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.
KB, identifying him as ex-RAF has overall given impression he is a trustable and reliable witness. No one really has a bad impression of RAF personnel.
If he used to be a property developer, scientist, or a position related to the UK security services etc then you would expect the French police, press and everyone else to entertain the idea more that he is not so innocent in all this.
I did find it strange that from the first day his ex profession was reported but if it means anything is anyones guess.
Why not direct the search on the possibility that concearning the ex-RAF-man we’re dealing with an intended exposing of an ex-profession stated by the french prosecutor. Why the need of revealing the ex-profession of a witness-hero which you also provide anonymity?
Perhaps the Hillimfamily were all gassed to sleep then shot. Would explain why the 4 year old did not move for 8 hours as she was sleeping. There will have been so much noise she would have sneaked a look. Or spoken. If she did not hear shots then were the family already dead and brought up to the woods to be dumped (and she was still gassed) Then shots fired from outside to break the windows. Explains casings inside and outside the car.
Bob the builder did not notice Philippes car, so was the group walking, so were they passed by the cyclists or not. Were the cyclists already there. Raf guy is the key. If he is not involved he should be found by the press for interview. Transparency is the key. So lack of it is really disturbing. Am in France and while media keeps this played down it is a very much talked about topic.
Been lurking for a while. But to add regarding Technology transfer. Don’t forget the missing section of roof rack on the vehicle.
@KB
You can talk about Skorpion, gunfire, number of guns or bullets but you should stick to the facts/reliable sources.
But Maillaud is not reliable. For example, he intially praised RAFman for his sang-froid. But Phillipe D described RAFman as being in a panic. And Maillaud interviewed them both straight after the asassination. So… was RAFman panicked or calm? You tell me. Maillaud also kept Phillipe D secret for some days… and initially said that RAFman had called the emergency services, but later changed that to Phillipe D. He is simply not reliable.
I don’t recall he talked about any witness who heard gunfire. The story of “heavy 30sec gunfire” is only to be found in the British press. If there is a witness who said that, Maillaud never confirmed it. If there is a witness who said that to one British journalist it should appear clearly in the newspaper making the interview. Which is not the case.
Yes, odd isn’t it? The same phrase appearing simultaneously in at least three mainstream UK media sources. So… where did it come from? Did they all simultaneously make up the same bull? (Some coincidence!!!) Ditto with Skorpion – several papers simultaneously “making up” the exact same story. What a strange coincidence! (I think not.)
He’s identified as ex-RAF : trustable, reliable… -> Positive.
No name, no other personnal element. -> He’s protected.
He’s not suspicious : but he was found alone on the scene with blood on hands and didn’t call the police/emergency. -> Protected although it doesn’t make sense. First man on the scene of such a murder is a suspect. He was never considered like that, probably never been intensively questionned by the police.
He has “nerves of steel” -> Positive but contradiction with Philippe D who describes him as panicking.
He has “a good sense of observation, was very helpful” : -> Positive but contradiction with the facts : he said he saw a “dark car” but cannot say if the car is dark green or black or actually anything accurate. He can’t even say the brand/model of the car. He can’t say how many people or anything about the people inside the car. That’s supposed to happen on a very narrow road, meaning he was at maximum 1 meter of the car when he crossed it and had probably to be very careful not to get hit by the car (meaning he saw very well the car ! there is no other possibility here). But Maillaud never said he is looking for a particular car…
So he’s been portrayed above suspicion and as helpful as the main witness but actually he’s unable to say anything important has and not been treated as a suspect.
That doesn’t make any sense.
Except if he is working with/for French authorities.
I think he was not supposed to be found there.
So they had to improvise.
They couldn’t hide he was British.
And maybe he identified himself as “ex-RAF”. That seems to be logical to me.
KB:
Aint it possible for a man with nerves of steel to pannick? We also know from the prosecutor that RAf-man could’nt sleep for days despite his nerves of steel … I don’t see any contradiction here which should lead to the point of RAF-man as being highly suspicious …
@Zak
Interesting feedback re mood in France.
Gas?
Thinking outside the box?
But ask yourself, if you are a trained kill team, about to asassinate an unarmed family in cold blood in a secluded car park in a secluded wood… why bother gassing them at all? Just shoot them!!!
It sounds like you are trying to solve the problem of “how come they all sat still, waiting to be shot”. Am I right?
If so, maybe you are thinking (like they want you to) that there was just one shooter.
But if there were three, or four shooters… the problem goes away, as everyone can be shot more or less simultaneously.
Surely it’s easier to believe in 3/4 assailants (who can easily fit into a single car) than in some mysterious gas?
@ReCognito
Really ?
RAFman is :
First man on the scene of a murder.
Has blood on the hands.
Is English like the victim.
Has not called emergency/police.
Doesn’t provide any solid information but useless one like : a “dark car”.
(Philippe D. is actually the 1st witness of the 1st suspect.)
I see nothing material, nothing logical, nothing factual that would put RAFman above suspicion the way Maillaud did.
The fact he is the 1st on the scene and in the same time considered above suspicion is in itself very suspicious.
And the main point is not to say he is suspicious but that he is protected from the very start even if there are many contradictions.
durak
12 Sep, 2012 – 11:42 am
That’s pretty much how I see it too.
I can find no reliable or consistent information coming from French investigator or media reporting of interviews. Even something as simple as car sightings we get:
‘Ex-RAF chap’ saying he saw a dark 4X4 car and a motorcycle speeding away as he approached on his bike. Presumably these were heading back down towards the village and not up towards the dead end.
French builder saying he saw the Al-Hilli’s car going up at least an hour before shootings but saw no other vehicles.
Lady driver saying she saw small white hatchback speeding away.
Phillippe D (presumably corroborated by the 2 unidentified ladies he was with) say they did not see any other vehicles as they drove up towards the murder scene. They cannot have been driving up long after ‘ex-RAF chap’ arrived at the scene.
It does not make sense. Over 20 years ago I was unfortunate enough to be first on the scene of an horrific roadside event. I am squeamish and not medically trained yet my instinctive reaction was to establish the injured was breathing, get the injured in the recovery position and keep warm with a coat then immediately get to a call box (pre mobiles) to call emergency services. To this day I still recall every detail, the vehicle I saw leaving and the first other vehicle which arrived after me.
How easily removed are those roofrack pieces? Are they portable?
Just wondering whether the missing bit could have been removed and used to smash the car window?
Could it also be that the driver’s side window was smashed to mask something? ie bullet holes in the glass from a separate gun to the one used to fire at the windows on the other side of the car? People in a panic/in shock can act without logic, but I think it odd that RAFman smashed the drivers side window to gain access when the passenger side window was already smashed.
Here’s an idea: Maybe ex-RAF man was uninvolved, not party to the killings, and is retired, but nevertheless has some contact with “hidden” or secret services, say, in Geneva or Annecy. Maybe he did look after the seven year old, but maybe the person he called wasn’t your usual 911 or 999. Maybe his call WAS the first one, but couldn’t be reported.
So Philippe D comes along, finds him with blood on his hands etc, ex-RAF man says he couldn’t phone anyone, so Philippe D was the first call to normal emergency 911/999. And that’s how it’s being reported.
KB
I agree that RAF is being protected from the very start by the french prosecutor. And I think there is a grounded reason for that protection which we/ and the media don’t know about. And I still don’t think the reason for protection is spook-related. I would think a bit more refined act/ professionalism if it was spook-related.
I just simply can’t believe that the ex-RAF-man was free to go without any grounded reason.
Nuid I like your thinking.
TOPIC….
PHILIPPE DESMAZES/AFP/Getty Images
The “photographer” ?
Have a read of this !
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=philippe+desmazes
Interesting story. The website says….
“So it’s not as if he’s just claiming credit for something he had nothing to do with, but it still seems a bit questionable that Desmazes/AFP/Getty have any real claim here”
Was he actually there ????
Desmazes said “The fighters gathered round and gave me enough shadow to take the shot. I was really lucky,”
But there is some doubt that he was actually there !
Makes this thing VERY strange.
@ Mark re: car sightings –
don’t forget there are two roads leading to the sawmill and the start of the forest road up to the car park. So it is possible that the French builder saw the al-Hilli’s car and no others as he was working on reportedly the “last house in Chevaline” and other traffic took the Route du Moulin.
I find the builder’s statement credible as I read that the owner of the house he was working on is (also) British and as the builder was behind schedule with his work he thought he might be in for a bollocking when he saw a car with UK plates approaching. (A distinctive BMW 530d Touring in Bordeaux red).
Relieved when it carried on past, that would have been a memorable moment in his day. Having his anxieties raised in such a manner, one would think he would also be more than usually observant of other passing traffic.
Re: smashing the window – The following scenario is clear to me:
the car was in reverse and engine running, wedged or up against the bank when the exRAF cyclist arrived. By examining photos you can see the rear wheel is dug in, the pattern of dirt in front of rear wheel arch and the dust on roof.
The driver’s window was already broken with bullet holes so exRAF had to make a hole big enough for him to reach in and switch off ignition. The ignition key on a 2004 530d is on the rhs of the steering wheel, is easily seen and reached from the driver’s window and cannot be reached from the passenger side.
@dopey – I think the rack you can see on one side of the car is a single cycle carrier fitted between the roof bars. I have the same on my car for holidays. They come as individual carriers and you fit as many as you need. I do not think anything has been removed. We also know SAH was a keen cyclist so it would make sense.
How easily removed are those roofrack pieces? Are they portable?
Thanks dopey.
It might explain why he’s not being treated as a suspect, even though he was first on the scene. If he called what he considered the scene of an “execution” in to a friend/contact in secret services, he’d probably be considered above suspicion. And Philippe D wasn’t clear on why ex-RAf man hadn’t phoned 999/911. He wasn’t sure if he had no phone, or couldn’t get coverage. Maybe ex-RAF man was delibately fuzzy about it.
@Mark
I can find no reliable or consistent information coming from French investigator or media reporting of interviews… It does not make sense.
Well said.
something went wrong.
something happened
involving a quick change of spook plans.
if mr engineer was going off by himself as has been mentioned by some of the campsite site people,this is perfect david kelly cover for a suicide suicided because of depression.
a lone engineer meeting in the woods set upon held walked deeper in the forest then found with slit wrists or simply got lost on a walk and died of a heart attack.
this seems like an agency transaction that is blown apart from an outside unit.
a long drive with a car caravan plenty crash potential.
mr engineer going off by himself plenty potential.
this is a rapid noisy take down a desperate last resort from panicked spooks and government.
no doubt today phillip d the foto hackman will be changed for another phillip d because of foto hacks lucky libyan gadaffi capture work.
@tony roma
What went wrong is maybe that the whole family was there.
And maybe for SAH, taking the whole family with him was a way to protect himself.
That would also explain why the 2 girls are still alive.
Interesting blog article written by a Brit living in that area.
At the end of the article she mentions that the gendarme haven’t handed the case over to who they would usually hand over a case to.
http://www.marilynztomlins.com/articles/chevaline-the-forgotten-victim-sylvain-mollier/
Maybe Saad al-Hilli took the family with him because he suspected something might happen to him, and he thought that by bringing his family, he would be safe. He reportedly made numerous previous trips on his own – but maybe this meeting was to be the definitive one, where an “exchange” was to take place. He smelled a rat (the location of the meet?), and decided to bring the family along so that there would be witnesses. He just didn’t bank on the ruthlessness of the shooter(s).
In haste. A profile of Sylvain Mollier (in French).
http://m.20minutes.fr/societe/1002032-tuerie-chevaline-cycliste-tue-pere-famille-discret-victime-oubliee/
@KB – sorry for the cross post. I didn’t see your post. Seems like we both were thinking along the same lines.
Interesting comment at the bottom of this article by francknorvege(Google translate, sorry Nuid,
According to investigators – the cyclist was found in front of the right front door of the car (driver’s seat in England) Surprising for a cyclist passing by chance.
He and the father worked every two technologies in “advanced” And they just go?
http://www.leprogres.fr/france-monde/2012/09/12/le-cycliste-tue-a-chevaline-un-pere-de-famille-discret-victime-oubliee
‘Ex RAF chap’ looks nailed on to be more than that. Locals saw about 20 British military types on scene within hours, he ‘did not hear gunfire’ while others did, ‘he saw motorbike and dark 4×4’ which others did not, police say he was first to call emergency services then he was not, he is ‘brave and ice cool’ yet now so fearful that he must be hidden and protected while others on scene and equally at risk are giving named press interviews … Unfortunately they cannot erase his presence or involvement from the media because he was encountered by three witnesses driving up to the murder site.
If he is secret service he would have had a pre-planned act and character to use in case something like this happened and now that has to be stuck to by officials so as not to arouse further suspicion.
Looks as though something went very wrong (uninvited guests appeared) and he was left exposed.
What does not make sense is wtf SAH took his family along to the meeting point. Neighbours have said that he was in fear of his safety before he left the UK.
Re the tailgate of the car and with the 7 year old being found out of the car, if infact the RAF man was sat in the front seat, his wife mother/swede and the two children would have had to sit in the back? bit cramped would the 7 year old have got in the boot whilst it was parked for a bit of fun, when the shooting happened she made a run for it and that is why the tailgate is open!
The weapon doesnt add up, there is no motive other than this concerning intelligence matters, agent, double agent, selling secrets etc etc.
This man would have been under surveillance no doubt an iraqi national in the UK that also visited Iran, he would have been in the card system somewhere and im thinking red!