot of Juicy’s out there, so quite easy to put 2 and 2 together and make 22. Now I get the bit about traditional Chinese characters – a reasonable deduction, I suppose, which explains a lot. Not so sure about Jean-Pierre Juicy watches, though – apart from the tenuous French connection. On the whole I would say that Hong Kong has the edge over Orange County Florida, given all this Chinese nonsense, but why then does Mr Juicy resort to google Chinese when there are so many Chinese speakers there? (Rhetorical question.) I’ll choose to take the term “troll of quality” as an intended compliment, albeit somewhat grudging one. Thanks.
PS It’s not my intention to make the debate any more farcical than it is already. On the contrary my objectives are serious and to quite honest I don’t have time for lengthy farces. You are right I don’t like French bashing. Whilst I know less about France than many of the people on this site, I spent many years studying their language, literature and culture and as a result quite like French people and am very fond of their country.
@ Peter
@ James
Here’s one example of where M. refers to himself as Max:
On 9-Jun-15 at 9:14am M. wrote
“ Extract from my discussion with JMD (May, 2014)….
JMD: I have strong doubts about x5 . Gendarmes too.
MAX: WBM saw 4x4VERT coming DOWN. Later (october) police said 4x4vert=ONF … Is this still correct?
Etc.
This seems clear enough. I could probably come up with other examples, given more time.
On the other hand, I agree the style is different. The analysis is missing although M. is highly intelligent and well informed. The persona is different. M. tends to be quite assertive and at times intolerant. He likes to step in to “explain” and “correct” mistaken views. Which former member(s) of DZ match(es) that profile?
Why does all this matter? Of course it’s of little importance who M. really is, or who any of us are. But what does concern me is intolerance and hostility to contrary views that seems to have sprung up since April 2015:
Consider the following:
(1) James wrote 21-Apr-15
“The story so far…… Lars (a major writer) and I have been “kicked out” of DZ for questioning “known facts”
(2) Peter wrote on 21-Apr-15
… Max shut down his blog due to ….a certain Swedish Taliban demanding ultimate editorial control over any and all content that third parties may write on the Interwebs… Recently, Max and others have strayed too far away from the Taliban-approved line of thought that the Chevaline murders must have been committed by a local serial killer…
(3) James wrote on 21-Apr-15
It appeared there was a “private party” going on (numbering three I believe, although possibly more. In that three, the conversation turned to comments made by FB. It then appears there was a division. And the most northern element departed ! This “news” then came out “publicly”…..and I was “shocked” that such an operation was being “undertaken”…
(4) Peter wrote on 21-Apr-15
That “private party” has been going on for years; only in the days of MZT, it was conducted via e-mail. Never mind, I regret that Max closed down his blog, or at least the public part of it.
Well, I also regret that Max closed down his blog, and I think we are all the poorer for it. My question is: is this intolerance of differing views merely the result of the personalities of certain individuals or does it reflect some more sinister manipulation of opinion going on? I am not someone who sees a conspiracy under every cornflake, and I sincerely hope (and prefer to believe) that this is all to do with personalities. But I am asking the question all the same.
either it was random
or just to do with the Family al-Hilli
or just to do with Sylvain Mollier
or a combination of the family al-Hilli and Sylvain Mollier
To me random seems very unlikely.
If it was just Sylvain, why kill the others.
However if it was meant to be all the al-Hilli family and Mollier really was in the wrong place at the wrong time and he tried to intervene, then that would work.
However, if “Sylvain was a man without history”
would he be the sort of fellow to intervene in a mass gun slaughter?
I still favour the set-up-meet.
If it is true Sylvain was looking after their new born infant on his own in a house in Ugine within walking distance of Cezus and Sylvain rang Claire Schutz at her place of business in Grignon and told her he had urgent business to attend on his bicycle and would she come to Ugine to look after their son.
If that is what happened, then Sylvain is not a man without history.
@ Mr Juicy
I wasn’t trying. If you don’t want others to know who you are, that is fine, provided that you extend the same courtesy to them and refrain from deliberately misleading speculation about their identities. Indulging in such speculation is akin to throwing grit into the gears of the mills.
In that spirit, let’s get back to the topic in hand.
@ Mr Juicy
My question is: is this intolerance of differing views merely the result of the personalities of certain individuals or does it reflect some more sinister manipulation of opinion going on?
Those who take a deep, enduring interest in this case broadly fall into two camps: a vociferous minority who are convinced that the murders were a local affair with SM at the centre, a more lukewarm majority who take the view that the AHs probably were the primary targets. It is noteworthy that almost all of those who dug deeper, carried out primary research both on the Internet and outside, at least initially belonged to the former camp. They discovered information that they did not wish to share with the wider community and therefore retreated into closed discussion circles. In psychological terms, they began to form an in-group. In-groups thrive on conscious differentiation vis-à-vis the out-group. Thus, soon enough, these in-groups were us-against-them affairs dedicated not only to sharing private information, but also to “doxing” and generally slagging off out-group posters.
The discussion boards dedicated to the case gradually turned into icebergs, with most of the real action taking place beneath the surface and the visible part becoming a stage-managed sideshow. Thus, if anything, there was (or is) a conspiracy to keep digging into the local angle. Yet, in the case of MZT’s board (and probably also in the case of DZ), the board’s operators found that the in-group had effectively hijacked the board, urging them to delete postings and kick out posters whom they did not like. Apart from in-group dynamics, these developments may also have had something to do with the personality structures of some of the dominant protagonists involved.
That is what I like about this board: it may be 95% garbage, a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing – but at least it is WYSIWYG and free from biased moderation.
Trouble in Grenoble
http://www.ledauphine.com/isere-sud/2015/06/19/intense-fusillade-a-grenoble-une-quarantaine-de-coups-de-feu-un-blesse
A man aged 30 who was on the terrace of a bar, Place Saint-Bruno in Grenoble, was shot in the leg during a shooting incident last night around 22:30. At least Forty shots fired by a group of men stormed the square. According to preliminary information gathered on the spot that night by the Dauphiné Libéré, shooters were equipped with shotguns firing large caliber bullets Brenneke type and automatic handgun and a Kalashnikov assault rifle .
Thank you, Peter. That’s an extremely interesting perspective. And very honestly put.
Peter, is right, can we please get back to the story, I also think Deadzone61 was interesting, the sidebar, photos and links, although he wrote there had been a problem with some of the latter. Juicy Max was always coming up with new ideas depending on the latest turn of events.
Just in case you think I have given up, I will look forward to reading up next week, a long Italian wedding to go to.
James, I am envious, Sharm El Sheikh ?
So, my current theory, supposition only, using information we now have to hand:
SAH, with someone linked to the family arranging the meet and then the murder, the women and children were not supposed to be there (remember he left the campsite often, could have been just to buy groceries, early reports said he was meeting people locally at the time almost all had been identified)
Zaid, probably has a good idea of who did this, he has not been categorically told and he certainly cannot believe the family were affected in such a way.
And it all got out of hand, when at the moment the gunman made himself visible, Mollier rode fast into the Parking, realising what was going on, let his bike go and tried to run, in this first volley, the bullets caught Zainab, Saad and Mollier 4/5 maybe out of 7.
Adding in the bullets to the occupants of the car thereafter, Iqbal 4, Suhaila 3, Saad a further 3 then the remainder including the one to Molliers face plus another two adds up to 17.
Of course this assumes the gunman only loaded seven as seems to be the consensus and is mentioned in the Tom Parry book.
The why, well again at a guess because of family honour, because Saad had become a nuisance, he was afterall stopping the Probate of his fathers Will, his death just over a year before.
Reading up on Sharia law, maybe other family members were expected to benefit.
Juicy, James went into a rage and used some choice langauge, which has since been deleted.
@ M.
It’s OK, I solved the M./Max puzzle. No need to trouble you any further on that matter.
I don’t think they have crocodiles in Sharm El Sheikh. And in case James still feels like he has been bitten by one, I hope the wounds heal soon.
You write beautifully and entertainingly. Just watch the apostrophes. Now, where did I put my coat?
M
Max was holding some kind of strange “private party” for what ever reason.
When this “bizarre” discovery was made, I voiced my “displeasure”.
DZ didn’t close, it carried on “privately” as it had done so before.
Although I believe there was only “Lynda” and “Max” left. If that doesn’t tell a tale of “how not to conduct an open forum”…. nothing will !
Anyway, back to the universe….
We cannot conclude there was a “meeting” arranged by any party (Al Hilli or Mollier). There is (publicly at least) no evidence discovered that indicates such.
One COULD argue
1. The police have information pertaining to a pre-arranged meeting, however do not wish to discuss this as it relates to their ongoing investigation. (I give that a “low percentage”)
2. The person who arranged the meeting (and knew what was about to happen), ensured that there would be no “information” pertaining to this meeting “discoverable” after the events of that afternoon had taken place. (and I think that would get another “highly unlikely” mark… although not as low as “point 1.” above).
The possibility of Mollier and/or Al Hilli being engaged in some “hiugher level” subterfuge, that would ensure THEY THEMSELVES did not “make a note” (or do something/anything) which meant a “pre arranged meeting” would be discoverable….AFTER this tragic event, is unbelievable.
Here we are talking of “not one scrap of evidence”.
However, we have to assume that this was “an ambush”. The essence of such is that “the victims movements would be known to the perpetrator”.
As it is assumed “neither Al Hilli or Mollier were followed”, then we have to assume either/both were lured to the Martinet (the “pre-arranged meeting” scenario).
This theory is supported because… both parties have question marks as to “why they ended up at this car park on that afternoon”.
Mollier was said to be “away from his known route of that day” (the “he was lost” explanation).
And Al Hilli was “going for a walk in the Alps” (with his two little children and their grandmother …and without a single pair of hiking boots between them).
The problem is “followed” or “lured”, neither make any sense AND neither are supported with evidence.
That leaves the “lone nut” theory. EXCEPT…. it still doesn’t explain why either party was at the Martinet ! And that is crucial. Even (especially) in the “lone nut” scenario.
So, what other (“way out there”) possibilities exist that could “possibly” explain their “being there” at the Martinet ?
1. Mollier felt like a change of route and fancied the Combe D’Ire.
2. Al Hilli’s went to the waterfall (GeoCaching) but missed the car park.
(They would support the “lone nut” theory)
3. Al Hilli was car jacked and taken to the Martinet
(the eldest daughter would have said)
4. Mollier was kidnapped, shot and then taken there
(WBM saw him cycling ahead of him. ONF2 saw him also)
The point being…. for either party, there must be an explanation as to them being there. That explanation must include “why” there is “no trace whatsoever” for them to be heading there. AND it must include “why” there is “no trace whatsoever” recovered as to their reason for being there.
The one possibility that springs to mind is “a second phone” was used and this was taken away at the time. That is PURE speculation of course.
The police have “gone through” the network and checked mobile usage in the area at that time. I believe there was nothing found to support EITHER party using a “second mobile”. So that’s “dead in the water” !
Juicy
No problem.
I am slightly less pessimistic than you that the Gendarmes will be able to reach a conclusion about Menegaldo despite not being able to interview him. EM states that he has asked investigators to follow it to the end, so resources should be available. There is no time constraint, as with a suspect in custody and a public appeal for information could be made without pejudicing any trial.
A thought (not a criticism) that occurs to me about the circumstantial evidence (CE) is that a piece of CE that may be usable in court may not be useful for discrimination of suspects because it is a core part of ‘the profile’. This likely includes familiarity with firearms, history of violence and maybe mental profile.
If ‘the profile’ is used as a pre-filter to prioritise research and interviews , then everybody the Gendarmes interview, be it ex-cop, ex-soldier or lone gunman, has these attributes to some degree.
Taken from Stop Hinkley
French reactor problems cast doubt on UK nuclear power plant
Jim Pickard, Chief Political Correspondent Financial Times, June 14 2015
Problems with a reactor in northern France have triggered deep concern in the British government about the future of the UK ‘s first new nuclear power station for 20 years at Hinkley Point in Somerset .
EDF Energy, the French state-owned company behind Hinkley, has suffered a five-year delay and escalating costs at its flagship Flamanville project in Normandy .
Further concerns mounted last week when a leaked report from France ‘s nuclear safety watchdog highlighted faults in Flamanville’s cooling system.
That followed a warning in April by the French Nuclear Safety Regulator that there was an excessive amount of carbon in the steel of the reactor vessel.
EDF’s struggles in France have prompted worries at a senior level of the Treasury about the £24bn Hinkley scheme.
“I think there are serious questions about the technology,” said one Treasury figure. “Only if that can be fixed is there a desire to go ahead with it . . . on balance.”
http://stophinkley.org/NewsPages/news150614FT.htm
So FRENCH STATE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY
still in very deep do do.
So have we yet concluded who is paying for the brief of Sylvain, is it the FRENCH STATE?
Whoever is paying for the brief of Sylvain wants to shut down any talk of the Slaughter of the Horses having a local initiation.
Which pushes me towards the idea that it was initiated in FRANCE.
Jonathan Reynolds MP
climate change minister for Labour,
has called on the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change,
Amber Rudd to admit
that Hinkley Point C
will not proceed and
to
inform parliament what
her
alternative
energy strategy will be
Problems
for Hinkley keep mounting. Last week the
Daily Telegraph
reported that French
Nuclear Safety Inspectors had found crucial faults in the cooling
system of a reactor similar to the Hinkley
design, which is being built in Normandy. The fault would expose the reactor to the risk of
a MELTDOWN.
This followed news in April that
anomalies
had been found in the bottom and lid of the reactor pressure vessel
(RPVs) of the Normandy reactor. This means weaknesses in the vital metal structure
protecting the outside world from the highly radioactive reactor core.
Pierre Franck Chevet, head of
France’s nuclear safety inspectorate revealed that the same
manufacturing technique was used in the
steel for the identical safety casings destined for Hinkley Point,
which have already been made!
Peter
You asked:- “Am I the only one to feel that Saad had become slightly unhinged in the run-up to the murders?”
No, sadly I concur. Specifically, it looks to me like splitting black re Zaid.
M. noted upthread “if Maillaud was playing with Zaid, then Zaid before that was playing with Saad, maybe he was hoping he would give in, give up the fight.”
This may have been the case. However, I wonder whether SAH mistook random accidental events as ‘threats’ and blamed them all on Zaid or a.n.other.
Alternately, a real actual threat existed (maybe an honour thing from UAE caught up with Iqbal) but SAH conflated this with his issues with Zaid. I previously suggested something like live rounds being posted to Claygate. That would explain his “shot at the door” quip.
If SAH focused completely on the dispute with his brother and there was another real, existential, threat that he did not even comprehend, then his apparent lack of response may have driven further escalation.
In Parry’s book, EM is quoted as stating that SAH’s fear of Zaid was ‘real’. I would like to understand what ‘messages’ or direct threats, if any, caused this fear.
SAH apparently recorded everything, so if Zaid made actual threats then they must be on record. Even anonymous silent calls.
There is one thing that does look to me like it could be part of a campaign of harassment and that is the ‘hacking’ of his bank account by that Nigerian fellow. So, who if anyone, sicced him onto SAH? Or did he get SAH’s personal details out of the dustbin?
My best guess right now is that, if it was not random, then they also put spyware onto Suhalia’s PC and were also involved with the break-in at Tumba.
“One thing in particular I really don’t get: He told all and sundry that he feared for his life, he behaved like a man who expects trouble, recording all his phone calls and so forth – yet he apparently never did what almost everybody conscious of his own mortality does, i. e., make a will.”
Parry proposed something that could explain it on page 270 of his book. . .
Peter
I forgot to mention the compromised online accounts. Those too could be seen as elements in a campaign of harassment. SAH blamed those on Jordanian hacksters.
**** poor taste joke warning! ****
Goon #1 “I told him he would be swimming with the fishes”
Goon #2 “And ?”
Goon #1 “He thanked me for offering to take him scuba diving!”
Goon #2 “Sigh. . .”