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 – regarding the photos and BMFTV: it’s been my theory that the photos were in the files and were made available to the british investigators as well, which is the side that released those two Mollier photos. Just like the family picture at drousard.
This would fit rather well into the tit-fot-tat theory.
In which case the french police investigation into the “leak” will come up with not much on the French side, though they might pick someone to scapegoat just to show they are doing something.
The French are being all upset IMO is because they have to be – if the inter-agency conflict theory is right (and Tim V’s I believe is in agreement on this), then these photos represent a very serious “shot across the bow” – a warning to the french that they are being watched.
That’s the context I think that would fit your point above, Tim V. Because they indeed serve to disprove rather conclusively, that the shots started at the top of the car park. Basically giving the lie to all the recreations done by Le Parisien and other publications, upon cue from the French police. Furthermore, the photo from above of the scene with Mollier moribound shows the much disputed car tracks rather clearly. They DO NOT match with the BMW’s final position, no matter how hard people try to fit those in. Yes, katie thought the car could have executed a circle AND THEN backed into the final resting place in a straight line. Alas, that just is so unlikely as to justify dismissing the possibility out of hand. Absolutely no need to back in this way – what under a hail of bullets from a “lone” gunman, and with those who suggest such as scenario not allowing for the presence of another car at the martinet perhaps blocking the way. Sure, one could suggest that there was somehow an attempt to pick up Zainab on the way, if she was still outside, but that’s grasping at straws.
I am positively amazed that there are still people who continue to maintain that there was a reverse manoeuver executed by SAH in the face of all evidence and logical reasoning. Oh well…
@Intp1 – “do you have practical experience of one?” (wiki)
No, but I’d be willing to try.
@Intp1 – I’ve now read your and Marlins other posts – you seem to have it well in hand with Google docs. I think keeping the editors to a small group is the way to go and those you propose would be best
Some observations:
You have touched on on trust and privacy. I think this might be the biggest problem in initially setting this up.
e.g.
Trust – One trusts the Intp1 one reads on here but how does one know the “Intp1” who contacts you is the “real” Intp1?
Privacy – There should not be a need for people to publish their real email addresses on here.
Maybe you are ahead of me on this but my thought would be that the “editors” would agree who they are on here and then establish private contact maybe by using a disposable email service such as http://mailinator.com/
i.e.
1) Intp1 invites, say, Marlin to be be and editor and establish private contact
2) Intp1 publishes a disposable email address on here for Marlin to use
3) Marlin publishes a disposable email address on here for Intp1 to use
4) You both wait for an agreed time period during which the real Intp1 and the real Marlin could challenge any fake email posted by a “false Intp1/Marlin”. (I realise this process could be spoilt be those with malicious intent)
5) After this period you respond to the corresponding disposable email addresses with your private email plus a check phrase or number.
6) You each post on here the check phrase or number you have been given.
7) Again you wait for a agreed time during which the real person could challenge the posting as being from a fake. (again open to maliciousness)
8) After this time period you each have the private email of the other with some degree of confidence the person you are talking to is the same person that posts on here and you have not made your private email public.
9) Repeat as necessary to add more to the group.
Maybe I’m just paranoid and the above is way too complex or flawed in concept.
——-
The other thing you may want to think about is “take down” or censorship
by, for instance, the French authorities or other interests. I assume Google Docs would come under U.S. law. I know the USA snoops but do they censor? As touched on regarding avatars, The Netherlands is an excellent place to host content in that respect.
——-
Invite the ex MZT people to contribute by all means (I don’t think they will though!) but don’t invite as editors. I do think their theories should be considered and included even if they don’t directly contribute.
—–
I’m going to lie down in a darkened room after that long post!
Having trouble accessing these threads over the past few days, and cannot go beyond the first page of comments in the Disappearing Aircraft thread. Comments and pages, like aircraft, also disappear.
Bleb 2:44am – that was quite a Tour de Force! thanks for the effort – hope you recovered by now Thanks for the referral to Mailinator – didn’t know about them.
I checked a few options as alternatives to Google Docs and I must say that, so far, Google seems much easier to use for a novice, has various features including spreadsheets and word documents, and is free for the basics. Also, Google does not care all that much about strict “copyright” or “privacy” rules as certain European countries, so we would probably be able to use the information gathered from any number of sources. For the sake of courtesy, I would however like tto make sure Craig has no objections to such a summary based primarily on information gathered and suggestions made on this blog. He doesn’t have to bless it but it’s only fair to ask.
The downside: one has to have a gmail address to go with Google docs which would then be the one attached to all Google interfaces. Needless to say gmail is as gmail goes – and Google has already said it reserves the right to trawl through the e mails for commercial purposes. But I am not sure that would be such an issue when the number of users is small.
To your question Bleb, the US snoops on pretty much everything, but it does not seem to censor all that much. Why should it when it’s easier to just sweep it all up for a rainy day? still, this could be an issue.
I do agree that a non-US server/provider would be the best, and if one could find one in eg, the Netherlands, all the better. The problem is there are quite a few purported services out there, and they each have different capabilities. If anyone could recommend a specific service that’s both reliable and useful that would be great.
My suggestion would be that if we wanted to embark on this summary exercise sooner rather than later, then Google doc would be a good place to start. I’m pretty sure it could be all moved elsewhere later, if a better option materialized.
Q, 8:11pm – too bad you have trouble loading. No issues here. This one thread always takes a while because it’s so voluminous.
Any thoughts on the Summary exercise Intp1 suggested?
@Marlin – Yes you are probably right, better to make a start than try for perfection.
BTW – for mailinator you would need to use the cloaked address feature otherwise there is no security.
“Mailinator has introduced a “cloaking” feature in which every recipient name has a cloaked identifier starting with “M8R-” and a string of characters. Mail may be sent to either the original recipient name or the cloaked name. Mail will only go to the mailbox for the original recipient name, and the cloaked address will always have an empty mailbox. For example, the recipient name wikipedia (“[email protected]”) will also have the cloaked address M8R-as16dx (“[email protected]”). Mail sent to the cloaked address M8R-as16dx will go to the destination mailbox wikipedia, while the M8R-as16dx mailbox will always be empty. There is no way to translate the cloaked address into the destination address.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mailinator
Also on another subject: I’ve suspected for a while it is mini-bar raiding (not deprivation) that is to blame!
Bleb, you may be right about the mini-bar. Coupled with company deprivation…
Bleb & Marlin, I have just seen your replies, RE: photos in France. My point was that apart from the moral aspect, using & ‘publishing’ a photo of a French man without permission will surely have copyright . But if Sorrensen wants to take that risk it is his problem.
I’m not sure what it is you want to achieve with this new site INTPL, does it need to be as complicated as this discussion would seem to be making it ?
Do you simply want to store information with easy access for ‘members’ with a simple search engine ?
What is wrong with a WordPress blog & using their ‘pages’ ?
This site is so basic, the search facility hopeless with no edit & WP offers much more.
They don’t have to be public.
I ran a private site for ‘like minded’ people which worked well for 6 years,all you needed was an invite & a password.
Privacy was through a Gmail address dedicated to the administrators for the site.
Katie,
Re Intp1’s proposal – it’s not a blog but an organized summary of the different scenarios, hopefully ranked according to criteria still to be developed. The way I understand it, it won’t replace this blog, but rather organize the many bits of information gathered in one place. read his entry and you’ll see where it’s going.
I liked the proposal because i too see a need to have the bits of information sorted in one place and mostly, the different scenarios laid out in something like a common basis. We all have favorites and we all made suggestions. But given the unwieldiness of this forum with nearly 20,000 posts, good luck at finding anything by anyone.
As for participation, Intp1’s idea was to have anyone contribute who wants to, but keep the number of editors to a relatively small number.
Right now, we are still talking about the format and the platform. I thought Intp1’s idea of laying out the information on a spreadsheet is what’s needed to do the first organization, which means a platform is needed with that capability. Once it gets going it wouldn’t be all that complicated, but there are privacy issues to sort out as well as manageability.
I doubt all that many will be interested since this involves some work, and also require applying a fair degree of impartiality. Not an easy task by any means.
Intp1 – correct me if I’m wrong on any of this.
@Q 30 Mar, 2014 – 8:11 pm
“Having trouble accessing these threads over the past few days, and cannot go beyond the first page of comments in the Disappearing Aircraft thread. Comments and pages, like aircraft, also disappear.”
That’s weird. All 6 pages of Disappearing Aircraft work for me and apparently others who are active. If you have another browser installed try that. Or try clearing all browser caches and cookies.
Marlin, yes I understand that…but not spreadsheets !
My thinking was not that people write blogs, but they could post comments in the blog format which means photo’s,HTML,edit,a good search facility & nesting comments too .
Yes it could be used as a sort of annex….all the things that cannot be posted on this site can be posted & read over there & archived.
WP,have so many extras,but still free,like menus & pages in addition to the main body of a blog if everyone is free to post it makes a lot of sense,as long as people stay with topic .
The other alternative is administrators take & archive all from here & no one else has input but a read only site,is that the idea ?
I agree about the work, at one time I was running three sites at the same time with a variety of posters, so I don’t underestimate that.
Another thing I found that there were lots of promises for help at the start but like all voluntary work,it usually ends up with just one doing the most,hence my self imposed retirement.
Then there’s the problem of agreement amongst administrators…………..I’d say three at the most.
However I do think it’s a good idea, something is needed to enhance the experience of this sleuthing lark . ;-))
Any way that’s my two penneth.
I took a long weekend so here is a summay of my response to various contributors
Marlin:
There is this aversion to Google these days due to privacy issues. Agreed, but I ask myself how much privacy is needed? Anything that will be on the summary is already public on this site.
Bleb/Katie: A subject specific Wiki: So, as I look at that I see that this consists really of setting up a web site with various Wiki like options. That is an option but wasn’t my original intention. Because, I don’t envision it as a discussion site with an improved database capability that takes up the baton from here. I see it as a way of summarizing the relevant discussion to date as an addendum, or annex plus summary. So that in years to come the essence of these discussions in terms of where we got to regarding solutions is summarized.
Researchers, amateur and pro, personal connection or no, don’t need to struggle so much with, what the hell was going on in this blog? Did they get anywhere and where? If there are some further developments like the recent arrests, they could be added but if not, then it serves as a précis, a monument if you like of the core work here.
Katie, same applies to a WordPress site. Maybe it is because I have been involved with setting up my own business site and a site for a local club recently, I know how it can suck you in to much more work than you envisaged. A spreadsheet is nowadays a basic tool that is not beyond most and gives some un-refined search-ability but also has inherent organization, so that folks can browse through with easy understanding of the logic of how it is laid out. A word-processing file is harder to organize with continuous updates and can be subject to an over-run of waffle. Only the editors would need to know the ins and outs of how it is operated, but we could also have other folders with backup data, e.g. photos, video, links at the time, lists of people, items, other relevant data, maybe a timeline document. I personally don’t want the vehicle to be “private” since no-one would be able to find the information.
Ex-MZT people: might be an option but I have not hardly looked at the other sites so would require a lot more research by me to get comfortable.
Marlin: The devil is in agreeing on details of likelihood criteria. I hear you and have felt your anticipated pain before but this isn’t a system requiring procedural consistency or has regulatory oversight, It is openly and admittedly subjective; at the end the day i) Most of the inconsistency will come from personal gut feeling ii) This will be dampened by averaging of evaluations iii) The likelihood grade is not that important to the concept. Perhaps only important when deciding if a concept makes the cut for being included.
“COMPLEXITY” the Occam’s razor factor could/should be taken into account. If a number of situations need to be true, Possible if this and this and this need to be true, that naturally multiplies the none-likelihood, just like rolling more & more dice to get multiple sixes.
Privacy – There should not be a need for people to publish their real email addresses on here: Agreed absolutely, I agree that temporary e-mails could be a useful part of establishing contact but, I believe, in order to log into Google docs you need a consistent e-mail address, so for the Google docs option, each editor would need an alternate, non-temporary e-mail. The e-mail address alone would be known to the other editors (and Google- so that might be a downer for some but see top of post) This process would also be considerably aided if this site provided a small amount of initial cooperation but I don’t want to get too bogged down in this at the moment.
Censorship by Google: Personally I don’t think this string and it’s digestibility is currently that important to those who would ask Google to suppress but there would be backups on each editors machine AND, if we could eventually get a file to be click and open-able on this site, it would have all the safeguards that apply here.
Craig has no objections? I think if he did he could say so or make it known in some way (my intention would be to start with contacting the site privately) but maybe it’s a question best not asked publically & directly?
To me this is just like summarizing public articles from newspapers. It is public domain information and it is for public consumption without a commercial end?
So, Having opened this up, I am thinking to start to narrow focus on some aspects.
Google docs seems to be emerging as a least worst option.
Marlin, you and I seem to be the most enthusiastic so far and I am comfortable with you especially in the most important criteria. There needs to be at least one other but maybe we need to start to build something more concrete to prove the concept to others. Do you. a) Reciprocate in terms of comfort level and b) Are you happy to try to establish some anonymous,off-line contact?
Just an idea, on Icke you could exchange e-mails using Private Messages.
*e-mail addresses
Just doing a bit of “catch-up” here Marlin
24 Mar, 2014 – 7:19 pm. Ref. your and my view on the tit for tat thing just one point I shared somewhere but will repeat for your, and anyone else’s consideration – I’m not sure it’s that significant but there we go. Hogan Howe was in front of the Home Affairs Committee (I think) and about the same time that incredibly embarrassing information slipped out about destroying all the Yew Tree documents in 2003. What we don’t know is why after ten years the information slipped out NOW. Was it only recently discovered by our own recent Savile enquiries or was it some other source. Don’t suppose the note to the papers was in French by any chance???
Sorry Intp1
25 Mar, 2014 – 10:15 am only just seen your suggestion. Good idea but not sure we are set up for co-ordinated stuff. No doubt both the British and French teams did this months ago if they were at all genuine. I wonder if they compared them? The police are in a hundred times better position what is reliable evidence and what isn’t to start with. Just take the BMX5 story. There is no obvious reason why this was presented as a fresh appeal on Crime Watch six months later, if it was the forestry guy who reported it right at the beginning. Of course another six months was to elapse before we were told it WAS the forestry guy who had seen it on Panorama. Up to then it could have been anyone. Not until then had the foresters been directly linked time wise at least to the killings. The French could have denied the story but they didn’t. Perhaps they hadn’t worked through the consequences I described at length. Of course there is a difference to us knowing and it being GENERALLY known for which the press have to publicise it. The implications of the Panorama programme were never explicitly developed and as far as I am aware no paper did either. Was this under direction or just sloppy journalism. The fact that Maillaud has never explained how TWO sets of forestry vehicles and staff either side of the killing and passing it, could be regarded as being uninvolved one way or another is deeply suspect.
Bleb
28 Mar, 2014 – 9:16 am that would seem to be a very good idea to get the ideas out there. As a techno-phobe I have no idea how to do it. Have tried amending subject matter on a totally different subject without success. And presumably there would have to be some precautions against it being subverted or incorporating factual errors. If you know how good luck to ya.
Intp1
28 Mar, 2014 – 10:31 am one possibility might be to just “round robin” a draft document by e-mail to trusted contributors on a strictly personal and confidential basis. There are some who have proved themselves to be reliable and “uncontaminated”. Others less so. The circulation list would somehow have to be agreed on a consensus basis I suppose. If peoples names were going to bee attached they would all have to be able to approve the final document. Tricky at a distance but possible. Like a snowball rolling down the hill, it could grow organically. Everyone could have a distinctive type script and tag so at a glance it could be seen who was contributing or suggesting amendments, to what. The final editing would probably have to be left to one (you or Marlin?) before being posted. The thing might start with a basic template of theories 1 2 3 etc to which people might add pros and cons. Just a suggestion.
Thought I would re-post this one from the other thread as it summarises a point i made way back about both SAH and SM. Make of it what you will but at the end of the day people do things for REASONS, and presumably the more risky the “thing” the more persuasive the reason. I hope “ben-scott” doesn’t mind!
Ben-Scot NON-Collaborator
29 Mar, 2014 – 5:35 pm”Katie; As you know, the pilot had exploitable weaknesses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clandestine_HUMINT_asset_recruiting
“A 1998 document describes typical foreign intelligence recruitment against citizens with access to sensitive technology.[5] “Hostile intelligence services begin the agent recruitment process by scrupulously collecting information on persons who are connected to industry, RDT&E laboratories, government institution staffs, military bases, and design organizations”. A candidate for recruitment usually fulfills the following criteria:
They must be in a position to provide information of real use to the hostile intelligence service, either to steal or copy S&T information, to communicate secret information by word of mouth, or to recruit new agents.
There must exist motives by means of which an individual can be recruited:
Financial considerations/greed (transcends all other motives)
Revenge/disaffection
Blackmail/hostage Situations (used in USSR but very infrequently in United States)
Appeal to emigre’s national pride
Exploitation of an emotional involvement
False flag approaches
Exploitation of an American’s naiveté
Sex
Ideology (which is no longer the motivation it was during the Cold War; the Soviet service changed its emphasis to concentrate on sympathy for “persecuted” elements of American, or other targeted, society)
============================
Of course Cointelpro has a mirror image.
@ Tin V 31 Mar 6:53
A subset of this is for intelligence agency to do similar vetting brfore approaching people on their own side. Various inducements include simple do it for ur country to if you want that Govt contract ….
Then use them as cut outs to fish with. This can and has, predictably proved to be quite hairy.
@ Tim V 31 Mar 6:24
Internet is down so am reduced to thumbs & PDA ( do we still call them that?)
Yes, both teams would have extensive a nalysis documents, presumably
Doggedly omitting where they are forbidden to go but because they dont intend to solve, they will never see the light of day .
Having been involved with several people editing documents, the round robin idea will work when the doc is almost finalized. On a Google doc folder there would be a sandbox document for multiple ongoing edits but I would be happy to work with you on a pass for review basis if that is what you need?
Intp1, very busy day/night for me today, but to just answer your last two questions in your detailed post from earlier today:
a) I am [quite] comfortable indeed.
b) No problem about off-line contact, but I need to work up the e mail still. I thought I’ll take up Bleb’s suggestion of Mailinator – just for kicks. Might as well use this opportunity to learn a few new tricks. A bit later?
Bleb’s words of caution are well taken, but somehow I kind of doubt we’ll have all that much impersonator issues. I think you can see why, at least in my case,it may be a bit difficult to impersonate, what with the verbosity, specialty typos and all….
Agreed with getting a start, then see how many may want to join, once things get rolling. Google docs is fine – I just started playing with it yesterday to get a feel for how the spreadsheets work. So far so good.
More later.
I promised some early thoughts on Criteria for ranking:
Several categories, including e.g.,
i. Consistency with facts – as known and/or inferred with high probability.
ii Consistency with timeline (as best that can be laid out between a few
known and reasonably surmised time parameters)
iii Motivational credibility (needs to be defined, but addresses the “why go to
all that length just to…”, and also the qui bono)
iv Complexity (how many must be in the “know”, how difficult to execute, etc.)
This is just for starters. I can think of two more categories that are not redundant, but don’t yet have a good, simple descriptor. my preference would be for a maximum of five categories, to make things simple.
WITHIN each category, I’d suggest employing a simple ranking of 1-5, with 5 being the highest (eg, on category (1), a 5 would be for consistency with ALL the facts, as listed according to some agreed order. A 1 would be for lack of consistency with several known facts).
Then the ranks for each category can be multiplied to get a final rank – which can be ordered from the highest, giving the most likely scenario, to the lowest. The advantage of such a simple system is that it convolves the different factors on something like a common basis.
This may appear too exact for the purpose, but the devil is, as always, in the details. After all, lots of gut feeling has to go into the definition of the categories, and the assignment of a rank. That’s why maintaining a degree objectivity is key (and I recognize that it’s not easy to assign a rank to an idea that one does not favor for whatever reason. There is that all too human tendency to just dismiss that which we disagree with and not deal with it).
Also, i think this is where input from others would be so critical. I am kind of hoping that somewhere along the way, posters like Ferret and Straw44berry who knew and contributed a lot, but kind of moved on, can be enticed to at least weigh in here and there. Like several stated, the more the better (within reason), as long as it’s not too many of the professional naysayers and disrupters (lots of those on conspiracy boards – but that’s par for the course).
As
@Marlin & Intp1
Good luck with this.
I’ll gladly critique your work, hopefully in an unbiased and constructive manner.
Question – How do you envision non-editors contributing? Via posting on here or some other mechanism?
And regarding the “naysayers and disrupters”, they may be a nuisance to you editors but the beauty of this idea is they will not be able to pollute the document.
@Marlin
27 Mar, 2014 – 11:29 pm
As regards DDT’s comment about “Frédéric Brun” known as “Brindille” (Twiggy?).
I think I do get it, kind of .. it’s about the enigmatic obituary, and the photo. I and others did a translation of the obit (more correctly a memorial) on here way back and it is beyond weird, especially positioned as it was, juxtaposed with Sylvain Mollier’s actual obituary in Le Dauphiné Libéré.
I didn’t realise before today that a Frédéric Brun is an accomplished 56 year old Tour de France cyclist who actually also took part in the Tour des Pays de Savoie in both 2009 and 2010. There’s a lot about him on the internet, including a French wikipedia page here:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Brun_(cyclisme,_1957)
Obviously no connection as I’m sure Frédéric Brun is just as common a name in France as Fred Brown would be in the Anglosphere, but just another curious coincidence.
But what is also interesting is the fact that Frédérique Brun, presumably the relaxation, cosmetics and personal care professional, who appeared in the same list of supporters of Solidarité et Progrès to which Sylvain Mollier and his father previously also subscribed in 2008 here:
http://solidariteprogres73.elunet.fr/index.php/tag/COMIT%C3%89%20DE%20SOUTIEN
is still very active in local left wing politics.
Incidentally, it seems the left wing opposition has held its ground in the most recent 2014 municipal elections in Ugine. As in 2008, the left wing opposition group was formed and supported by Solidarité et Progrès.
“Il ne fut pas simple de faire une liste de gauche à Ugine, mais n’est-ce pas dans la difficulté que les grands desseins prennent forme ? Après de nombreuses réunions et consultations individuelles, une équipe nouvelle s’est constituée à l’initiative de l’association «Solidarité et progrès», association qui, depuis 1995, soutient le groupe d’opposition de gauche au Conseil municipal d’Ugine.
Chacun a adhéré à «Ugine pour tous» sur la base de valeurs définies dans une charte commune où il est notamment dit : «Nous voulons oeuvrer, au niveau communal, à rassembler la population sur des objectifs de gauche humanistes et progressistes,en respectant par ailleurs nos différences». Revendiquant les principes d’autonomie communale, de coopération choisie et le maintien des moyens financiers des collectivités locales, «Ugine pour tous» précise ainsi les grandes lignes de sa démarche sur le plan local : défendre le service public, maintenir le logement social, développer l’emploi, sauvegarder le tissu industriel, favoriser un urbanisme plus «humain» et faire vivre une vraie démocratie communale.
Agnès Crépy, conseillère municipale sortante et directrice d’école, conduira la liste dans laquelle on compte de nombreux jeunes, de nombreux responsables syndicaux (issus des entreprises Ugitech, Timet, Dupont Faverges, de l’hôpital d’Albertville ou de l’Education professionnelle) et des responsables associatifs oeuvrant auprès de l’Ecole publique ou du monde caritatif.
Après une soirée débat en janvier, une nouvelle rencontre publique aura lieu le 26 février. Elle permettra d’enrichir le programme et de présenter la liste. Par ailleurs, une réunion est prévue à Albertville, au local de la liste Front de gauche, pour établir un programme pour le Conseil communautaire de Co-Ral, le samedi 22 février à 8h30. C’est bien parti !”
http://savoie.pcf.fr/51088
NB, BB, LEFT wing!
More recent memorials for Frédéric Brun known as Brindille:
http://www.libramemoria.com/avis/le-dauphine/savoie/2013/09/29/avis-frederic-brun?Page=1
Mochyn69 – thans for the remind and also for that memorial piece for Frederic Brun. At least the names of family members are mentioned and it may be possible to identify him more conclusively?
Your 7:50am post: the avid cyclist I assume is not brindille who died in the accident, I assume?
Interestingly, in the memorial, no spouses or children are mentioned. I recall, we had an age for the individual – in his thirties?
As it stands, and despite what DDT said, we still don’t know whether the photo belongs to this particular Frederic. I always had my doubts, both because of the age and the stated occupation.
Also Mochyn69 – I take it we have never seen a memorial – or any other mention of Sylvain Mollier, have we? as I said earlier, it is strange that an individual passes away – violently too – and so few seem to mourn him, miss him or care enough about his demise to at least post a reward or something. It’s like he never lived, or if he did, left almost no marks on individuals with whom he must have had contact: family, friends, colleagues.
Unlike Frederic Brun, who seems to be mourned well enough, our Sylvain Mollier is mourned – and his passing acknowledged – seemingly only by some anonymous on-line conspiracy theorists and riddle solver types. I said it was sad, and still think so.
@Marlin & Bleb
Open discussion: Yes, here and a version would be viewable but not editable, on Googledocs as each issue is put up.
I don’t mind rational naysaying so much as disruptive. I really hope some people could come back to contribute.
I was surprised just now how I couldn’t really search this site by contributors name 😮
Re the criteria, A process is good and I am up for it though I prefer that there is a final doc summarizing the rationale rather than publish multiple work-up columns that need to be waded through.
Also, some people tend to the technical, how detail more than the high-altitude why? questions and vice versa. All angles of inquiry can be valid and valuable and I think could be evaluated individually as significant theories explaining the event in one way or other.
Theories need to have some weight but would sometimes not be mutually exclusive and don’t need to explain everything? – Oh that they could.