http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...has-killed-before-say-French-authorities.html
This Telegraph article published 17.11.2012 has quite a good precis of some of the main theories to date.
My thoughts are that the use of a first world war Luger as a weapon does rule out the professional hit theory.
I feel that if the information is correct then we have some idea of the order of events. However there are a couple of odd points still. Why was the bicycle's equipment thrown into the bushes? Why did the father lock the car doors and reverse the car therefore in effect leaving the daughter behind?
In my opinion the father is unlikely to have got into the car, locked down the doors and left his daughter behind unless he thought the daughter was already dead and was therefore concentrating on getting the rest of his family out of there or unless the guman had hold of her and the father saw no chance of getting her away from him. I believe the daughter may have been attacked and shot in the shoulder before he got into the car and tried to reverse. Was she shot in the shoulder in the first rounds of firing?
This would therefore give roughly the following order of events:
1. Daughter and father in layby outside car.
2. Mother and mother in law with small child in rear of car.
3. Cyclist coming up to layby. (Local French man on paternity leave taking familiar and regular route.)
4. Gunfire from woodland (possibly child shot in shoulder very shortly afterwards. This is unclear. )
5. Cyclist shot and on floor. (Later said to have been shot seven times. Maybe he was hit many times in the first rounds or maybe after the rest of the family was killed the gunman returned to him and used up the rest of his ammo. In either case seems a case of 'overkill' to me ie. implying a highly emotive state on the part of the killer. As does the attack on the child. The family in contrast seem to have been shot in a more controlled and systematic manner, in the style of an execution or hit)
6. Father definitely still alive at this point as the car reverses over cyclist and then jams on bank.
7. Rest of family killed except for second child hidden under mother's skirts in back of car.
8. Second cyclist arrives on scene shortly afterwards (British ex RAF, ex pat with family and property in France and England)
9. Second cyclist says he saw the daughter staggering and falling to the ground in front of her father's car. No sign of attacker. No sound of gunfire heard by him apparently. Had she got up from the ground or was this the first time she fell down? (Possibly hit on head because of lack of ammo. So possibly attacked both first and last. It is unclear.)
9, Second cyclist puts first child in recovery position and cycles back down hill to get phone signal/raise alarm
10. Second cyclist returns with french family he met on road (in car)
11. French man confims the daughter looked as if she were dead.
12. The alarm is raised
Questions in my head:
When was the bike equipment thrown into the bushes in this scenario? Why?
What type of person would use a collector's gun from the first world war as a weapon? It would need lots of reloading....
If the gunman came through the woods did he have a car/motorbike somewhere, maybe in the layby, or was he on foot or on a bicycle (local?)
Why the difference between the overkill on the cyclist/the overt close up violence on the child (emotive, less controlled) and the systematic shooting of the family in the car? Is it merely indicating the order of events ie. child beaten because out of ammo and cyclist shot many times in first flurry of gunfire. I wonder because I've read overkill scenarios are indicative of a relationship between killer and victim or can reveal killer's state of mind/personality profile, usually implying extreme anger rather than cool deliberation.
This Telegraph article published 17.11.2012 has quite a good precis of some of the main theories to date.
My thoughts are that the use of a first world war Luger as a weapon does rule out the professional hit theory.
I feel that if the information is correct then we have some idea of the order of events. However there are a couple of odd points still. Why was the bicycle's equipment thrown into the bushes? Why did the father lock the car doors and reverse the car therefore in effect leaving the daughter behind?
In my opinion the father is unlikely to have got into the car, locked down the doors and left his daughter behind unless he thought the daughter was already dead and was therefore concentrating on getting the rest of his family out of there or unless the guman had hold of her and the father saw no chance of getting her away from him. I believe the daughter may have been attacked and shot in the shoulder before he got into the car and tried to reverse. Was she shot in the shoulder in the first rounds of firing?
This would therefore give roughly the following order of events:
1. Daughter and father in layby outside car.
2. Mother and mother in law with small child in rear of car.
3. Cyclist coming up to layby. (Local French man on paternity leave taking familiar and regular route.)
4. Gunfire from woodland (possibly child shot in shoulder very shortly afterwards. This is unclear. )
5. Cyclist shot and on floor. (Later said to have been shot seven times. Maybe he was hit many times in the first rounds or maybe after the rest of the family was killed the gunman returned to him and used up the rest of his ammo. In either case seems a case of 'overkill' to me ie. implying a highly emotive state on the part of the killer. As does the attack on the child. The family in contrast seem to have been shot in a more controlled and systematic manner, in the style of an execution or hit)
6. Father definitely still alive at this point as the car reverses over cyclist and then jams on bank.
7. Rest of family killed except for second child hidden under mother's skirts in back of car.
8. Second cyclist arrives on scene shortly afterwards (British ex RAF, ex pat with family and property in France and England)
9. Second cyclist says he saw the daughter staggering and falling to the ground in front of her father's car. No sign of attacker. No sound of gunfire heard by him apparently. Had she got up from the ground or was this the first time she fell down? (Possibly hit on head because of lack of ammo. So possibly attacked both first and last. It is unclear.)
9, Second cyclist puts first child in recovery position and cycles back down hill to get phone signal/raise alarm
10. Second cyclist returns with french family he met on road (in car)
11. French man confims the daughter looked as if she were dead.
12. The alarm is raised
Questions in my head:
When was the bike equipment thrown into the bushes in this scenario? Why?
What type of person would use a collector's gun from the first world war as a weapon? It would need lots of reloading....
If the gunman came through the woods did he have a car/motorbike somewhere, maybe in the layby, or was he on foot or on a bicycle (local?)
Why the difference between the overkill on the cyclist/the overt close up violence on the child (emotive, less controlled) and the systematic shooting of the family in the car? Is it merely indicating the order of events ie. child beaten because out of ammo and cyclist shot many times in first flurry of gunfire. I wonder because I've read overkill scenarios are indicative of a relationship between killer and victim or can reveal killer's state of mind/personality profile, usually implying extreme anger rather than cool deliberation.
