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>
@ Peter, GIP
As Kadhim’s account had been the target of an alleged fraud, and was subject to an inheritance dispute between the brothers, Saad’s enquiry would have been treated as a legal / administrative matter, and would have been handled in a very formal way. In order to demonstrate impartiality, and to protect its own reputation, the bank would have been scrupulously careful to hold an “on the record” meeting with Saad, on bank premises and in normal hours. The idea that the family “relationship manager” would have dealt with Saad in an informal way, in an out of office meeting, seems to me very unlikely indeed.
Although it is conceivable that, when the father was alive, a relationship manager might have been allocated to Kadhim, there was clearly no such “relationship” with Zaid, particularly after the alleged fraudulent attempt to obtain credit cards was discovered, nor exclusively with Saad, since the bank had to remain impartial.
If Saad was indeed “upset” when he called the bank (and it’s not clear where Parry gets this from), this is most likely attributable to the sheer frustration of working his way through the red tape of a Swiss private bank, being kept on hold, asked repeatedly for identity verification, or being given non-committal answers to his questions.
According to the Swiss public prosecutor, interviewed on Panorama, Saad called on Monday afternoon to let them know he was going to “pop round to the bank” (English voiceover translation – impossible to hear what was actually said in French). The public prosecutor does not say that a specific appointment was made for a specific day. The phrase “pop round” implies that no specific appointment was made. If he had intended to visit the bank on Wednesday (the day of his death) he would surely have departed earlier that day and would not have made an excursion to Le Martinet. I don’t believe he would have intended to go later in the day, since he would have arrived after office hours, and if he had intended to “pop round” he would have made sure this happened during office hours.
Thus I conclude that either:
a. Saad planned to go to Geneva to visit the bank on Thursday (the last possible day for this – although there may not have been time); or
b. He had abandoned the idea of visiting the bank, concluding (probably rightly) that it would achieve nothing, since he was unlikely to meet anyone of importance who would be in a position to help, and since he had already placed a legal block on his brother’s access to the account, and nothing more than that could be done.
Good In Parts, not read about Suhaila having a return flight on the Thursday, only speculation.
If you recall where this came from it would be interesting, why not a call at the bank for the appointment and drop her off a the airport ?
A direct drive from Annecy to Calais, is about 8 hours, (860kms) allow a couple of hours for stops, a late evening ferry as on the way out to keep the costs down and after that an hour or so to Claygate, that would make Friday plausible.
The campsite said they were due to leave at the end of the week, now if it had been Thursday, would it not be said to be the next day ?
Mr Juicy, maybe from here ?
http://www.24heures.ch/suisse/Au-cur-de-l-affaire-largent-place-a-Geneve/story/30465554
Le décès du père, en 2011, a accentué cette acrimonie. Le 4 juillet 2012, Zaïd a contacté la banque pour s’assurer que Saad n’avait pas récupéré l’argent. Deux mois plus tard, le 3 septembre, Saad a prévenu la même banque de sa prochaine venue. Il semblait très perturbé. Cet héritage l’obsédait, a dit à la justice l’un de ses vieux amis résidant au Tessin. Saad n’aura pas le temps de venir à Genève: il meurt le 5 septembre. «La coïncidence des dates est extraordinaire», relève Dario Zanni.
In the TP book, Zaid says it was his father who applied for the Credit Cards, he was in the UK at the time, Zaid has also said he has been cleared of any wrong doing.
@Melrose….
DZ61 hasn’t closed down at all.
It continues as a Private Forum (password protected) as it had done since the start. I have the email from a contributor confirming the activities of that Private Forum.
And MZT. Well, it appears she had some “unpleasant contact” from the country in which her server was based. Discretion being the better form of valour….and the need for her to continue her business of author, she closed down her Chevaline thread.
@ Mr Juicy, 2 Jul, 2015 – 5:17 pm
As someone who used to work for a Swiss “private” bank and who has subsequently advised that and similar banks on how to extract the most money (er, “value”) from their clients, I disagree with almost everything you wrote, except for your paragraph (b).
It is not only conceivable that Kadhim would have been allocated a CRM – no, anything else is inconceivable. The entire system works upon the single-point-of-contact principle. Summaries of all transactions with clients (chance encounters, social encounters at Formula One races or similar events, clients’ calls, clients’ visits to the bank, etc. etc.) must be put on file by the CRMs.
Why exactly would the bank have wanted to “demonstrate impartiality”? And to whom, when it is a crime for a Swiss banker to say so much as much as, “Mr X (or the late Mr X) has (or used to have) an account with us”?
Do you really believe that there would have been Swiss- or German-trained law graduates present during a meeting like this, to which they would have had nothing whatsoever to contribute except potentially offering either of the two AH brothers grounds for launching a massive negligent advice suit? I don’t think so.
GIP
…continuing from the other post (re the killer “departing in the seconds before WBM’s arrival OR still there as he arrived).
The facts appear to be…..
THE LOWER END OF THE COMBE D’IRE
WBM is passed by (what he believes is) SAH on his way upto the car park.
SM arrives at that car park behind SAH.
SAH (ZAH) “sees” a 4×4 vehicle (possibly/probably) the BMW X5/3.
Therefore, if WBM is effectively a “rolling roadblock” heading up the hill, then the BMW X5/3 has to always be “somewhere” between him and the car park (or perhaps “beyond the car park).
THE HIGHER END OF THE COMBE D’IRE
ONF2 and MC pass through the empty car park and descend.
SAH and WBM are not seen by ONF2
Therefore, if ONF2 passes only SM (as SAH is advancing to this cyclist), the BMW X5/3 has to be position somewhere between “where ONF2 departs the route (who doesn’t see it)” AND “the advancing WBM (who also doesn’t see it)” ….AND in a position/location that enabled SAH/ZAH to spot it.
If that is correct (and there is a caveat to this), then it would be “crucial” to understand “who the BMW X5/3” eventually followed ?
For example, IF SAH “only just beat” SM to the car park (and SM was “well enough ahead” of SAH to be the only person spotted by the descending ONF2 unit)….then it would appear that the BMW X5/3 “got behind SAH” as they ascending the hill to the car park. Which means “SAH was the one followed”.
Of course there is a possibility that IF the BMW X5/3 held the killer and arrived at the car park to deposit this person….then returned “down route” and hid and THEN on seeing SAH driving up AFTER the bike of SM had past, re-emerged to follow SAH to the car park . But that seems “a lot of faff”….and a driver plus a gunman would be involved then.
James
Here’s the ting; I thi.. No wait.. Ummmm
It’s not a foregone conclusion but there may be another way.
Add in another ONF vehicle, ONF3, the Fourgon as tweeted by JMD. This would become the ‘large vehicle’ seen by WBM and the 4×4 seen by Zainab (Alternately the RHD 4×4 could have driven back to the parking to be the 4×4 seen by Zainab).
Then assume that the MC that WBM saw actually was the trail bike rider, when he was briefly on the main track whilst transiting from the west side of the combe to the east. That might explain why he was riding so slowly, he could have just turned out of, or was about to turn into, a side track.
The timings of ONF1 and ONF2 shift to earlier than previously assumed to fit with the apparent timing of the presence of the Lyon MC on the combe (EM states approx 3pm).
The RHD 4×4 could have turned around and driven straight back down the combe or parked up beyond the ‘barrier’ then later departed over the Col. It could also have driven back to the parking to be the 4×4 seen by Zainab.
If the RHD 4×4 was involved it could have dropped off the shooter and departed or (if parked up somehere) the driver could have walked back to the parking or driven back to the parking to be seen by Zainab.
If the RHD 4×4 did ‘park up’ then it was there for quite some time.
Thats my take based on EM’s acceptance of the Lyon MC and trying to ‘reverse engineer’ Parry’s timeline.
Would a Citroen VAN look like a 4×4 to a seven year old child ?
The Forestry men from above Le Martinet who were responsible for the sketch were in a 4×4, they say they saw nothing, apparently.
I think many persons are hiding the truth.
GIP
That’s the thing.
ZAH’s “4×4” could be the “large vehicle” seen by WBM.
Which we believe is the Citroen tweeted by JMD.
And BMW X5/3 merely “waited/stopped/hid” beyond the barrier and then headed out across the Col.
It’s logical. And it’s the caveat.
There is a risk he would be then stopped by an ONF unit, being that he was parked/waiting in a prohibited area.
And then the 50% chance he didn’t take the hairpin road and bump into ONF2/MC.
(Where was the MC going anyway ? A short cut, but not over the Col also ?)
M.
The ONF2 unit saw ONLY the MC and SM (and “no bodies”).
And who knows what a knock out, traumatised, medicated 7 yro could distinguish between. I’d say “not a lot”.
This is hard to believe / understand
Moines de Tibéhirine : une expertise jette le doute sur la version officielle
http://www.ledauphine.com/france-monde/2015/07/02/moines-de-tibhirine-l-hypothese-d-une-execution-un-mois-avant-la-revendication-vraisemblable
Peter et al
Quick-ish post – off out.
If the primary purpose of the meeting with the bank was to introduce Suhaila and to discuss and/or setup accounts for the two girls, would that be through the CRM or some other part of the bank? I guess the CRM would be keen to ‘own’ the accounts if significant monies were involved.
Presumably the parents would be the point of contact and decision makers of the accounts if active management were likely.
As an aside, it seems likely to me that Suhaila did have access to significant sums as Haydar must have been racking up considerable bills in hospital (unless. . .there is always a oui, mais).
It seems likely to me that SAH had a secondary purpose of discussing his late fathers account even if, as Zaid notes there was nothing that actually could be done at that time.
Zaid presumably was not aware of the intent to set up accounts for the girls, which is why he was so dismissive of a bank visit when interviewed by Parry.
Finally, I recall that Khadim’s account was unusual in that it was a cash account (i.e. instant withdrawal on demand by bearer) and did not accrue any interest.
Now to me zero interest since 1985 on that sum is a big hit to take so Khadim must have had a good reason. Initially it could have been a ‘bags-packed’ account in case he had to move countries again in a hurry (maybe Sadaam’s security services targeting emigres).
However it did fuel suspicions that the account was set up on behalf of another party (e.g. Sadaam). Especially as the account type was not changed once he had settled in the UK and the money was barely touched.
On the other hand, I seem to remember that it was suggested that it could have been ‘family money’ always available immediately to pay ransom demands (Khadims brother was detained and tortured by Sadaams regime. Sadly he apparently never recovered from it.).
Very few seven-year-olds would know the meaning of 4×4. Many adults don’t. The little girl may have been shown a few pictures to help her. Or it was just lost in translation.
M. & James
I don’t know about Citroen but the front end of the Renault Kangoo Fourgon looks ‘chunky’, just like, say, a Land Rover Freelander.
Can anyone think of a convincing argument that does not point to a FRENCH INVOLVEMENT?
Does anybody still, cling to the idea that it is all about the al-Hilli’s?
If we found out which organization was paying for the brief of Sylvain, that may be illuminating. The al Hilli family have not retained a FRENCH brief for the purpose of obfuscation.
Is there something in the Muslim belief system about interest-bearing accounts?
http://www.soundvision.com/article/5-ways-to-deal-with-the-dilemma-of-riba
James, the 4×4 saw the motorcyclist (this is the forestry men who provided the sketch)
There is nothing to say they saw SM.
The only reference to that sighting is Max and his Private Message Tweet, which he shared.
A Citroen Visa Fourgon is a van, the occupants apparently saw SM, with the additional info they did not see the burgundy estate, because it had arrived before SM at Le Martinet (?)
Not even a seven year old would describe a van as a 4×4, well at least not Saads daughter.
Michael, Zaid has a French brief.
Q, yes there is. And take a look at the Islamic view on inheritance.
Either the Swiss bank was profiting from the interest on the account, or the interest had been designated to a charity.
“Muslims have developed informal co-ops in which six or seven families help one to buy a house on a cash basis. They develop a personal loan contract among themselves, with witnesses and signatures.”
Maybe some of the money in the account was owed to third parties.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_inheritance_jurisprudence
Yes, monsieur, that is intriguing.
@ Good In Parts, 2 Jul, 2015 – 8:02 pm
If the primary purpose of the meeting with the bank was to introduce Suhaila and to discuss and/or setup accounts for the two girls, would that be through the CRM or some other part of the bank? I guess the CRM would be keen to ‘own’ the accounts if significant monies were involved.
That’s right. Those CRMs largely have to live off what they hunt, with the proportion of performance-dependent pay ranging from 30-40 % in relatively mass-market banks such as UBS and CS (often regarded as finishing schools for fledgling CRMs) up to 90 % + for the likes of Goldman Sachs. Credit Agricole Geneva would be at the upper end of that scale. Thus, there would have been a strong incentive for the CRM to “own” any future business.
The only people whose approval he or she would have needed for setting up the accounts would have been the bank’s own Compliance department. The latter’s background checks on prospective clients are often surprisingly detailed and wide-ranging, as they are sometimes assisted by the Swiss Foreign Intelligence Service. Still, when I was given my own training on KYC (Know Your Client) regulations, there was a very clear emphasis upon the presumption of innocence: just because your client is a Russian body-builder in a skin-tight white cashmere sweater and with a massive ten-kilo gold chain around his neck, just because he is accompanied by half a dozen barely-legal tarts, and just because you don’t understand his supposed business model at all – doesn’t need mean that there is anything wrong with his money 😉
I don’t understand Kadhim’s rationale for having an account like this at all. Even if this had been about having ready cash around in case of a kidnapping, he could have had a better, more discreet and far cheaper solution by simply paying for a safe deposit box to keep his cash in.
I am posting this as an example of how a character smear led to the deaths of two small children. You can decide if this example is relevant or not. Thinking of Jim and Iqbal’s marriage.
Hi all,
I will do this little post as to clear up some things.
Way back I started with my own blog post. Then I came by MZT and stayed there. Until MZT stopped (I know the hassles a moderator has to put up with:)
Anyway, I was not fed up with TCK so I thought to set up DZ61, a sort of continuation of MZT. I did setup a private blog first, with some former members of MZT. Mind you, I didn’t even know if the others were still interested. Anyways, the private blog got running, we had fun, and it was much more easy to communicate than by email.
I also did set up a public forum. Empty as it was at first. You know, for people who would like to talk about TCK
Sure … in hindsight, I could have left the public part to CM, as this forum was already running, and had a healthy dose of visitors.
But, as MZT had a certain set of people discussing MZT, some of them migrated to DZ61. In fact introducing again the situation of 2, seemingly competing forums/blogs on the same TCK subject.
Now … I DO THIS STRICTLY FOR FUN … So, I really do not like to be abused.
Sure, I have this private group, but I fail to see what the problem was with this. Yet in the end there came up some very mild irritations. I explained to all what the situation was and more irritations followed … again I will make the point that I have more experiences with other blogs/forums … so I did shut down Public the next second. Reason? I do this for fun … not work … no way:)
But, not all is lost. I kept the private forum intact … as I always had, because, it is more easy to share ideas in this way than by email. The public forum closed down … because I knew that CM, being a public forum, would take over the job.
You see, I have really nothing against anybody. I do like CM and I love you all, esp. because you all share the same fascination for TCK!
I only want to have a FUN discussion. Moderating is NOT my job. Keeping people happy and/or trying to keep things respectful is NOT my job. As it apparently seem to become a job I did shut it down. My time is way too precious to spill it over these matter;)
So … to conclude: I’m happy this public CM forum is running healthy. I might contribute myself. I don’t seek any trouble. I just might vent some ideas.
I really do hope everybody will read this 1 post. It explains ALL, without any hidden agenda (but sure, DZ private still exist, just for me and a very few MZT old timers)
Brgds,
Max aka Deadzone aka Dave Zero
M.
Yep… and you’ll have to search for it as I’m shattered.
Eric said… the ONF2 team saw “no bodies” (as in “no cadavers” but meaning also “no body/no one” which isn’t true of course).
BUT in the statements made by Eric (also !), he confirmed that the ONF2 unit ONLY saw SM cycling up to the car park…no bodies (dead) in the car park AND the motorcyclist from Lyon.
Now that’s what he said ! That’s on the record.
IF Eric is lying ! Then so be it. But I can only translate what the man says. I’m not privy to the “secret report” !
@Max
… but not Lars (who was in your “private group”)
He thinks your ” something else ” !
I love you too Max 🙂
@James
TCK for me is a puzzle, a sudoku, a rubic cube. To me all elements are merely numbers. Yup, even Zainab is, to me, a number. This is the only way to be completely objective.
As I denote every element with a number, I am free to put every number in every configuration possible.
I recently had a configuration in which (the number) Iqbal/Kelly helped by (the number) JT was the mastermind behind the murder/suicide (a variant on TP’s murder/suicide) … in a scenario in which Kelly was very unhappy with her life and blamed SAH and Suhaila for this and asked JT to ‘end this’, JT then suiciding himself after he heard X had done the job … leaving a mysterious ‘box with pictures of him and Kelly’ (read TPC of TP)
Now, to me these are simply number configurations. I do not want to be restricted. So, when Lars was asking me to leave out a certain configuration I explained that I could not do that, because I would loose my objectivity.
E.g. although I find the Zirconium connection a bit too far fetched, as a number configuration I didn’t mind.
You see that I can discuss ANY number configuration, without being troubled
And this was the minor issue I had with Lars, a certain number configuration. (I won’t say which ‘number configuration’ it was:)
Excerpt from the article.
http://www.canada.com/mobile/iphone/story.html?id=c7f3d820-9ebc-47c1-aa84-cc109f0b7498
She ruled Ellahib paid Sheets, 35, and Kezar, 27, just $60 each, which they immediately spent on crack cocaine, to commit the offence he believed would exact revenge for his wife, Manar Hussein.
Court heard during trial that Al-Mayahi and another woman had trashed Hussein’s reputation in the Muslim community over her affair with Al-Mayahi, which ended bitterly.
Hussein, 26, also faced all three charges as an accomplice, but was acquitted after trial. She had paid the money to Sheets at Ellahib’s request less than an hour after the fire, but there was insufficient evidence that she knew of the fire plan beforehand.
“He (Ellahib) initiated the whole thing. He hired two individuals, one of whom he knew to be a criminal. He could hardly be surprised, given that situation, that a tragedy like this one occurred.”
She also cited Ellahib’s prior conviction for sexual assault as an aggravating factor.
Two innocent young children died in an arson firebombing over gossip and trash talk about a failed affair. Their killers were paid $120.