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?
Tim V 12:36 am – thanks plenty for the detailed reply and the recap (and sorry for having to repeat things you said before – but that sometimes is useful too, as one never says the same things twice, at least not exactly, and at least if they are not a bot, as I most surely believe you are not**).
Indeed you are right – I still very much believe we are witnessing a cross-agency “battle”, though I wish I knew what the goals of the British side are. Rankling the French is surely a joy in and of itself, but that alone is not quite enough, is it? neither can the Brits disclose what they really know openly, whatever the impediments may be. Yet, based upon your analysis of the Panorama report, we may be witnessing an escalation in the british response. This time – not just some hints, but actually damning information. If they went as far as to make available an “actor” pretending to be ONF, this is indicative of an extremely serious falling-out with the French. EM perhaps made some promises he couldn’t keep, or there could have been an ultimatum from the rather miffed British side relating to some matter other than Chevaline. In any case, it seems likely that the press conference did not live up to british expectations, somehow.
My theories on this (the following are all speculations – in sequence):
1. The French were expected to provide a “patsy” – one that the incident could be pinned on. But it couldn’t be any old patsy – had to be one of their own – like an ONF person or a cop. That must have been the price. But at the time of the press conference it was nada – no pound of real flesh offered in atonement for French participation/know-how of what was going down.
2. Also, the Brits may have wanted something in return for their silence. Something more than just holding on to Ziad and the girls. This something could bwell e from the third agency involved, not necessarily the French. None of that was forthcoming.
3. Either way, if as you propose (most convincingly), the panorama report was a British response, then from the seriousness of the new details offered, they must have made it amply clear that they are not going away and letting Chevaline become a cold cold case. That must have forced the French hand into producing the eFit, followed more than a month later by the arrest of ED. may be the French had ED in mind all along as the “sacrifice”. May be they figured, ED is enough of an insider (ex-cop!) to satisfy the brits.
4. But alas, it wasn’t enough and the french failed to do the “pinning” of the blame. Result? Brits remain miffed, threatening further escalation in revelations.
5. Next up – the release of that video with Sylvain’s body on the side of the car, directly contradicting the previous French (Pasrisien among others) reenactments (that for some reason always placed Sylvain on the driver’s side along with bike). Plus the new happy family photo. I am pretty sure this release (now recorded for posterity thanks to the DM) did not please the French one bit. My guess? they are scrambling big time as we speak.
6. Katie above and Q pointed out the incomprehensible aspects of the Al Hillis’ attire. Wrong for the weather, incompatible with previous reports of them being too “dressed-up” for a leisurely outing. Also not the house we assumed and no time stamp. So what’s the point of that would be? I could think of only one reason, if we continue along the intra-agency conflict scenario – the photo was another shot-across-the-bow – a hint to the French that still more may be coming. It’s as if the photos were tailor-made to generate heated on-line discussions. which they apparently did here. In fact the photos could be a special gift for the faithful of the CM blog for all I know. Just enough to chomp on.
Behind and besides all this, your allusion to the possibility that the assassins used an ONF like vehicle as part of the plot is interesting. That would suggest collusion by a French party. If that was the case, and the outcome was elimination of a protected British asset (one or more) then indeed, the Brits would be livid. I don’t think agencies take lightly to their assets being popped-off willy nilly. They likely had more use for SAH’s talents, among others.
How about it all?
___
** the convoluted sentence is retribution for paragraphlessness (how’s that for a new word?).
Bleb, thanks for the link – I’ll check it out ……
Bleb, I looked at the link you gave. yes, they have been continuing the conversation, which is nice, though it seems not all the regulars found their way there.
Tim V, on Max’s page, they have pinpointed the time of the photo to 3:17PM based on sun angles etc. Noticed you did the same in a previous comment – do the times match yours?
max wrote to BMV and the conformed it was the “last photo” on the cell phone.
Question (again, sorry of this was covered already): the photo location seems to be in Arnand, on Rue de Moulin. With a 15:17PM time for the photo, piling into the car, setting off to the martinet and arriving right at around 3:30PM how do the times work with this particular location?
Seems to me that the most optimistic scenario would have them piling into the car by 15:20PM, spending may be another 5 minutes to the bottom of Combe d”ire, then 5 minutes up to the lay-by (which would be much faster than Alex’s leisurely ride), stopping, backing in to park, Saad and Zainab exiting the car – how can all this be done in barely 13 -15 minutes? what was this family – Olympic speed champions?
When I have time I should go back to check the times we agreed before that corresponded to WBM arriving on the scene. I remember there were some doubts about that and conflicts with PD/PS but Tim V – you are the appointed Time lord, so you’ll recall off the top of your head perhaps?
From Max’s site – the new scenario:
http://deadzone61.wordpress.com/tck-forum-public/comment-page-5/#comment-2622
Well, it’s actually not new but an evolved old one. According to this, SAH went to the martinet twice – first for sightseeing, passing laurent the builder. Then seeing there was nothing to see other than the friendly MC, turn around going to Arnand, where they stop for pictures, then another one on Rue de Moulin, which turned out to be the last one. Then, for some reason, deciding to go back to the martinet, passing SM on the way (but not WBM?) arriving just before SM, followed by bang bang.
With this scenario Max maintains both tracks were made by the BMW – on the first and second visit respectively.
also, now there’s no need for X5. The ONF was mistaken – he saw the BMW.
And it’s back full circle – no other SUV needed.
So what do people here think about this scenario? I am especially curious to know how this correlates with the ONF’s testimony on panorama. Was there a time estimate provided for the intercept/sighting of the X5? (again, I don’t have the link so can’t check).
Also the question I asked above – the time it might take to get from location of the 3:17PM photo (assuming that’s the correct time and the picture was indeed taken that day) to the martinet. Can it be done for a vehicle of 5 people in 15 minutes or so?
Marlin
25 Feb, 2014 – 1:53 am
I like your theories.
Maybe there is a third agency pulling the strings , overseeing all with both the French & Brits used as ‘useful idiots’ ?
Maybe this third party is playing one against the other knowing how they would blame each other for failings & to play on the rivalry between them……………but always with the intention that this would eventually become a cold case.
Surely there are too many inconsistencies for any other explanation,almost every detail that has been reported & printed has changed in one way or another over the 17 months of reporting.
Tim V.
24 Feb, 2014 – 4:08 pm one other little coincidence though prob just that,GIGN was set up immediately after and as a result of the Munich Olympic murders (of both Israelis and Palestinians) which happened PRECISELY almost to the hour, FORTY YEARS before Chevaline. Yes the PRECISE FORTY YEAR ANNIVERSARY! Now that IS a coincidence.
—
Could that be the real reason why Mrs. al Allaf (=al Qallaf) photos aren’t being shown to the public?
I know that most of the munich terrorists had been killed thereafter. Was one of the palestinian women surviving and getting shelter in iraq and later in sweden?
We should look a bit into the history of the munich terrorism and the surviving terrorists.
From german wikipedia (see below) … unfortunately these pictures are only to be seen in the german version of wikipedia.
There was a huge jewish celebration in munich on sept 5th 2012 at the very same time as the killings appeared to happen …..
Quote:
Gedenken und Kranzniederlegung vor dem Gebäude Connollystr. 31 im Olympischen Dorf am 40. Jahrestag, 5. September 2012.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/2012-09-05_Gedenken.jpg/390px-2012-09-05_Gedenken.jpg
http://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiselnahme_von_M%C3%BCnchen
There was a celebration on sept 5th 2012 at the very same time in london, too
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/Remembering_the_Munich_massacre%2C_London_2012_%281%29.JPG/390px-Remembering_the_Munich_massacre%2C_London_2012_%281%29.JPG
Operation:
Ire de Dieu = Wrath of God
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wrath_of_God
Domaine Combe d’Ire …….
In June 2012 (!!!! Sic!), the German “Verfassungsschutz” released all documents regarding the Munich terror attack.
All names, plus all connections that were kept secret for 40 years had been released in june 2012.
It became evident that the munich terrorists were directly assisted by german and french neonazis.
Max’s theory is pretty logic.
Just think for yourself:
You have an (you believe to be important) meeting e.g. in the middle of a forest where you never had been before. You dont know whether or not you’ll find that place nor do you know where it is and how long it takes to go there.
If i were Saad, i would try to go there 90 minutes earlier for checking the place and the time. Surprisingly he finds out that this place is easy to find and that it only takes 10 minutes from Doussard. However, he is 90 minutes early. What shall he do in the meantime? Up there is nothing. Not even seats and he got old grandma in his car, too.
The children are getting bored and grandma would perhaps like to sit outside the car.
Now that he knows how to go there, they decide to go back to Doussard, perhaps taking an ice cream for the kids and a coffee or tea for the adults somewhere in Doussard. After an hour of relaxation they are once again driving up the hill for the meeting.
That’s at least what i would have done if i were Saad.
BB.
The problem with that theory is that no one saw them drinking tea or buying ice cream…..
Perhaps this is not an unrelated photo regarding tim’s sept 5 theory ….. have a look and look at the time.
http://m.ebay.com/itm?itemId=390485107666
Katie
I dont know what they were doing. This is just what i would have done.
Perhaps it was only grandma and the children who were taking ice cream and tea while Saad and Iqbal had a walk alone. Nobody could have seen grandma yet, simply because nobody knows how she looks like. We havent seen the faces of the children either.
Grandma could have been sitting on my table but i would still be unable to identify her without seeing a picture of her face.
BB.
It’s true we have not been allowed to see Granny, the only evidence we have that she was even there is the possibility of her being the photographer.
That in itself is odd as all grannies want a photo of them with their grandchildren….in this case it seems the children did not even know who she was yet they are supposed to have travelled from England with her in the car.
I’m thinking we may have been sold a sop here, can anyone remember what the other campers said about ‘granny’, I vaguely remember someone saying she did wear a burka,did she also wear a veil ?
If so it could have been anyone male or female.
Let’s guess that Suhyla al Allaf was his sister ….
The PLO links are evident when you read the story of his life.
http://www.rimeallaf.com/mosaics/index.php?m=11&y=08&d=02
The below picture is Rime Allaf. She would be Iqbal’s cousin if the family theory is correct.
Is there some kind of genetic similarity in their faces when comparing the pictures?
https://services.guardianapps.co.uk/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/1/27/1390811114471/Rime-Allaf.jpg?width=140&height=140&quality=95
The other thing,outside Paris & the city, Burkas are rarely seen,I spotted one last saturday for the first time in months.
This means in September ,in that location, when schools were back , a burka clad woman plus two young children would have stood out a mile & be easily remembered.
Was this so called Granny still with them,did ‘she’ attend the conference in Geneva,had she met up with someone & travelled on using the missing passports ?
The photos we have been shown could have been taken by a passerby,it’s not uncommon to ask someone to do that if you all want to be in the group.
Can anyone identify the logo on the building seen in last pic by the stream ?
It can be found on deadzone ,sorry I don’t know how to transfer the pic to a webpage live link.
Katie
There are no reports that she did wear a Burka.
This is a noble and open minded family. There isnt a single person who is wearing a Burka in that whole family. There are women rights activusts in their families! Never would grandma wear a Burka and she didnt her whole life.
She was likely casually dressed like Iqbal. Conservative but European style. Long wide skirt and a jacket i suggest. But no Burka! Totally unlikely for that family.
BB.
There was one description of Granny wearing dark long clothes at the campsite, I wish I could remember exactly who gave it,I thought it was the Dutch couple but I cannot find a reference to it., the description was of a burka but that word wasn’t used.
As an older woman I suspect she did stick to tradition,that would also explain how the four year old ‘could’ hide under their clothes.
Plus, if she was working with & for Hezbollah or Hamas etc she definitely would wear the hijab going to Palestine… where you have said she was involved.
Katie
Wearing a long wide black skirt: yes, of course.
Many if not most old women wear a long dark skirt in europe.
Wearing a burka? Definitely not.
They were Shia Hezbollah/Fatah. They werent Sunni Hamas.
Look at the facebook pages of the families. They are not wearing burkas. None of them. The young women of these families (saffar, hilli, allaf) are wearing mini skirts, jeans shorts with tiny tops and high heels. This family was totally saecular. 100%.
New to this board, but I’ve been following the Al-Hilli case with much interest, as you all seem to have. Have some questions, which I’ve trawled through the pages on here to see if it is mentioned but can’t find anything.
During an interview with BBC’s Panorama last year, WBM states that he moved SM’s body from in front of the car, out of the way in case the body was run over by the Al-Hilli’s still running car. I assume he was moved to the position where we can now see the body was lying in the recently published crime scene photos. In the same set of photos, we can see the blood stain left where SM’s body was eventually left, but there does not appear to be a similar stain anywhere near the front of the car, either on the gravel area, or the road itself. If anything, I would have expected there to be an even greater amount of blood loss at the position where WBM states he moved the body from?
Secondly, I have not read anywhere (could be wrong though…) about what vehicle WBM drives himself, i.e. he didn’t get down to Annecy by push-bike. Was there any information on this at all in any of the police statements?
Reason for asking is that in July 2012 on Google street view, there just happens to be a Silver X5 parked somewhere interesting.
Apologies if these bits have already been covered, and if they have perhaps someone can point me towards the pages.
Fieldfare
According to reports, WBM was on his bicycle cycling from his house in lathuile.
Only god knows whether this is true or just another original setup.
Marlin
25 Feb, 2014 – 8:31 am I have this to say about Max’s modified theory – twaddle! For why?
1. I don’t think for a moment either the British police or the ONF guy or WBM would confuse SAH’s BMW Tourer with a BMW X5. Even for an total novice, they are quite distinctly different – the one a largish car, an unmistakable SUV. And all three were/are far from being novice sources. At least Max seems to have accepted that the Al Hilli car went past the builders before 3 pm which is a start.
2. So that’s the first objection. The second is that if the ONF guy passed the Al Hilli’s coming up 1 Km into the Combe @ 3.20 as stated and the suggested 3.17 time for photo is correct, that’s precisely 3 MINUTES for them to get back in the car and drive at least 2/3 Km along the narrow winding Moulin route to where they actually pass one another. I would say that was pretty much impossible.
3. So let’s do it from another angle: 3 pm leave Filon builder obstruction. 3.10 pm. Martinet. Don’t stop or get out. Just turn around. (Crazy for why but thats Max’s theory) Drive back down and using Moulin head for Arnand. They couldn’t arrive there before 3.25 as it must be a 15 min journey. Now we are already past the alleged photo time of 3.15 and perhaps even more importantly only 5 mins off 3.30 and shooting time. So it would have been impossible for them to get back in time for the shooting WITHOUT EVEN FACTORING THE TIME TO TAKE AT LEAST TWO PHOTOS AT TWO DIFFERENT LOCATIONS apparently. It’s a non-starter.
4. Now throw in the ONF guys additional description. The vehicle passing him did so at speed and was driven he said by a dark skinned man I believe. No mention of others in the car. No mention of roof rack as far as I am aware. If for a moment we take British Police as trustworthy source on this one (I’m not completely assured they are) they were confident enough to distinguish between the two different vehicles and sightings.
5. So if it was SAH @ 3.20 I presume he must have passed WBM on his half hour traverse. Unless latter is lying on the subject (possible) not only does he never claim this, the vehicle he describes passing him is a SUV which then passes him again he claims going down. So even if it were SAH who passed him on the way up it doesn’t explain the SUV (and bike) that pass him on the way down.
6. If SAH didn’t pass WBM on the way up, the only explanation is that before he started his trip up the combe (3.15 at the latest) SAH MUST have been ahead of him at the lay-by. This conclusively rules out any back tracking to Arnand from the Martinet even were it possible within the time frame, which as I have shown it isn’t.
7. The only way the Arnand photo could fit with the Filon timing is they went back there immediately without going up the Combe. This seems highly unlikely. Why would they when it could be their return route a little later. Even so if the time of the photo is 3.17 (how did they get it so precise and it appeared later to me but I bow to their better judgement if so it is) I would still hold that 13 minutes is ridiculously too short to get back in the car, drive at least 4 km park up with a defensive manoeuvre and all be dead within that time, leaving aside objections 1,3,4,5, which still exist.
7. The photo itself is highly suspect for all the reasons given. Quality, relaxed image, time of day, weather no match, clothes no match, etc etc.
8. Why is Max bending over backwards to try to make it fit when clearly it doesnt? Why would the police promote such a stupid idea? And as to his argument for two trips based on the tyre marks – enough said.
Absolutely Bluebird
25 Feb, 2014 – 10:05 am another “coincidence” I pointed out way back in the beginning. The revenge killings of participants went on into the early 90’s. Both recent Israeli PMs were deeply involved in Israeli secret operations although it was initially approved by ‘loveable’ golda meir. Begin was a terrorist. I postulated the idea that Suhaila might have been a hang over of the Munich or some other related anti israel activity. As you note she still hasn’t has her photo published’
Its a HOT possibility in my book. Unsuprisingly it appears nowhere on any of Eric’s “tracks”.
Bluebird
25 Feb, 2014 – 10:48 am arn’t these sort of familiar names BB?
“1976 Press Photo PLO Head Farouk Kaddoumi Congratulates Syrian UN Ambass. Allaf”
Tim V, 10:31AM. Appreciate the detailed critique and the bulleted paragraphs to boot – I think the slightly ADHD’d among the multitude here – including the agency voyeurs lurking in the shadows would be most thankful. May be they’ll let this board go on a bit longer than intended ….). A few comments and a question (same as yours):
(i) your #3 – to be fair to max’s original supposition, he was postulating SAH passing the builders now at around 2:40PM, a time which was kind of mentioned early on, to be later revised to “around 3PM). Notwithstanding the fact that Max himself originally argued against the early timing for the sighting tooth and nail, this would kind of give SAH enough time to go to Martinet, get out for a minute, go back down, get to Arnand, take two photos, the last at 3:17PM (to go along with the precise timing for a moment.
(ii) your #5: it is, I believe, essential for this scenario (ie, SAH is the vehicle that passes ONF at 3:20PM) to postulate that WBM (who must have then also been passed by SAH’s BMW) held things back – perhaps at the request of authorities. Alas, if he did so, then is there anything else we can believe of his testimony? so now we must ASSUME two things already – that ONF does not know a BMW from a X5 (never mind the different colors!) AND that WBM has held things back and/or lied. That’s kind of heavy duty.
(iii) As to your question of why would Max bend over backward to try and fit a square peg into a round hole, I do not know the answer. Obviously the scenario of going there TWICE is quite complicated. But I think it’s the only way he found that would fit the following:
a. BMW going past the builders sometime before 3PM
b. photo at 3:15/3:17PM in Arnand
c. SUV passing ONF at 3:20PM
d. WBM arriving somewhere between 3:35-3:40PM (which I believe he took no exception to)
Inherent to this fitting are two overriding assumptions taken almost as axioms: 1. there was no pre-arranged meeting that would have SAH arriving early at the martinet and waiting, and 2. there was no other SUV vehicle in the martinet at any time prior, during or just past the killings. Hence tracks must all be from SAH’s BMW (never mind that in the new aerial photo the tracks are offset from the BMW’s final resting place).
That leaves the question of why so intent to keep these axiomatic postulates no matter how complicated any scenario consequently becomes, given what we know?
To that I have no answer. Just theories aplenty.
I do however like the opportunity to over the timings yet again in light of any new information. For that I am appreciate Max’s contributions – which is why I brought them in here. If there are any new potential contributors around, I am sure they appreciate your 10:31AM comment muchly, along with yours truly.
Fieldare 2:04PM – those are good questions indeed.
Indeed, if SM’s body was moved from somewhere in front of the car to its final resting place, there should have been more copious amounts of blood in the original spot and we don’t see evidence of that in the photos we have. However, it is possible that the body was moved only slightly – say a short drag, just to get part of it out of the wheels’ way. may be just enough to get the blood smeared around? indeed the spot(s) we see in the photos there is quite spread out. It was also pointed out earlier by people here (see e.g., some of Tim V’s comments earlier) that the body’s position was kind of unnatural for someone being shot with so many bullets, but is consistent with some “rearrangement” as done perhaps by WBM.
As for that silver X5 in the google view, that was noted by people here early on. I believe we don’t know where was WBM’s bike – whether he had to leave it behind (anyone, please correct me on this) and someone carried it down for him and he got a ride, or he rode it down himself part of the way.
That being said, I think it would be a good idea to find out what car(s) did WBM have around the time of the killings. I don’t think I saw anything on that.
Welcome to the board, BTW.
Correction to my own 7:16PmM point (ii) – I found a posted version of the panorama program so could look at some of the information finally.
Right at the start, WBM claims that the car that passed him going up “must have been” SAH’s BMW. So there’s a supposition there (“must have been”). In his earlier recorded testimony I remember we went over the statement that he was passed by a car going TOWARDS the martinet, as well as by a car and MC going down later. I do recall that this statement of his originally caused all kinds of arguments, and on MZT, Tim V was challenged several times to back up that statement, and apparently they were NOT convinced and it got a bit acrimonious. Funny that, as later, post Panorama, peace has come to reign among all, since now it could be presumed to have been the BMW. Leaving only the question of the timing and what vehicles came down.
That of course leaves another big question: in his original BBC testimony, WBM said that a car also came down, later attributed to be an ONF vehicle per EM. Followed by a MC.
In the Panorama piece (sorry again for bring up all this so late. I know you guys discussed this ad nauseum already), I noted the times provided for WBM (ie not him saying it but the narrator) – the MC coming down (slowly) at around WHAT TIME (? – need to check again) and him arriving at the scene at 3:45PM. Of course, with that timing, him making the call at 3:48PM is definitely out of the question, given all the things he has done beforehand. Which begs the question we have all been asking from day one: who did make that 3:48PM call?
The time for the shots as provided by Panorama was pinned at 3:40PM – a good 5-10 minutes later than we have always assumed based on the shots heard by the farmer and son.
Also, if the MC was encountered later than 3:40PM coming down (must be if shots rang at 3:40PM), the mystery “green” SUV preceding it must have come from the direction of the martinet and practically passed through it when the murderous events took place. I know I saw some comments on this here scrawling back, and again I must apologize for bringing this up again this late. Whoever was in that car then must be part of whatever went down and EM is caught red-handed almost covering up for it (claiming it’s an ONF, etc.).
I have to watch the panorama program to the end but from what I saw so far this is clearly a give away from the british side. Anyone watching it that has gone through the timings, sequence and heard EM’s claims over the past 1.5 years would conclude that the British side (clearly collaborating with the program as they made even the elusive WBM available) is literally pointing at EM as well as whoever was behind the killings. I see no other way of explaining the contradictions, omissions and mis-statements).