Update oct 20, 2018
Or maybe X5 was X. The ‘one bad man’. While MC2 (the Col de Cherel motorbiker) was the backup ‘sandwich’ man to catch SM if he would have advanced further up the hill towards Col de Cherel. In any case, the killing was imho about SM, and the gunman/men knew (by info from CS) that SM would be cycling up to Martinet and possibly beyond, so that is why both X5 (the 4×4 seen by WBM) and MC2 (the motorbiker seen by WBM) ended up being there. So maybe X5/Badman shot SM (and the SAH family) and drove down, as seen by WBM. A bit later MC2 coming down from Col de Cherel as backup/sandwich saw the massacre scene at Martinet, concluded it ‘was good’ (SM was dead) and also drove down, as seen by WBM. As to be read below, I have put forward that the brain behind this was CS. And maybe MC2 was in fact CS. … The main reason for this was to explain why LR phoned SM at 15h32. This call was ‘waved away’ as unimportant, yet to me it is the ‘key’ to explaining/understanding this murder … Just read more about this below:)
Update oct 19, 2018
Tonight I was going through some old pictures. Found this one and realized that there is an imprint of a car to be seen (arrow). The picture must have been made on the day of the murders, maybe only a few hours after the murders took place. Say 19h-20h. The imprint/shadow of the car is pretty much gone (wiped?) the next day. Anyway, this imprint imho indicates a car must have been parked there for a longer period, maybe even one hour or more, so it could induce this effect. We know WBM saw one car coming down. Which car? This car?
There are 3 cars to explain. ONF1, ONF2 and the notorious X5/X3 ONF1 saw driving up. If the imprint belongs to either ONF1 or ONF2, it would proof ONF1 and/or ONF2 are lying because afaik they never said they had parked there. Let’s assume both ONF1 and ONF2 speak the truth. Then the imprint belongs to the notorious X5. What goes up (X5) must come down. So the X5 went up, was seen by ONF1, parked at Martinet (arrow), stayed some time. The Lyon MC and ONF2 passed Martinet on their way down but probably had no recollection of seeing this X5 parked at Martinet. After that, X5 went down … WBM only saw the last of the 3 cars, namely X5. WBM later saw a motorbike coming down, this was not the Lyon MC. Nope this has to be the MC2 motorbiker seen crossing Col de Cherel (timestamp wrongly reported by Janin)
Why would X5 go to Martinet? He went there because SM was going to Martinet (doing his cycling tour). But why did X5 leave before SM was shot (and the other murders)? Because X5 was not the killer, he was a carrier. So, what did X5 carry? Not the killer as passenger, because ONF1 only reported seeing 1 person in the X5. No, X5 carried the Luger (plus the message that SM was arriving) for MC2. X5 handed the Luger to MC2. MC2 is the killer. MC2 knew SM was going to Martinet, so MC2 went to Martinet over Col de Cherel and ordered X5 to bring the Luger plus message ‘SM is on his way’ to Martinet. Why so difficult? Because there could be no mobile (traceable) communication. So, X5 handed over the gun to MC2 and went down himself. MC2 waited for SM to arrive, but messed up the killing because SAH and family disturbed the scene. Now they all had to die. In my view, MC2=CS=X (see my earlier posts on this)
(orange arrow indicates the imprint of the notorious X5)
Update aug 24, 2017
Update jun 2, 2017
My definite final analyses of the Chevaline massacre. The girl did it.
#Chevaline LR babysitting. LR 15h32 call ‘Where is CS?’. CS was at Martinet, killing SM. LR realizes CS=X, covers 4 CS. WBM saw CS on motor.
Source: https://twitter.com/deadzone61/status/870056074409365505
Notes:
The notorius Lyon motorbiker is not X. I think there is another motorbiker. The one which the english biker saw coming down just before he arrived at the murder scene. This motorbiker was not our man from Lyon, but it was the girl.
Remember that there was a motorbiker seen on Col de Cherel? Ok, the said timing doesn’t fit. But maybe our farmer at the Col de Cherel got the times mixed up.
I think that motorbiker was the girl, coming from Grignon, going over Col de Cherel to Combe d’Ire/Martinet, counter clock wise so she would bump into Mollier.
Remember also that the girl, by her own admision, was not at home all day. She said ‘I went home so that Mollier could go biking’. In other words, the girl was outside. At Grignon maybe?
Of course, that is her story. That she came home so that Mollier could go biking. And that she stayed home with the baby. The baby becoming her rock solid alibi. Btw, was there any witness to this? That she came home at said time?
Now … remember the ex-wife’s 15h32 phonecall to Mollier. How strange. How utterly macabre that she phoned Mollier at the exact moment he was shot. And her explanation? ‘Oh, just nothing, just about the kids’
I don’t believe it. She phoned alright, but with another reason. She asked Mollier, ‘Where is the girl?’
Why? Why would she ask, ‘Where is the girl?’ … Because the ex-wife was babysitting for Mollier and was waiting for the girl to come back. But the girl was ‘delayed’. Delayed because … she was at Martinet, waiting for Mollier. To kill Mollier.
Of course we know things turned out bad. The al-Hilli’s arrived on the scene and became witnesses of the murder, and therefor had to be shot too. Which the girl did. After she finished off the al-Hilli’s she put some final bullets into Mollier (‘You bastard’).
Then she went home on her motorbike, but was seen by the english biker. Arriving home, the ex-wife must have guessed what had happened or maybe the girl told her. They ‘decided to team up’, very probably with money changing hands from the girl to the ex-wife. What other option did the girl have but to pay off the ex-wife?
Anyway, the ex-wife maintains her 15h32 story ‘About the kids’ and of course hides that she was babysitting. And with that the girl can maintain her rock solid ‘baby alibi’
What’s more to say? How can you crack this?
Maybe the Luger. Who knows. And did the ex-wife have an alibi for 14h-16h?
Cheers,
Max
My previous final analysis. Also good, but not as good as the final one above:)
Update nov 2, 2016
My final analyses of the Chevaline massacre. The ‘Granny’ did it.
I denote all actors with initials. I give my analyses in shorthand style, painting the key things with few words. Figure out the complete picture yourself. I’m not a novelist. I don’t want to write a 120 paged volume on the matter.
The ‘Granny’ did it
The ‘Granny’ (GSM) is the evil genius behind this thing, the ‘disposing of SM’. GSM organized the logistics, X was the friend in deed. Not supposed to be a massacre though. But Zainab and/or SAH disturbed X and SM (SM was already there! X held him at gunpoint) by the riverside. SM used this disturbance to try to escape from X, hence this is why he was shot in the back. Meanwhile SAH, on sensing the weird situation (SM and X) tried to escape, to no avail. The car got stuck and X terminated the SAH family because of being witnesses. SM’s ex, LR is in. She must be. She phoned SM at 15h32 when he already was at Martinet (held at gunpoint by X). LR knows, probably paid off by GSM.
GSM’s motive? SM simply was ‘unwanted’.
This is my final theory based on the facts as I know them. It maximizes the fit of pieces, while minimizing the left-overs (e.g. SAH visitor at the campsite).
PM, the legionnaire, probably is innocent, but his suicide shows how extreme the social pressure is. A force behind that social pressure probably is GSM. She saw in PM the perfect scapegoat. But she didn’t voice this directly though, that would alert the investigators.
More thoughts …
Anyway, Zainab said there was nobody when they arrived (iirc). This would be compatible with X and SM being near the river side, out of view. X wanted to kill-by-fake-accident SM, dump SM in the river, and throw the bike in the river later. If SM’s body would be found, maybe days later, who would think of a murder? Nobody, because nobody but X and the GSM party knew were SM was. Of course, when asked about the matter, GSM and X would state the didn’t know SM was biking around Combe d’Ire. He would be reported missing but nobody would find him until much later. That was the plan. The police would think of an fatal accident … nobody would come up with SM being murdered. Not your average gendarme anyway. The perfect crime.
Good plan, until SAH and Zainab stumbled on the scene going near the river side. SM, using the confusion, tried to escape from X. SM got to the road, then ran away over the parking. X also crawled up to the road, and shot the running SM in the back. SM fell on the ground, exactly in the trajectory of the reversing (reverse-break-reverse pattern) BMW of SAH. The BMW dragged SM to the other side of the parking where finally the BMW got stuck. The rest is history.
So, it was the killer combo GSM-X. And who knows, once a killer, twice a killer? Maybe the GSM-X combo helped the other PM in 2007 by killing off CM. Team GSM-X was a team back in 2007 and again in 2012. Removing CM (danger to PM and thus GSM) and SM (danger to CS and thus GSM). The symmetry 2007=CM<–PM<=GSM=>CS–>SM=2012 is striking.
More thoughts …
The situation was this:
– SM arrived (before SAH) at parking Martinet
– X was already there (prepped for kill-by-fake-accident SM)
– X held SM at gunpoint with the ol’ Luger P06
– X wanted to ‘dump’ SM in the river (fake accident)
– X forces SM to the riverbed (behind barrier)
– Bike is at barrier (probably to be dumped in the river as well)– SAH arrives
– Nobody to see (but the bike)
– SAH and Zainab get out
– Zainab wanders to side of the parking, near the river
– SAH goes to the barrier/bike
– SAH ‘disturbs’ X and SM– SM takes the opportunity to try to escape
– SM ‘fights’ X
– SAH sees this (SM and X fighting, Luger P06 and all)
– SAH takes Zainab by the hand and runs to BMW– SM manages to get to the parking, and tries to run away
– X also climbs up from the river bed to the parking (barrier)
– X, standing near the barrier, shoots SM in the back– SAH meanwhile tries to escape in BMW (reversing)
– SAH runs over the, now downed, body of SM
– SAH drags SM, and gets stuck on the other side of the parking
– X kills witnesssesMain point is that SM was the target … but not to be shot, because a shot-dead SM would imply a ‘murder’, and this is not what GSM wanted. GSM wanted a ‘fatal accident’. A Luger sufficed to hold SM at gunpoint (explaining away the strange choice of weapon)
Plz do remember that CS, and thus GSM/TS, is/are instrumental in SM being at parking Martinet in the first place! This is fact. TS ‘adviced’ Martinet as a bike destination to SM (fact), and CS came back home early so that SM could go biking (fact). This was all ‘logistics’ planned stuff by GSM. Who knew the situation around Martinet? Answer: TS. GSM made sure X was already at Martinet. X being on foot. All prepped ‘logistics’. It makes sense. And the murder has the simplest of motives. It was a matter of GSM versus SM. The ‘disposing of’ SM.
The simplest explanations are often the best.
More thoughts …
I’m not saying SM was to be ‘drowned’, but more like ‘fallen into the riverbed, head on rock (Schumi) thingy’. If they would find SM, lying in the riverbed, with a head wound, who would think of murder? Nobody, unless there was to be a very paranoid gendarme. This gendarme would have to make the quantum leap ‘Hey this is not an accident but a murder case’ … but why would he do that?
GSM, TS, CS, etc had perfect alibi’s. Unless TS=X, which I think is the case. Then TS does not have an alibi other than the one provided by GSM.
Anyway, the situation took an unexpected and unwanted turn. The ‘massacre’. But GSM was lucky because even with SM shot, most eyes were on SAH. EM declaring, within 2 days that ‘the answer was to be found in the UK’.
Turn back to the kill-by-fake-accident plan. X would have make it to look like an accident. So, I think X wanted to dump the bike in the river next to SM. Of course, with the massacre at hand, X didn’t do that now, because a bike in the riverbed would be near proof (Columbo style) that SM was the target.
And who knows, maybe the bike was already near the riverbed(!) … But once SM escaped from X and was shot down by X and SAH was shot as well, X, to mask the ‘SM=Target’ thingy, had to pull the bike out of the riverbed and dump it on the parking, near the barrier.
This is what EM said, he said ‘It looked like the bike was thrown into a corner’
WBM stated ‘I saw the bike on the side’
The bike was ‘odd’. Yesterday night, I wondered about the pump. The airpump was lying on the ground somewhere. Where did this airpump come from. From SM’s pocket? Or was it attached to the bike?
~ Max
To continue discussing TCK in a public forum, I suggest CM. Just follow the link … CM public forum on TCK
Deadzone61 
Because if she was not part of it she would go ‘What the heck are we doing here???? Meeting some guy in the woods??? Wtf???’
:)
Iqbals’ JT died same day
Syhaila’s pc was bugged
Whats next
Zainab was allowed to go out of the car. She, afaik, went to the riverside. She didn’t go with SAH. Perhaps SAH did look at the info sign, but Zainab didn’t.
Why would Zainab be allowed to walk around if SAH only wanted to look at the sign (to see what’s up beyond)? It makes not much sense. It makes much more sense if SAH expected to be out of the car for ‘a bit longer’, and Zainab, 7 yr, was allowed to walk around. Zeena wouldn’t have the urge, and the women simply let SAH do what he had to do.
SAH was there for business. The women knew. Zainab was allowed to walk around. Zeena was not allowed.
SAH had a meeting with SM
SM could go to Martinet, because CS came back home so SM could go on his bike to Martinet. SM arrived at exactly the same moment as SAH.
SAH must have the left turn after LFR 14h40 because he realized he was too early for the 15h30 meeting. So he went back to Doussard and did spend another 30 minutes taking pictures, before going up to Martinet at a slow pace.
It could all have been acted. To pretend they were just a happy family cruising around.
– The 14h40 LFR + left turn is inexplicable (in combination with a later visit ot Martinet)
– The 15h30 Martinet is inexplicable (women stay in the car)
Suppose they (SAH and SM) wouldn’t have been shot. Then they would have had this perfect meeting and really nobody would have had any clue, because who was there to see it? They acted so convincingly that even up to this moment ppl think that SM was collateral, and SAH just mere tourists going for a walk.
Strangely though a random biker and some tourists were brutally shot, in a 4 minute time window, when they (SAH and SM) were already some minutes around Martinet, and without other visitors (ONF1, ONF2, LMC, WBM) touched by X
Now … if only all the people were to be out of the car. SAH, IAH, Suhaila, Z & Z … then at least it looked like a ‘going for a walk’
But … they didn’t
Didn’t Zainab say something like SAH wanted to go there (for a walk) or something?
It at ealst must be obvious that Zainb did not choose Martinet as destination. SAH was the driver, he steered the car to Martinet. At Martinet there is NOTHING to see for 4 and 7 yr old girls. NOTHING. Zainab went to look at the river side. That at least is something, but Zeena was not even allowed out of the car … so … what was there to see?? And if there really was something to see for the girls, Zainab would have remembered. She would have said … ‘I wanted to see the waterfall’ or something. But there is no indication that SAH went to Martinet because of Zainab’s wish.
I’m not prepared to discard the LFR 14h40. It must have significance. (I will gladly adopt Lynda’s ‘left turn’)
@Max
The women, it was reported, were in the car, seat belts fastened. SAH was outside the car.
That denotes (I believe) they had just arrived and SAH was likely viewing (or heading towards) the map.
To me, I would guess the family were “touring the French countryside”. And by that I mean “wandering about a bit”.
I have seen tourists turn up in the most unlikely places. I would say, “exploring …but partial lost”.
I would hazard a guess that SAH didn’t “know” where he was heading, more than likely he was “partially lost”.
Regardless if that is correct or not, how does a target get to an ambush ?
Generally their route (routine) is often known OR they get lured.
They could of course be followed (Eric’s first thoughts on the Al Hilli piste).
SAH can not have been (partially) lost, because X knew EXACTLY that SAH would turn up there!
Your only alternative would be that SAH was no target at all. Thus making SM target by definition. And you’d have an X taking ammo for a group, killing a group, in a 4 minute time window(*), leaving others (ONF1,ONF2, LMC, WBM) unharmed, while his only real target was the single SM??? That does not add up at all.
(*) I like to stress again that this ‘4 minute time window’ is a new element! Arising from MC=LMC=Innocent. LMC does have implications which can not be ignored!
If we go by EM we have extreme limits on what is still posible:
EM & co already grilled a lot of people
– ONF1 = Innocent
– ONF2 = Innocent
– WBM = Innocent
– MC = LMC = Innocent
– LR = Innocent
– CS = Innocent
Esp. LMC and WBM being innocent, and thus telling the truth, put an extreme ‘4 minute window’ on the killing. In that 4 minute window we have SAH, SM and X at Martinet, and a shooting which left SAH and SM dead …
… and now we have to assume that SAH or SM was the target, and that the other (SM or SAH) was the collateral?
Hmmm … a better question would be why X felt he needed to strike in that 4 minute time window. Why not earlier, or later, or relocate or postpone or whatever? Or why not simply leave the ‘collaterals’ unharmed like he left LMC and WBM unharmed?
X shoot to kill. He killed all, pumping multiple bullets into each of the adults. And he took those bullets in advance. People argue X might have been out-of-ammo. Out of ammo??? He took 3 clips of ammo! He came prepared, armed to the teeth:)
Whoever (or is that “whomever”) X was/is, he/they weren’t there for a “chat”.
They were there to kill.
Was the “final rounds” into SM due to hatred towards him ?
Or annoyance that he was in the way ?
Or “X” thought he’d killed everyone else…but just to make sure ?
All very curious.
Did X take 3 clips because he wanted to use them ?
He did in the end. He could have used less bullets though
he caution is…. the killer acted like an “out of control animal”.
Yet clearly, he was in control (regardless who was the target) he was at the Martinet, unseen…and had an escape plan.
If you “forget” everything about every victim, this killer was “special”. Uber “special”.
1. He used all his ammo (we assume).
2. He departed unseen (same caveat)
3. He arrived unseen
Neither victims appear to be followed (WBM’s statement), so this was an “ambush” ?
Maybe Max is right. The killer chose the Martinet for a reason. The reason being, he could get away
If SM wasn’t the target we have the situation that SM was there 4-5 minutes … doing what? Talking to SAH perhaps!
(because I will/must stick with my new timeline)
The only thing I can come up with now is the following. X wanted/needed to kill SAH’s but also wanted to wait till the coast was clear, till no other people were around. X, however was a bit unlucky in this respect, because a parade of other people passed Martinet (ONF1, ONF2, LMC, SM, and upcoming WBM, PB)
– X was waiting for SAH
– I guess he saw ONF2 and LMC passing, going down
– LMC pause at Martinet (or 2nd layby, explaining the inverted 4×4/MC seen by WBM)
– SAH arrived
– X did not strike because LMC was around and …
– Also SM arrived
– SAH started to talk with SM (about bikes, about ‘beyond barrier’)
– X eagerly waited for SM to go but …
– SAH and SM still talked
– LMC left (seen a bit later by WBM)
The ‘4 minute window’ now begins
All this time X was waiting for a chance to kill the SAH’s, but this SM was in the way. After a few (long) minutes X had enough
– X came forward
– X shot SM
– X shot at SAH
– SAH nearly made the escape
I’m not sure why X started with SM. Perhaps because Zainab was outside, and X calculated that he had enough time before SAH really could take off.
Sure enough X could not simply walk up to SAH (and SM), say ‘Hello there’, talk like another tourist, and then pull the Luger. Nope, somehow X could not do that … or at least, the indication is that he didn’t. It was more like when X appeared on the scene, the others made a run for it
I still have my doubts … to me it looks like SM made more of a run than SAH (who could make it into the car) … and thus SM was (also) a target. But who knows, perhaps SAH yelled RUN, and that is what SM did, while SAH also had to rescue Zainab (from the riverside?)
It could work. SAH only target, SM there having a few minute talk with SAH while he was pausing after his uphill bike trip. Frankly I prefer it to have a non-Canasson solution:)
It is very easy to verufy a part of this scenario/timeline
LMC should remember that he indeed paused at Martinet or the other layby, probably to re-check some map or notes or whatever. By doing that ONF2 passed him on the way down. By doing that LMC also prevented X from coming forward. LMC also should have seen SAH at Martinet and SM coming up … but I guess he simply forgot (no problem). But I hope he does remember that he paused at Martinet on the way down, just as he had on the way up (as stated by ONF1)
Max, for him to be WBMS’ MC, he needed to hang about up there for a good 15/20 minutes and he should have seen everyone…
If he didn’t, because he’d already left the scene, infront of ONF2 (4×4, not a Citroen Visa Van), then who is WBM’s MC ?
LMC says he was on the Combe around 15:00 …..orignal reports said he’d been turned back by the ONF at around 15:15, he is most likely the MC seen by LFR.
LFR says a MC and 4×4 green before SAH
ONF1 says MC then 4×4 (dark/grey, possibly an X5 or X3)
WBM says large vehicle/4×4 green or dark then MC
ONF2 is a 4×4 as stated by Maillaud in the 19th Feb audio of the Press Conference
@Lynda
As far as I understand, there is no WBM-MC anymore … it was LMC.
They (EM) said they had found the MC. They talk about the ONF2 MC, but it must be obvious that WBM’s MC is the MC which counts.
As EM doesn’t even whisper about 2 MC’s, the conclusion must be that EM is thinking all these sightings were the same MC, namely LMC.
And it well could be. If EM also came to the conclusion that WBM’s 4×4 is ONF2, then everything is explained. The only vague things are:
– ONF2 didn’t see SAH, SM, WBM? (well perhaps they did but couldn’t remember … primed)
– LMC didn’t see SAH, SM, WBM? (same as above)
– Did LMC indeed pause (around Martinet) as I suggest?
The (your) main problem is how X5/X could know so much time in advance that SAH was 100% going to Martinet
A rough calculation shows that X5/X must have gone to Martinet even before the 3 pictures 15h12 – 15h17. Otherwise WBM would surely have seen the X5 going down (this was ONF2, and X5 left unseen)
I predict that P (unknown photographer) took the picture of the SAH’s at a time which is exactly compatible with the X5/X trip to Martinet.
Doussard-Marinet = 6 km. It should at least take 6 minutes to go there and another 4 minutes to leave and get away over route du Moulin. This mean X5/X should have gone from Doussard to Martinet at 15h12 or (well) before … otherwise X5 would have been seen by WBM!
I’m not sure if the 15h12 picture was the picture P took. That would be quite interesting!!!
Note: For a speeding X5 I take 60km/h as speed, which is quite speedy, esp. on a bumpy Route Forrestiere. Speedy, but not impossible (ONF1 stated a speedy X5)
Max – they issued the P-R on the basis of ONF2 description, they’ve found THAT man……
If he sticks to his ‘I saw nothing’ – then what ?
Where do we start finger pointing again, ONF1, WBM, A. N. Other ?
@ Max
@ Lynda
@ James
All of the above. Lynda made most of the comments I would have made re LMC and/or another MC.
I shall just add a snippet of ‘deconstruction’ from EM’s recent waffle. It seems they have focused on mobile phones that handed-over from Talloires.
I wonder if they have seriously reviewed hand-overs in other directions e.g. from Ugine.
P.S. Where’s Lars these days?
It’s likely one MC (MCL).
Although there is of course an argument for two bikers.
ONF1 is confused as to how the X5 wasn’t seen by ONF2 or MCL or WBM (hence his “view point”).
Was ONF1 there earlier ? He doesn’t think so.
So we have a “four minute” time line for the shootings. And this AFTER ONF2 and MCL passed through the car park.
Is it possible a “shooter” would be “dropped off” and left to escape ?
I don’t get that. I don’t think so. YET clearly “this” was an ambush. That’s the problem.
The nearest to the victims was WBM, ONF2 and MCL (and the “mysterious” BMW X5).
Pick one !
@ James
The nearest person to the victims, that we know of, was the teenage trailbike rider.
I don’t for a moment think he was the shooter however his presence affects the available ingress and egress routes.
Oh noes! I have become Lars.
@Rash
Where was he ? Not a minute away ?
He too then is in the frame.
The question is, was there an X5 ?
There are those that say “yes, this car was spotted…and reported”. But it was unseen by WBM ?
If we place “all” as individual suspects, we find the target.
Lars was not happy Lynda and me were discussing FatB. The (private) discussion was quite harmless. Nevertheless I found it important to not be ‘restricted’ in choice of subjects.
??? C’mon James, you are overreacting. It never was a secret. I thought everybody knew:) In the menu, under ‘TCK: The Chevaline Killings’ there are 2 entries. The private thing is more for a few MZT old timers. Invitation only.
But well, if James leaves, I might as well close ‘Public’ and invite the very few left to join ‘Private’. So … to the few on Public who are interested … do me an email at deadzone61_at_gmail.com … I have contact data of all except Rashomon, so Rashomon, if you want to continue on deadzone, please drop me an email.
After I close down ‘Public’, the only place to discuss TCK will be CM. Because MZT stopped long ago and France2 forum seems to have died out (last post nov 2014)
http://forums.france2.fr/france2/Non-elucide/tuerie-chevaline-savoie-sujet_216_76.htm
@Rashomon … drop me an email, so I can close down ‘Public’
@ Max
Thank you for providing this forum.
I have always been aware of the other forum and I don’t have a problem with it however I am highly constrained in the use of email so have been unable to join.
I think I shall take a break for a while and see whether I can find a way.
@Rashomon
You can use the ‘about’ to post, or send an email
A pity, I would have liked you to join. Any other idea how I could send you the pw? Or do you really take that break?
Anyway, I will close down public tomorrow. So, this site will stay open for another couple of hours.
Comments are now disabled. The ‘Public’ forum is open for reference. (Contact)
To all,
At DZ61 there is/was a private forum (some oldies from MZT) and a public forum (for everybody, incl said oldies). One of the oldies decided to leave. No problem. But on public it was asked where he was. So, when I, on public, explained he had left, some people suddenly seemed to have a problem with the existence of a private forum (which, from the start, was no secret at all). And because the rule ‘Show respect. Be polite. Thx. Deadzone’ was violated (comments are removed btw) I had to take measures. As a result it seemed to me that the public forum had no reason to exist anymore as the only true public member left who regularly posted these last weeks was Rashomon. And thus I invited Rashomon to private and closed down public … as said, because it didn’t seem to server any purpose, due to no posters.
As the whole TCK and this forum has the risk of becoming an eternal rehash I have also decided to put a semi end date to private. Being sept 30, 2015 (just after the 3rd anniverssary of TCK). But of course I do hope TCK will be solved before that date:)
Theoretically it is possible I will reopen public, but EM has to come forward with a really spectacular new development:)
I hope this answers your questions.
Best regards,
Max
The investigation
How it should end
And while we are all waiting, with public closed, for me less moderating means more music …
Theoretically it is possible I will reopen public, but EM has to come forward with a really spectacular new development:)
As there is a new development. I will allow for comments.
I have to stress again that no matter what, I expect respect(!) and correct behaviour. This is my blog, my rules. If you can’t cope, then just stay away … in every other aspect, everybody is welcome (back)
– Max
The new development of course being the true Agatha Christie development of Patrice Menegaldo (PM) being (what I think) the competitor of Mollier (SM) over a woman. The woman in question being Claire Schutz (CS)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3094951/Former-French-Foreign-Legion-soldier-killed-chain-suspects-Alps-murders-British-family.html
Well, through Caroline Blanvillain we already knew that CS was instrumental in Mollier being (able to be) at Martinet. CS after all came home so that Mollier could go biking.
So how did X know that CS would go home?
And why did CS raise the alert as early as 17h?
And why did SM’s ex LR phone at 15h32 to SM?
So … PM killed SM over CS, and later commited suicide, leaving some note with a Chevaline reference. Well, he murdered an innocent UK family, that is probably why he couldn’t go on living.
… all musing of course … all Agatha Christie musing
Yes, I love this mystery:)
X (PM?) must have know 2 things
1. CS going home so that SM could go biking (time)
2. SM going to Martinet
It is possible X followed SM so that #2 is not absolutely needed. I do think X knew in advance that SM somehow was going to bike, so he somehow knew CS would come home early.
The LR phone call perhaps was a desperate last call to ‘warn’ SM for the danger ahead (‘X is on the loose, watch out, take care’?)
We know CS raised the alert as early as 17h(!)
I wondered about an ‘alibi’ for X. But I guess if X=PM, he simply didn’t care about an alibi. He just wanted SM dead.
Why CS and LR, while they suspected/knew what had happened, kept their mouth shut? I don’t know. I do know they tweaked stories.
One story they told was that SM had never been at Combe d’Ire. But this is a lie. SM’s uncle Fernand told that SM went to Martinet regularly(!)
Click to access m6actualite_sm_did_bike_often_around_martinet_says_uncle_lundi_17_septembre_2012.pdf
Hi Max, Tom Parry has a book to sell.
EM has no evidence against the late PM.
Maybe this relates to the Johan Fabin ‘rumour’.
It would be a good way to wrap it all up, a man with psychological problems and a military background, dead – no arrest, no court hearing, just someone who lost it that day…..
Nevertheless, if it were to be true, how did he know SM would be at Le Martinet, because SM was expecting to meet someone else and he turned up instead.
Remember that (in case SM=target) CS was instrumental in the killing at Martinet. It was CS who came back so that SM could go biking. CS ‘triggered’ SM’s trip to Martinet. CS plays a key role, either passively or actively
Caroline Blanvillain herself spills this very important detail. (Without CS coming home, there would not have been SM at Martinet)
So now we have the name Patrice Menegaldo in the open! I went back through our comments, but Menegaldo was never in the open. So this dailymail article is the first in which the name surfaces. Probably also in the upcoming book.
I’m not ruling out he was murdered in stead of killing himself.
Anyway, I will focus (again) on PM
Assuming PM = X
And LyonMC is innocent (and X5 is probably a LMC-like person, as in not-connected)
And this 3pm time is about right for ONF2/LMC
Then we have PM = WBM’s MC = X
How did PM get at Martinet?
1. He followed and overtook SM, or he took the parallel road. Anyway, he was not seen going up by WBM
or
2. It was Janin’s MC on Col de Cherel. And Janin got the time wrong
Option 2 is interesting because we can have the Grignon scenario. In which CS leaves the pharmacy and PM, triggered by this, starts from Grignon, via Jarsy over Col de Cherel towards Martinet … so he will run into SM. If true, it implies PM knew that SM would go to Martinet (and beyond). So … HOW did PM know this???
You see … everytime I run into CS. She seems to be a centerpiece. And for sure/fact, she was instrumental in SM’s death!! CB is spilling this important fact!
With LMC found, and innocent and timed at around 3pm … we have another MC on the loose. WBM’s MC. So it is quite handy that there is and always has been another MC which according to JMD, was never identified. This is Janin’s MC.
Putting 1 and 1 together you get
Janin’s MC = WBM’s MC (= X)
I think this is a good guess, although Janin’s timing is a problem.
If we would stick to Janin’s timing we would have 2(!) unknown MC’s, whereas if we would ‘tweak’ Janin’s timing we suddenly have a match. Elegant in my book.
The we have MC/X coming from the opposite direction to meet/bump into SM (his target). Well, this happened around Martinet.
– SM saw MC and vice versa
– MC jumped off his motorbike, Luger in hand
– SM jumped off his bike (perhaps the way up was blocked by MC, and SM couldn’t turn quickly enough)
– So … SM is on the run, on foot
– And MC starts shooting at the running SM (MC being positioned around the barrier)
– SAH and Zainab were simply overlooked or MC didn’t bother at all (at first)
– Once SM was down, MC turned his attention towards SAH
– SAH was already trying to get away
– But Zainab was locked out
– Once SAH got stuck, MC simply terminated them, as unlucky witnesses
Seems quite plausible to me:)
If this scenario is true, there seems to me a ‘Grignon’ connection.
– CS left Grignon to go home, and to have SM going to Martinet
– X leaves Grignon (seeing CS going home) and start his trip to Martinet (over Col de Cherel)
X must have known that SM would go to Martinet (and beyond)
So how did he know?
1. Through CS
or
2. Overhearing SM’s plans
As CS was panicking very early on (raising the alert at 17h) it seems that it is option 1. And thus CS is involved. This explains why she doesn’t talk. The role of LR is unclear. She obviously is in the ‘camp CS’, seemingly being one of her best friends. True? Or is LR blackmailing CS?
They’ve had months to figure out if Menegaldo was the murderer, this is another smoke and mirrors to show they are looking at the local piste and to counteract Zaids inference of the ‘French authorities’ being complicit in the killing of Mollier.
How the heck he comes up with that having never been to France to see the file is just speculation on his part.
I don’t fully agree. They were also baffled by LMC. This guy was driving around, seen by ONF1 and ONF2, his face etc was put on (inter)national television, yet he didn’t come forward, but they found him after a massive search … and it is not the guy …
… sure, after this dead end they had to reconsider everything. LMC is not WBM’s MC … so who the **** is the WBM MC?
Maybe (because of the time frame), they now also started to doubt the X5, or that X5 had anything to do with the killing … so they more or leass are forced to dig more into the local piste.
WBM’s MC = Janin’s MC ???
If true, then nearly 100% sure that it wasn’t about SAH, and thus a local piste, with SM as target.
SM=Target went from number 10 to take the top spot. I can see this. Of course the local circle has no cracks. And they had over 2 years to prepare a defense (because it was never properly tested, with only 10% of the resources put into the local piste). Evidence is long gone, and the killer, if PM, probably has wiped all traces.
It is his suicide that forced attention back onto the local piste.
Something has to give in. I guess/hope it will soon do:)
“A former French foreign legion soldier is named as the prime suspect in the 2012 murder of an Iraqi-born British businessman and his family in the Alps in a book to be published in the UK next week. It claims that a French cyclist who also died may have been the real target.”
IN A BOOK ….. so Tom Parry has come up with this snippet, anyone found a French link to this story yet ? Le Parisien, Ducos is quiet.
I’ve ordered the book, so I suppose I’ll just have to wait and see why that is the BOOKS conclusion.
Apparently there is now:
“Néanmoins, aucun élément tangible n’accuserait pour l’instant Patrice Menegaldo. Selon les informations de France 2, son ADN ne se trouvait pas sur la scène du crime et son interrogatoire, en 2012, s’était déroulé sans encombres.”
Another family going to suffer as a consequence of the release of the late mans name.
And Eric Maillaud will be demented again:
“Le procureur d’Annecy précise à #RTL qu’il n’a jamais dit que le légionnaire qui s’est suicidé à Ugine était “un vrai suspect”.”
http://www.ledauphine.com//haute-savoie/2015/05/26/la-piste-de-l-ancien-legionnaire-toujours-suivie
http://www.tdg.ch/geneve/grand-geneve/legionnaire-jamais-suspect/story/21216462
Revenant sur ces révélations, Eric Maillaud dément et explique: «Lors de cette interview, nous avons évoqué ce légionnaire, qui faisait partie de l’entourage du cycliste et qui s’est suicidé des mois après son audition. Il avait laissé un courrier indiquant qu’il ne supportait pas d’avoir été mis en cause. Cette lettre nous a intrigués. On ne comprenait notamment pas que quelqu’un qui a été entendu 45 minutes se suicide des mois après.»
Evoquant un «parti pris d’écrivain» ou des «problèmes de traduction», Eric Maillaud poursuit: «Ça n’en a jamais fait un suspect, voire, comme on me l’a fait dire, le suspect numéro 1! Il n’y a rien, hormis cette lettre qui relie cet homme à la tuerie. Il y a eu enquête. Et si on avait acquis la certitude de la culpabilité de cet homme ou de quelqu’un d’autre, tout le monde le saurait et on pourrait mettre un point final à ce dossier. Mais aujourd’hui, nous n’avons rien de neuf, ni sur lui, ni rien d’autre qui permette d’imaginer une solution.»
http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/2015/05/29/97002-20150529FILWWW00197-chevaline-bfmtv-condamne.php#xtor=AL-155-%5Bfacebook%5D
And as the new development (TP book) has not truly shaken TCK I think this public forum can be closed again for comments. No problem. There are still other places for discussing TCK in public. Let’s hope one day TCK will be solved.
CM https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/not-forgetting-the-al-hillis-continued/comment-page-9/
F2 http://forums.france2.fr/france2/Non-elucide/tuerie-chevaline-savoie-sujet_216_76.htm
Remember the Rubik’s Cube
If you start with the cube complete, and simply do a few turns (say 10) and give it to the next person, this next person will probably not solve the puzzle. It could take him his life time (’10 years’)
Yet, the puzzle could be solve in 10 twists!
And there are specialists who can solve any Rubic’s cube configuration within mere seconds. Crazy stuff.
Now … TCK is like the Rubic’s Cube. The riddle is, in principle, solveable with a few twists. I’m sure about this. But which twists??? That is the problem
The people, like us here at DZ, and surely some investigators, are becoming specialists. The know what works and what not. Still the puzzle is not solved.
But remember, the solution is only a very few ‘twists’ away. One could solve TCK in mere seconds if we know these ‘twists’
Of course when the case is solved we can enjoy the court case which follows. Surely with some mind boggling quotes/testimonies akin to the things said in the list below
http://www.rinkworks.com/said/courtroom.shtml
Courtroom Quotations
The following quotations are taken from official court records across the nation, showing how funny and embarrassing it is that recorders operate at all times in courts of law, so that even the slightest inadvertence is preserved for posterity.
Lawyer: “Was that the same nose you broke as a child?”
Witness: “I only have one, you know.”
Lawyer: “Now, Mrs. Johnson, how was your first marriage terminated?”
Witness: “By death.”
Lawyer: “And by whose death was it terminated?”
Accused, Defending His Own Case: “Did you get a good look at my face when I took your purse?”
(The defendant was found guilty and sentenced to ten years in jail.)
Lawyer: “What is your date of birth?”
Witness: “July 15th.”
Lawyer: “What year?”
Witness: “Every year.”
Lawyer: “Can you tell us what was stolen from your house?”
Witness: “There was a rifle that belonged to my father that was stolen from the hall closet.”
Lawyer: “Can you identify the rifle?”
Witness: “Yes. There was something written on the side of it.”
Lawyer: “And what did the writing say?”
Witness: “‘Winchester’!”
Lawyer: “What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?”
Witness: “Gucci sweats and Reeboks.”
Lawyer: “Can you describe what the person who attacked you looked like?”
Witness: “No. He was wearing a mask.”
Lawyer: “What was he wearing under the mask?”
Witness: “Er…his face.”
Lawyer: “This myasthenia gravis — does it affect your memory at all?”
Witness: “Yes.”
Lawyer: “And in what ways does it affect your memory?”
Witness: “I forget.”
Lawyer: “You forget. Can you give us an example of something that you’ve forgotten?”
Lawyer: “How old is your son, the one living with you?”
Witness: “Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can’t remember which.”
Lawyer: “How long has he lived with you?”
Witness: “Forty-five years.”
Lawyer: “What was the first thing your husband said to you when he woke that morning?”
Witness: “He said, ‘Where am I, Cathy?'”
Lawyer: “And why did that upset you?”
Witness: “My name is Susan.”
Lawyer: “Sir, what is your IQ?”
Witness: “Well, I can see pretty well, I think.”
Lawyer: “Did you blow your horn or anything?”
Witness: “After the accident?”
Lawyer: “Before the accident.”
Witness: “Sure, I played for ten years. I even went to school for it.”
Lawyer: “Trooper, when you stopped the defendant, were your red and blue lights flashing?”
Witness: “Yes.”
Lawyer: “Did the defendant say anything when she got out of her car?”
Witness: “Yes, sir.”
Lawyer: “What did she say?”
Witness: “‘What disco am I at?'”
Lawyer: “Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?”
Witness: “No.”
Lawyer: “Did you check for blood pressure?”
Witness: “No.”
Lawyer: “Did you check for breathing?”
Witness: “No.”
Lawyer: “So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?”
Witness: “No.”
Lawyer: “How can you be so sure, Doctor?”
Witness: “Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.”
Lawyer: “But could the patient have still been alive nevertheless?”
Witness: “Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere.”
Lawyer: “How far apart were the vehicles at the time of the collision?”
Lawyer: “And you check your radar unit frequently?”
Officer: “Yes, I do.”
Lawyer: “And was your radar unit functioning correctly at the time you had the plaintiff on radar?”
Officer: “Yes, it was malfunctioning correctly.”
Lawyer: “What happened then?”
Witness: “He told me, he says, ‘I have to kill you because you can identify me.'”
Lawyer: “Did he kill you?”
Witness: “No.”
Lawyer: “Now sir, I’m sure you are an intelligent and honest man–”
Witness: “Thank you. If I weren’t under oath, I’d return the compliment.”
Lawyer: “You were there until the time you left, is that true?”
Lawyer: “So you were gone until you returned?”
Lawyer: “The youngest son, the 20 year old, how old is he?”
Lawyer: “Were you alone or by yourself?”
Lawyer: “How long have you been a French Canadian?”
Witness: “He was about medium height and had a beard.”
Lawyer: “Was this a male or a female?”
Lawyer: “Mr. Slatery, you went on a rather elaborate honeymoon, didn’t you?”
Witness: “I went to Europe, sir.”
Lawyer: “And you took your new wife?”
Lawyer: “I show you Exhibit 3 and ask you if you recognize that picture.”
Witness: “That’s me.”
Lawyer: “Were you present when that picture was taken?”
Lawyer: “Were you present in court this morning when you were sworn in?”
Lawyer: “Do you know how far pregnant you are now?”
Witness: “I’ll be three months on November 8.”
Lawyer: “Apparently, then, the date of conception was August 8?”
Witness: “Yes.”
Lawyer: “What were you doing at that time?”
Lawyer: “How many times have you committed suicide?”
Witness: “Four times.”
Lawyer: “Do you have any children or anything of that kind?”
Lawyer: “She had three children, right?”
Witness: “Yes.”
Lawyer: “How many were boys?”
Witness: “None.”
Lawyer: “Were there girls?”
Lawyer: “You don’t know what it was, and you didn’t know what it looked like, but can you describe it?”
Lawyer: “You say that the stairs went down to the basement?”
Witness: “Yes.”
Lawyer: “And these stairs, did they go up also?”
Lawyer: “Have you lived in this town all your life?”
Witness: “Not yet.”
Lawyer: (realizing he was on the verge of asking a stupid question) “Your Honor, I’d like to strike the next question.”
Lawyer: “Do you recall approximately the time that you examined the body of Mr. Eddington at the Rose Chapel?”
Witness: “It was in the evening. The autopsy started about 8:30pm.”
Lawyer: “And Mr. Eddington was dead at the time, is that correct?”
Lawyer: “What is your brother-in-law’s name?”
Witness: “Borofkin.”
Lawyer: “What’s his first name?”
Witness: “I can’t remember.”
Lawyer: “He’s been your brother-in-law for years, and you can’t remember his first name?”
Witness: “No. I tell you, I’m too excited.” (rising and pointing to his brother-in-law) “Nathan, for heaven’s sake, tell them your first name!”
Lawyer: “Did you ever stay all night with this man in New York?”
Witness: “I refuse to answer that question.
Lawyer: “Did you ever stay all night with this man in Chicago?”
Witness: “I refuse to answer that question.
Lawyer: “Did you ever stay all night with this man in Miami?”
Witness: “No.”
Lawyer: “Doctor, did you say he was shot in the woods?”
Witness: “No, I said he was shot in the lumbar region.”
Lawyer: “What is your marital status?”
Witness: “Fair.”
Lawyer: “Are you married?”
Witness: “No, I’m divorced.”
Lawyer: “And what did your husband do before you divorced him?”
Witness: “A lot of things I didn’t know about.”
Lawyer: “And who is this person you are speaking of?”
Witness: “My ex-widow said it.
Lawyer: “How did you happen to go to Dr. Cherney?”
Witness: “Well, a gal down the road had had several of her children by Dr. Cherney and said he was really good.”
Lawyer: “Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead people?”
Witness: “All my autopsies have been performed on dead people.”
Lawyer: “Were you acquainted with the deceased?”
Witness: “Yes sir.”
Lawyer: “Before or after he died?”
Lawyer: “Mrs. Jones, is your appearance this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?”
Witness: “No. This is how I dress when I go to work.”
The Court: “Now, as we begin, I must ask you to banish all present information and prejudice from your minds, if you have any.”
Lawyer: “Did he pick the dog up by the ears?”
Witness: “No.”
Lawyer: “What was he doing with the dog’s ears?”
Witness: “Picking them up in the air.”
Lawyer: “Where was the dog at this time?”
Witness: “Attached to the ears.”
Lawyer: “When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not to go, gone also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with him to the station?”
Other Lawyer: “Objection. That question should be taken out and shot.”
Lawyer: “And lastly, Gary, all your responses must be oral. Ok? What school do you go to?”
Witness: “Oral.”
Lawyer: “How old are you?”
Witness: “Oral.”
Lawyer: “What is your relationship with the plaintiff?”
Witness: “She is my daughter.”
Lawyer: “Was she your daughter on February 13, 1979?”
Lawyer: “Now, you have investigated other murders, have you not, where there was a victim?”
Lawyer: “Now, doctor, isn’t it true that when a person dies in his sleep, in most cases he just passes quietly away and doesn’t know anything about it until the next morning?”
Lawyer: “And what did he do then?”
Witness: “He came home, and next morning he was dead.”
Lawyer: “So when he woke up the next morning he was dead?”
Lawyer: “Did you tell your lawyer that your husband had offered you indignities?”
Witness: “He didn’t offer me nothing. He just said I could have the furniture.”
Lawyer: “So, after the anesthesia, when you came out of it, what did you observe with respect to your scalp?”
Witness: “I didn’t see my scalp the whole time I was in the hospital.”
Lawyer: “It was covered?”
Witness: “Yes, bandaged.”
Lawyer: “Then, later on…what did you see?”
Witness: “I had a skin graft. My whole buttocks and leg were removed and put on top of my head.”
Lawyer: “Could you see him from where you were standing?”
Witness: “I could see his head.”
Lawyer: “And where was his head?”
Witness: “Just above his shoulders.”
Lawyer: “Do you drink when you’re on duty?”
Witness: “I don’t drink when I’m on duty, unless I come on duty drunk.”
Lawyer: “Any suggestions as to what prevented this from being a murder trial instead of an attempted murder trial?”
Witness: “The victim lived.”
Lawyer: “The truth of the matter is that you were not an unbiased, objective witness, isn’t it? You too were shot in the fracas.”
Witness: “No, sir. I was shot midway between the fracas and the naval.”
Lawyer: “Officer, what led you to believe the defendant was under the influence?”
Witness: “Because he was argumentary, and he couldn’t pronunciate his words.”
Hell, maybe my physics study paid off after all … listen and shiver:)
I did react on a guy on youtube who commented on Alex’s video (on one of my comments). It is all about colors …
Dave “deadzone61” Zero 11 months ago
Is it possible that ONF1 would have mistaken SAH’s BMW for a BMW X5? I mean, BMW, 1 driver on the right … this is SAH driving a BWM with little Zainab next to him (and overlooked by ONF1). So .. did SAH go to Martinet twice?
– – –
Markus RiverRhine 37 minutes ago
+Dave Zero the witness said it was the BMW X5 was of greyish colour. Saads BMW had a very distinguished colour !
– – –
Dave “deadzone61” Zero 1 second ago
+Markus RiverRhine Tempted by your answer I went for it (stubborn as I am:)
SAH drove on Combe d’Ire. ONF1 saw this ‘X5’ at a location with overarching trees/leaves (fact from BBC Panorama). Now I checked on how light/color works, and did analyses with Lightroom5 on chevaline/SAH-BMW pictures I have …
… Light falling on the green leaves will have its violet component absorbed, thus the leaves are observed as green. Under the leaves the light now misses the violet component … this hits SAH’s violet/purple BMW. Now the green component is absorbed by the BMW … it will be observed as violet BUT THIS COMPONENT IS MISSING … and thus the car now looks like … GREY:)
http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/features/color-complement.shtml
And thus ONF1 reporting a GREY BMW (X5) could have been Saad’s violet BMW under green leaves.
Canasson did made/muse the same remark some time ago
canasson
Submitted on 2014/09/30 at 21:58
My two cents : when you are on this road, in the afternoom, you are often in a sort of penumbra, under the thick tree cover : the light is a mix of greenish (tree leaves) and blue (diffuse sky light) : no red light component. If a car has a dark red (or bordeaux) color, under this lighting with no red component, it can appear as “grey”. So ONF1 could have seen SAH arriving in his estate BMW and say that he saw a grey X3 or X5. Not so clever (auto fan), ONF1 !
source: https://deadzone61.wordpress.com/tck-forum-public/comment-page-18/#comment-9498
That video is nice. My photo analysis is fun … and intriguing. I am sure of the 2 sets … of course I speculate it to be SAH’s BMW, but the odds are not that crazy.
I note that the double visit aligns 4(!) weird things
1. LFR/14h40 versus pictures/15h15 … it explains the time ‘gap’ (pause)
2. The route (LFR versus FIB)
3. The X5 … it was SAH
4. The tire imprints … it was 2 x SAH
As said, I make the prediction that the FIB picture was not the last picture. In above scenario it seems a better fit if the FIB picture was the first of the three pictures.
So … if I get confirmation on FIB not being the very last picture, then that will serve as a (big) plus. It is a gauge/test for this scenario.
Be prepared though that if above scenario is true, then the X5 has gone … and with that the UK/SAH killer seems to have evaporated:)
Title : To Be Solved – Who is X?
My latest scenario is about the Lyon motorbiker (LMC). He might be X. The parapente prize he won is an alibi.
Je pense que LMC pourrait être X. Motive ? Une femme ! SM était avec cette femme. Cette femme a une relation avec LMC. TS et GSM ont également découvert à propos de SM et cette femme. Ils ont été horrifiés. TS et LMC ont fait équipe pour tuer SM … 5 septembre au Combe d’Ire. Cette femme mystérieuse pourrait être CB
Latest info :
http://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/chevaline-un-pistolet-charge-d-espoir-21-12-2015-5391505.php
http://www.rtl.fr/actu/societe-faits-divers/la-tuerie-de-chevaline-ou-en-est-l-enquete-7780954880
Credits to JMD to stay on top of this case
Added dec 27th:
Et … Pourquoi le motard Lyon ne pas aller à la police au moment de l’arrestation Eric D? Eric D était innocent, mais a été arrêté faussement en raison du fait (!) que le motard Lyon n’est pas aller à la police! Comment peut-il expliquer cela? Quelle excuse ?? Il ne se soucie pas du sort de Eric D ?? Le motard Lyon était le seul à être sûr que Eric D était innocent !!!! … Le mec pue! Il est impliqué!
I got a new flash just a minute ago. Our Lyon motobiker (LMC), he plays he didn’t want the hassle of going to the police, loosing a day giving statements, etc … that is all very well (and dubious). But just now I thought of poor Eric D. who was arrested beginning feb 2014. Now this was news nation wide! … And LMC still didn’t come forward and say ‘Hey, Eric D is not the man you are looking for’
What LMC in fact did was to let Eric D … BURN IN HELL!!!!
This is a fact beyond any doubt!
LMC was the only man (besides Eric D himself) who could vouch for Eric D (not being the notorious motorbiker) … but LMC did NOT come forward. So what is his excuse? To the police and to Eric D? … Answer … there is no excuse (unless LMC lived under some rock that week)
The Eric D arrest gives the show away. LMC is guilty!
You all know my most favorite explanation regarding Chevaline, and that is that GSM (mother of CS, with CS being the girlfriend of the killed Sylvain Mollier) is the genius/mastermind behind everything.
GSM, being the older sis of PM, wanted to protect the career of PM and helped him kill Christian Marechal in 2007. The 18th and final stab into CM was in fact done by GSM. The motive simply is that CM became a risk for PM. PM’s alibi is the Cope meeting which Edith Marechal attended (PM slipped away unnoticed for 15 minutes).
Fast forward to 2012.
Sylvain Mollier had entered the GSM circle and finds out about the secret. GSM sets herself the task to once again protect the family and organizes the killing of SM. SM has to be killed in a remote area, while the arranged alibi’s (just in case) are plentiful. Maybe part of the scheme was to leave CS out (she didn’t know about the intended murder of Mollier). Only because of the unfortunate massacre, things went into the open, with armies of journalists and investigators jumping on the Chevaline Massacre. But the massacre was not the plan, it should have been a simply killing, maybe even a faked accident (Mollier ending up in the river d’Ire). Anyway, with the massacre a fact, the GSM family went into total silence, and somehow managed to contain the risk of CS and/or LR talking (the latter phoned Mollier while Mollier was already at the parking Martinet … this based on my calculations).
The very very lucky break of the stupid massacre was that 90% of the attention of the investigating force, and the journalists, focused on the wrong UK track. Everybody was wrong footed and once attention went to the SM side of things, a lot of tracks had been wiped. The killer was not found. And once they did track him down (LMC/The Lyon motorbiker) what were the hopes of the investigators??? LMC/X had 2 years time to wipe all tracks since the massacre and before. I’m curious what LMC/X thought when the police arrested Éric Devouassoux! But LMC made a small mistake there. LMC did not come forward. So how can LMC explain why he let EriC D ‘burn in hell’?? LMC after all was the notorius motorbiker, and he could have saved EriC D … but he didn’t!!! That is a very important clue.
Anyway, the only thing interesting for me now is the rumoured ‘Ugine link’ of LMC. If GSM is the mastermind the link might go through the GSM side and not the TS side.
The police focused on TS, tapping the phones, etc? Maybe they should have focused on GSM! TS was just GSM’s lieutenant, and perhaps TS’ only job was to make SM go to Martinet at the right moment … the rest might have been handled/organised by GSM:)
GSM … now there is perfect symmetry to be had with this granny
CM (killed) – PM (brother) – GSM (mastermind) – CS (daughter) – SM (killed)
As you can see, GSM is 2 steps away from 2 victims in 2 separate nation shocking killings. One link goes through her younger brother, the other goes through her daughter. Now … ask yourself … what is the chance somebody is caught up in 2 separate nation shocking killings but still be completely innocent? … the odds are stellar. If GSM is innocent, she carries a lot of bad karma to be such a ‘magnet’ for nation shocking killings.
I’m a sucker for elegance and symmetry, and the GSM ‘position’ sure is a fine example of both :)
(The Sun) Massacre clue Ex-army sniper suspected of French Alps killings had seven-year relationship with victim’s sister
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1722711/ex-army-sniper-suspected-of-french-alps-killings-had-seven-year-relationship-with-victims-sister/
Very interesting photo in the article. Namely the bike. Now it is sure:)
My X? … GSM (as mastermind)
From article
Processed
The tire imprints (tracks) show a REVERSE – BREAK – REVERSE pattern (as I have postulated a long, long time ago). I will muse on this in an upcoming post