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?
Sorry, Bluebird
6 Jan, 2014 – 12:28 pm I missed that critical bit of info somehow but reassuring that it tends to support my interpretation of the photo posted soon after it became available.
Pink
6 Jan, 2014 – 3:49 am I have no reason to change the view I published in Sept 2012 that SAH’s car was always parked in the location where it is shown in the aerial photo. There are reports that BOTH SAH and SM were shot in the back, from which we may conjecture both had moments of realisation and were heading away from the shooter. It seems that if SM was the recipient of the first shots, this gave SAH just enough time to race back to the car, probably over the bonnet where there is slight photographic evidence of denting. In this process I believe he was shot in the back. It would also explain the damage to the windscreen as the shooter followed SAH back to the driver’s seat. The windscreen as distinct to the side windows is laminated not toughened, hence the fact it did not shatter, but aided by the fact that those were glancing blows I believe. SAH must have been in pain from at least one shot, but he was still able to get into the car, start it up (I doubt he had left it running) and engaged reverse gear, before either the initial shooter or a second shooter, manages to get to the driver’s side, for the deadly head shots. From this point on the car reverses out of control and SAH’s right leg must be in spasm on the accelerator or the engine would have undoubtedly stalled. WBM confirms high revs as he comments on the noise of the engine and how all returned to silence when he turned off the engine. One assumes that if the rear wheel had not dug itself a hole and it had not been still in reverse gear the car might have rolled forward with the slight gradient, towards the river. If the police report is reliable that all bullets came from one weapon, a second shooter is ruled out. However given at least two magazine changes required using a Luger, both timings and locations is quite a tall order. If he came out shooting from the top as has been suggested, the cartridges would certainly not be where we have been told they were (near off side) and ten more under or inside the car. Further with seven injuries in SM, two of which were return shots to the head, so initially five there, we only have a further THREE available before a change of magazine would be required. This makes no allowance for missed shots including the windscreen pings. So IF only one gun and one shooter was involved, this MAY have provided sufficient delay for SAH to start his manoeuvre. Unlike this latest French film that sticks to the discredited notion that the car was at the top of the layby, the above interpretation can be made to fit.
Access to that French TV web site is now being denied to me! Strange I could access it before. Do others have a similar problem?
Squonk now back online. Problem was with freenom nameservers. I was worried they had maybe gone bust but thankfully not!
http://squonk.tk/blog/
Too heavy for me in here..Jeezo man…Somthing Fishy going down though…But why this ONE thread.
@Tim
If the car never moved across the lay by how did Sm get dragged ,we
eventually tracked down the photo with the bike where it is shown in graphic so that fits and the french police say he was dragged by
Sah’s car?
Did anybody see the french TV ?
Is there any new or altered information in that docu (except for the SM picture)?
Is it available somewhere on the web?
Bluebird, you’re supposed to be the smart search-chap on here! It took me some 5 minutes googling. First finding out the exact title of the programme via Google.fr, then entering the title + 2014 + YouTube in the search field and hitting ENTER, then choosing the one with the full programme (84 minutes).
Non élucidé : L’affaire De La Tuerie De Chevaline .
Unfortunately it seems to be divided up into several parts og 10 minutes lenght.
Bluebird, you’re supposed to be the smart search-chap on here! It took me some 5 minutes googling. First finding out the exact title of the programme via Google.fr, then entering the title + 2014 + YouTube in the search field and hitting ENTER, then choosing the one with the full programme (84 minutes).
Non élucidé : L’affaire De La Tuerie De Chevaline .
No, its the full episode 84 minutes, please ignore the last sentence in my prvious post.
But I’m afraid there are so many French word spoken — and very fast – so its difficult to get any wiser. We will need someone like the Canadian Q — or another French speaking like Katie — to produce a transcipt, which is probably too much to ask for, as it is very painstaking work.
I watched it BB and it looked very interesting but as I don’t understand any french it was a impossible to know if anything new came up, I am hoping that Max and co will fill us in if it did.
Hint as to where you can find links BTW.
Pink
8 Jan, 2014 – 4:30 am – First I don’t think we can believe a word that comes from the French. Too many reasons to list. This is not to say that some of what they have stated MAY be accurate. Now as regards to SM being dragged. First there is the conflict of evidence with WBM. You take your pick on this: either “no grazes” from WBH or “SM was dragged” from EM. What I think is fairly clear that if he had been dragged along the ground by a vehicle on that surface, he could not have escaped grazes that would have bled. Then again, if as I have argued, the theory that it was SAH’s car that did the big reverse manoeuvre that left the tyre marks, was impossible, then so is the theory that SM was dragged by SAH’s car. SAH’s car undoubtedly ONLY reversed for a short distance in a relatively STRAIGHT LINE. If so, there is no way SM could have been dragged by it and still end up in the position we know he did. It would be physically impossible. So if EM is right and SM WAS dragged by a vehicle, the only vehicle that mught have done it is the ATTACKER’S vehicle. Indeed I suggested the hypothesis over a year ago that the tyre marks are consistent with a vehicle attack that might have struck both SM and ZAH at or immediately prior to shots being fired. I believe the construction and interpretation put out by the French was to conceal the need for a vehicle which required additional persons to the “lone killer” or “lone motor-cyclist” so assiduously promoted by the French until contradicted by evidence produced by the British side. Make of this what you will! Regards, Tim.
Incidentally in a new twist, the Sunday Times and other papers have reported not only that SM may have been chief target, but even another extraordinary little detail that SM was called only “SECONDS” before he was shot! (Previously it was “on his way up the Combe”) If seconds it suggests she may have even heard the shots and any other associated sounds!
You will also notice details about the objective facts of the bullet injuries has changed AGAIN! SM is back to seven (7) bullet injuries from five(5) and now the three car victims are shot three (3) times each but only once(1) in the head. Previously this of course was each shot TWICE (2 times) in the head.
There is absolutely NO REASON why these details should keep changing as they would have been definitively established within days of the killing. So we now have sixteen (16) out of twenty one (21) finding their human target, from the original fifteen (15) increased to twenty five (25) fired! It leaves open the question of whether a separate or stray bullet hit Zainab (if one did) Nor does it wholly accord with the photographic evidence of the two front windows where at least four (4) bullet holes can still be seen, presumably directed at SAH. And if the car victims were shot only once in the head was the “double tap” story put out from the very beginning?
That these changes have come from a British source presumably at this late stage with no explanation, is frankly astounding.
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Crime/article1359387.ece
http://www.surreycomet.co.uk/archive/2014/01/06/10916194.Cyclist_emerges_as_possible_intended_target_in_Al_Hilli_murder_inquiry/?ref=arc has this:
“Cyclist emerges as possible intended target in Al-Hilli murder inquiry
A cyclist shot dead in the same incident as three members of a Claygate family could have been the intended target, a national newspaper has revealed.
Surrey Comet: Murdered: Saad Al-Hilli
Murdered: Saad Al-Hilli
The Sunday Times reported that an alleged vow of silence by those close to Frenchman Sylvain Mollier, 45, had fuelled claims that someone he knew wanted him dead.
Mr Mollier was found dead in the French Alps near Lake Annecy on September 5, 2012, alongside a BMW car, where Saad Al-Hilli, 50, of Oaken Lane, his wife Iqbal, 47, and her mother, Suhaila al-Allaf, 74, were also found dead.
The newspaper also reported that Mr Mollier was shot seven times. The Al-Hillis who were killed had been shot three times each, all once in the head.
The two Al-Hilli children, Zainab, then seven, and Zeena, then four, both survived the attack.
It was alleged Mr Mollier was involved in a dispute over a pharmacy business that was being transferred to his 30-year-old girlfriend by her parents and had left his job as a metalworker at a factory making nuclear components.
Police also uncovered romantic secrets Mollier of Mr Mollier and said he received a call from his ex-wife seconds before he died, it was reported.
The investigation into the deaths has focused on a dispute between Mr Al-Hilli and his brother, Zaid, 54, over their late father’s inheritance, but in a Panorama documentary shown on BBC last year, Zaid Al-Hilli said he had no idea who killed his brother.”
SSTL/DMCii were in the news yesterday ref satellite imaging of weather patterns.
UK floods prompt space charter activation
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25638840
http://www.dmcii.com/ home page
http://www.dmcii.com/?page_id=1838 the team
How could SM receive a call seconds before he died while WBM said that there was no signal in that area so that he could not call 112?
So then, did SM have a satellite phone or is it just another lie?
Thanks for that link, sorensen. Appreciated.
Absolutely Bluebird
8 Jan, 2014 – 9:27 pm. Perhaps one was with O2 and with Orange? Seriously though, in this case we have to decide between the most persuasive lies. “Seconds before he was shot”?!!!! If true, just think of the implications of that. So what did he actually say to his ex-wife? “Must dash. About to be shot”?
@ Tim V 8 Jan, 2014 – 3:26 pm
You wrote:-
“What I think is fairly clear that if he had been dragged along the ground by a vehicle on that surface, he could not have escaped grazes that would have bled.”
Not if he was already dead!
SM would not even need to be legally dead, just so traumatized that his peripheral circulation had effectively shut down.
Personally, my view is that the second tranche(*) of shots to SM were likely unnecessary, and thus done in ‘anger’.
Unfortunately, this does not inform as to whether SM was the principal target, because the ‘anger’ could simply be because SM interupted, and disrupted, the killer’s plan.
(*) I think the killer would have followed up with a shot to the head anyway, as with the other victims.
Good In Parts
8 Jan, 2014 – 11:26 pm I had considered discussing your point but didn’t. Let’s be clear about this. The only blood stains as far as we can see are on the near side of the car. If you are arguing he was shot some way away BEFORE being dragged by SAH’s car from the top of the layby to the bottom, there would be significant blood staining elsewhere and probably a trail marking the route to his final resting place. As you know I totally discount the theory that it was SAH’s car that did the big reverse but even if he did try as I may I cannot imagine a situation where both SAH and SM are together when first shot, SM falls somewhere on that radius route and the reversing car at speed does not drive over him but somehow pushes him to his final resting place where he bleeds profusely but not earlier and without any skin grazing. This is simply quite impossible. Ref. “bleeding” generally you say “Not if he was dead”. Clearly he did bleed in the location shown. If there is trauma and the heart is still beating, blood will still flow. Even when the heart stops blood may still ooze until natural clotting takes place. But even were you right there was no blood loss – and remember he was in cycling gear not layers of clothing – it is quite impossible he could be dragged without significant grazing of exposed skin. From every point of view, being hit and dragged by SAH’s car, is the most unlikely of hypotheses to explain a blunt injury to SM’s chest/abdomen.
@ Tim V 9 Jan, 2014 – 12:27 am
“. . try as I may I cannot imagine a situation where both SAH and SM are together when first shot, SM falls somewhere on that radius route and the reversing car at speed does not drive over him but somehow pushes him to his final resting place where he bleeds profusely but not earlier and without any skin grazing. This is simply quite impossible. Ref. “bleeding” generally you say “Not if he was dead”. Clearly he did bleed in the location shown. If there is trauma and the heart is still beating, blood will still flow.”
Indeed, you are right, it did look from the enhanced photographs that there had been bleeding at the location shown. I had neglected to account for that.
However, as I wrote in my previous post “SM would not even need to be legally dead, just so traumatized that his peripheral circulation had effectively shut down.”
The key word here being peripheral. The body is prioritising wounds.
So, taking your point into account, he is still alive but in deep shock. He is then shot again and bled out.
There may be a bit of a terminological issue going on here, I think my view is very likely in accordance with BM’s view as a cyclist.
Essentially a cyclist, after that amount of exertion, who then dismounts is still going to have a high heart rate and is going to have highly oxygenated blood. Thus BM’s expectation (likely from experience) is that minor superficial injuries like ‘gravel rash’ produce a large livid, bright scarlet, wound.
That BM did not see that gives us some information.
Brett Martin is the good old brit taking his old phone with him whenever he goes out on a sweaty ride on his MTB, thinking that it doesn’t mstter if coverage diappears for a few minutes while he is going through a spot with weal coverage, while SM is the slick operative who consider it imperative [for reasons best known to himself] that he is online constantly.
@ bluebird 8 Jan, 2014 – 9:27 pm
If the LR phonecall to SM was only seconds before he was shot, doesn’t that reveal when the shooting took place? (unless it is UK journo mistake)
What was the timing of the phone call? I can’t find it now.
GiP
What hasnt been told regarding the phone call should be cinsidered, too.
There was a phone call recorded in his phone (time stamp)
Therefore they must know the very minute of his death. Why?
Was the phone destroyed by a bullet or by a car?
Was the phone call stopped during talking to his ex wife?
If so, the very second of his stopping the phone call will be recorded both on his ex wife’s phone and at his ISPs data storage.
Was a watch of one if the victims destroyed?
Was the shooting recorded?
Are there other witnesses?
Why can they say “seconds before he was killed” if they did not know a certain time as per yet?
Was the phone call just an attempt to call him (recorded as an attempt due to lack of signal) or did he actually talk to his ex wife on the phone?
I can hardly believe that you would or even could take a phone call while you are climbing a hill on a bike. This is strange.
So we must assume – if he did really talk on the phone – that he stopped for the call.
If he had stopped and if he wasnt the intended target, why didnt tge killer wait until he had left? If this is what they say then he did not come to that scene unexpectedly because he was already there.
@ Bluebird
I think we have been here before – check out
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/not-forgetting-the-al-hillis/comment-page-88/#comment-427952
Apparently the origin of this was a tweet by Jean-Marc Ducos which translates as:-
“Sylvain Mollier was on the phone with his ex-wife right before he died”
I suspect that the latest UK reports of “seconds” before he was shot may be a mis-translation of the french “right before he died”.
the untimely death of Paul Goggins looks to have robbed the UK of a very dedicated public servant – RIP
@ Mary 8 Jan, 2014 – 7:19 pm
Re your post about Saad’d work with DMC and Surrey Satellite Tech.
Thanks for reminding us all of that. IIRC it was first reported by the Daily Mail. Then, . . well nothing nada rien.
It seemed odd at the time, but there was so much else way more suspicious in play.
So, the key question is what was Saad doing at that meeting with DMC?
To clarify, we have been told over and over again that Saad was simply a mechanical engineer with excellent CAD skills who worked as a contractor for SST.
There was absolutely no reason to send someone with those skills, carrying out that role, to a meeting with DMC. None.
So we are either being lied to or Saad was doing other things.
Good In Parts
9 Jan, 2014 – 10:01 am PRECISELY! Next question how do they KNOW it was “only seconds before”? This suggests they know PRECISELY the time he was shot either because they just DO, (I.e from some other reliable reference point/source) of because his ex-wife’s call was actually interrupted by shooting!!! Again this highlights the lack of candour displayed by the unreliable prosecutor.
Of the possibility also exists that the “seconds before” story is itself unreliable and just another of those little annoying “give-aways” by the other side. But after fifteen months?
Sorry BB (Bluebird
9 Jan, 2014 – 2:03 pm) for repeating the points you made earlier. Thing is I have this habit of reading the latest post and working BACKWARDS! (it could be years of accident investigation) so I have just come across it. So mine was not conscious plagiarism at least! “Great minds” and all that!!!!
BBC Inside Out films at DMCii
The BBC visited DMCii on Thursday to interview our Managing Director Dave Hodgson and our Imaging Campaign Manager Kimberley Wilson about the way that our satellite imagery, as part of the International Charter, has helped to the UK’s Environment Agency monitor the recent UK floods.
http://www.dmcii.com/?p=9896
UN REDD countries 2013 coverage [Limited time offer]
http://www.dmcii.com/?p=9772
The following extract comes from an article that suggests Masonic symbolism ran through the JFK murder. It is a dangerous area to stray into and of questionable credence, but I thought some of the Chevaline resonances might be of interest to some. Full article at http://www.watchmenfaithministries.com/images/King_Kill_33__masonic_symbolism_behind_assassination_of_JFK___1998___incomplete_.pdf
“Bouvier means “cowherder” and “Look” maga-
zine has traced this family to Grenoble, France
where their first mention appears in 1410. “Jack-
ie’s” great-great-grandfather, Eustache Bouvier,
fought in a French regiment under the command
of George Washington while his elder brother
Joseph remained in France.
‘Look’ magazine located Mrs. Kennedy’s Bouvier
relatives in “the ancestral town” and the incon-
trovertible evidence of who they were brought
them great relief and much joy because, as
“Mama” Bouvier put it: “We know what they have
been whispering about us. We had to swallow our
tongues. Now they can say no more”.
Arrangements were made for a delegation of
Bouviers to journey to Paris and meet with their
famous relation while the President was conferring
with de Gaulle. During this period a painting of the
renowned Pont St. Esprit, located in ancestral
Bouvier country was painted by the brother-in-law
of Marcel Bouvier and shipped to the White House.
This “Spirit Bridge” is equated with the “Bridge of
Souls” which in turn linked with the “Bridge of
Dread”, “Baine Bridge”, “Log of Lerma”, “Al
Sirat” and “Cinvato Paratu”. Such bridges are
symbolically associated with death and crossing
them can be a difficult and harrowing experience.
(Cf. Poe’s “Never Bet the Devil Your Head” and
Kipling’s “The Man Who Would Be King”).
Two French radio reporters drove Marcel and 18
yr. old Danielle Bouvier to the Paris reception for
themselves and the Kennedys. After traveling some
hundred miles their car struck a tree and Danielle
was killed. With her had been a beribboned box
which contained a gift for the First Lady, to whom
it was addressed as “For my dear cousin”; inside
was a tiny nightingale “broken in its gilded cage”.
Danielle is the feminine form of Daniel and
Daniel is a Hebrew word meaning “God is my
judge”.
News reports failed to mention the type of tree
involved in the crash which took away “Danielle”
and ruined her nightingale. Whether or not it was a
thorn tree of the rowan type, legend has it that a
nightingale sings with its breast pressed against a
thorn.
Another story with a nightingale theme is the
tale of Tereus, King of Thrace, who wanted to
make love to Philomela, the sister of his wife,
Procne. Philomela was eventually forced to submit
to Tereus who removed her tongue so that she
could not relate what happened. By weaving a
cloak in which she described the horrors to which
she had been subjected and by having it delivered
to Procne great tragedy and hysteria ensued.
Procne seized her son Itys by Tereus and, after
cooking him, served the meat to her husband.
Tereus discovered the deception and murder and
pursued the women, one of whom was transformed
into a swallow and the other into a nightingale.
Tereus was; changed into a “hoopoe”. The god
Zeus effected the transformations. The myth is
allegedly an explanation for the melacholia of the
song of the nightingale.”