I have just come across this article.* It is in French and via Google Translate, particularly difficult to follow. Nevertheless it is clear that it challenges Eric Maillaud’s initial and un-changed assertion that the French cyclist was not the intended target and expresses general dissatisfaction with the French investigation.
However I refer to it for a different but important reason: the inclusion of two, what appear to be, official “scenes of crime” photographs that I haven’t viewed before. They are further confirmation of points I have made in the past, criticised at the time by apologists of the French investigation. They are also indisputable evidence that Maillaud as spokesperson for the police, knowingly disseminated false information. In other words he lied! Could any more serious charge be laid at the door of a Public Prosecutor in any jurisdiction, namely to intentionally and knowingly misinform the public as regards a murder scene and thereby suggest erroneous events and likely explanations?
Take a good look at the two photos of the site. It is not easy as they are not separately loaded. (For those unfamiliar you will have to magnify the whole page by pressing “Ctrl+” simultaneously) You will see in the aerial photo there is a clear image of what we must assume is Mollier’s expensive bike appearing to point DOWN HILL at the top RH side of the lay-by. (Earlier photographs suggested it but we couldn’t be absolutely sure) I will not discuss the implications of this as I have done so before, other than saying this explicitly contradicts the information put out at the time, that the bike lay to the front and right of the Al Hilli car.
Now look at the second aerial photo of the lay-by marking up the position of Mollier’s body and at least seven spent cartridges. This flatly contradicts several official descriptions: his body was not located to the front right of the car next to his bike; the shooting could not have come from the top of the car park; the shooter must have been above and to the left of the remnants, as semi-automatic guns almost invariably eject up and to the right.
Of course much more can be reconstructed from the observable remnants of the scene that I won’t go into, suffice it to pose the question why did the prosecutor put out quite erroneous information and if so why is he still the spokesperson?
The lies may therefore be summarised as follows:
1. (From earlier findings) Brett Martin did not make the initial 3.48 pm call and none of the alternative explanations fit either. 2. The attack could not have come from the top of the lay-by. 3. Sylvain Mollier was not found lying to the front right of the BMW nor his bike lying next to him there. 4. The BMW could not have been reversed under fire from the top of the lay-by, nor hit SM on the way. 5. Unless moved by the police prior to the photo, it means SM must have dismounted at the top of the layby, turned the bike around ready for his return trip, then walked to the Al Hilli car (via another parked at the top perhaps?) before the attacker approached from the bottom.
These latest images (if genuine and we have no reason to think otherwise as they have never been rejected by the French authorities) fully support the line I have always taken, that the official investigation is not only incompetent, it is intentionally misleading and corrupt.
Only pressing reasons at a national level can explain it but not excuse it. We have at the moment a parallel example in the justice system in Britain in which the government is apparently desperate to hide the true situation from the public, and is prepared to break even the most cherished principles to do so. It is the true gauge of the nature of current constitution and what can be done with impunity, particularly poignant following all the flowery rhetoric and display of emotion at the 70th anniversary of the D Day Landings, intended to banish for ever from Europe, the shadow of unaccountable action by the state.