quite well? riddled the car with bullets and failed to notice the child under the bodies?
horrible ****ers whoever they are
French Shootings.
- Thread starter JoeF1
- Start date
quite well? riddled the car with bullets and failed to notice the child under the bodies?
horrible ****ers whoever they are
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2010
- Posts
- 18,502
- Location
- Sunny Sussex
You know it's not like a film, quick flick of the hands and the neck snaps and the victim falls silently to the ground.
Why do silenced guns mean quiet kills?
This is what I don't understand. He finished the cyclist off, so why not make sure the girl is dead. What happens, he knocks her out then panics and leaves?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 78,880
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
May have heard the other cyclist coming, already out of bullets so he would have had to fight the other guy hand to hand and the other guy could out run him on his bike?
I doubt we will ever know what was the real cause unless it is a random attack.
Professional hit, seems a little messy and you would have thought that if they knew he was on holiday with the family, the guy would have taken plenty of ammo / maybe done it differently.
Random attack, seems a little more likely. Lets be honest, if I have a gun pointed at your family, you will probably do whatever I ask and shooting people in the head from a few yards away is not rocket science.
As already said, we have no idea how these things really work in a real world assassination but common sense you think would prevail. Who know, if the cyclist startled him and he wasted a lot of rounds shooting at him then you might end up with the situation we have but its a bit of a stretch.
Professional hit, seems a little messy and you would have thought that if they knew he was on holiday with the family, the guy would have taken plenty of ammo / maybe done it differently.
Random attack, seems a little more likely. Lets be honest, if I have a gun pointed at your family, you will probably do whatever I ask and shooting people in the head from a few yards away is not rocket science.
As already said, we have no idea how these things really work in a real world assassination but common sense you think would prevail. Who know, if the cyclist startled him and he wasted a lot of rounds shooting at him then you might end up with the situation we have but its a bit of a stretch.
But the inheritance thing just doesn't make sense to me. There would have to be a lot of money involved and the people involved in it have to have some kind of military or intelligence background. Besides, who ever gets the inheritance/insurance payout after a murder is always looked into.
On a side note, I'm sure it won't be long before Channel 4 airs a badly researched, pre-mature, hour long documentary with a predictable title like "Murder in the Alps".
On a side note, I'm sure it won't be long before Channel 4 airs a badly researched, pre-mature, hour long documentary with a predictable title like "Murder in the Alps".
'Terror in the Alps' would be even more captivating...
Much more like it.
But hold on, something really doesn't add up...
3 of the 4 victims were were shot in the forehead. Two of them we're presumably sitting in the front. There seems to be no damage to the windscreen of the vehicle apart from what seems like 2 shots on the drivers side at the very bottom the windscreen where the wipers are. These shots definitely weren't the forehead shots. The front driver's side window was broken by the RAF cyclist to gain access to the car to turn the ignition. So no rounds went through that window. Which leaves the just the front passenger window (which is broken) from where the gunman would have killed the driver and the passenger. If they we're both shot in the forehead and there is no damage to the windscreen, then they would have to of been looking at their assailant through the front passenger window.
This doesn't make sense. If the forehead shots were final execution shots then that means the shooter fired more sporadically at first. The occupants would have most likely been seriously injured and would not be facing left with their head up at the shooter.
Alternatively, if all 3 passengers who were shot in the forehead were shot just in the forehead, then all 3 would have been shot in extremely quick succession otherwise their heads would've been turned through turning away in fear. If that is the case then the additional shots would've been fired after the lethal shots to the forehead.
Is it possible that there were at least 2 shooters? One standing by the front nearside door and one at the rear nearside door. They went up to the car causing all the occupants to look to the left. Then they quickly drew their weapons and took their first easy shots, so to speak, at the foreheads. After the chaos ensued they then proceeded to shoot more sporadically.
The forehead aspect could be incorrect or fabricated. If not, then the shooter (s) drew and fired their weapon(s) so quickly that 3 out of the 4 victims did not have time to even start recoiling in fear.
Looking at the car, you have to assume that the forehead thing is fabricated, i think your right. I reckon the hitman has just walked up to the car and peppered it, would account for the little girl hiding under her mother's legs, and also the stray bullet that hit the seven your old girl. I wonder why he's didn't kill the 7 year old? Maybe he did see the 4 year old as well but decided not to kill them both. You would know a 4 year old isnt going to remember anything, 7 year old - maybe so. Presumably why he knocked her out.
Hopefully she pulls through, she might know something...
Hopefully she pulls through, she might know something...
Last edited:
That would seem unlikely. If she'd be shot in the same way as the adults, she'd probably be as dead as them. It seems like the shootings were carefully done to be efficiently fatal, by someone who knew what they were doing. It doesn't seem likely that they would botch the shot by enough to make it possible for her skull to deflect the bullet. Although maybe it was unintentional, a bullet or part of a bullet deflected off part of the car. That could explain it.
If the killer(s) wanted information from him, that would be an effective way to get it.
Or maybe she wasn't beaten per se. Maybe she attacked the killer(s) and they violently stopped her. She couldn't have weighed much, so if they threw her off she could have hit part of the car hard enough to fracture her skull.
There's another explanation that covers the lack of damage to most of the windows, the number of bullets fired and the shots to the forehead and the victims who weren't shot in the forehead - those were the last shots. 12 bullets into the car, walk up close, 1 bullet in the forehead of anyone who doesn't look definitely dead, to make sure they're dead.
Maybe the killer(s) didn't mind killing adults but did mind killing children. People, even killers, very often view children very differently to adults.
Something else...would a professional killer leave all the casings? Don't they provide some forensic evidence for the police to use?