Murder in the Alps

[Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 687
Forum Member
✭✭
This programme was about the investigation into the murder of the British Al-Hilli family in France last year.

The presenter went through the possible motives behind the killings. Anyone else watch it?
«13456

Comments

  • chrishartxxchrishartxx Posts: 318
    Forum Member
    The brother has the motive but can anyone explain why the French cyclist was shot FIVE times?

    And the British police only searching the brother's house nine months after the Swiss and French police had handed over their findings sounds very sloppy to me.
  • drykiddrykid Posts: 1,510
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Yeah, I found it interesting, although I've been interested in the case from the start anyway.

    It surprises me just how open the French prosecutors are. I could never imagine British police discussing the evidence in such detail in the case of an open investigation.

    Also not convinced that it was wise of the brother to agree to be interviewed for television, although he could've come out of it worse I guess.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 687
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The brother has the motive but can anyone explain why the French cyclist was short FIVE times?

    I think the programme raised more questions then it answered.

    Shooting someone 5 times was overkill. I wondered the same as you as to why this wasn't explored more.

    It seems that the French police have decided it was the brother and are not looking for any other suspects.
  • MandarkMandark Posts: 47,929
    Forum Member
    Yes I watched it. Followed Twitter chat at the same time. Most seemed certain that the brother arranged it. If he did arrange it then he's a very cool customer. For me I was puzzled why he was so certain it was all to do with the cyclist. That line just didn't seem plausible. As for the assassin, probably an ex soldier or militant who's used to killing civilians. Tough one though.
  • CaxtonCaxton Posts: 28,881
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Watched it with interest. Questions — If the family was the intended target how would anyone know they would drive up to that particular place that particular day in their car and stop at the car park so the waiting gunman could shoot them? If on the other hand the target was the lone cyclist why did the gunman carry enough ammunition to wipe out half an army? Why was the cyclist shot five times?
  • chrishartxxchrishartxx Posts: 318
    Forum Member
    Mandark wrote: »
    Yes I watched it. Followed Twitter chat at the same time. Most seemed certain that the brother arranged it. If he did arrange it then he's a very cool customer. For me I was puzzled why he was so certain it was all to do with the cyclist. That line just didn't seem plausible. As for the assassin, probably an ex soldier or militant who's used to killing civilians. Tough one though.

    I recently read in the papers that the police had discovered that the older brother had been making several phone calls to Romania before his brother was killed. I wonder why this wasn't mentioned in the programme or did the nine month delay by the police screw this up too?
  • Archie DukeArchie Duke Posts: 1,610
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Panorama back on good form.

    The brother tried to play down the financial spat with his brother but
    money and inheritance is an age old motive for murder.

    Although why go to all the bother of killing him and his family abroad when he alone could be bumped off just as easily in the UK.
  • drykiddrykid Posts: 1,510
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I recently read in the papers that the police had found that the older brother had made several phone calls to Romania before his brother was killed.
    Well it did say that the suggestion of a Romanian link had been ruled out, although admittedly it didn't go into details about what exactly the theory was.
  • SuddenEliteSuddenElite Posts: 193
    Forum Member
    The brother has the motive but can anyone explain why the French cyclist was shot FIVE times?

    If you subscribe to the view that the murders were an organised 'hit' and you also subscribe to the view that the Al Hilli's were the target of the 'hit', not the cyclist, then, by default, you must subscribe to the view that whoever shot them knew in advance that they were going to be in the location they were killed, or that they knew where they were staying and followed them until satisfied that it was sufficiently out-of-the-way.

    Either way, if we are talking about an organised 'hit' against the Al Hilli's, we are also looking at a level of professionalism from the hitman / men. They will have expected with a reasonable degree of certainty to have either 'ambushed' the Al Hilli's in a location they knew in advance they'd be, or else they followed them and deemed a particular point in that journey to be appropriate.

    So are we happy to run with the theory that IF it was a 'hit' then people doing the 'hit' certainly expected to be alone with their prey and not disturbed?

    Let's get into the mindset of a hitman. Pretty much top of the list of the job description must be a disregard for human life. Next on the list, I imagine, would be not getting caught.

    Now let's keep on track with the idea that the Al Hilli's are the targets and either by following them or by knowing in advance where to go those said hitman / men are lying in wait. Then they start getting on with business, so to speak, spraying bullets into a famiy car. Then - woah man, hang on - there's a cyclist coming down the road. He's seen me. He knows what's occurring. He's a witness.

    If you were a self-respecting hitman with an eye on not being caught and a devil-may-care attitude to killing people then what would you do at this point? This is an unexpected obstacle so it might take a few shots to take him out. Now he's on the floor but is he dead? If he's not he could blow the whole thing so a couple more 'double taps' to the head should make absolutely certain.

    In summary: its very easy to explain the five shots at the cyclist.
  • solaresolare Posts: 11,579
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I thought it was very interesting. At first I thought it was a repeat of a documentary a few months ago, but I don't think that was a BBC one.This one presented quite a lot of new information, since the earlier documentary.

    It's a fascinating case. I don't know what to think. If the brother was involved, would he really want the whole family, including the children killed?

    If the cyclist was the target, why not just follow him on the motorbike (away from the witnesses) and shoot him. Why kill the al-Hilli family?

    Also, the part about the killer having to reload the gun twice in the space of a minute or two, was interesting.

    I'm surprised they've never traced the motorbike or the grey car on any cameras (especially if either crossed a border, where there always cameras).
  • MandarkMandark Posts: 47,929
    Forum Member
    Panorama back on good form.

    The brother tried to play down the financial spat with his brother but
    money and inheritance is an age old motive for murder.

    Although why go to all the bother of killing him and his family abroad when he alone could be bumped off just as easily in the UK.
    It's possible he's being framed by someone who learned of his dispute and wanted his brother dead. Did someone ask his brother to use his expertise to help them but he refused and paid the price? That sounds way too conspiratorial though.
  • jonm01jonm01 Posts: 598
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It must surely be preferable for a hitman to kill someone in a country that isn't overrun with CCTV and ANPR cameras.
  • chrishartxxchrishartxx Posts: 318
    Forum Member
    ...
    If you were a self-respecting hitman with an eye on not being caught and a devil-may-care attitude to killing people then what would you do at this point? This is an unexpected obstacle so it might take a few shots to take him out. Now he's on the floor but is he dead? If he's not he could blow the whole thing so a couple more 'double taps' to the head should make absolutely certain.

    In summary: its very easy to explain the five shots at the cyclist.

    But if the hitman killed each of the adults in the car with a shot to their heads, why did he need to shoot an unarmed cyclist five times?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,302
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I thought the brother couldn't have made himself look more guilty if he tried....constantly lying about the extent of the dispute with his brother and the trying to con him out of his inheritance, trying to deflect/steer the investigation onto the French and blaming them (even bringing out the race card) and voluntarily going straight to the police in the UK to tell them he had an alibi and that he got on OK with his brother.

    Hopefully the French can unearth some new evidence or someone comes forward with some info.
    But if the hitman killed each of the adults in the car with a shot to their heads, why did he need to shoot an unarmed cyclist five times?
    Maybe the cyclist was moving or further away and one shot wasn't enough to complete the kill. Or maybe it was a deliberate attempt to make it look like the cyclist was the target. Or some other reason.
  • SuddenEliteSuddenElite Posts: 193
    Forum Member
    But if the hitman killed each of the adults in the car with a shot to their heads, why did he need to shoot an unarmed cyclist five times?

    Because:

    He's waiting for the Al Hillis. He knows who will be in the car and he knows how many he's likely to need to kill. He is not expecting a cyclist to turn up. When the cyclist DOES turn up at the scene he, as a hitman, has to decide whether (a) to take his chances and hope the cyclist can't identify him or (b) to be absolutely sure and kill the cyclist.

    Assuming he goes for option (b) and decides to kill the cyclist then we have to consider that the cyclist is neither an expected element of the hit, nor a sitting duck target like the Al Hilli's in their car where the hitman expects to find them.

    Cyclist hurtling down a hill in France. Hitman sees him. Hitman wants him dead. Hitman never expected him, hitman hasn't planned this: couple of shots to get him off the bike. Two more to make sure he's dead (standard hitman double tap technique). It's easy to see how it happened. You really think a mountain biker in the Alps slowed down to within shooting distance and said "I'm terribly sorry Mr Hitman, but what is going on here?" No. He'll have zoomed past and the hitman's decided he needs to be eliminated as a witness and, yeah, that may easily take five shots.
  • PaacePaace Posts: 14,679
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Watched this and its very sad to see an innocent family and children killed and left for dead, if as the documentary suggested, because of a dispute over property.

    All the makings of a professional hitman from Eastern Europe maybe hired by that brother .
  • PaacePaace Posts: 14,679
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    But if the hitman killed each of the adults in the car with a shot to their heads, why did he need to shoot an unarmed cyclist five times?

    Probably did not want a witness alive .
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 687
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Surely if it was the brother he would have devised a better method?

    He would have known that his dispute with the victim was public knowledge which the British police were aware of. Why would he then organise something which looked like a professional hit rather than something which could be an accident?

    The brother seems like an articulate and intelligent person. Although some of his actions seem fraudulent, to me it seemed that he is a convenient suspect. Although he may be a conman I don't think he's necessarily a murderer.

    The French police are aware of the international interest in the case and seem desperate to find a non-French suspect.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 932
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Surely the killer must've known the victims were going to be in that spot at that time, and was waiting for them or the RAF guy would've seen the Motorcyclist or the other BMW pass him after the Al Hilis did if they'd simply been followed until they got to a remote spot?
    I'm wondering if someone lured the family there, or if was in fact the French cyclist who'd been lured there, and the Al Hilis were unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, despite the Police insisting otherwise?
    The Brother was clearly up to no good with their Father 's will, etc., and came over as less than honest in the interview, but it doesn't sit right with me that he arranged the murder for some reason.
  • croftercrofter Posts: 2,976
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Because:

    He's waiting for the Al Hillis. He knows who will be in the car and he knows how many he's likely to need to kill. He is not expecting a cyclist to turn up. When the cyclist DOES turn up at the scene he, as a hitman, has to decide whether (a) to take his chances and hope the cyclist can't identify him or (b) to be absolutely sure and kill the cyclist.

    Assuming he goes for option (b) and decides to kill the cyclist then we have to consider that the cyclist is neither an expected element of the hit, nor a sitting duck target like the Al Hilli's in their car where the hitman expects to find them.

    Cyclist hurtling down a hill in France. Hitman sees him. Hitman wants him dead. Hitman never expected him, hitman hasn't planned this: couple of shots to get him off the bike. Two more to make sure he's dead (standard hitman double tap technique). It's easy to see how it happened. You really think a mountain biker in the Alps slowed down to within shooting distance and said "I'm terribly sorry Mr Hitman, but what is going on here?" No. He'll have zoomed past and the hitman's decided he needs to be eliminated as a witness and, yeah, that may easily take five shots.

    The cyclist was killed first though - so that would point to him being the actual target.

    If you were a professional hitman who would you take out first - a lone cyclist on a bike or a family in a powerful BMW car??
  • croftercrofter Posts: 2,976
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Paace wrote: »
    Probably did not want a witness alive .

    So why did he leave a witness alive simply because he had pumped so many bullets into the cyclist??
  • chrishartxxchrishartxx Posts: 318
    Forum Member
    Because:

    He's waiting for the Al Hillis. He knows who will be in the car and he knows how many he's likely to need to kill. He is not expecting a cyclist to turn up. When the cyclist DOES turn up at the scene he, as a hitman, has to decide whether (a) to take his chances and hope the cyclist can't identify him or (b) to be absolutely sure and kill the cyclist.

    Assuming he goes for option (b) and decides to kill the cyclist then we have to consider that the cyclist is neither an expected element of the hit, nor a sitting duck target like the Al Hilli's in their car where the hitman expects to find them.

    Cyclist hurtling down a hill in France. Hitman sees him. Hitman wants him dead. Hitman never expected him, hitman hasn't planned this: couple of shots to get him off the bike. Two more to make sure he's dead (standard hitman double tap technique). It's easy to see how it happened. You really think a mountain biker in the Alps slowed down to within shooting distance and said "I'm terribly sorry Mr Hitman, but what is going on here?" No. He'll have zoomed past and the hitman's decided he needs to be eliminated as a witness and, yeah, that may easily take five shots.

    I would have thought that the cyclist would be cycling slower uphill when he was shot (the Al Hilli's car overtook him going up the hill). If that's the case, the hitman would only need at most one shot to get him the bike and another to finish him off when he's lying on the ground.

    It's also strange that the hitman couldn't kill the older daughter because he ran out of bullets after wasting five bullets on an innocent cyclist.

    And if the hitman knew how many people he had to kill, how did he miss out the younger daughter hiding under her mother?
  • the_lostprophetthe_lostprophet Posts: 4,173
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Didn't see this but have followed the case. The victims' house isn't far from me - I remember driving past and seeing French and British police working in the front garden back when it happened.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 687
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Paace wrote: »
    Probably did not want a witness alive .


    But he did leave a witness alive - the older daughter.

    He pumped 5 bullets into the cyclist, but did not kill the daughter even though she was an easier target?

    As I said above, the whole thing seems very contrived. The brother seems to be a convenient suspect.
  • Apple_CrumbleApple_Crumble Posts: 21,748
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Very interesting programme.

    There are so many theories about! Concerning the 'brother killed them' theory, as Red Lips noted, surely he would have done it in a much simpler way rather than having the whole family bumped off on holiday in another country, thus attracting the attentions of the media from all over the place.
Sign In or Register to comment.