Not Forgetting the al-Hillis 22278


The mainstream media for the most part has moved on. But there are a few more gleanings to be had, of perhaps the most interesting comes from the Daily Mirror, which labels al-Hilli an extremist on the grounds that he was against the war in Iraq, disapproved of the behaviour of Israel and had doubts over 9/11 – which makes a great deal of the population “extremist”. But the Mirror has the only mainstream mention I can find of the possibility that Mossad carried out the killings. Given Mr al-Hilli’s profession, the fact he is a Shia, the fact he had visited Iran, and the fact that Israel heas been assassinating scientists connected to Iran’s nuclear programme, this has to be a possibility. There are of course other possibilities, but to ignore that one is ludicrous.

Which leads me to the argument of Daily Mail crime reporter, Stephen Wright, that the French police should concentrate on the idea that this was a killing by a random Alpine madman or racist bigot. Perfectly possible, of course, and the anti-Muslim killings in Marseille might be as much a precedent as Mossad killings of scientists. But why the lone madman idea should be the preferred investigation, Mr Wright does not explain. What I did find interesting from a man who has visited many crime scenes are his repeated insinuations that the French authorities are not really trying very hard to find who the killers were, for example:

the crime scene would have been sealed off for a minimum of seven to ten days, to allow detailed forensic searches for DNA, fibres, tyre marks and shoe prints to take place.
Nearby bushes and vegetation would have been searched for any discarded food and cigarette butts left by the killer, not to mention the murder weapon.
But from what I saw at the end of last week, no such searches had taken place and potentially vital evidence could have been missed. House to house inquiries in the local area had yet to be completed and police had not made specific public appeals for information about the crime. No reward had been put up for information about the shootings.
Behind the scenes, what other short cuts have been taken? Have police seized data identifying all mobile phones being used in the vicinity of the murders that day?

The idea that the French authorities – who are quite as capable as any other of solving cases – are not really trying very hard is an interesting one.

Which leads me to this part of a remarkable article from the Daily Telegraph, which if true points us back towards a hit squad and discounts the ides that there was only one gun:

Claims that only one gun was used to kill everybody is likely to be disproved by full ballistics test results which are out in October.
While the 25 spent bullet cartridges found at the scene are all of the same kind, they could in fact have come from a number of weapons of the same make.
This throws up the possibility of a well-equipped, highly-trained gang circling the car and then opening fire.
Both children were left alive by the killers, who had clinically pumped bullets into everybody else, including five into Mr Mollier.
Zainab was found staggering around outside the car by Brett Martin, a British former RAF serviceman who cycled by moments after the attack, but he saw nobody except the schoolgirl.
Her sister, Zeena, was found unscathed and hiding in the car eight hours later.
Both sisters are now back in Britain, and are believed to have been reunited at a secret location near London.

There are of course a number of hit squad options, both governmental and private, which might well involve iraqi or Iranian interests – on both of which the mainstream media have been very happy to speculate while almost unanimously ignoring Israel.

But what interests me is why the Daily Telegraph choose, in the face of all the evidence, to minimise the horrific nature of the attack by stating that “Both children were left alive by the killers”? Zainab was not left alive by design, she was shot in the chest and her skull was stove in, which presumably was a pretty serious attempt to kill a seven year-old child. The other girl might very well have succeeded in hiding from the killers under her mother’s skirts, as she hid from the first rescuers, and then for eight hours from the police.

The Telegraph article claims to be informed by sources close to the investigation. So they believe it was a group of people, and feel motivated to absolve those people from child-killing. Now what could the Daily Telegraph be thinking?


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>

22,278 thoughts on “Not Forgetting the al-Hillis

1 140 141 142 143 144 743
  • Tim V

    Reading from the Independent report by JOHN LICHFIELD  PARIS SATURDAY 20 OCTOBER 2012

    “Theories about the brutal quadruple murder in the French Alps last month were turned upside down yesterday by an official report which found that a local cyclist – not the al-Hilli family – was the first to be shot.”

    “Turned upside down”? Oh really? The fact that Mollier was closer to the road and the attack likely came from that direction, why should it come as a surprise that he was shot first?

    “A provisional ballistic and forensic report also spoke of a “frenzied” attack which was “incompatible” with the work of a professional hitman. the 22 bullets found in the bodies and other forensic evidence suggests that a local cyclist, Sylvain Mollier, was the first to be attacked by what investigators are convinced was a single gunman.

    How can this be inferred? Apparently 22 bullets were recovered from the victims the article later tells us, which out of 25 shots fired appears pretty “professional” to me, not to mention the very professional “double tap” to each. Again, this appears to be adding unjustified “spin” to the evidence.

    “Although the report draws no final conclusions, its findings imply that the British-Iraqi Al-Hilli family may have been random victims, rather than the target of a planned assassination.”

    Where does this inference come from? Why, when it is obvious only one person can be shot at a time, should the fact that Mollier was the first victim require the great leap to the conclusion that the Al Hilli’s were “random victims”? Why is this any more likely than all the victims being intended targets?

    “Sylvain Mollier, was the first to be attacked by what investigators are convinced was a single gunman. This suggests that Mr Mollier may have been the original target or that, more likely, the killings were the work of a lone psychopath.”

    Ah a convenient conclusion! If so why did he allow Martin and Didierjean to escape unscathed? Might not a lone psychopath have remained hidden in the woods to kill the next unsuspecting arrival? Psychopaths tend to keep killing and often enjoy revelling in their supposed superiority. Why in six weeks or more not a sign of same or more murders? The fact that an undeserved conclusion is being promoted again suggests media manipulation to me.

    “The killer then returned to each victim on several occasions to make sure that they were dead.“

    Suggest sounds too systematic for a psychopath and then again would a psychopath have spared a child?

    “ Studies of the shoes of the victims suggest that Mr al-Hilli, and his seven years old daughter, Zainab, had been outside his BMW estate car when first menaced by the killer on a remote forest road above lake“

    The shoes of Zainab are self evidently outside. Clearly it appears SAH had been outside but unless it is linked to Mr Mollier (by blood splatter or SAH injuries for example) I fail to see how it proves he was necessarily outside when the gunman started shooting.

    “Mr al-Hilli … fled to his car and tried to drive away but he reversed at speed into a steep forest bank and became stuck. He was found dead at the wheel of his car with the engine running and the wheels still spinning. “

    Again inferring too much. I do not think reversing at speed can be equated with “tried to drive away”. A more accurate interpretation was this was an instinctive remove from danger, and reverse was the only option available? Nor is the suggestion that “being stuck” prevented him from doing so. If Martin’s account is accurate, the wheels were still spinning in reverse when the driver had been killed, is the reason it remained where it did. All that was needed was forward gear for forward movement, but by this time Mr Hilli was dead and unable to do so.

     “The possibility of a planned attack on the cyclist has also been studied but does not appear to have been taken seriously by investigators.”

    Amazing!

     “After attacking the al-Hillis, the killer returned to finish off Mr Mollier. He then moved his body and arranged it, arms by its sides, next to the al-Hillis’ car.”

    This perhaps is the most puzzling. Why would a killer anxious presumably to depart the scene, do this? And how do the investigators know? Remember Mr Martin has already said he dragged the body away from the front of the car, so if this was the position they were referring to, it was down to Martin NOT the killer! If they are saying this was the organised position Martin discovered and which they learned of by second hand report, that is a very different thing. How could they make such an obvious and fundamental mistake?

    “The report, according to Le Parisien, speaks of “frenzied behaviour” by a gunman “going from victim to victim and then back again to finish them off”. The report concludes that this behaviour was “not compatible with the profile of a professional killer”.”

    On what basis is the conclusion reached by the evidence. And forensically, how do they deduce the “revisit” hypothesis? It would be helpful to know, especially if it is to be used to support a theory of “any old” amateur killer.

  • Q

    @NR: Some time ago in this thread, I posted a link to Imperial College London, and an example of the type of person who worked there. The person in question worked in materials science and had connections to the RAF. It seemed intriguing to me that “55” was so close, considering.

    I’ve found it interesting that Ugine is where the metals (titanium, zirconium alloys) that act as heat shields in various applications are produced, both by TIMET and CEZUS.

    There is no doubt IMO that the rash of “meteors” over the past couple of years is questionable. Sure, some satellites, especially older ones, will fall out of orbit from time to time. Only occasionally, as with UARS, are these failed satellites admitted. As I’ve stated before, I think that the small satellites such as cubesats, microsatellites and femtosatellites, etc. are worth watching. In particular, the cubesat swarms sent into low orbit to “study” terrestrial gamma flashes…

  • Pink

    If SM was shot first from a distance but not fatally wounded he may have fell or staggered in front of the car which would be forward of its final position and SAH reversed to get around him and was hit before he could engage forward gear.
    It strikes me that what is supposed to be a fast crime and go is getting longer he now has to bring down SM chase after SAH shoot the passengers beat up the daughter go back and shoot SM some more move his body around and then escape how long to you reckon?

  • Kempe

    As well as thousands of bits of space junk and worn out satellites many thousands of meteors enter the earth’s atmosphere every year. Meteors add between 37,000 and 73,000 tons weight to the earth every year although the majority burn up before reaching the ground.

    It’s a miracle more people don’t get hit:-

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/5511619/14-year-old-hit-by-30000-mph-space-meteorite.html

    If there’s been a perceived increase it’s probably down to more people carrying mobile phones and other gadgets that can record the light show.

  • Q

    @Tim V: A paid killer or killers would kill the targets on a fee per head basis, no more, no less, unless something or someone got in the way.

    I think it’s a foregone conclusion that most of the posters here do not buy the official story and spin-doctoring of same in the media. If they say it is, then it isn’t?

  • Q

    @Kempe: It sure seems strange that we rarely ever hear about a downed satellite, though, considering the numbers of them in orbit and the advanced age of many. We only seem to hear about the big ones like UARS, which will most certainly be spotted by someone. Failed satellites, like space junk, simply don’t generate positive PR.

  • straw44berry

    Kempe,
    Perhaps they dont get hit because they are timed to come down in the Pacific though this weeks fireball almost failed to reach the Pacific and nearly crashed into the Bay area near San Francisco.

  • Keltrava

    Katie,

    One of the key questions is whether the family’s car was obscured to the killer when he/she shot Mollier. Haven’t seen this being addressed.
    There are numerous possibilities.

    e.g. Family car passed by cyclist before arrival at crime scene. Cyclist shot by gunman or held at gun point. Cyclist wounded. Family arrives. SAH gets out of car to lend assistance to cyclist assumed in accident. Gunman seeing cyclist wounded but not dead has to act quick to prevent mobile phones being used. Advances on SAH who gets into car and reverses.
    Remember family were just touring so quite likely to have stopped along the forest road beforehand.

    The idea of a “frenzied attack” is consistant with the need to prevent escape and the use of mobile phone. Once a phone used escape would be difficult from the area.

    The big question is why Mollier was killed. Anyone who works for a company for 20 years knows what is going on. If I was planning to knock Mollier off I would choose a remote location along his normal bike ride. Assuming offcourse this was his normal route. Family turning up by chance at the precisely wrong time would be very much unexpected.

  • dopey

    Shoot me down if you like and if this has been covered already, but what if Mollier had a double life in that he had an assumed identity and was undercover at that plant?

    That would explain the lack of any photos for him, lack of a background and the secrecy surrounding his burial.

  • Katie

    Keltra.

    The only way the car would be concealed from the killer is if came down the hill, coming up the care was visible before arriving at the spot.

    Secondly AH could not have arrived after the killer because he would have been coming up the hill so the car is facing the wrong way, AH would have had to reverse into the position shown in photos, meaning he would have had to reverse into the spot where the killer was standing & drive over the now shot Mollier.

    If he arrived & turned to the space immediately to the right & then reversed, the car would be on the road.

  • Katie

    That’s what I’ve said too Dopey. You will recall the reports that Mollier had ‘ possibly been leading a double life.’

    Also I’ve been thinking about what he said to his wife about a new route, I suspect that was a lie, but knowing he was going to a possibly dodgy meeting he wanted his back covered.

  • olifant

    Giving all due attention to what was said – & having listened again – BM said he had been out for about an hour and a half that afternoon when he saw the vehicle coming down past him. He is thereby implying that he got to the lay by about 4pm? When asked about timings he replies that it was half an hour to get up the hill from the village and he saw the vehicle half way up. So yes, BM said he was going up the hill at a time when the BMW may have already gone up. Can this be squared with pictures taken at 3.15pm Or should that be 2.15pm?

  • olifant

    repetitious … but… (Not seen on video but as per Independant and Mirror, he left home at 2.30pm) Sky Video is available on Sun website: A few details noted: He was asked about timing. He said he could not be exact but it normally took about half an hour to cycle uphill on a mountain bike from the village of Chavaline to the parking place. Asked about vehicles he saw he said he had no detailed recollection of this as he had been out cycling for about an hour and a half (ie was not on a direct ride from his home) and was grinding away up the hill looking down at the road, He saw a 4×4 vehicle go past him and then a motor bike also went past him going down the hill. (ie from his answer it seems both of them went past in a downhill direction) He only remembered that the rider had a crash helmet on. As for the phone call, he said he attempted to make a call as soon as he realised emergency services were needed but at that moment his phone had no signal.(this notice comes up after the keypad has been used – so maybe a non audio 112 emergency went through plus location triangulation although doesnt explain why such a convoy arrived) When he met a man and two women in a car coming up just as he had gone 300 or 400 yds downhill he flagged them down and explained, They then made the call. (ie at 15.48) The car drove on nearer to the scene and was then turned round in case they needed to make a quick getaway and he and the man then went on foot to the lay-by. There was apprehension in that it was prevalent (strange word to use) as to where the shooter was. There was nothing to do so they set off down hill again. On the way down they met a convoy of 3 Pompiers, followed by Samu (Fire then Ambulance) and 2 gendarme cars racing uphill sirens blazing. Later the police told him they had picked up news of the incident on the radio net hence they had come at once. He praised their courage in approaching a potentially dangerous location without hesitation.

  • Thomas

    @Tim V
    20 Oct, 2012 – 3:21 am

    Eric Maillaud;
    “What we can say now is that 3 of the 4 were hit by projectiles – bullets to the head.”

    It was Iqbal that they where unable to tell that she was shoot in the head when Maillaud made the statement. The info that all 4 was shoot in the head was released after quiet a long time, like another a day or so.

    This has probably been discussed before, just interested if anyone could give an explanation why the French pathologist can´t see 2 bulletholes in the head of Iqbal at once. Or why they don´t give that info, as it´s pretty basic to examine the bodies direct, and hard to miss a couple of holes in the head. Any theory?

  • Tim V

    thanks Straw44berry
    20 Oct, 2012 – 1:54 p I’ll google earth it now. what is missing and really needed would be a detailed map with the witnesses/events all located. for example i’d love to know where the dangerous peugeot driver nearly ran into Sylvie Lecouer, 49 and where the builder Laurent Fillion-Robin, 38, was when he said he saw the Hilli’s BMW went past and the other builders who say they saw it. Any clever ppl out there who like a challenge. I’m amazed no paper has done it as far as i know. once upon a time no crime report was complete without one.

  • Tim V

    thanks Olifant
    20 Oct, 2012 – 3:19 pm. it would be difficult ot overestimate your calculations. Unless he stopped off, took a detour or set off much later than the 2.30 he says, it put him at the lay-by as early as 3.15. Consider the implications. it would mean he was AHEAD of the murders and would mean his story arriving to discover the scene is a complete fabrication! if correct it would be difficult not to conclude he was actually implicated in the murder itself. surely not?

  • Pink

    @Tim
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9533726/France-Shooting-Single-weapon-used-in-massacre.html

    One man, thought to be one of the last people to see the family alive, told reporters that the family had arrived at the isolated car park at least an hour before they were killed.

    Laurent Fillion-Robin, 38, also said there was no sign of any vehicle following the family.

    The builder said that he was working on a house in Chevaline when he saw the red British-registered BMW drive past between 2.30pm and 3pm. The shooting was reported to police at 3.58pm by a retired RAF pilot who was out cycling and came upon the aftermath.

    Mr Fillion-Robin added that he did not hear any shots fired that afternoon and said that the car park was not the sort of place that families with young children would usually go.

  • Tim V

    just one rider oliphant – a race is not necessarily a reliable guide obviously but WBM appears far more athletic and competitive than he appears in the BBC interview in which he appears he might be out of breath climbing the stairs. so to summarise i would suggest a slightly slower speed but not much considering Martin’s approach to the activity. he says Mollier, a man ten years younger overtook him up the hill, but i am doubtful about everything he claims.

  • dopey

    “Mr Fillion-Robin added that he did not hear any shots fired that afternoon and said that the car park was not the sort of place that families with young children would usually go”.

    And yet it’s supposedly a popular spot. BM said it was more unusual for no cars to be there, as normally 5 or 6 cars were at the spot. He said he himself had been there once with his own family.

  • dopey

    “he says Mollier, a man ten years younger overtook him up the hill, but i am doubtful about everything he claims.”

    Early reports stated BM was overtaken. In his interview I believe BM just said Mollier wa ahead of him.

  • Tim V

    repetitious …. not at all oliphant. it has taken till now and your post to fill in a number of blanks that have been driving me mad. where is the interview – the sun you say? – as i’ve never come across it. i have trashed the 3.48 call on here but i am more than prepared to accept the timings if someone can demonstrate where i am wrong. using newspaper reports he refers to the suv “overtaking” on the way up and passing him on the way back. i have argued that he might miss detail once but unlikely with a two pass. if you have a web address for said sun interview i wud luv to take a look

  • Tim V

    depends on source “Dopey 7.51” Somewhere else, sorry no ref without looking up, he says he was overtaken by him
    again it wud be so easy for him to pin-point where because of course from that it would be fairly straightforward to work out how many minutes he was behind, in which apparently the killings would have taken place and killers departed.

  • A. Wryman

    BN interviews

    {http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4537634/Breaking-his-silence-Ex-RAF-Brit-first-on-scene-of-French-Alps-massacre.html}

    {http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19587272}

  • Tim V

    Hi Pink
    20 Oct, 2012 – 7:27 pm – I have quoted Laurent Fillion-Robin, 38 myself but he may not be all that reliable because of the wide parameters and that he later said he saw the SUV go up BEFORE the Hilli’s. Also it cant be made to fit the photo in Droosard at 3.15 unless the camera time out. Also other builder say they went past at or just after 3. What I really can’t understand and find rather suspicious, that the french police after all this time, issue a definitive time line. then the phone call was 3.48 not 3.58. there are real problems with this as i have previously explained at length

1 140 141 142 143 144 743

Comments are closed.