Chevaline Lies but Why? – Tim veater
Chevaline Lies but Why?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
*http://mobile.agoravox.fr/tribune-libre/article/tuerie-des-alpes-les-pistes-148452
with thanks to “Pink” at http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/not-forgetting-the-al-hillis/comment-page-101/#comments
“it is possible if you blow the image right up, that the frame can be identified which puts the bike facing DOWN hill. Even the dumbest investigators, and here we are dealing with Frances best, would not have moved critical evidence without at least enveloping it securely. Why even if they did move it would they place it so far away? The only plausible explanation is not only that SM placed it there, clearly at that point not under fire, but he turned it around, ready to return down hill. The police and Maillaud MUST have known this from the beginning, plus the location of the body of SM, yet he allowed/originated the false location of SM and bike to the front right of the BMW. Also, knowing the location of the shells, he perpetuated an obviously false story of the attack coming from the top, not to mention the obviously false story of the reversing BMW. It poses the questions why would he want to promote these lies and why would SM want to get off his bike where he did rather than at the bottom? Could it be EM was desperate to rule out the possibility of SM meeting someone other than SAH at the TOP of the layby and then moving down to the Al Hilli’s car, and that the shooter (at least one of them) came UP the hill rather than down? I suppose we shouldn’t over-look the possibility that SM first rode past the Al Hilli’s to appear disinterested until he was sure the “coast was clear”. We have to factor in the point that SM, having it is claimed, overtaken WBM on the way up, knew that WBM would be arriving any moment. Of course the distribution of the shells would, if we had not cleared the enigmatic Brett Martin from blame, increase the chances that he was the shooter! Also we should never forget that even EM admitted another “OAP cyclist” was on scene, who has never been identified. There is of course no guarantee that this additional anonymous person was either OAP or cyclist, particularly for the above reasons we cannot trust anything that EM says. Finally “suicides” connected to this sort of event is much more likely to prevent a leak of information than injured feelings, particularly in a hardened paratrooper.” END