My post on the shootings in France has brought tens of thousands of people to this site – but not to read my dull contribution. People are coming to read the comments from other readers.
Today’s development of the bomb squad descending on the al-Hilli house does not in itself worry me enormously. You may recall the massive terror scare that was ramped up when some Muslim students in Manchester were found to own a bag of sugar.
In fact we have the opposite phenomenon today, with the spook-fed “security correspondents” on TV lining up to tell us it is probably just everyday household stuff. This deviation from the standard Islamophobic “Muslims = bombs” narrative is so startling it makes me wonder why the “move along, nothing to see here” line is being taken so quickly.
My own security services sources insist that al-Hilli was not a person of current interest to the UK intelligence agencies and was not involved in anything clandestine. I have no reason to disbelieve them. On the other hand, the limited and confusing information in the media is almost entirely from official sources. I find it very strange indeed how little attention has been paid to the murdered French cyclist, and how easily it is presumed he was just a passerby. Surely it is as likely he was the intended victim and the al-Hillis the accidental witnesses?
Please do read the comments on my first entry on the subject to see the debate unfettered by the censorship in the mainstream media. This is perhaps my favourite comment:
From Janesmith101
All comments regarding Sylvain, Al-Hilli and a possible nuclear link are being removed from sites I’ve posted on in The Guardian, Independent and Huffpo UK.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/sep/09/alps-killer-motive-baffles-police
Here was my comment, I added as a point of fact it was completely speculative and an unproven theory in a later comment, also removed.
Sylvain Mollier, the ‘passing’ cyclist, was in fact a nuclear metallurgist who worked for a french nuclear company called Cezus (a subsidiary of Areva). Cezus fabricates and processes zirconium into metal and nuclear grade zircoaloy for nuclear fuel assemblies – it also has other applications in aerospace such as components and ceramics for missiles and satellites. Mr Al-Hilli was also a skilled aerospace engineer, on what looks to be his first camping holiday.
What is the probability that two highly skilled engineers managed be at the same remote place, at the same time, yet still managed to end up dead as a result of what looks to be a military style assasination?
As someone else pointed out in The Independent comments, the deceased were found by a ‘retired’ RAF officer who, we assume, will recieve perpetual anonymity as a witness. If the police are looking for a motive, try an intercepted rendevous by a security service fixated on denying a hostile power illicit nuclear technology.
http://wrmea.org/component/content/article/162-1995-june/7823-israel-bombs-iraqs-osirak-nuclear-research-facility.html
The Huffington Post UK reports that this wasn’t the family’s first trip to the camp site. An earlier report had asked other camp site visitors whether they had seen the family before and they had replied they hadn’t. If this isn’t wasn’t the first visit by Al-Hilli, it might slightly increase the odds that he knew or had met Mollier before, this being the last in a series of rendevous of a transactional nature. Mollier lived and worked locally.
Again, I’m not sure of the truth of these reports, there is some very sloppy journalism, as there is always seems to be. I’ve read for example Mollier’s company Cevus descirbed as a steel firm something which it is patently not, but perhaps it may have been a detail lost in translation.
An interesting comment summing up some of the strange coincidences, at least, surrounding these murders. My other favourite comment calls me a “macchiavellian shill”.
I have only one thought of my own I want to add at the minute. Al-Hilli was a Shia muslim and had been on pilgrimage to Qoms in Iran. What if it is indeed true that he was in possession of no especial nuclear or defence secrets to pass on to the Iranians, but the Israelis thought that he was? The Israeli programme of assassination of scientists involved in Iran’s nuclear programme is a definite fact. It makes as much sense as anything else at the moment, as a possibility.
I am not saying that is what happened. But the directions in which the mainstream media is being so strenuously pointed by official sources, like the massacre of an entire family over an inheritance, are certainly no more inherently probable. Certainly as we are now told all the shots were from one gun, for the assassin to get each victim in the head with none of them being able to escape, indicates real proficiency with the weapon and a very high level of training.
@_p
Thanks for translation. All important evidence to be preserved, even if it adds little in this case.
Re Air2000/RAF man. what screamed out fake story at me (along with all those other strange facial expressions) was when he said NOT……AT…….ALL in reply to some scripted question.
by the way – why no back head shots or even front-on shots from the BBC interviewer of BM? Also unusual I think. Though we did get a “back head” shot of BM in reflection…perhaps BM wrote the questions and interjections too?
@ferret
Good comparison work. Having hands covered in blood (and perhaps also on clothing/face/mobile phone by transfer also, but not mentioned by Philippe D) would have been one thing I would have said myself from beside the wardrobe.
The Spooky D.Telegraph had an amazing insight into the Al-Saffar family. Grannie’s husband died of “kidney” problems. Who was feeding them that?
@Roger
While anything is possible re B Martin I think the discovery that they owned a house very close to the area and had been trying to rent it makes the idea that he was sent on a surveillance or other mission much less likely.
Hang on a mo… I don’t think anyone suggested he was on a surveillance mission… So, let’s turn it around and assume he *was* on one.
😀
I’d never thought of that before… but why not? Buying the “holiday home” via his company Silver Fern, with its mysterious investment of £600k would be perfect cover. Maybe the deserted forest road was a habitual meet, and the house would give him a perfect alibi to be around on his bike when needed?
The road is not normally used by hikers as we can tell from PD’s testimony – normally they’d go round the other way. And it was a first time for Mollier, too, apparently.
His account is probably more formalised after hours of questioning about it.
I’ve heard this reasoning before when trying to account for made-up testimony, but it doesn’t wash with me. Accurate testimony flows, is coherent, and makes sense. RAFman’s “sibling” statement stands out like a sore thumb.
Roger,
I dont believe 1 word uttered by Brett Martin and therefore do not believe a single letter that you type.
PS. Another thought, the idea of BM’s “holiday home” being a cover for surveillance also explains why BM would bother to tell us in the interview that he’d spent the morning doing DIY on the house, as he normally did. Who gives a flying one what he did every morning??? Or even on that morning? Best guess – it’s a cover story to explain why he’s there, because it’s over-egging the pudding. If he has a holiday home there he doesn’t need to explain why he’s there at all…
@ferret
I agree that the shooting could have happened quite a lot earlier than 4pm
Possibly. Dr Kelly style reinventing of a timeline. There would have had to be early cordons on the road very quickly to prevent too many randonneurs driving up – or coming down. No evidence though.
@Bluebird (perhaps off-topic)
Reading the “likes” of Dr Saffar in her blogger profile, – I read “the books of David Icke” first, where she writes The books of David Icea
…heart rate back to normal now.
Regarding the younger daughter.
It is not credible that a conscious four-year-old would have remained out of view in the car for eight hours, especially in circumstances where, supposedly, a loud revving engine (especially one in reverse gear) is turned off.
So, either she was not present as her family was shot or, if she was, she may have been sedated by the ‘good’ guys (who may also be the ‘bad’ guys) and (re)placed in the car. (Re)Placement in the car could have been accomplished some time after the killings either with or without the acquiescence of the Gendarmerie.
The initial stories as they appeared suggest the police had been given an ‘official’ head count – in advance of their arrival at the site – and that it subsequently proved wrong.
BM’s reference to a ‘sibling’ cannot be made to fit with his innocent arrival on the scene of a multiple murder where he saw only one child.
Philippe D’s comment that he could see nothing wrong with the older daughter but that she seemed to be dead is also not credible – given the blood on BM which, if innocently present, must have come from the wound to the older daughter’s head, and/or the shot to the torso/shoulder. And, as others have observed – where are his two female companions?
Lastly, and not intending to be disrespectful to the man if he truly is a bystander, Philippe Didierjean is basically a combination of three names which have both forename and surname uses… it sounds a bit made up.
Perhaps some of the experts on this messageboard would like to inform the rest of us what the external evidence of a fractured skull is. They are not always accompanied by bleeding and there have been cases where hospital A&E departments have failed to diagnose them correctly. It can’t have been a very bad fracture, possibly a hairline, as the little girl was able to talk lucidly to investigators and has been discharged from hospital.
Whilst Brett Martin didn’t know Zanib had a sibling when he first came across the scene he did by the time he made the statement. So his initial thought that she was just playing might’ve got bundled into “playing with sibling”. Anyway if she was playing with anyone why shouldn’t she be playing with a brother or sister? Seems like a reasonable assumption.
I know all this is going to be wasted on the “troofers” who have already found Martin guilty through due process of trial by blog and will dismiss anybody who tries to inject some commonsense into this discussion as “government shills” or whatever but I thought it worth a try anyway.
“It is not credible that a conscious four-year-old would have remained out of view in the car for eight hours,”
Why not? On what evidence do you base this conclusion? How do you know how a traumatised 4 year old would behave? Would they all behave in the same manner?
@Ferret It seems unnecessary and overkill (!) to buy a house in an area of operation. While it seems minor, the fact that his car reg. is displayed on his ad for the house would be intolerable by an agent.
There is a danger that one latches on to the “RAF” word and then dismisses any counter evidence.
In relation the BBC interview I try to put myself in that position and I’m sure I’d appear wooden and careful and despite I’m sure that people on discussion board’s would be pointing out “holes” in my account. In my opinion the discovery of a house owned very close by,by B Martin diminishes the possibility of his involvement.
In relation to the “handler” argument. I find those arguments have to be explained by supporting complex explanations which seem to me to be less likely than the fact that it was a Mollier – Al-Hilli deal with Martin a non-player.
@Sraw44berry I’m not sure if you intended to come across rude…I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt!
@roger
You dodged the question.
Why did he make a big OOPS ™ by saying he thought Zainab was playing with a brother or sister. Zainab was stumbling around, shot in the shoulder, smashed orbital, smashed skull, injuries so bad she was put into an induced coma FFS (IF we believe the FAIRYTALE ™ ) – then in the FAKE INTERVIEW ™ he talks about injuries and a recovery position…
But PD COMPLETELY blows RAFman’s ™ MULTIPLE LIES
COMPLETELY out of the water! 🙂
To say RAFman was there by a fluke is POPPYCOCK ™ 🙂
It says here
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2203206/French-Alps-shooting-Zainab-Al-Hilli-told-police-saw-bad-man.html
“She suffered multiple facial injuries that caused two subdural hematomas and a fractured orbital bone.
“She was beaten around the face with great force, the trauma was immense.”
A subdural hematoma is a potentially life-threatening brain injury and the orbital bone surrounds the eye.
Now, if that be true, that she was beaten on the face, it is IMHO possible that she remained conscious throughout, or regained consciousness shortly afterwards. If she had been beaten on the back of the head or on the temple, it would be a different story, and she would most probably have died.
Speculating, I would guess that she went down after the first blow and was lucky enough to fall on her back, so that the subsequent blows landed on her face – which is horrible, but much less life-threatening than being hit anywhere near the temple or on the back of the head. Her falling on her back would also be consistent with the shot to her shoulder not causing any more damage. If she had been lying on her side whilst being shot in the shoulder, the bullet would probably have entered her torso.
What I find really intriguing is the claim made here
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2203206/French-Alps-shooting-Zainab-Al-Hilli-told-police-saw-bad-man.html
‘She was beaten around the face with great force, and then shot in the shoulder – the trauma was immense,’ said another source.
If that really was the sequence of events, the shooter must have wanted to spare her by *only* shooting her in the shoulder. He must have been leaning over her, having just beaten her face to a bloody pulp, and there is no way he could have missed her head if he had wanted to shoot her in the head like the others. By the same token, the assumption that the shooter must have run out of ammunition because he ended up pistol-whipping her would be disproved by this sequence of events.
Why not? On what evidence do you base this conclusion? How do you know how a traumatised 4 year old would behave? Would they all behave in the same manner?
Do you have children? Have you an extended family network and friends with children? I have.
OK – up until now I have believed that Brett Martin was telling the truth – OK not the whole truth but maybe 90- 95 % and was also withholding some stuff – perhaps for “operational reasons” to do with the investigation. The more I think about it the more absurd it seems. Why not mention the Frenchman Philippe D originally. Why does his testimony not match – there is the fact that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable but that does not explain not mentioning him originally. We still do not know who called the emergency services for sure. But that also begs the question if either Brett’s or Phillipe’s testimony has been invented or even tweaked why not make them match more closely. It is more the late “appearance” of Phillipe D more that the discrepancies that matter. Why let knowledge of eyewitnesses trickle out one by one? Especially when first reports about the first witness make no mention of the second. Why was Phillipe D erased from the first version of this story and why was it necessary to de-erase him at a later date especially as his testimony only confused things? Unless confusion is the point – everyone concentrates on the scene of crime perhaps at the expense of the wider picture.
Do you have children? Have you an extended family network and friends with children? I have.
and they’ve been witness to having both parents and grand mother being shot dead in front of them have they?
Try reading up on the Freeze Response in children. This site has some information although it’s focused on abuse the reaction to any other trauma would likely be the same.
http://www.asca.org.au/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=199
“Why does his testimony not match – there is the fact that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable ”
You’ve answered your own question there I think.
@Kempe
Are you Danish, by any chance? Your english is very good, so it’s hard to tell.
If you’re not a native speaker, maybe you can’t hear that “as if playing with a sibling” is a decidedly odd and unusual phrase – and I’m not the only one to say so.
To say “as if playing”, or “as if playing with someone else”, or “as if playing with a brother or sister”… all would be OK.
But “as if playing with a sibling” just isn’t something you hear. It stands out like a sore thumb.
And why is buying a holiday home with MI5/MI6 money to use as a surveillance base “overkill”? Sounds like perfect cover to me.
And I don’t think the car reg in the picture is that important, as (a) the general public in the UK can’t find out much with it, and (b) anyone who’s interested could find out who owned the house anyway via property records. And, presumably he is findable anyway via the website and his company? So no big secret, really.
Felix & co.
Thanks for finding those pictures. She definitely looks younger than 70 on those pictures. However, when i watch only the throat and neck of hers on felix’ picture link she looks like she were 70. We simply dont know and i might have been totally wrong.
On the other hand she was very popular in UAE and there should have already been articles of mourning and recognition if that was her.
3379
@kempe in panic mode dissembling UZI HARD DATA STYLE ™ ! 🙂 😉 🙂
@Kempe
Yes I have brought this up before – the differences between the eyewitnesses does not worry me – it the the fact the second one was not mentioned at the time the first (Brett) was brought up. And more problematically the narrative about Brett’s eyewitness account made no mention of Phillipe. Even more problematic is that it seems in the original narrative Brett definably called the emergency services then the story changed to Phillipe – well maybe.
Why not? On what evidence do you base this conclusion? How do you know how a traumatised 4 year old would behave? Would they all behave in the same manner?
Do you have children? Have you an extended family network and friends with children? I have.
=====
Me too. I have a four year old little girl. She’d be terrified and screaming the place down, she most definitely NOT hide under blood soaked skirts for 8 long hours, it would be cold at night, there would be lights, a dog, a helicopter, lots of people around, talking, she’d want water desperately, and food, and toilet time.
FAIRYTALE ™
@anders I didn’t dodge the question. If I was walking up the hill and saw a child who had been shot in the shoulder wobbling about the place, I’m not sure that my first thought would be OMG she’s been shot. I may have more likely thought there was some more normal explanation for it, until I got closer and the reality hit home.
I have to say I was with you guys on BM initially. The whole episode seemed like a state-sponsored killing from the off and therefore you would assume that an ex-RAF guy being first on the scene would be very dodgy. However looking at the evidence I now think it less probable.
There are about the same amount of inconsistencies (and consitencies) between PD and BM as you would expect given that much of the accounts are via 3rd (e.g. police accounts of witnesses statements) parties and often are being translated from foreign media reports e.g. BM makes statement to police –> police report media at press conference –> foreign media (or uk media) publishes story –> lazy UK hacks translate story. While I know others will beg to differ, I’ve read a huge amount of news reporting and haven’t seen any major Gotcha’s in the reports of PD’s and BM’s accounts that haven’t been contradicted by other accounts of the same statements.
Having reviewed it, it seems more probable to me that it was SM & SAL who were doing the business w/out BM’s involvement.
I’m puzzled how people some on this board can speak in absolute terms, with utter conviction, without any hard evidence. My comments are based on balance of probabilities and I accept that there are other possibilities.
The thing about facial wounds is that they bleed a lot, and they are the most conspicuous type of wound one can have. Even in the aerial photo of the crime scene, one can see the huge bloodstain on the ground where the little girl was beaten and shot. Her face and hair must have been a bloody mess, the front of her upper garment soaked in blood.
I fail to see how she could have looked as if she was playing.
Anders is right a 4 year old would be terrified! that scenario would be confusing and scary to her and anyone, she didnt know who to trust and I really dont understand how she could have been there for 8 hours, one without them noticing or hearing her and two what did she do fo 8 hours not move an inch, sleep (she couldnt control the noises or movements she made)!
@ferret
But “as if playing with a sibling” just isn’t something you hear. It stands out like a sore thumb.
=====
Sibling is used constantly in America, my daughter is American. RAFman ™ may have been coached by a CIA specialist, or a Brit trained at Langley.
I have never discounted a joint CIA SIS FAIRYTALE ™ …
@Roger
There are about the same amount of inconsistencies (and consitencies) between PD and BM as you would expect given that much of the accounts are via 3rd (e.g. police accounts of witnesses statements) parties and often are being translated from foreign media reports e.g. BM makes statement to police –> police report media at press conference –> foreign media (or uk media) publishes story –> lazy UK hacks translate story.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much?
We’re comparing the video of BM which was in ENGLISH, hello, first hand & verbatim on TV, with my own direct translation from a French newspaper story (all modesty aside, the translation is pretty damn accurate). And anyone else is of course free to translate it themselves and compare.
There could be some inaccuracy introduced by the French hack but nowhere else, certainly not some three-stage process as you are implying.
Sibling is used constantly in America, my daughter is American. RAFman ™ may have been coached by a CIA specialist, or a Brit trained at Langley.
I have never discounted a joint CIA SIS FAIRYTALE ™
That could certainly account for it…
The thing about facial wounds is that they bleed a lot, and they are the most conspicuous type of wound one can have. Even in the aerial photo of the crime scene, one can see the huge bloodstain on the ground where the little girl was beaten and shot. Her face and hair must have been a bloody mess, the front of her upper garment soaked in blood.
=====
Having been mugged several times, been bottled over the head etc. I can assure you ANY blow to the scalp front or back will bleed profusely.
RAFman ™ and/or PD are lying, they cannot both be right. Our Brit hero was first on the scene, blood on hands, legs it, doesn’t call for help, lies at the FAKED INTERVIEW ™
He should be suspect number one, but isn’t! 🙂
ERGO
He is a spy and being protected by Les Miserables! The Anglo-French SIS brigade. 😉
I think the the “playing with a sibling” thing. Which I believe I was the first to mention here. (Honest I am not seeking glory 🙂 )is not that significant. It just shows most of RAFmans story or at least the refinements of were probably made up or coached at a later date than the original testimony. There is always “leakage” of later known events into testimony as testimonies always change and alter over time.