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?
This one’s a bit of a puzzle Mochyn69. “9. The photo of the car and the body of SM was taken from ground level, in the car were the bodies of the family, in the front right SAH, in the front was his elder daughter who had been injured and had been taken to hospital, in the rear his wife and mother in law and, incredibly, the 4 year old daughter still alive in the back. she had been travelling on the rear central armrest, which served as a seat for her and had slipped under her mother’s skirt ..”
Is really suggesting that Zainab remained in the front seat during the shooting or that she was only travelling the front seat? Previously we were led to believe the three (SAH, ZAH, SM) were outside together when shooting started and ZAH was outside when found suggesting she never got back in during shooting. Is this report rewriting that element?
Thanks, Marlin, for the update. I thought it useful to go over old ground again with regard to the types of drugs that induce amnesia, and who might have access to those kinds of drugs. It would take some knowledge of pharmaceuticals to calculate the dosage for this kind of thing, because children do not react to drugs or metabolize them in the same way as adults. It would be very easy to miscalculate.
It occurred to me that anyone who has a “small hearing operation” might need pharmaceuticals for pain management.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/23/michael-mastro-flee-law-at-87
With only eight staff at the police station in Annecy, it’s no wonder they’re described as “overworked”.
I suppose now is not the time to mention a bizarre case involving a man who abducted a child from his home while his family was sleeping, then returned the child unharmed to the family home while it was supposedly under police surveillance several days later. A wily woodsman, he was, and supposedly intellectually challenged. His secret: he knew when the police were in the doughnut shop on breaks.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2036218/Kienan-Hebert-kidnapping-Missing-Sparwood-boy-3-returned-family-4-days.html
I’d say 21 bullets is some sort of police code, Tim. It’s the exact number of bullets fired in the case I mentioned where a windshield was shot out by a police tactical team. Credibility is full of holes, like everything else in this story.
Finally, why blur the face of someone who is want as a suspect in a shooting? This makes no sense at all, if he is to be recognized:
http://www.thelocal.fr/20131118/breaking-photographer-hurt-in-shooting-at-french-newspaper
For that matter, why describe someone as “stocky” when he appears rather ordinary in build.
Still with that Mochyn post: “The killer must have been in the middle, and he sprayed the car as it was doing a half turn”, said Dominique Rizet, BFMTV’s police-justice specialist.”
Of course this just doesn’t fit what we see from the photos. This is not a car SPRAYED with bullets whilst on the move, they well targeted shots on a stationary or near stationary vehicle. Nor could it possible explain shots on the DRIVER’S side for obvious reasons. They had to be delivered immediately outside the driver’s door. If fatal shots were fired from a fulcrum point on a radial moving vehicle, how could the driver have controlled the car. Nor by any stretch of the imagination do the recent photo’s denoting for the first time the location of the shell casings, support it.
The theory holds no water on any level and now at last even the compliant French press can see the water. Perhaps they should have tuned in to this column 18 months ago?
Q 7.34 pm
On BBC Breakfast the morning after the killings they had a weapons expert on (Ex-police I believe, from Manchester) who said he thought the gunmen were professional because they knew not to shoot at the windscreen when attempting to kill the car’s occupants. He said if they had tried the shots would glance off. I was awake enough but only just and thought the whole interview was very odd that the BBC would have such an expert on and so soon. This was the first thing that jumped out at me that the truth wasnt quite what we supposed to believe.
Marlin
2 Mar, 2014 – 7:13 pm I have just got to this entry. I have never been a “comrade in arms for the gifted” before. I feel highly honoured! Hope my little entries above answer your question. We have kept chipping away over the months and at last we have hit a seam of tin, copper or even silver. I believe we may at last (or someone else) have the French prosecutor/establishment on the run.
the other point I meant to make is that IF Zeena wasn’t hidden for 8 hours in the back of the BMW at all, it may provide part of the reason why British police/intelligence were so desperate to keep her/them out of the family or accessible. If so it begs the question why the British would be part of a cover-up of that part of a foreign operation? Clearly they still believe the girls are at great risk to provide them with full time armed guard. Now how common is that?
Q
2 Mar, 2014 – 7:34 pm as you probably know windscreen glass is quite different to door glass . the former is laminated and very resistant to shatter whereas door glass is “safety glass” designed to craze into fairly harmless geometric pieces. That I assume is why the side windows shattered in part whereas the windscreen didn’t though showing what appear to be at least three strikes with bullets. My suggestion has been that the windscreen shots were aimed at SAH as he dashed back to the driver’s door/seat.
Katie
2 Mar, 2014 – 7:54 pm I just can’t believe your posts on this topic. You say “Whoever said Zeena was motionless for 8 hours is espousing nonsense because they were not there. She may well have been screaming for hours before falling asleep, no one knows. I feel if the police stayed it would have been at the bottom of the hill, I just cannot believe they stayed ‘by the car’ all night.”
EM’s filmed announcement that Zeena had been “found” was early morning of the 6th, so if it happened it happened before then. If we believe the press reports it came after the specialists from Paris opened up the car at or around 12 mn. So what is the relevance of the police being there all night?
You surely don’t doubt the police and other responder presence from (shall we say) 4.30 at least to 12 mn? The video footage shows much coming and going all night. If the press were there all night why do you have such difficulty with a police presence?
Then from another angle, do you really think, given the high profile of the case, the commanding officer (whoever that was in reality) would have allowed murder scene and bodies to be left unattended and subject to possible interference by humans and even animals? It was a wolf reserve after all.
Then you make the frankly incredible claim “She may well have been screaming for hours before falling asleep, no one knows.” Are you really suggesting that she might have made movement or sound, let alone the sound of screaming, without someone nearby, already in a state of heightened awareness, noticing?????
Q
2 Mar, 2014 – 9:46 pm that’s a fascinating little reference to the Paris gunman at http://www.thelocal.fr/20131118/breaking-photographer-hurt-in-shooting-at-french-newspaper and very astute observation about the blurred face of the shooter. Indeed why? You no doubt noticed it happened to target the same newspaper that has now just issued our three recent photographs if I’m not mistaken. I don’t suppose it was arranged as a little warning not to overstep the mark or stray from the designated path?
@Tim V: I thought it was interesting that he went after the photographer, right after the photographer entered the building. This was not random: he pointed his gun at other staff, but did not harm them. This was a targeted shooting, IMO, and the gunman had been following the photographer, or waited for him outside the building, maybe on that bench seen in one of the photos.
As to the shots that pierced the front windshield of the vehicle, tactical units use modern weapons, rather than antique Swiss Lugers. I believe modern weapons of the quality used by these specialized units are much more likely to penetrate the windshield and leave it intact than an old WWII weapon. It also speaks to the skill of the shooter, when their shots are so precise that nearly two dozen rounds leave only a few entry points in the glass.
I meant that for Straw44berry, too.
@All
Good questions from all on my summary of Dominique Rizet’s piece.
Le procureur de la République was angry, very angry with BFM TV and sad that the photos were published, which profoundly shocked the family members, especially those of SM.
http://www.programme-tv.net/videos/zapping/26205-le-procureur-d-annecy-en-colere-contre-bfm-tv/
The photos have been pulled from BFM TV but are still published here and are in fact very interesting:
http://m.lalibre.be/actu/international/tuerie-de-chevaline-les-photos-du-carnage-5304714735704ec4c3a73f69
BTW, “The journalists are working on the story, trying to understand the scene of the crime, they are doing their job.” is from Dominique Rizet’s professional response to le procureur de la République.
Rizet goes on to say that publishing the photos does not damage the police enquiry in any way.
http://www.programme-tv.net/videos/zapping/26206-chevaline-bfm-tv-repond-au-procureur-d-annecy/
Mochyn69: “Rizet goes on to say that publishing the photos does not damage the police enquiry in any way.”
Implying that may be they just damage the official story line the police has been putting out?
Updating again my 10:01 2/28 list – adding also point 8 – per Tim V’s observation with which I wholeheartedly concur (despite katie’s objections – sorry, they were just too speculative with low probability (screaming child, crime scene left alone, etc. etc.). I also added Point 9, as I just thought of it
7. WBM must not be considered a suspect no matter the obvious coincidence of his arrival upon the scene minutes, if not seconds later, the “hands covered in blood”, the interference with the crime scene (moving Mollier, searching pockets), etc. Anyone who reads about the Chevaline case for the first time will be dumbstruck by the way police treated WBM – not guilty, not held for further questioning, ex-RAF title bestowed despite having been out of RAF for lo so many years, and that curious interview provided by the BBC later.
8. We must never consider the possibility that Zeena may have been removed from the BMW at an early stage, either by the killers or the ONF guys, or, whoever, either just before or just after the shooting, and then was “miraculously” found 8 hours later.
9. The timing and instigation of that infamous 3:48PM call must be scrubbed from our collective memories, as if it was never mentioned. After all, WBM said he didn’t do it, and Philip D/B arrived too late to do it, leaves what? or, rather, who?
So here is the updated list of what cannot be considered or questioned (I increased the number to correlate with the 1-9 points, broken down into bits them down):
* There must not be another vehicle in the lay-by
* There must not be any hint of pre-arranged meeting – either with SM or a third part.
* Consistent with the above, it is essential that SAH not be seen as arriving early at the car park and waiting around.
* There can be no allusion to SM being the target. No way, no how.
* There cannot be another party involved in the shooting, whether active or passive.
* There cannot be a definitive answer to the number of bullets, their locations (double tap etc.) or for that matter, the nature of Zainab’s injuries.
* There can be no definitive setting of the shooting time to just around 3:30PM as heard by two witnesses.
* There can be no DNA evidence to support anything, but the non-existent DNA can be used to exclude something (or someone).
* WBM cannot be considered a suspect in any way connected with the killings. He is a “man above suspicion”, no questioning that is allowed.
* Zeena’s location in the BMW, hidden under her mother’s [not so voluminous skirt) for 8 hours, only to be found at midnight cannot be questioned.
* The timing and instigator of the 3:48PM call better not be mentioned by anyone, ever again.
@Tim (Drones)
http://www.visiofly-store.com/
Visiofly is a French company specialized in manufacturing equipment for high definition aerial shooting. Established in Annecy (Haute-Savoie),
From applications
When fitted with a thermal imaging camera, the Visiofly plane and balloon can also be used to detect heat loss from buildings, count animals in the wild, or help provide aerial surveillance of fires.
First try at a little “de-fogging”, or as I said before, an uncovering of the original painting using painstaking layer removal techniques (cf. plain old logic):
Let’s take all that we must not consider, and simply reverse them, what do we get?
(a) there WAS another vehicle at the lay-by
(b) There WAS a pre-arranged meeting with either just SM/SAH or either one + third party.
(c) SAH DID arrive early at the car park (just after 3PM?) for said meeting.
(d) SM was likely a target, though probably not the only one (see next post for why I believe this to be the case)
(e) There was MORE than one party involved in the shooting, either actively or passively, as in providing reconnaisance, blocking action or get-away.
(f) The police know but won’t admit to the number of bullets or the true extent of Zainab’s injuries. Nor would they disclose the exact nature and location of bullet wounds in the victims.
(g) The shooting time was likely at around 3:30PM just as the witnesses said. Everything else are just speculations and fogging up. There appears to be a desire to move the shooting to a bit later – may be as late as 3;40Pm to allow time for the story of 3:15-3;17PM photos. I think that’s because they have been convinced by Tim V’s recreation of the impossibility of getting there, ready to be shot, in all of 15 minutes (or less, if 3;17PM is right).
(h) any information about usable DNA at the scene needs to be “fogged up”. Enough to exclude perhaps, not enough to include, and never to pin-point.
(i) WBM is likely involved in whatever went down, not necessarily as a shooter, but as a party that had a specific mission. He IS a British agent, in whatever capacity, and that is why he was let go so very very easily. The man is above suspicion because SAS says he is and that’s that.
(j) Zeena was NOT in the car for 8 hours. Where was she, we cannot know. As Tim V suggested, the story was simply invented at a later stage to keep the involvement of additional people and vehicles out of the story, essential if the “lone nut” was to stick.
(k) There was a 3:48PM call which was made by another party, not WBM. How about the ONF that just happened to be cruising down at the right time?
If all these are addded together, combined with what we now see as SM’s final resting place and the shell casings, a story really does emerge, loud and clear. We still do not know the motives, but we do know something did not go according to plan, and that something forced the french to concoct increasingly unbelievable stories, even as the British side becomes more and more irate.
So, whatever it was, the french have a reason to cover up for a third culprit agency, more so than the British. The British side, in fact, feels wronged somehow, possibly double-crossed, possibly just furious at some incompetent turn of events. My theory on this is that, while they may have accepted the possible elimination of one party (say, SM), and/or could live with the demise of SAH (for whatever reason), they were righteously indignant at the extent of the mayhem, with two more victims and traumatized children.
My theory? same as it always was, but with the caveat that I now feel strongly that the British side DID NOT condone the killing of the entire SAH family, and in fact, is quite upset with all the repercussions, logistic as well as moral (yes, agency people are not entirely without morals), having now to look after two children, practically forever.
I think (and this a theory several people here had over the past year) that Saad brought his whole family to the pre-arranged meeting, feeling that this would somehow provide him with protection. Alas, the killer party did not share the British squeamishness about collateral damage, and instead of calling the whole thing of (as the Brits would have preferred) went ahead and offed the lot of them, including trying to kill the older child, and possibly having to be talked into sparing the younger one, may be even by WBM himself, who arrived on the scene, just in time. may be, in his own way he WAS a hero, but not the kind that can ever be disclosed.
That third party may have included both the MC and the X5, but the ONF2 may have been a witness to the scene, and was the one helping move things around, get rid of evidence, figure out what to do with Zeena, and, of course, making that fateful 3:48PM call on their way down.
Further to my theory, both the third mystery bicyclist and Phillip Bossy were parties to whatever happened. may be it was the “clean-up” crew, may be the “salvage” crew.
In any case, though none of this sheds light on motives, the behavior of the french investigators, their increasingly desperate attempts at a cover-up 9which keeps falling apart) are no doubt because of a deep involvement in whatever happened. They know who did it, but cannot tell without being shown up as culpable. The british side, OTOH, considers it partially a French screw-up and expects a serious pound of flesh (something other than a patsy, a sacrificial lamb). Nothing short of that will satisfy them. Somewhere out there, there are some “ONF” people getting quite concerned. They, as I, are expecting further developments, no doubt.
The above is my leading theory. Lower on the probability scale are other possibilities such as Suhaila being a target (see my earlier storification of that possibility – previous page), or a partial extraction of some (not all!) of the parties, to be given new identities elsewhere.
What isn’t likely (ie very low probability, practically negligible) are:
A. Lone nut shooter (ie, tourist hating racist)
B. Drug deal gone wrong
C. Professional hit man sent by eg, Ziad (more on why that is unlikely later)
Not excluded are various other combinations of shooter/clean-up man, such as SM doing the shooting of Saad + family (as Tim V suggested most recently), with WBM arriving in time to kill the killer, and save the children 9there’s our hero again, if we define hero broadly). Other scenarios that have been suggested.
Tim V
2 Mar, 2014 – 11:22 pm
You are of course free to disbelieve whatever you like.
I think you underestimate the way French work. They are a noisy people…..did you expect them to be whispering ?
Vehicles were coming & going for a few hours,but little could be done after dark..what time that would be in the mountains,low cloud & surrounded by trees, I don’t know.
IF…..they didn’t want to contaminate the crime scene it makes sense for them not to approach the car/ parking area after establishing all were shot dead.
No one ‘knew’ there was another child or that anyone was alive in the car so why would they be watching it & say Zeena was motionless for 8 hours ?
I suggest she was not even covered when they found her but wide awake & patiently waiting to be let out of the car.
.
I assume most of the daylight evening activity was in removing Molliers body & Zanaib to hospital [noisy] helicopter ….
Why would anyone be studying the car closely having decided all inside were dead ?
Wolves ? what could they do to a locked car ?
We have seen the cordon at the foot of the hill, I maintain,that is where a guard would be after things died down once the decision had been made to wait for the forensic team to arrive the next day. …after all it was not going anywhere.
It is also Incomprehensible to think a couple of duty policeman sat by the car for the night…..A chilly & chilling experience…with Wolves ‘an all !
If it was dark when police returned & opened the car again, which it would have been at midnight how did they see Zeena ‘smiling’ ?
There was no mention of her blinking or being dazzled by a spotlight being shone into the car, a pretty scary thing for a 4 year old I would think.
“She spontaneously began to smile and speak in English when the policeman took her in his arms and pulled her out of the car , ‘She had heard the noises, the cries but she couldn’t say more, she is only four years old.”.
This is why I say they did not return to the car until dawn. The midnight return is a lie.
Saying a four year old was motionless for eight hours just cannot be right because no one was watching.
Another minor detail, I find it hard to believe she would have been travelling sitting on an armrest,that is illegal, French police are red hot on stopping English reg cars for any infringement, if she was not in a car seat surely she would have been sitting in between the adults with a seatbelt on ?
Katie
Whilst I cannot believe the BMW and crime scene wasnt guarded at all times, I do agree that the idea of Zeena sitting on the armrest is ludicrous, being between the the adults on the back seat is possible.
You say how keen the French are to stop British tourists, so I have never believed that Zainab was travelling in the front seat because of her travel sickness. So Zainab is sitting between her mother and her grandmother and wants to stretch her legs as soon as they stop. Zeena is already on the floor not hiding there deliberately.
Sylvain is shot initially in the front passenger seat and is the main target and is then pulled from the car before being shot several more times to make sure he is dead.
The bulletholes in the front passenger window strongly suggest someone was sitting in that seat. So it must be SM unless ANother was removed by the killers.
Pink,
Thanks for the reminder of the heat loss camera search. I wonder why it was used in this case ,surely at the outset, it was clear who was dead in this crime…at what stage did they decide to use it & why?
They said it didn’t pick up on Zeena, but, to decide,order,scramble & fly to the scene all sounds too quick [especially the way the French work ] for it to be done between say 4pm & nightfall.
Marlin.
I still think Saad was set up for an innocent meeting by the killers & it’s connected to old scores in Iraq.
That Iraqi conference in Geneva being the key.
Someone attending that told him they wanted a reunion & that’s why he went along proudly with the family all dressed up..
Morning Straw, agreed.
I did wonder if Zeena was in fact asleep when they arrived at the spot,some four year olds do still have an afternoon nap.
Where did this instruction of ‘hide’ come from that was touted around, from Zeena herself ?
I think of Sylvian arriving & interrupted the shooting, he was about to run,but was shot in the head as he turned & then shot in the back.
I still cannot understand why BM would tend Zainab & check Mollier’s pulse whilst a cars engine was ‘racing’ & facing him.
That tells me he knew the car couldn’t move…how did he know ?
Mochyn69
3 Mar, 2014 – 6:42 am re. http://m.lalibre.be/actu/international/tuerie-de-chevaline-les-photos-du-carnage-5304714735704ec4c3a73f69 You and others no doubt note that in contrast to the English papers that reproduced the images, the faces of the children are not obscured. Does this tell us something about the respective national concerns about their identity/protection?
Pink
3 Mar, 2014 – 8:31 am thanks for that information. I still can’t help thinking the speed with which something similar was deployed in this case – apparently only minutes or hours after the police arrive – is a tad suspicious, particularly if contrasted with what appears to be incompetence and lack of success as regards the inquiry generally. Is the immediate access to drone technology typical in such cases?
One further point re. the new photos, particularly the ground view of car and Mollier’s body, am I the only one not to be able to see any sign of the Al Hilli’s inside the car? I appreciate there are problems with glass light refraction, but even so not even an out-line or fuzzy image. Not conclusive but might have suggested a hint if they were still there one might think?
Even if SAH had fallen forwards onto the steering wheel and was obscured by the off-side roof pillar, look through to the rear seat where one might have expected the outline of Iqbal or Suhaila. Nothing as far as I can see. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2561919/Man-arrested-France-connection-murder-British-family-French-Alps.html
Marlin
3 Mar, 2014 – 8:48 am “Well done” called for. Couldn’t have put it better myself!!!! LOL
With the greatest of respect Katie
3 Mar, 2014 – 9:21 am all I can say of your latest contribution is … bizarre.
@Tim V: So now we now that the English media obscured the faces of the victims of the Chevaline shootings, but the French don’t. The French media, however, obscured the face of a shooter in Paris, although the police supposedly need the public’s help in identifying him. (“If you see a blurry-faced man, contact us immediately.”)
@Marlin: Thank you for adding to your original work, and in reverse.
@Anyone: If indeed the gendarmes were ordered to guard the scene from down the hill at the barricade, who ordered them to do so? This would be a necessary part of the puzzle, because it could indicate who was making sure no prying eyes would be watching when the ol’ switcheroo was happening.
(Still wondering how a supposedly mentally-incompetent man in another country could put a child back into a (locked?) guarded house while the entire local police force, additional officers from elsewhere and citizen volunteers were searching high and low for them. Chevaline doesn’t have all-night beignet shops, does it? I wonder in that case if they made a deal behind the scenes with the perp to have the child returned safely on the condition that he be allowed to go free.)
@Mochyn69 6:42 am: Dominque Rizet brings up a good point: the photos of the crime scene are necessary to understand what went on there. That has sparked much discussion on this forum. Maybe it it the understanding of what went on at the crime scene that offends the prosecutor so greatly. Rizet chose his words carefully and specifically.
My interpretation: If the prosecutor is steering the public in the direction of a scenario that could not have happened the way it is said to have happened, then what use is his “investigation”? Pre-drawn conclusions can jeopardize the truth. Rizet seems to be implying that the media and the prosecutor are working at cross-purposes: one in search of the truth, and the other not so much.
Investigators in Corsica cover the bodies of murder victims, bring in tents and “circle the wagons” around a crime scene:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-21472102
Perhaps the gendarmes in the Haute-Savoie could learn a thing or two. People seem to be dropping like flies there, so it’s about time they stepped up their crime scene management techniques. I don’t know it it’s intentional or not, but their failure to manage the crime scene may have caused the loss or degradation of valuable evidence. Incompetence or willful mismanagement?
Did anyone else notice that Michael Mastro used the Société Générale for his banking?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/23/michael-mastro-flee-law-at-87
http://www.thelocal.fr/20131118/breaking-photographer-hurt-in-shooting-at-french-newspaper
Just saying.
Following up from yesterday’s post, as an aside:
http://www.cp24.com/world/france-newspaper-shooting-suspect-expressed-anger-at-media-capitalism-1.1553551
http://www.rtl.fr/actualites/info/article/tireur-a-paris-abdelhakim-dekhar-reste-muet-en-garde-a-vue-7767127941
Conveniently, he changed clothes several times, so don’t let the fact that his clothing doesn’t match the previous photos fool you into believing that this story isn’t true. I’d say let the discrepancies do that for you.