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?
Here is an off the wall question for you all, was Zeena ever there? I never did believe the story about preserving the crime scene, initially you would need to confirm death and identity of all the victims. Also would you have enough room in the back of a rear wheel drive car for a 7 year old? Was this some sort of kidnapping gone wrong?
Having just re-read the initial press reports, why was BM described as a former RAF officer right from the start? He supposedly left the RAF in 1989 and then worked for BA for 19 years, so why pick on his RAF service and how did they know? I can’t see BM saying ” I am innocent because I was in the RAF 23 years ago”.
@TimV
I think you are making a mistake in reading the accounts (if you have them)…
The latest accts show net liabilities of just £57k, arising from net current liabilities of £430k, offset by fixed assets of £373k.
Directors loan acct is £644k.
Hence my statement that they have lost around £60k from an investment of around £600k.
Not brilliant, but not dire straits.
@Ferret.
My commet increasing are being moderated !
@James
Did you see my conversation with Bluebird, re the “drummer boy” ?
Yes, but no time or energy to do cryptics tonight, sorry. Who’s he?
I can only say, that through reseach, I have found that a contractor using no.55 works for (as traced via LinkedIn) a comapny called “TeamFusion”.
Stick “dot com” after that. And have a look.
http://www.teamfusion.com/
I am saying (and anyone can search this) that Fifty Five appears to be a specialist accountancy firm.
For Chalets in rural France, ex SAS operatives, Mi24 pilots, or current contactors working worldwide.
Make of that what you will.
For me, piece one is in place and cross checked.
@Ferret
Whitehead: more sloppiness? I can’t quite believe it, but don’t have another explanation. Whoever wrote up the SFS accounts wrote Whitehead, and Martin signed right next to Whitehad. Not quite credible to me, but as I said I don’t know why else. What happens on the other years’ accounts? I can only read the on which “someone” helpfully (why?) published on the web.
Sorry James, I can’t connect Team Fusion to 55. Can you fill in some more dots?
We already linked 2 ex-SAS to 55 Princes Gate companies though, last night…
@Jon !
Again !!!!!
Who else is reading this before it is passed ???
I can swear ! Fight other posters ! But submit public fact and I get stopped !
JPK Consultants Ltd
Look into “people”.
Use linked in to look for that name.
Then look at current.
@James – the UK company as registered is a nightclub.
@ felix
re that Linkedin profile. I’d hazard a guess that nosy parkers looking on there for Al Hilli related profiles looked at her profile because she’s called Balsam…and there’s a Balsam Al Hilli. People must have been checking out all the Balsam’s on there just in case.
Felix…
It is not
@James – in that case the company name as supplied on the website is fake.
@Felix
Whitehead: more sloppiness? I can’t quite believe it, but don’t have another explanation.
Far be it from me to pooh-pooh a good conspiracy theory(!) but in my experience most accountants do make a lot of mistakes. Even serious ones like this where they put the wrong name in the “director” line (the name of director from a different client!)
Whoever wrote up the SFS accounts wrote Whitehead, and Martin signed right next to Whitehad. Not quite credible to me, but as I said I don’t know why else.
He probably went, “oh what the *****” when he saw it, and just signed. I can’t understand why he didn’t cross out the wrong name though and just write his own in, in pen, instead. That is odd in my book, but possibly he just couldn’t be bothered or didn’t know he could do that.
What happens on the other years’ accounts? I can only read the on which “someone” helpfully (why?) published on the web.
Ah… where did they publish them? Link would be good. Duedil publish one set for free, that’s probably the one that got posted, right?
And can you not get in to Companies House to download the rest?
I want someone else to take a look and post what they see, just to confirm. I promise you it will be worth your £5…
Your eyes will pop out of your head.
Can’t believe I didn’t see it before…
OK folks, that’s it for me for tonight… let’s see if anyone else takes on my “silver fern accounts challenge…”
Have a good one, folks.
Felix…
Dont be an arse
Co House UK
John Paul Kelly (41)
Director, Security Consultant
26 Jul 2007 – Present (5 years, 2 months, 15 days)
LinkedIn
john paul kelly
security consultant at Team Fusion Ltd
Location
London, United Kingdom
Industry
Security and Investigations
security consultant JPK Consultants ltd
Currently holds this position
@james
er, where is the company Team Fusion at companies house?? co number please.
BTW one of the names here has cropped up in my previous posts – GL10
http://www.bdec-online.com/bd-s1/bd-s1506.cfm
Am well aware of JPK at 55.
This one’s an interesting Team Fusion man.
http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/stuart-harris/6/956/2a6?trk=pub-pbmap
These guys are pretty public..hence I believe we have the Blue Team.
So who are the Red team ?
Our BM said “looked like she was playing with her sibling”.
Did he know the stranger “staggering” about to have a sister or brother ?
Maybe just a slip of the tongue ?
Was Mr Martin “with” Mollier ? Or with Sa’ad ?
Question I am sometimes getting is, was Mr Martin (on a bike) suppose to arrive there…and then get shot along with Sa’ad (and Mollier, CEZUS just down the road, was a mistake) ?
Or were all three parties suppose to be there…with the fourth party ?
@James – I have a short comment awating mod at 11.50(why??) with a question for you.
anyway. Found this at JPK – guess you saw it.
06 Sep 2012 Change In Registered Office Address
interesting date. I guess the previous one was EBRd??
Oh the accountants of that guy…is 55 Funny Gate !
Odd ? Coincidence ? Specialized firm ?
Along with the two 22 Sqd guys and an Mi24 pilot working for the “UNarmy” I am guessing not !
“55 Funny Gate”
🙂
Felix…
Send a note to Jon (I keep getting them to)
But I refer you to my last post. Everyone says “its….” but no one come up with anything. Do you not find it odd that “half” the contractors (and ex contractors) prefer to have their accs done by this firm ?
And yet they are public ? I can think of a thousand places to get paid through (I use one) and no trace of anything in the UK (I don’t live there).
But from my experience, Martin is a contractor most likely….and more than likely “a blue”.
So who for ? Who looking after ? and how badly wrong did this event go ?
@James – sorry, am a bit of an arse..but it’s a completely different cast list at Duedil compared with Cos Ho. Hence the night club. Same Co no.
As I often say, something not quite right here.
Duedil now suddenly gone off line for maintenance – hope that is a coincidence!
For my “two hundred Dirhams worth”, I tend to trust Martin than Hilli !
@James
Funny Gate
RAOFL in true Anders style. Looks like we are heading towards Princes Gate Gate.