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?
@Ginger Nuts
Now that you’re here, maybe you missed my question about your post on page 1? I was asking, where did you get that info on what SAH knew about the drones over Syria? Is it something you just “know” or is there a source somewhere? If you don’t want to answer that’s understood, too…
@Ferret
“so the British MO is much more discreet…”
But they would deploy similar cover stories to this case where they were caught with their pants down in France and so the machine winds up very quickly and dissinformation here and false leads there.
N’est-ce pas?
“That’s right folks, we’ve been told now three times by the officer, IT’S NOTHING TO DO WITH ALDERMASTON. NOTHING AT ALL. REALLY. Now move along, nothing to see here folks.”
Sylvain Mollier, worked for Crezus not AWE, so why keep banging on about Aldermaston?
rosemary’s babies
b movie actor reagan was supposed to die when he was shot by john warlock hinckley, jr. that would have put cia head honcho george bush in white house but the cowboy lived…so….they try and try and try and then we get the jr. aspirin version …then…911….etc etc blah yawn….get ready for euan 🙂
You know, Roland, that really got me thinking.
I agree – any state would have a scramble defence scenario in place for when they fuck up, including media damage control, etc etc, just like they did here, or with Jean-Charles de Menezes and a million other cases…
But… which nation has the resources to have people from widely differing backgrounds, nations, etc etc posting on this comments section of a UK blog to deliberately spread disinfo?
If that ain’t a smoking gun pointing right at Israel, I don’t know what is.
And it’s spelled: S-A-Y-A-N-I-M.
I would rate our secret services but I don’t think they’re THAT resourceful.
Just my 2p.
I learned a lot that day.
What it says to me in relation to the al Hilli case, is that relatively minor discrepancies should be *completely ignored*.
=====
Illogical.
I dunno Dave, you tell me.
What *were* SAH’s links to nuclear weapons research?
@Anders
I learned a lot that day.
What it says to me in relation to the al Hilli case, is that relatively minor discrepancies should be *completely ignored*.
=====
Illogical.
Couldn’t agree more. People keep bandying this about like some holy grail of witness psychology, as if eyewitnesses will disagree about everything and forget even the most salient and pertinent facts.
If this were true, why would we even bother with eyewitnesses in our court system?
In point of fact, eyewitness testimony is given the HIGHEST credence in our legal system. Hence the frequency of key witnesses being bumped off in high-profile cases, especially those involving violent crime, as without the key eyewitness, the cases collapse.
I’d like to be given a list please Jon of all my posts you have deleted.
It’s not on mate.
@Ferret
“…keep banging on about Aldermaston..”
They don´t like it up ´em!
“But… which nation has the resources to have people from widely differing backgrounds, nations, etc etc posting on this comments section of a UK blog to deliberately spread disinfo?”
That’s nothing but supposition – one of Anders007 stories that he told you from day 1. No proof whatsoever.
If this were true, why would we even bother with eyewitnesses in our court system?
In point of fact, eyewitness testimony is given the HIGHEST credence in our legal system. Hence the frequency of key witnesses being bumped off in high-profile cases, especially those involving violent crime, as without the key eyewitness, the cases collapse.
=====
Couldn’t agree more. And as you day most of the detractors here are unpaid SAYANIM with delusions that the SLC is a wonderful entity.
It isn’t, it is a canker.
“as if eyewitnesses will disagree about everything and forget even the most salient and pertinent facts.”
I never said anything of the sort. I referred to “relatively minor discrepancies”.
@Ferret
“No proof whatsoever”
They really don´t like it up ´em!
That’s nothing but supposition – one of Anders007 stories that he told you from day 1. No proof whatsoever.
=====
Nudi
I walk the talk missus
I can back up everything I say
You are way out of your depth
“And as you day most of the detractors here are unpaid SAYANIM”
Evidence?
“I can back up everything I say”
But you don’t.
I never said anything of the sort. I referred to “relatively minor discrepancies”.
=====
BALLZ ™
You were implying that eyewitness testimony is unreliable.
“I walk the talk missus”
Down the pub on your iphone?
LMAO
“You were implying that eyewitness testimony is unreliable.”
I was suggesting that 3 or 4 or 5 eyewitnesses won’t necessarily agree on all details. They may well agree on the major events. Any fool knows that.
“And as you day most of the detractors here are unpaid SAYANIM”
Evidence?
=====
Experience.
Twenty years.
Proif is in the pudding.
Please supply EVIDENCE that SAYANIM do NOT operate like gang rapists on forums.
“BALLZ ™”
Really? Didn’t you just quote me up above?
– anders7777 1 Oct, 2012 – 10:36 pm
“What *were* SAH’s links to nuclear weapons research?”
At a guess, none.
Which is why he was acting as a middleman between the French nuclear bod and I would guess Iran?
Which is why Israel shot them all?
“Please supply EVIDENCE that SAYANIM do NOT operate like gang rapists on forums.”
Don’t ask me to prove a negative. Only idiots do that.
What is SAYANIM and why was it deleted from wiki?
http://politoccult.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/what-is-sayanim-and-why-was-it-deleted-from-wikipedia/
Hmm. Google still says:
Quote:
Sayanim – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia – [ Käännä tämä sivu ]
Sayanim (sing. Sayan; Hebrew: helpers, assistants) refers to Diaspora Jews who provide assistance to the Mossad. Gordon Thomas estimates that in the United …
Overview – Sayanim in fiction – References – Bibliography
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayanim – Välimuistissa – Samankaltaisia
The Wikipedia page is gone though.
The best evidence I have seen and keep seeing on this thread of Mossad being repsonsible is you Nuid. Same old story. Nothing ever to add.
Perhaps you should change your handle to Nada.
“Experience.
Twenty years.”
Sure. Twenty years experience of what? Posting on davidicke and the like? Reading spy novels? Don’t make me laugh.
HideBy Way of Deception
In 1990, he published By Way of Deception to draw attention to the corruption and shortcomings he claims to have witnessed in the Mossad. Ostrovsky has repeatedly argued that intelligence-gathering agencies must be permitted certain operational freedoms, but that significantly increased governmental oversight of espionage activities is necessary. Without effective oversight, he has said, the Mossad cannot achieve its full potential and value. According to Victor Ostrovsky, a sayan (pl. sayanim), Hebrew for “assistant”, is a term for a Mossad operative recruited from among the Jewish Diaspora to help the Mossad with operations outside Israel, utilising the capacity of their own nationality to procure assistance.
Many of Ostrovsky’s claims have not been verified from other sources, nor have they been refuted, and arguments continue to rage over the credibility of his accounts. However, he was named in a lawsuit by the Israeli government, saying that he was part of the Mossad. Critics, such as Benny Morris, David Wise, and others, have argued that the book is essentially a novel and that a case officer would not have had access to so many operational secrets.[2] They write that intelligence organizations practice strict compartmentalization of confidential or secretive information.[3] Ostrovsky argues that their point is moot, as they themselves are outsiders, and the only information about the Mossad they have is from their supposed “sources” in the agency which have a very clear agenda. Ostrovsky also points out that the need to know rule is or at least was not closely followed in the Mossad, considering its small size and the need for case officers to fill many roles.
Shortly before official publication of the book, the Israeli government filed lawsuits in both Canada and the United States seeking injunctions against publication. A judge in New York granted the request at a 1 a.m. hearing in his home. The New York Supreme Court overturned his decision, but the resulting publicity focused national attention on Ostrovsky’s story and guaranteed international success.
Concerns were expressed that by exposing certain prior operations, the book endangered the lives of agency personnel. Ostrovsky maintains he never placed anyone in danger because only first names or code names were used. Furthermore, Ostrovsky says the Mossad was privately allowed to see the book before publication to ensure that lives were not placed in danger.
“The best evidence I have seen and keep seeing on this thread of Mossad being repsonsible is you Nuid.”
I’ve been saying it’s Mossad since Day One. You’re really really clever.