Tim Veater is one dogged character. He has his teeth in this Chevaline Murder and is not about to let it go until he has it solved. And good on him. I have posted two of his pieces as LogoPere (almost never) Weekly articles. One on Oct05.2012 and the other just a few days ago.
I have long favored the theory that Mollier was the intended target and was gunned down in a passion killing. The al-Hillis were in the wrong place at the really wrong time. My best guess of the killer is that he was another cyclist and an ex-RAF guy. I published that theory on Oct09.2012.
Tim has taken a much more 007 approach in arguing all along that this was an international hit by some professionals from Mossad or MI6 or CIA or Iraq or some other well trained. But he has just sent me a link (below) to a Daily Mail article of Oct10 that marks the beginning of the end to this mystery. Once the Frog cops read my piece, they're sure to bust the RAF guy.
Occam's Razor: look for the simplest, most mundane answer and it's most likely the right one.
Here's Tim's comment:
Recent revelations pose more questions.
In the Daily
Mail on 10th October 2013,
He says: "A close friend of the late Mr Mollier has now told the local Essor newspaper in Annecy: ‘One day he told me that he had to be careful when he walked down the street, that he feared he would be shot. This was because he was a ‘seducer’ with a number of lovers beyond the one he was living with, sources told l’Essor."
He adds: "As Mr Mollier climbed the picturesque mountain road where he would meet his death, he received a call from hairdresser Lydie Ringot, his ex-wife." He apparently answered the call and said he would "ring back".
In view of this, the determination of the local prosecutor to rule out Mollier as intended victim, from the very beginning (he stated on the 6.9.13 that he was "99.9% certain" Mollier was uninvolved in any way other than as unintended victim) appears even more curious.
Should not Eric Maillaud EXPLAIN why he has taken this position and not even published a photograph of the victim, which must surely be the most basic of police procedures? Was it to reduce the number of people coming forward with potentially damaging revelations or for some other reason? Surely his early defence of his position that, "families deserve some privacy", cannot justify this serious oversight?
So now to add to all the "congruences" listed in an earlier article here, we can add this one. Both principal male victims, with only a few years between them, both avid cyclists, held presumably well-founded fears for their lives, and indeed lost them together in a remote location in highly suspicious circumstances.
Now how COINCIDENTAL is that?
Is it rational to believe Mollier's extreme fear would turn on love trysts, or Al Hilli's on a brother's animosity? Argument, confrontation, machination, even perhaps physical violence but shooting to kill? And if so why the additional victims. Would not the culprit have ensured only the individual was targeted? Is it not more likely that the cause was far more serious and involved all of the victims?
Drug dealers get shot. Larcenists get shot. People that break secrets of criminal organisations or illicit deals get shot. Traitors get shot. Spies get shot. But generally not love rats or siblings over money disputes.
And it's not your every-day average person who does the shooting either. It requires a certain sort of skill that comes from practise or training; a particular sort of callous mental attitude; and instructions from some higher authority.
Now we know, also from this article that whilst riding up the Combe he was called by hairdresser Lydie Ringot, his ex-wife, who was complaining about custody of their two sons, Leo and Mathis, who had gone to live with Mr Mollier and his new girlfriend, Claire Schutz.
So this first confirms he had a mobile phone on him on the journey and raises the question, "Did he still have it when Mr Martin arrived on the scene?" That crucial bit of evidence has never even been referred to by Mr Maillaud!
We were previously told that Claire Schultz had tried to phone him but failed, either because he chose not to answer or because he had no reception or because he was dead when she did so.
Two conflicting stories have been propagated regarding Mollier's trip: one that his father-in-law suggested the route; and two, as suggested by the Prosecutor, that he was "lost". For a long-standing local and serious cyclist, the latter is simply laughable. Did his new partner know the route he was taking? We don't know if she had been mislead but she certainly turned up at the right spot very soon after, which certainly suggests she knew. If she knew, what reason had been given for going there?
The very fact that SM took that route on his brand new £4000 racing road bike, virtually confirms the lay-by was the intended destination, as cycling beyond that point on such an unsuitable machine would be almost unthinkable. After the killings the bike was taken away under a tarpaulin but enough can be seen to indicate it was undamaged, which virtually rules out him being attacked whilst still on it - as has been claimed by some.
Both SM and SAH were shot in the back apparently, suggesting both attempted escape under fire. A few seconds of warning must therefore have been available to them - a few seconds of realisation that changed a calculated safe meeting to one of extreme danger.
Finally the English cyclist Brett Martin, has stated he was no stranger to the location, having previously visited "ten or twenty times", sometimes with his family. The question must be posed, "Had he met people there before and specifically either Mollier or the Al Hilli's, who were regular visitors to the Annecy area? Was it chosen specifically for its remoteness, "cover" and absence of radio communication? It is said Martin and Mollier were in the same cycling club. If true it makes an absence of any acknowledgement of recognition puzzling.
The possibility exists that Mollier was a conduit into the activities of Cezus/Ariva and the French Nuclear Industry and possibly extreme political organisations, for whom a British contact/"handler" would be required.
All these aspects still do not explain a three or four-way meeting at that remote spot, or the approach of the French investigators, but it does raise further questions that deserve answers.
Copyright, Denis O'Brien, 2005-2015 ~ ~ All rights reserved.