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?
@ bluebird
The Jeanin moto sighting was (apparently) after the shooting but going towards Chevaline. Remember they were apparently cheese making somewhere up on top of the col. Plus they changed their story. Initially Jeanin stated he saw nothing.
I tend to give more creedence to BM who placed the MC with panniers coming suspiciously slowly down the hill from Le Martinet i.e. the last vehicle before BM arrived at the car park. His testimony (what we know of it) seems to be consistent with both ONF1 and ONF2.
Probably totally unrelated but just as a matter for having a complete database.
While we are at camping ….
http://annuaire-du-voyage.net/camping/camping-bastard-andre-saint-jorioz-41269.html
Andre Bastard Rosset is the owner of the camping site where SAH was settling.
This is the grandfather of Andre Bastard Rosset:
SAS Special Forces:
SURNAMEBastard
FORENAMEAndre UNIT3 SAS (2 Squadron + 2 Company) RANKSoldat NUMBERAWARDMedaille Militaire (France) PLACEEurope 1944-45 ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONparent unit 3 Regiment de Chasseurs Parachutistes
alias Bastard-Rosset
3 SAS (2 Squadron) 1944 Operation Derry, Operation Abel 3 SAS (2 Company) 1945 Operation Amherst
@ bluebird
The Jeanin sighting of the motorcycle is a little odd – or I have got things muddled . . .
“Les gendarmes ont aussi interrogé un éleveur avec 70 vaches, installé au col de Chérel, au sommet de la route venant de la Combe-d’Ire, pour savoir s’il avait vu quelque chose. « Mon mari a juste vu une moto. Il en passe de temps en temps. Le pilote s’est même arrêté pour laisser passer le troupeau. Il n’avait pas l’air pressé », confie Catherine Jeanin.”
The odd bit is this:-
“Le pilote s’est même arrêté pour laisser passer le troupeau.”
But if the motorcyclist stopped to let the herd pass then he cannot have been at the col because, despite what the first sentence says, les cows were not “installé au col de Chérel” until the next day!
Ironically if Jeanin did see the moto at the bottom of the valley that would put his sighting in-sync with MB and the ONF.
There goes my multiple motorcycle theory!
jeux gratuits de naruto jeux abandonware
Good In Parts
17 Dec, 2013 – 3:07 pm
I have made this point many times but I’m not sure if it has been appreciated fully. Re. your motor cyclist: if he did pass WBM on the way he either did the shooting or came past the murder scene because WBM got to it only literally minutes following the attack. The further point is that if the foresters’ reports are accurate, the second vehicle, at least, must have come upon the murder scene. So we have the following options for murders.
1. Motor cyclist
2. Occupants of 4×4
3. First forestry vehicle
4. Second forestry vehicle
5. WBM
6. PD/B
7. Additional un-named cyclist.
8. PD/B’s two female companions.
Or some combination of the above. It is highly unlikely that the killer(s) were not in one of these categories insofar he/they would have had to have escaped without anyone seeing them. (Remember there were two forestry vehicles further up the pass and all the people coming up) I suggest the first four are somewhat more likely than the second four but I could be wrong.
@ Tim V 18 Dec, 2013 – 6:47 pm
Hey, broadbrush I agree. Some of the finer detail I guess comes down to a matter of interpretation
For instance, your view is:-
“It is highly unlikely that the killer(s) were not in one of these categories insofar he/they would have had to have escaped without anyone seeing them.”
Whereas I think this is “unlikely” rather than “highly unlikely”.
We know for sure that it was possible to ‘escape’ the valley with a vehicle without being seen by anyone. Our teenage motorcrosser Melvin certainly did so and told the media about it.
Although it is clearly possible I think it ‘unlikely’ rather than ‘probable’ because numbers 1 and 2 on your list have failed to come forward to the authorities.
http://www.parentdish.co.uk/2013/12/17/distraught-teen-killed-himself-after-accidentally-shooting-dad/?ncid=webmail9
A 14-year-old boy on a hunting trip accidentally shot his dad and was so distraught he turned the gun on himself.
The pair had been enjoying a father-and-son day out, hunting in Sourribes, in the Alpes-de-Haute Provence in France, when the teenager slipped on leaves and pulled the trigger, shooting his 42-year-old dad in the legs.
According to The Telegraph, Stéphane Kellenberger, prosecutor, said: “It’s a hunting accident caused unintentionally by the boy who, realising the irreversible consequences [of his action], turned the weapon on himself and killed himself.”
Max Isoard, the president of the hunters of Haute-Provence, said unfortunately in this case a gun ended up in the hands of a child when you need to be at least 15 years old to hunt with an adult and hold a special permit.
Good In Parts
18 Dec, 2013 – 11:59 pm sorry for over simplifying but I don’t think I am far off if what we have been told is the truth, the whole truth,and nothing but the truth. (Of course we haven’t!)
Good In Parts
18 Dec, 2013 – 11:59 pm I agree it was easy to escape the Combe without being seen – BUT NOT FROM THE MURDER SCENE! One road. People above. People below. WBM arrives only MOMENTS after the shooting. Think about it. Again I stress this is based on what we’ve been TOLD. Problem is which ever way you look at it, what we’ve been told doesn’t work.
“However, the dual death is just the latest in a long list of hunting accidents in France in recent months.
On Sunday, a 58-year old died from head injuries after a fellow hunter shot him in Harnes in the Pas-de-Calais area, northern France.
In October, a 61-year-old French hunter accidentally killed his own son after mistaking him for a wild boar. In the same week, a six-year-old boy died in the north of France, days after being shot during a hunt.
And in September, a 82-year-old deaf hunter wounded two mushroom pickers, one of them critically, after mistaking them for a pheasant.
Anti-hunting groups are calling for the laws to be changed so that hunting is banned on Sundays, when ramblers are at risk, and for stricter safety measures.
There have been 179 hunting accidents in France over the past year, 21 of them fatal, according to the ONCFS.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/10521615/French-teenager-accidentally-shoots-father-dead-and-turns-gun-on-himself.html
Who was the male victim? Name not given. Why? Just the French natural reticence?
21 fatal shooting ACCIDENTS folks. No problems then.
@ Tim V 19 Dec, 2013 – 12:13 am
“I agree it was easy to escape the Combe without being seen – BUT NOT FROM THE MURDER SCENE! One road. People above. People below. WBM arrives only MOMENTS after the shooting.”
Oh I agree it would be more difficult to do so from the murder scene than some arbitary location in the forest picked at random, but it would still be possible in my view.
One could even argue that the 4×4 ‘escaped’ without being seen. After all there were no sightings of it after the murder.
You say “One road” – well I think in terms of a topology diagram. So the hairpin corner is a node with three roads linking to it. Approx 100m south is another node where the footbridge crosses the river. Approx 300m north of Le Martinet is another node, the second hairpin, where the upper parallel track branches off. So in summary, within 300m radius are 5 possible exit routes.
Five escape routes, thats not too shabby, almost like someone picked the place. . .
You also wrote “People above” can you please expand on this because I think I must have missed something.
P.S. just re-read what I wrote and I dont want to seem like I am picking an argument.
My view is that what looks like ‘luck’ or ‘impossible coincidence’ on closer inspection may in fact be professionalism or planning, albeit hasty last minute planning.
GiP and tim
Whatever. However what is for sure: local people must be involved in the planning.
The streets and the mountain region are too far off for accidentally being used for a crime by strangers who dont know the environment.
Without at least one local person involved into the planning this is an impossible task.
The question:
Who were the local people?
Local people who work for french security service?
Local people who work for MI6?
Local people who are part of a local vendetta?
Local drug dealers?
Local Kurdish Baybasin clan members (Havutcu)?
Any other local people missing who would have had a reason for taking part in the planning and preparation?
Bluebird
19 Dec, 2013 – 6:27 am
I’m thinking about all those hunting fatalities. Given the competence of the French police I wonder if it might not be a reasonable supposition that at least some of these were not “accidental”? Indeed possibly even good cover for “vendetta”? I’m wondering the names/nationalities/backgrounds of the unfortunate accident victims including the most recent mentioned above?
Good In Parts
19 Dec, 2013 – 2:01 am. NP. It’s good to test ideas in amicable spirit. None of the “alternative routes” lend themselves to vehicle escape apparently. In any event how within time frame and locality to fit another vehicle completely unseen entering or leaving? Remember the murderers could have made their escape only MOMENTS before WBM arrives.
As to the “people above the crime scene” we have at least THREE government employees, not including the farmers and any possible hikers/tourists possibly known to police but not us. The forestry guys were virtually kept secret by EM as was the alleged sightings and photo fit. However if we are to believe the very belated (12 months) and suspicious English/Panorama forestry source, he was “above” the biker as was his two colleagues, both of whom witnessed and even interviewed the biker.
The biker was first seen at the lay-by by him it is claimed but no mention of others in the lay-by. By this we would have to conclude he saw the al Hillis there but remained silent (which is frankly unbelievable) OR the victims had not yet arrived OR he is lying. We know for sure this is at the time of the murders or just before because he claims only a few moments later he passes the 4X4 on its way up and the police have given a firm time frame for this.
So then, again if we believe this source, the biker must have made his way up the Combe to be stopped by the second forestry vehicle with two employees. Now if the biker is the murderer he must have already have carried out the act, yet nothing suspicious about his behaviour or person, including blood splatter I would suggest. Further he is apparently turned back and escorted down the Combe, it being illegal for him to be there.
Leaving aside the the likelihood that a desperate gunman would have dispatched the two forestry men as well to make good his escape and avoid identification, we are now faced with the inexplicable conundrum of the biker and second forestry team returning down the Combe that MUST take them past the massacre scene by now. They could not have missed it. This has never been claimed and raises all sorts of obvious issues previously discussed not least that they would have been on scene or arrived in WBM’s statement.
Hope this answers your question.
@ Tim V 19 Dec, 2013 – 3:02 pm
Ok thanks for detailing your view of events Tim. I think we just have to respectfully agree to disagree because my understanding of the order of events is significantly different.
For instance bluebird in his post upthread on 17 Dec, 2013 – 2:11 pm refers to the BBC story and quotes:-
“They told me they passed the motorbike I had passed at Place Martinet – two bends further up.”They had words with him because motor vehicles aren’t allowed. So they called out to him and asked him to drive down.”
Now my interpretation is that they didn’t really do anything else. I also think (based on original BM interview)
that ONF2 went down the valley ahead of the MC. I think that the MC initially pootled down as far as the carpark and let the ONF2 vehicle drive off.
However, I do think that whatever it is the ONF2 saw is something that they do not wish to be made public.
Good In Parts
20 Dec, 2013 – 11:56 pm I have never had a problem with good mannered disagreement here and I respect your opinion. Further, you may well be closer to the truth than I. I emphasise I am trying to make rational conclusions on the back of what we have been told. It does not purport to substantiate the truthfulness of it. Indeed if the logical reasoning does not fit, it suggests the opposite – that the version of events reported is unreliable.
So what were we told in the new Panorama revelations and how do they fit with what we think we know from previous reports from official and other sources as reported by the media?
We have ONF1’s testimony that he passed the motor cyclist parked up at the lay-by with helmet on so he couldn’t identify him. He doesn’t say that he had been PREVIOUSLY stopped and identified by ONF2 so from this I deduce the ONF2 meeting with him had to be AFTERWARDS and importantly AFTER the time of the killing.
Why can we make this assumption? Because if we can believe the police we can fairly accurately pinpoint the TIME of ONF1’s observation – although he doesn’t give it to us. It must be about 3.15 pm because he passes that 4×4 on the way up and we have a precise time for that – “3.20 one kilometre up the Combe”. So on this reckoning if the witnesses of shots can be relied upon (3.30) he sees the motor cyclist at the lay by BEFORE the shooting takes place.
Now note he doesn’t refer to anyone else in the lay-by at 3.15. Does this mean no one else was there, or he hasn’t bothered to tell us? If no one else was there at this time it of course means that the Al Hillis arrived AFTER 3.15 (indeed after 3.30 because we have to allow him to leave the Combe completely without seeing them!) or they were there and for some reason he has withheld that bit of crucial information for some reason.
Of course if the Al Hillis were NOT at the lay-by at 3.15 it raises other awkward logistical questions that must be answered.
ONF1 passes the 4×4 but he makes no mention of passing the Al Hillis BMW as he most surely would have if he had. So on the basis of this, we can say with some certainty that SAH could not have entered the Combe until AFTER about 3.25 (i.e. five minutes after he passes the 4×4 and travels a further 1 K to exit the Combe)
Now this version raises TWO fundamental problems: first the evidence of the builders that SAH passed them before 3.0 on the way up and second and perhaps even more persuasive, that if this account is true they had to be BEHIND the 4×4 and there JUST ISN’T TIME for them to enter the Combe post 3.25, drive 3 kilometres to Martinet, park up neatly, get out of the car and carry out the avoidance attempt backing the car, all before the shooting ceases around 3.30!
We can only conclude the more likely explanation is that if ONF1 did indeed see motorcyclist at 3.15 and 4×4 at 3.20, the Al Hillis WERE also in the lay-by at the time but for some reason he hasn’t reported them being there. This could be because it specifically contradicts EM’s version of events that the shooting started immediately SAH arrived at or about 3.30.
Before we leave ONF1’s version of events, we should perhaps note there is no reference to him passing SM or WBM on their way up or indeed of the anonymous OAP cyclist who apparently arrived soon after the shooting either, from whom we have heard absolutely nothing. This at the very least must be considered an important oversight!
Now as to ONF2 there are basically two alternatives as to when they met the motor cyclist: it was either BEFORE ONF1 spotted him at 3.15 or AFTER.
It is unlikely that they overtook one another. A criminal having carried out an heinous crime is unlikely to have precipitated a meeting, nor would a truck likely catch and over-take a fleeing two wheel motorcycle. We are told the motorcyclist was travelling away from Martinet which also rules out a meeting before ONF1 sees him.
So putting all this together, I can only conclude the ONF2 meeting was HEAD-ON – ONF2 heading towards Martinet and the cyclist away – AFTER ONF1 has seen him. If, EM and the French police are right that he was their chief suspect, this must have been AFTER HE HAD SHOT FOR PEOPLE DEAD and seriously injured a child! Yet as I said earlier, no physical or emotional hint of suspicion to wily ONF employees!
He would have had therefore to have been a very cool customer when he met the two ONF2 officers. We know this was more than just a passing meeting because his helmet was undone and they could create an “identikit” picture of his facial features. They surely could not have advised him to go down and that motorcycles were illegal without him stopping and appearing co-operative.
Which way did they escort him down or did they allow him to continue the way he was going? The most obvious was surely back past Martinet? If so they must have passed the carnage there which they could not have missed yet no mention of it.
However if they didn’t escort him back down via Martinet we have the inconvenient “truth” of WBM’s witness statement from the beginning that a motor cyclist passed him in the opposite direction before he arrived at the murder scene. If this wasn’t the same motor cyclist leaving the scene by way of Chevaline, we have another motor cyclist unaccounted for – unlikely I would suggest.
If there were less obvious explanations surely the French would have laid it all out. As usual with this story, the obscuration must be intentional and none of the news outlets pose the necessary questions. The almighty STINK continues unabated.
From all this I continue to suggest, as I have from the beginning, that the team consisted of at least three – motorcyclist and two in 4×4 seen racing towards the crime scene. My guess is that all the shooting was done by the occupants of the 4×4 and the motorcyclist fulfilled a passive spotting role simply because of his presumed appearance when ONF 1 and 2 came across him. He may well have played the intended, pre arranged “contact” and signalled all in place for the arrival of the killers in the 4×4. The time ONF 2 met him is critical to the time line. If as the police claim he was the killer, he could not have left the scene until 3.35 at the earliest. We would then have to allow five or ten minutes before he could meet ONF2 further up the pass. This would make their meeting at about 3.45. Then even a brief conversation of five minutes puts us past the alarm being raised at 3.48 which the Sapeurs-pompiers rather intriguingly pick up almost immediately on their radio. I am sure the ONF as quasi-enforcers would have had radios too.
A question I have raised many times before: was it the ONF guys who raised the alarm at 3.48 or someone else cause it certainly WASN’T WBM or PD/B.
Tim v
That conclusion is reasonable because Murat Sahin said that regarding the Paris killings the CCTV of the building must be fake or edited because there is only the killer to be seen although witnesses are talking about 3 people.
He said that they were trained in the secret service that assassinations had to be done by a team of three. He said that it is impossible that state sponsored assassinations would be done by one person only.
I did meanwhile investigate a little bit further regarding the reason based on the latest events. In a Turkish/PKK plot there was always missing the reason for an Iranian/Iraqi involvement of SAH and family.
I believe that tge latest regarding Halkbank could be a step forward for a connection.
Erdogan was doing shady business with Iran. The Halkbank had been warned by Israel and by the US for hurting UN resolutions. The halkbank was said of doing gold transactions and oil transactions with Iran against UN sanctions. Erdogan supported Aslan in doing this.
Check the “Halkbank” for more information.
But where’s the PKK and the western/pro israeli interest then?
This is Imam Fethullah Gülen. He lives in Pennsylvania and he is a CIA/Israel assett.
In Turkey insiders are calling him the most powerful muslim in the world using a network in almost every country in this world and to be the most dangerous “sleeper” of western intelligence since Ayatollah Khomeini.
Since Erdogan is seeking business relationships with Iran and China, Gülen’s people are supporting USA/Israel and Saudi Arabian interests.
Gülen’s/CIAs Hizmet did support AKP and it was part of the AKP but since some time “war” broke out between Gülen and Erdokan for power in Turkey.
Gülen’s people control MIT (turkish secret service, police and justice). The military had been weakened with CIA support and Ergenokon plot (Gülen/CIA was behind that). The rest of the military is not on Erdokan’s side but they are Kemalists.
Erdogan knows that in turkey he has no armed forces who would protect him versus Gülen.
That is the reason why Erdogan was settling peace talks with PKK. He needs armed forces to protect him and Iranian intetests in a possible civil war.
Gülen’s people and CIA try to interrupt those peace talks to prevent Erdokan/Iran being protected by Kurdish forces.
Behind this background we have to see the Paris killings.
One Turkish state attorney said that whoever is violating Gülen’s/CIAs interest will be killed or finished off completely. This is true.
Recently Erdogan tried to close Gülen’s islamic Derwish schools were Gülen’s elite is being produced. Now Gülen strikes back.
Gülen tries to prevent Erdogan’s peace plans with PKK to become real. Therefore the killings and the attempt to destroy Erdogan’s Iranian contacts and money flows.
We can therefore assume that the Gülen network, Turkish secret service MIT and CIA support were behind the Paris killings and possibly behind the Haute Savoie killings, too. Of course there is a possibility that a drug mafia inside the PKK would not want peace either since peace would hurt their business. There is a possibility that such criminals would support MIT and Gülen, too.
The near future will show about how the Gülen-Erdogan war will emerge and this will possibly solve the Chevaline riddle, too.
I was unable to find a SAH/Saffar link to Halkbank so far, but there could be something.
In regards to the latest events (see my post above) the below has to be considered.
There is a war Erdogan+PKK+Iran+China versus Gülen+USA+Israel going on since 2010.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/turkey/10386944/Turkeys-Recep-Tayyip-Erdogan-tipped-Iran-off-about-Mossad-agents.html
Turkey’s relations with Israel have become so strained that its prime minister deliberately blew the cover of Mossad agents in Iran to the authorities in Tehran, according to new claims.Recep Tayyip Erdogan, acting through his powerful secret service chief, gave the Iranian government details of meetings that took place on Turkish soil between the Iranians and their Israeli Mossad handlers, a report in the Washington Post claimed. Turkey rejected the claims.
It’s against all the rules which have existed for many years, the unwritten rules concerning cooperation between intelligence organisations that reveal sensitive information to one another and trust one another not to use that information to harm whoever gave it to them,” he told Israeli radio.At the time of the Mavi Marmara incident, the defence minister, Ehud Barak, warned that a breakdown in relations with Turkey could risk Israeli intelligence assets. Less than two years later, Iranian media reported the arrests of 15 people, both Iranian and foreign, accused of being Mossad agents and responsible in part for a string of attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists.The reports said they were linked to an Israeli “spy base in a neighbouring country”.
Erdogan wants US ambassador to leave country:http://www.todayszaman.com/news-334605-erdogan-implies-to-expel-us-ambassador.html
Reza Zarrab is one of the arrested billionairs who did that shady gold for oil and gold for weapons/nuclear business with Iran. Israel was upset. Erdogan did backup this shady biz.
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/business/2012/09/gold-laundering-behind-mind-boggling-iran-turkey-trade-increase.html
Note the date of that blog. Sept 8 2012.
It was publicly revealed shortly before that date in the turkish original.
Note the dates when the probes regarding this shady criminal multi billion iran business were opened. This is stuff for a thriller.
Zarrab allegedly transferred gold to Iran in exchange for money in 2012 with the help of his relations with a number of top politicians. In April 2011, Turgut Happani, who was Zarrab’s driver, was among the 14 people detained for smuggling $150 million in cases from Turkey to Russia. Happani also shared a picture of himself and two others holding a mountain of dollars on his Facebook page. At that time, Zarrab said he knew Happani, but denied the claims that he was his driver and filed a complaint against media outlets that published his name in the smuggling report. After the seizure of the money in Russia, Zarrab allegedly used Turkey’s state owned bank Halkbank when sending or receiving money. Meanwhile, police seized $4.5 million in cash on the morning of Dec. 18 as part of a fraud and bribery raid in the house of Süleyman Aslan, the general manager of the state-run lender Halkbank. The illegal transactions with Iran amount to almost $10 million, daily Radikal reported on Dec. 18. Around 32 people are detained as part of this probe. Radikal also said Zarrab had chosen Halkbank for transfers as Halkbank had no branches in the United States and would not be blacklisted by that country for transferring money to Iran.
The three probes were opened on Sept. 13, 2012, Sept 21, 2012 and Feb. 14, 2013, the statement added. One of these probes is being conducted by a public prosecutor from the Public Servant Crimes Investigation Department, while the other two are being managed by another prosecutor working at the Smuggling and Narcotics Bureau.
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/details-revealed-about-turkeys-ongoing-graft-probe-.aspx?pageID=238&nID=59792&NewsCatID=341
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25437624
http://www.worldbulletin.net/?aType=haber&ArticleID=125437
That thriller continues ….
http://www.worldbulletin.net/?aType=haber&ArticleID=125412
It has been reported that the United States ambassador to Turkey Francis Ricciardone said, ‘now you will see the fall of an empire,’ referring to the recent scandal that has seen the general manager of Turkey’s Halkbank, Suleyman Aslan, arrested.According to a report in Turkey’s Star newspaper, the U.S. ambassador is reported to have said these words at a dinner meeting with a group of European diplomats on December 17.The United States and Israel have been accused by some commentators of being behind the recent Turkish corruption case, which has primarily targeted Halkbank for supposedly breaching international sanctions against Iran.U.S.-based pro-Israeli lobby group AIPAC recently put pressure on the U.S. Congress to act againstHalkbank for giving Iran access to world oil markets, resulting in 47 neo-con congressmen writing letters to the U.S. Foreign Ministry and Treasury calling for Halkbank to be punished.At the same time, a document dating back from 2009 has been revealed by Wikileaks, detailing a meet that took place between U.S. Treasury intelligence agent David Cohen and Halkbank representatives, in which Halkbank was warned over its dealings with Iran. Cohen reportedly told Halkbank not to loosen the flow of money to Iran as sanctions were still ongoing.
http://washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-turkey-blows-israels-cover-for-iranian-spy-ring/2013/10/16/7d9c1eb2-3686-11e3-be86-6aeaa439845b_story.html
The Netanyahu-Erdogan quarrel, with its overlay of intelligence thrust and parry, is an example of the kaleidoscopic changes that may be ahead in the Middle East. The United States, Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are all exploring new alliances and struggling to find a new equilibrium — overtly and covertly.
Israeli intelligence had apparently run part of its Iranian spy network through Turkey, which has relatively easy movement back and forth across its border with Iran. The Turkish intelligence service, known as theMilli Istihbarat Teskilati, or MIT, conducts aggressive surveillance inside its borders, so it had the resources to monitor Israeli-Iranian covert meetings.
The astonishing rise in gold trade between Turkey and Iran of late has been interpreted by some as Turkey paying with gold for the oil it buys from Iran. Others surmised that Iran was preparing for war by stocking up on gold.
Royal Maritime and Industrial Machinery Industry Corporation set up in Istanbul added “gold” to its name and announced in the Commercial Register Journal of Oct. 27, 2011. The new name of the company was thereafter Royal Maritime Industrial Machinery and Precious Ores Industry Corporation. Reza Zarrab already had a jewelry company in Istanbul.$6 billion worth of gold exports
According to official Turkish Statistical Institution data, between January 2012 and July 2012, Turkey exported $8.8 billion worth of gold and precious stones. In the same period of 2011 the total was $1.8 billion. That is a $7 billion upsurge in gold and precious stones exports. Turkey’s overall exports to Iran in the first seven months of this year was $8 billion, while it was only $2 billion in the same period of 2011. It is believed that gold is the main source of this bewildering increase. According to current prices, one ton of gold sells for $54 million. It’s $6 billion for 110 tons of gold.
Thus, in July 2012 Iran became Turkey’s biggest trading partner, with a 295% increase. Gold and precious stones exports with a 371% increase became the number one trade item. Imports of gold and precious stones to Turkey in the meanwhile increased by 98% and became the third most-imported commodity.
*The gold bought through companies registered in Turkey is not taken only to Iran but also sold in United Arab Emirates. It is all about arbitrage, that is, the profit made from differences in parities.
Read more:
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/business/2012/09/gold-laundering-behind-mind-boggling-iran-turkey-trade-increase.html#ixzz2o9DsKUsr
@ Tim V
You say ‘the motorcyclist fulfilled a passive spotting role’. I tend to agree. I think that was likely the plan.
Whether any such spotting role was so disrupted by the ONF that a massacre was precipitated is another question.
And yes, the motorcyclist certainly was a cool customer.
One possibility that occurs to me is that EM came to think that MC was likely ‘one of their own’ i.e. an ex police officer, probably an ex motorcycle cop.
This would make a much more compelling reason to not release the ‘robot’ picture than that proffered. They would want to know whether he was now working for some other arm of the French state.
It seriously worries me that this case is being investigated by Le Gendarmerie, which is part of the French Defence Ministry.
Question
Does anybody know what “Poor Saffar” or “Pour Saffar” means in Farsi. Is this the Farsi translation of “al Saffar” ?
I dont know. If this would be the same name then i might be on a hot track.
Unquestionably believe that that you said. Your favourite reason seemed
to be oon the web the easiest factor to understand of.
I say to you, I certainly get annoyed even as other
people consider worries that they justt do not
recognise about. You controlled to hitt the nakl uppon the highest as neatly as defined out the entire thing witthout having side-effects ,
other folks could take a signal. Will likely be bawck to
get more. Thanks
@ TimV/Good in parts:
Or, the forestry workers version of events are part of a muddying of waters, new script revision by that well know arm of the home office: certain elements of the BBC. Why else wouldn’t these witnesses and their identikit be mentioned for over 12 months? That is also the most likely reason they have not been properly identified?
Also, anything that Brent Martin says that is truthful must be considered an entirely a random, intermittent artifact, to anybody, like us, that does not know exactly what happened. His back ground, the way the media treats him and most damming, the way he was invited to leave France within hours of the crime, for which he was obviously then, and still is, a serious suspect.
I believe you are now highly likely to be discussing the illusionist’s feints, props and post-trick spin rather than what happened.
Intp1
22 Dec, 2013 – 5:06 pm I couldn’t agree more. As I said, I was analysing a version of events as much to show they were illogical as to justify them. It is quite possible that the story of the second ONF is a feint to put the motor cyclist in a different location or just to muddy the waters as you say. The thing is, if the motor bike was up the pass at about 3.45 he couldnt be passing WBM on the way down as by any calculation, WBM arrived on scene at 3.35 at the latest. Put another way if a 4×4 and motor bike passed WBM as he says before he arrived on scene, it couldnt possibly have been the alleged motor cyclist alleged to have been met by ONF 2. Further on the basis of the timings if the ONF1 story is reliable, WBM would have to have been pass THREE times by a 4×4. First by ONF1 going down the Combe. (Indeed at one stage I believe EM suggested it was the ONF vehicle that passed him) Then by the alleged BMWX5 going up, that ONF1 claims to have passed. Then the third time when the BMWX5 left the scene (after the killing) which with motor bike in tow, passed him again on the way down. As I said before, if the two ONC vehicle story, which suspiciously comes from the British Panorama programme rather than the French side, is true, and WBM’s story is true (both of which are dubious) then there would have to have been at least two motor cyclists not one. EM must know this, which rather makes his opinion that there was only one motor cyclist, also his chief murder suspect, typically inane. Also as I have said many times, had the French Prosecutor wanted to, he could have definitively cleared up the time line and who came and went. That he has failed to do so, even at the press conference ostensibly convened for that purpose, is incriminating in itself. The stories that have been put out by French and British simply cannot be made to fit. They are internally and externally inconsistent. Nor should we ever forget the the panic stricken escaping Peugeot driver, if that can be relied upon, that EM has conveniently and incredibly dismissed as irrelevant.
@ Tim V
“then there would have to have been at least two motor cyclists not one.”
Indeed. For a long time I was fond of a 2 MC theory. Oddly enough I have just recently talked myself out of it, having realised that some of the ‘supporting evidence’ was doubtful and may have been distorted by translation issues (i.e. Jeanin).