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?
I have just recently found this site; I was in Annecy on the day of the killing,have had many holidays in the area, and drove through on a visit to the Alps last month,so did a quick detour to the lay-by. Left the road
from Albertville, through Doussard, followed the sign for Chevaline, then the one for Combe d’Ire,reaching the lay-by sooner than we expected, in about three and a half minutes. It is rather a gloomy spot, with room for only a few cars. In the field opposite is a disused barn-type building covered in graffiti, which in combination with the dangerous road sign gives the spot a sinister air, even without knowing what happened here. We then drove down the other road , route des Moulins, arriving in Arnand in a few more bminutes, passed Doussard and back onto the main road for Annecy, spotting the sign for Lathuille ; a few more minutes and we passed the sign for the Solitaire du Lac campground, very close to the Annecy – Albertville cycle way, before heading for the motorway to Geneva airport.
Based on these times, it would certainly have been possible for the al-Hillis to have been back at the lay-by at 3.30, so no need to disbelieve Maillaud on this point. If the family returned to this unappealing spot,it would confirm they were going to a meeting, and were not just out for a drive. Moreover, at the beginning of the ” investigation” it was reported that they were wearing smart or town clothes, not dressed for a country walk. I think they arrived early for their meeting, found the lay – by an unsatisfactory place to spend time, so headed off down the other road in search of diversion; in Arnand they got out for a stroll, perhaps to find a drink/ice-cream and took some photos, then headed back uphill for the rendezvous, which was presumably set for 3.30. We know roughly what happened after that, but not exactly, and we are only a little closer to why, with so many competing theories, none of them verifiable.
Marlin @ 9.22 you say:
“I did notice, that Lynda has just brought up the “glass on the side of the signpost’ that “may match” the BMW window. Never noticed that detail stated anywhere before. has anyone else?”
I don’t monitor Mzt any more so of course I didn’t see this quote but the thing that strikes me is its specific character. This is the second time I’ve noticed she let slip a detail that only “insiders” would be party to. The other was the “kick in the thorax” comment in relation to SM.
Now it may be that French reports she has read, not accessible to us, have included these details but I haven’t seen them in any of the language ones. The nearest I have seen on the glass is that there was still some visible two days later when the press were allowed in. This was said to be 15 yards away from the BMW’s final position.
This fact alone is suspicious because no genuine crime scene treatment would have left such important evidence in situ for two days in the elements, when it might have contained critical DNA or other evidence. The point is that nowhere have I read “it was on the side of the signpost”.
The question I would pose is: Are these just examples of “creative writing” or “artistic license” or are they little indicators that “Lynda” has access to official sources? “We know that!” she retorted on one occasion when I had argued a point. She accused me of being “a bully” when there was absolutely no justification for it and MZT backed her up, I think intentionally to make a case to ask me to go. They both resolutely supported EM and his impossible scenarios. The site goes down when I appear to be convincing people the official view could not be right on a number of fronts. People that don’t toe the approved line get ejected.
This certainly raises significant doubts in my mind about the function of that site and certain individual’s part in it.
Marlin & Straw44berry – if I remember correctly you had to give an email address to post at MZT.
Assuming you gave a genuine email address, did you get an email explanation for the deletions? Just asking, because if you didn’t that seems both arbitrary and rude.
@Fera – welcome, you’ve got 83 pages of this blog plus two other CM blogs worth of catching up to do!
Interesting comments about your impression of the lay-by. Perhaps the sort of place where parked cars may be broken into by smashing a window? Just thinking about the “glass by side of signpost” comment.
There was a video early on that showed glass near the sign end and it was discussed at the time, the journalist commented on how far the glass was from the car .
It may have been the same report that showed the direction of the cyclists as being downhill and I think that got deleted I have a vague recollection of it being a BBC video.
Well I never Fera
24 Jul, 2013 – 10:40 pm fancy you just finding this site for the first time after having done that circuit usefully timing it for later use just in case you should come across a site like this.
You say:
“Left the road from Albertville, through Doussard, followed the sign for Chevaline, then the one for Combe d’Ire,reaching the lay-by sooner than we expected, in about three and a half minutes. It is rather a gloomy spot, with room for only a few cars. In the field opposite is a disused barn-type building covered in graffiti, which in combination with the dangerous road sign gives the spot a sinister air, even without knowing what happened here. We then drove down the other road , route des Moulins, arriving in Arnand in a few more bminutes, passed Doussard and back onto the main road for Annecy, spotting the sign for Lathuille ”
What I find puzzling is that you claim “In the field opposite is a disused barn-type building covered in graffiti, which in combination with the dangerous road sign gives the spot a sinister air”. You are clearly describing the entrance to the Combe rather than the crime scene itself so your timings cannot be relied upon.
The second puzzling query I have is how if you have only just discovered this web site, how would you possibly be aware that many week and many hundreds of comments back, this was a subject of discussion here, or that I made the case for the 3.15 photograph to be unreliable following which the time was subtly changed by contributors to another place?
Please don’t bother wasting time trying to explain. I will file under “Could do better”.
There is a mention of glass here :
A patch of broken glass could still be seen some 15 yards from where the family’s red BMW estate was discovered.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2200062/Amid-quiet.html#ixzz2a0PiLhiJ
Bleb,
No I did not receive any e mail notification, much less an explanation. What “explanation” you see that Marilyn gave on the site is all there is. She later responded to NR who apparently made the mistake of just mentioning my name and the response was a bit mean-spirited (following of course an invitation to NR to come enjoy a glass of bubbly in Paris. Softens the blow?).
Something is going on, even after I make allowances for pettiness, blog possessiveness or such. Am inclined to agree with Tim V on this score.
I followed the interchanges there when he posted and I must admit he was treated rather shabbily by Lynda, who accused him of “bullying” for absolutely no reason, and strangely enough marilyn backed her up, again for no reason other than that’s the way it is. I doubt others there agreed but they may know better what the rules are for sticking around and are content to abide by them.
Interestingly, james, when he first popped up there did some grilling of FB, which left him less than convinced as to the fellow’s identity and/or claimed inside knowledge. Later on, james on this blog had some pretty scathing remarks to make on the matter of FB, well beyond just raising doubts, basically surmising he is a poseur. That along with a few well sharpened critiques of the MZT site and posters there. Yet, though james too was kind of asked to “take his marbles and play elsewhere” by Marilyn, he was welcomed back. Conclusion? it can’t just be over-sensitivity to criticism or “mockery”. Well, we know james, and he can be as direct as anyone. Yet, all is forgiven and forgotten (may be because he is now agreed to play on one of the approved – and safe – turf lawns).
PS don’t mean to criticize anyone, James included. I am just pointing out patterns, as i always do. Patterns that are beyond anything personal.
Fera, the road up Combe d’Ire to the martinet is said to be 3 km long, and is of very poor quality. So poor and so narrow that it was questioned why someone like Sylvain would ride an expensive bike up that way in the first place.
An individual, Alex, has driven that road and made a videp of the drive (video available on MZT). It took him the better part of 10 minutes to get there. That drive time is likely to have been mimicked by Saad driving a car load of family, supposedly intent on “sight seeing”. Even if the drive from Doussard to the entry to the Combe takes only 3-4 minutes (and i agree with Tim V that you must have only gotten to the bottom of the climb, based on your description of the “field”, if we take your account as is), and Saad makes the car climb in 5-6 minutes, that still cutting it way close for packingg an entire family back into the car (older lady and children included), strapping in, making the drive (while enjoying the view), reverse parking at the Martinet, and SAH+Zainab getting out and going over to where the shooting started – right around 3;30PM.
That’s cutting it so close as to make it altogether unbelievable. Sorry.
Marlin – sorry to keep this Off Topic but you don’t suppose “Lynda” could be an alter-ego of MZT herself?
@Marlin 25 Jul, 2013 – 12:02 am
Re “play on one of the approved – and safe – turf lawns”
Why be offended at exclusion? Perhaps you should be grateful!
You are not wanted because you are not a target. You only add noise.
You know how it went “Oh so you are a crime writer eh? Well, you help us now and we help you forever. Server in French juristiction, bon. Just a little down time is all we need, even host your site for you. . . . on our special servers”
The French are getting desperate now. Really desperate.
Tim V
No need to be so suspicious – I should perhaps have said “recently”, as I wanted to get an idea of the ideas on the blog before posting. I’ve beenable to skim parts of this blog and MZT, which I had sometimes visited, before concluding that they are, for whatever reason, determined to avoid considering
the state assassination/secret service option. I’m not interested in scoring points or getting into personality
clashes.
As mentioned, I was inAnnecy on the day of the shooting , and would like to raise a point which may or may not have been mentioned – the weather. The family arrived at the weekend, the weather often overcast and mixed, with spells of rather wan sunshine – not really nice enough for swimming etc unless you are a real enthusiast. By Wednesday lunchtime the sun was making a decisive breakthrough and the obvious option for a family with young kids would have been to go to the lakeside beach close to their campsite for the afternoon, not to get into a crowded car again and drive into a dark wood (one child prone to car sickness) unless there was a particular reason for it.
My first holiday in the area was staying by the beach in St Jorioz, with children of similar ages to Zainab and Zeena, which is why this terrible event strikes a chord.
@Fera – in the light of the info from TimV & Marlin re: the location, are you still sure you visited the right lay-by?
Have you seen this video of the route up to the crime scene taken with a dash cam?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwNfZSqoX8c&feature=youtu.be
Is this where you went?
Marlin
Rule no 20:-
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
from:-
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/05/twenty-five-rules-of-disinformation.html
I do believe the “kick in the thorax” to SM that were suddenly introduced by Lynda, but to my knowledge never mentioned before.
And now a specific type of glass – new information but pretending to be old.
The controlling nature of the MZT blog and removal of posts that emphasize or push the discussion in the ‘wrong’ direction suggests there is more underhand going on. In the last couple of weeks Lynda has been willing to reveal a lot about her background from Wales etc
(so yes Bleb, this could be distancing her alter-ego from herself)
Bleb
I have attempted to post twice on MZT, I gave my correct E-mail, my posts never appeared and I got no e-mail, the first attempt I thought because I used Straw44berry instead of a ‘proper name’ it didnt appear. However with some of the names on MZT I soon realized that wasnt the reason why.
I feel there is far more reason to suspect that people here are trying to disrupt MZT if you don’t like it don’t read it the people there have worked hard to build that blog and this constant poking at them is not needed .
Straw it was reported that SM had a blow from the car in his middle
so I expect that is the blow Lynda is talking about without seeing the context I am guessing but it seems likely.
“The paper said Hilli reversed abruptly to try to escape, dragging Mollier’s body along as the car reversed. A post-mortem examination reportedly revealed that Mollier’s ribcage was crushed.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/french-alps-slaying-of-british-businessman-saad-al-hilli-linked-to-saddam-hussein-fortune/story-fnb64oi6-1226504697571
Pink
I am in no way trying to saying that the contributors on MZT are not making valuable investigative work in this matter, but I am trying to figure out why 2 comments that I have attempted to make on the MZT blog were never posted. I dont feel it is my attitude or behaviour towards other posters that was the reason, so I can believe that my view that it in my opinion extraction of some or all of the victims is most likely with the ‘facts’ or information that is currently available. I have always said that I am not closed in that view and am willing to investigate the ‘murders’ and if convincing evidence in my eyes comes to light then I will reconsider my position.
Recently FB has said he was interviewed immediately before the Al-Hilli family funerals and was therefore unable to see Saad’s body again this only strengthens further my belief that Saad at the very least is not dead.
If you can suggest another reason why my attempt at initial posts on the MZT blog were never posted when James, Tim V etc have had their initial posts accepted.
We have so little new evidence to go on now that any small facts missed previously, new photos(now only from Max) or comments from FB and BB’s research that I must confess is often far beyond anything I feel able to add to.
Perhaps my initial attempt to post on MZT was more forthright than my normal posts(unlikely but possible) but alas I didnt keep a copy. Having waited before needing to try and post on MZT, I must have felt it important enough that first time.
You cant make omelettes without breaking eggs, equally you cant have a good discussion(over 10 months in this case) without disagreements. And within reason, a discussion is far better that allows that to happen.
grrrr I wish there was an edit facility here
*say
Pink
Articles such as your link arent able to be viewed by everyone without payment so if that is where Lynda’s thorax comment came from it would be understandable.
Pink
24 Jul, 2013 – 11:43 pm thanks for finding the actual reference to support the point I made above. If you can find one that pinpoints to “next to the sign” I should be interested to see it. Otherwise my reservations remain!
Good In Parts
25 Jul, 2013 – 12:47 am just about “spot-on” there I reckon! I believe that together we might even have them on the run! Why? Because from the beginning, they have been caught out. Not once but multiple times and they know it. Hence my “water butt” analogy. Just wait for the new water butt – coming soon.
As to Fera
25 Jul, 2013 – 1:03 am – this story is so “spooked” it’s difficult not to be suspicious of everyone. Sorry if that includes you. However, objectively speaking the timing and content of your posts set off unavoidable alarm bells I’m afraid. First because of its factual inaccuracy claiming to represent Martinet whilst actually describing the entrance to the Combe. This mistake simply could not have been made if you had been there yourself.
Then your timing? “Three and half minutes” to get from the Albertville turn off to the entrance to the Combe? Along country roads? Through built up and sometimes obstructed villages? Sorry I just don’t believe you. Even if you had a blue light flashing and travelled at breakneck speed I would doubt it. Then as Marlin pointed out, repeating an earlier observation of mine, there is still the time for a leisurely drive the 3 K up the Combe. (At 30 kph this must obviously take 6 mins alone)
Your 10.40 statement that “I have just recently found this site” in no way accords with the rest of your argument which is clearly aimed at countering my view, expressed on here many weeks ago, that the 3.15 photo cannot be what the police purport it to be for you say “Based on these times, it would certainly have been possible for the al-Hillis to have been back at the lay-by at 3.30, so no need to disbelieve Maillaud on this point.” How could anyone just find a site and suddenly pick up on a point not currently being discussed without prior knowledge? That would be a pretty big co-incidence don’t you think?
I now see you have amended your definition of “recently” to mean “I’ve beenable to skim parts of this blog and MZT, which I had sometimes visited, before concluding that they are, for whatever reason, determined to avoid considering”. Ah that it explains it then!
I have to say it rather reminds me of “Lynda’s” explanation of the impossibility of them being at Arnaud at 3.15 by saying “oh no it wasn’t ACTUALLY 3.15 as the police had stated, but some time BETWEEN 3 and 3.15”. If only facts could so easily be modified to fit.
What ever the truth of the matter (and whatever the state of the weather that particular day when apparently you were in the immediate vicinity) I ask you to consider:
1. Do you really think it likely that having driven all that way, heading we are told for Martinet on the advice of the camp site manager, and having been delayed by the builders already for about 10 minutes, they would do a u-point turn and head all the way back to Arnaud, for it has been suggested, a “teddy bear”? The idea is simply preposterous.
2. Even if they had, the 3.15 timing on the photo, which of course has never been revealed because EM considered it “too morbid”(!), but which the police must have considered reliable or they would not have announced it, PREDATES the car journey. It is the time the journey starts. It is the time they took the photograph outside the car. So you also have to factor in the time it takes to get an excited group (including an elderly woman) back in the car. No doubt as a safety conscious person, SAH strapped Zainab in before setting off, and you know how fiddly those can be. Driving sedately not rushing. Then at Martinet having to first park up, then get out and walk around the front of the car collecting Zainab on the way, before meeting and greeting SM before the attack could even BEGIN to start.
So you still think all this could happen WITHIN a 15 min window?
Maybe you are a very genuine contributor, there on the day, having just found this site, and concerned only with uncovering the truth Fera, in which case I wholeheartedly apologise for ever having doubted you.
* CORRECTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! “It is NOT the time the journey starts”
I have to take issue with you on that one Pink
25 Jul, 2013 – 8:49 am. You say, in the context of defending MZT from numerous examples of exclusivity, “it was reported that SM had a blow from the car in his middle”. Really? That’s news to me. Perhaps you could give us a reference?
My recollection was that the police suggested “Sylvain Mollier had been dragged by SAH’s car as it reversed”? Now, as I have previously pointed out this in no way accords with the evidence – the tyre marks, the BMW’s final position, the blood stains. In other words I do not believe the police interpretation. I do not believe Saad’s car struck SM. If he was struck by a vehicle I have many times stated it was more likely to have been the killer’s vehicle.
This is yet more evidence of police unreliability. It also suggests to me they were anxious to have an explanation that avoided the necessity of another vehicle. This accords with other denials.
I have also highlighted the incompatibility of the suggestion of “being dragged” and WBM’s evidence that there was no evidence of grazing. Both reports cannot be right.
So getting back to your interpretation of Lynda’s comment Pink, it cannot be right. Unless you can show a source, Lynda’s statement that SM’s injury was akin to a “kick in the thorax” could not be gleaned from police reports. It accords far more closely to MY suggestion that he was struck by the killer’s vehicle as part of the attack.
What I would like to know is was it just wishful thinking or did it represent an inadvertent factual leak from police sources?
Straw44berry
25 Jul, 2013 – 9:45 am I do not agree with everything others say and no doubt this is reciprocated. Without good natured disagreement finer points are missed and there is no hope of a consensus emerging. Truth hopefully appears on the anvil of debate.
What I can’t stand is personal abuse, often for no justified reason. Some contributors seem more prone to this than others. Is it just a reflection of a particular type of personality and style or evidence of one of your “rules” from 8.10?
Whilst on the subject, one of the most extraordinary aspects of MZT was that attempt to introduce the concept of copyright to Max’s list. Beside the fact that better lists existed and his contained mistakes and other people’s research, I felt it was a thinly veiled attempt to control an approved interpretation. MZT even went so far to outline steps that she might take to enforce it!
repeat post: http://www.occupycorporatism.com/cia-sponsored-trolls-monitor-social-media-interact-with-users-to-discredit-factual-information/
@Tim
If you don’t like the way Marilyn runs her blog why not just leave the people who happy there to get on with it .
It achieves nothing coming here and bitching about it unless you count pissing me off which it is and obviously Marilyn too if she has banned you
As far as I know there is no law that says Marilyn has to talk to any of you it is her blog and she can operate as she see’s fit .
In what world do you live where you think its ok to be rude about someone on one blog and then expect them to be polite back when you go there .
I have no personal interest in defending MZT I have only ever posted there once by accident I just find it tiresome .
The glass and its distance from the car was talked about so if you are that interested try googling for it .
Ps Straw I don’t consider you have been rude I have always thought you made useful contributions if I had to come up with a reason you were not allowed to post I would struggle ,one thought that occurs to me is that Marilyn is not always moderating her own blog as she has commitments elsewhere and the stand in moderator was asked not to allow new posters ,only trusted posters so maybe you happened along in that period I think it was
after Kenneth made some unacceptable remarks on there and been banned .
I think its funny James being allowed on he is obviously flying by the seat of his pants 🙂
@Tim V post 25 Jul, 2013 – 11:15 am
Tim – if it’s any help, I can remember a media report early on that mentioned that investigators had found side window glass near the top end of the carpark (which would be near the sign).
I havn’t got a link atm, but I shall have a look for one tonight.
I wonder if a reason that we are conflicted may be that media reports have been edited and/or deleted in the UK and perhaps left on line on francophone sites for others to read.
A possible example of UK media edit/deletion may be an early report I remember that stated that a member of the Al Hilli family had worked for an intelligence service persuading Iraqi military commanders to surrender and/or offer limited resistance to coallition forces.
Now this was early on, so whilst I was following this story, I was not keeping links etc because I had no idea that the investigation would take this long. I looked for this recently, couldn’t find it so asked BlueBird to have a look in this post on Previous page (82)
Bluebirds reply is there was no al hilli family member in that regards ever saying nor doing that and if BB cannot find it then clearly there is an issue.
Another possible example of edit/deletion may be my recollection that a neighbour of SAH had stated something to the effect that Saad had told him that he was working on an “£800,000 deal”. This was before the swiss bank details came out I think.
For some reason the direct links did not appear in my previous post.
The link to my question on page 82 is :-
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/not-forgetting-the-al-hillis/comment-page-82/#comment-419237
The link to the reply by Bluebird is :-
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/not-forgetting-the-al-hillis/comment-page-82/#comment-419251
@Marlin 21 Jul, 2013 – 8:33 pm
What did you do to so upset MZT that she says you’re not welcome ‘over there’?
Our ‘Katie’ was one of the weirdest ever. I’m sure he/she/it had a barney with the late and great Anders7777 and he accused her of banning him form her blog.
Despite being pressed on the point a number of times she refused to name it saying it was a private blog, and besides her name and photo were plastered all over it..
It couldn’t be, could it??
Yes,
Katie had an argument with anders and she said that she runs another blog of her own. I always had the suspicion that she could be MZT. That means that she must know all the bloggers here. On the other side, James was her arch enemy. They had blood fights with each other on this blog. The matter of fact that MZT did accept katie’s arch enemy james as a blogger totally excludes MZT as being katie.
Lets go back to topic and disregard whether or not somebody is banned from another blog. Who cares?