Shooting in the French Alps

fishy fishy

seamus wrote: »

His next door neighbour (in the UK) said that before he left for his holidays, he'd asked the neighbour to keep an eye on his house as he suspected that something may happen. He did elaborate but the neighbour refused to tell the papers, he reported it to the police instead.

you forgot to mention that the neighbour also said that "that could have been completely innocent" but he bought he better mention it.

I would say the majority of people would say this to their neighbors if they are taking off on holidays.

seamus

fishy fishy wrote: »

I would say the majority of people would say this to their neighbors if they are taking off on holidays.

Indeed, but the way it's reported implies that it was more than a simple, "I'm off on holidays, you might just watch me gaff" (from the Telegraph):

Yesterday, it emerged Mr al-Hilli had expressed concerns to a neighbour before leaving for Le Solitaire du Lac campsite in Saint Jorioz.

Jack Saltman, 67, said: “He did say something to me which gave me cause to worry a little bit. Before he left he came round and saw me and asked if I would keep an eye on his house.

“It may be totally irrelevant if this was to be a terrible murderous killing.

“But I have told the police and if it is relevant they will have it and if it is not relevant then no one will ever know.”

Mr Saltman refused to elaborate further, but said Mr Hilli’s fears were “definitely not political”.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it. It might be as simple as the row with his brother, and he was afraid his brother might let himself into the house or something.

fishy fishy

that sentence is only "sinister" now, because of what happened.

Again people tell people to watch their houses all the time. The man himself said it could be completely innocent.

Its just people grasping at straws as their curiosity is getting the better of them again.

Dave!

fishy fishy wrote: »

that sentence is only "sinister" now, because of what happened.

Again people tell people to watch their houses all the time. The man himself said it could be completely innocent.

Its just people grasping at straws as their curiosity is getting the better of them again.

Not necessarily... He said "He did say something to me which gave me cause to worry a little bit," suggesting that it caused him to worry at the time. Unless (a) I'm misinterpreting what he said, or (b) he's retrospectively identifying it as a worry, whereas at the time he didn't think anything of it.

fishy fishy

Dave! wrote: »

Not necessarily... He said "He did say something to me which gave me cause to worry a little bit," suggesting that it caused him to worry at the time. Unless (a) I'm misinterpreting what he said, or (b) he's retrospectively identifying it as a worry, whereas at the time he didn't think anything of it.

I would imagine it is being said now because of what happened. He's making more of it than he should - hence his saying that it could be completely innocent. Anyone would think the same.

Madam_X

gozunda wrote: »

here is weirdly similar case


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/french-alps-shooting-bears-eerie-1307564

Feck it that's mad.

I normally think conspiracy theorists are hilarious but this is like something out of fecking Bourne or something. Completely CHILLING. Why did they batter the little girl in the head and shoot her in the shoulder...? If it was a professional hit, it does seem like they were not intending to kill her but prevent her remembering. I know someone suggested that already and the point was made that you're not going to know how many blows to the head will knock someone out but not kill them, however... I don't know... maybe a trained professional knows? Just speculating.

seamus

Madam_X wrote: »

If it was a professional hit, it does seem like they were not intending to kill her but prevent her remembering. I know someone suggested that already and the point was made that you're not going to know how many blows to the head will knock someone out but not kill them, however... I don't know... maybe a trained professional knows? Just speculating.

Heh, there's no magic formula of "hit once for every hour you want them to forget". You could beat someone senseless and they might be able to recall the entire thing, other times a single smack to the head could wipe out days of memories for someone.

It's a bit of a mystery alright. My suspicion is that they very deliberately didn't want to hurt the girl(s), but to give themselves a good chance to escape they gave her a clatter across the head to knock her out. That didn't work and she ran, so they shot her to slow her down and fled.

Her situation seems so disconnected with the rest of the deaths, it's bizarre.

Jogathon

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2198777/French-Alps-shooting-Police-question-brother-inheritance-row-execution-Surrey-businessman-family.html

This article says that the police are questioning the brother about a row over an inheritance. If these brutal murders are over money then what is the world coming to..

Jogathon

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2198777/French-Alps-shooting-Police-question-brother-inheritance-row-execution-Surrey-businessman-family.html

This article says that the police are questioning the brother about a row over an inheritance. If these brutal murders are over money then what is the world coming to..

seamus

Jogathon wrote: »

This article says that the police are questioning the brother about a row over an inheritance. If these brutal murders are over money then what is the world coming to..

99.99% of murders are about money, power or sex. If this was about money, it would be nothing new.

davet82

so far the motives i've read...

- mossad, the guy worked on saddam nuclear program and were afraid he could help Iran

- inheritance, family member hires hitman

- family stumbled across major drug deal

- armed robbery that went wrong

- car hi-jacking, two attempted car hi-jacking took place less than 50 miles from the scene

- random nut job

- race attack

- the little people did it i tells ya :P

NIMAN

It was a professional hit for sure, so can rule out the random nut or carjack.

The news said all the bullets hit the middle of the head. Never heard that before, but I think they were trying to emphasis the accuracy involved, and hence, professional shooter.

Plus add in the fact that he was Iraqi and his previous work experience.

I think we may never know the truth on this one tbh. We will be told what we need to know.

davet82

NIMAN wrote: »

It was a professional hit for sure, so can rule out the random nut or carjack.

The news said all the bullets hit the middle of the head. Never heard that before, but I think they were trying to emphasis the accuracy involved, and hence, professional shooter.

but why beat the little girl? that dosent sound very proffesional to me

Conall Cernach

NIMAN wrote: »

It was a professional hit for sure, so can rule out the random nut or carjack.

The news said all the bullets hit the middle of the head. Never heard that before, but I think they were trying to emphasis the accuracy involved, and hence, professional shooter.

Plus add in the fact that he was Iraqi and his previous work experience.

I think we may never know the truth on this one tbh. We will be told what we need to know.

At this stage do they think there was only one gun used? 3 headshots to people in a car seems a bit odd. You'd think one of them at least would have tried to protect their head.

davet82

Conall Cernach wrote: »

At this stage do they think there was only one gun used? 3 headshots to people in a car seems a bit odd. You'd think one of them at least would have tried to protect their head.

its been reported that ballistic suggest more than one shooter

also odd is that no bullets missed, no bullets hit the bodywork of the car suggesting they have alot of experince with weapons maybe?

davet82

davet82 wrote: »

but why beat the little girl? that dosent sound very proffesional to me

As suggested maybe they tried to knock her out and that didnt work.
The shootings sound so clinical and professional you would assume if they wanted to kill the girl, she would be dead.
Not that i think they did her a favour or had compassion or anything.

midlandsmissus

What I find mindblowing is thinking that the first cyclist overtook the second cyclist and was shot dead when arriving at the wrong time. Then the second cyclist found all the bodies. It could so easily have been the second cyclist killed.

It's one of those...if that happened 5 seconds later, or if he hadn't overtook, things where you're like woah.

Bipolar Joe

NIMAN wrote: »

It was a professional hit for sure, so can rule out the random nut or carjack.

The news said all the bullets hit the middle of the head. Never heard that before, but I think they were trying to emphasis the accuracy involved, and hence, professional shooter.

Plus add in the fact that he was Iraqi and his previous work experience.

I think we may never know the truth on this one tbh. We will be told what we need to know.

This makes complete sense. We've all known the media to be nothing but truthful, no embellishments whatsoever.

Looks like Agent 47 is back for another game:rolleyes: :rolleyes: .

ejmaztec

Madam_X wrote: »

Feck it that's mad.

I normally think conspiracy theorists are hilarious but this is like something out of fecking Bourne or something. Completely CHILLING. Why did they batter the little girl in the head and shoot her in the shoulder...? If it was a professional hit, it does seem like they were not intending to kill her but prevent her remembering. I know someone suggested that already and the point was made that you're not going to know how many blows to the head will knock someone out but not kill them, however... I don't know... maybe a trained professional knows? Just speculating.

She could have popped up at the wrong moment, and got in the way of a bullet that was supposed to hit one of the adults in the head. I think that had the gunman wanted to kill her, he would have also shot her in the head, but decided to knock her out, or couldn't shoot because his gun jammed, or whatever.

fishy fishy

midlandsmissus wrote: »

What I find mindblowing is thinking that the first cyclist overtook the second cyclist and was shot dead when arriving at the wrong time. Then the second cyclist found all the bodies. It could so easily have been the second cyclist killed.

It's one of those...if that happened 5 seconds later, or if he hadn't overtook, things where you're like woah.

the second cyclist wouldn't have been killed - he would have came on the scene at the exact same time - when the shootings had occurred and the perpetrator was gone.

The fact that the cyclist was overtaken by another faster cyclist who was shot, does not mean the second cyclist would have been killed - he would have still been going at his slow pace.

davet82

Bam Bam Mickey wrote: »

As suggested maybe they tried to knock her out and that didnt work.
The shootings sound so clinical and professional you would assume if they wanted to kill the girl, she would be dead.
Not that i think they did her a favour or had compassion or anything.

so how could this be over inheritance if they leave the heirs alive (the children) if the hitman was instructed to wipe them out, still cant explain the beating

midlandsmissus

davet82 wrote: »

so how could this be over inheritance if they leave the heirs alive (the children) if the hitman was instructed to wipe them out, still cant explain the beating

I think it kind of in a weird way shows a bit of humanity. You'd have to be fairly stone cold to shoot a child in the head. Maybe he went to, couldn't do it and shot her in the shoulder. I know he still beat her around the head, but he could have easily shot her in the head, so why didnt he.

I think he might have got a bit of conscience and couldn't kill her.

That's assuming it was a man.;)
If it was over inheritance, surely the kids wouldn't know anything about it and so there would be no reason to kill them.

seamus

Super-speculation mode: if it was a family row, then that would explain why there would be very strict instructions to not kill the children as the other members of family could raise them.

If it was a professional hit, then to me that would be the only reason the shooter didn't just kill her. Professional hitmen don't have last-minute changes of heart, they'll just do it.

davet82

seamus wrote: »

Super-speculation mode: if it was a family row, then that would explain why there would be very strict instructions to not kill the children as the other members of family could raise them.

If it was a professional hit, then to me that would be the only reason the shooter didn't just kill her. Professional hitmen don't have last-minute changes of heart, they'll just do it.

but why beat the child and shoot her in the shoulder if the instructions were to leave the children alive?

the gun jamming theroy is also in doubt over the multipule shooters report today suggestion more than one shooter, more than one gun

i agree with the professional hitman do not have changes of heart now that i think about it

midlandsmissus

seamus wrote: »

Super-speculation mode: if it was a family row, then that would explain why there would be very strict instructions to not kill the children as the other members of family could raise them.

If it was a professional hit, then to me that would be the only reason the shooter didn't just kill her. Professional hitmen don't have last-minute changes of heart, they'll just do it.

But it doesn't make sense...if they hadn't wanted anyone to kill the children, they would have said 'Don't harm the children'. Not shoot one of them and beat her black and blue

And if it was a row over inheritance they would have wanted the children dead not alive, because even if the children were brought up by other members of the family, the inheritance still ultiamtely goes to the children.

So it doesn't make sense.

midlandsmissus

davet82 wrote: »

but why beat the child and shoot her in the shoulder if the instructions were to leave the children alive?

the gun jamming theroy is also in doubt over the multipule shooters report today suggestion more than one shooter, more than one gun

i agree with the professional hitman do not have changes of heart now that i think about it

But how many incidences are there of professional hitmen shooting children?

Not that they have a change of heart, but that they have orders to kill the parents, and when a chld is there they just can't do it or don't see the need to kill a child?

Bipolar Joe

You all need to lay off the Criminal Minds / John Grisham.

davet82

midlandsmissus wrote: »

But how many incidences are there of professional hitmen shooting children?

Look at the story posted on this thread about the similiar family where the parents were shot and the child was beaten up,

Not that they have a change of heart, but that they have orders to kill the parents, and when a chld is there they just can't do it or don't see the need to kill a child?

i agree sort of...

this is gonna sound terrible but i think i could shoot a child easier than beat her if i was a proffesional hit man (i cant believe i typed that)

it is possible though, i give you that and would possibly explain what happened

seamus

davet82 wrote: »

but why beat the child and shoot her in the shoulder if the instructions were to leave the children alive?

midlandsmissus wrote: »

But it doesn't make sense...if they hadn't wanted anyone to kill the children, they would have said 'Don't harm the children'. Not shoot one of them and beat her black and blue

As I say above, a wallop across the head to knock her out. That fails, "Oh ****, we need to get out of here", so they shoot her from behind and drive off.
Even if they have instructions to not kill the children, their number one priority is ensuring that they get away with it, and a screaming hysterical child can raise the alarm quite quickly.

Massive speculation as I say.

Fair point about the inheritance, but we don't know what the story is really. In situations like this where both parents die, the guardian of the surviving child/children will have access to their inheritance in order to provide for them. So the existence of the children may not be a problem. But now we're into fantasy story land in terms of speculation