Translated by SOTT
The DCRI has been charged with the investigation into the Toulouse and Montauban murders, whereas its legitimacy is being challenged.
© Mehdi Fedouach / AFP
The family of Imad Ibn Ziaten, killed during the Toulouse false flag, was received by the antiterrorist judges on the 14th of May
On the 18th of October 2007, Mohamed Merah underwent a road police check near a Toulouse suburbs. Driving a BMW, the driver and his passenger caught the attention of law enforcement officers Laurent S. and Agnès B. and of security assistant Anthony C. Mohamed Merah's name appeared in bold in the file of people wanted by the police. On the note, 50600980 RG, it was mentioned: "DO NOT DRAW ATTENTION. SECURITY OF THE STATE." The three officers looked at each other, stunned, but went on with their control check. "In such cases, orders are clear: we act like nothing happened", explains a public official.
The officers then contacted the appropriate service: the Renseignements généraux (Central Directorate of General Intelligence). They were instructed to fax the minutes and the arrest warrant. These evidence, which were added to the judges' proceedings at the antiterrorist section of Paris' Court of Justice, which was charged to investigate the Toulouse and Montauban murders, give credence to the idea that Mohamed Merah had been spotted for a long time by security services. Despite this, he was able to commit his crimes, undisturbed, from the 11th to the 19th March 2012, ruining the life of seven families. If in official cercles, from the Minister of the Interior to the judges, families are assured that truth will be found out, certain disturbing elements are sowing doubt among the plaintiffs.
The DCRI, both Judge and Party
On the hot seat since the beginning of the Merah affair, the DCRI (Central Directorate of Interior Intelligence) didn't exist back in 2007. However, its role in the handling of the Merah case didn't prevent the judges from entrusting it with the investigation into the murders and into its own dysfunctions. "Is the DCRI going to interrogate itself by letter rogatory?", asks a lawyer of the plaintiffs. "The investigation should have been entrusted to the IGPN, for example", said another lawyer recently heard by the antiterrorist judges.
"It's a legitimate question which was raised by the plaintiffs on the 15th of May before Justice Yves Jannier", comment Jean Toumalet and Marie-Laure Ingouf, former lawyers of the Legouad family, whose son Mohamed, corporal for the 17e RGP, was killed by Merah.
These young, sharp lawyers - they had requested the disclosure of classified information on the 15th of May - have been replaced by Georges Holleaux, one of the lawyers of the Ministry of the Interior during Nicolas Sarkozy's presidency, and of SOS attentats, an association created by Françoise Rudetzki. Maître Holleaux is also one of the lawyers of the families of the victims of the Karachi attack. He still believes in the responsibility of al-Qaeda in this affair, a thesis undermined by the investigation of Justice Trevidic. The Legouad family declined to comment on this change of lawyers.
If the search for truth is undeniable, however, how to account for the absence of investigation into the weapons and munitions seized on the 20th of March, some of them surrendered by Merah or found upon his indications, and others seized after his death? According to an expert in weapons appointed by Law, the Colt 45 exchanged by Merah against a radio during the negociations with the Raid was semi-automatic and had been modified the same way elites forces such as GIGN, Raid or GIPN do it. According to this expert, it is "hard to believe that Merah could have learned this technique in a training camp in Pakistan. To lift any doubt about this issue, an investigation should be conducted. To my knowledge, nothing has been done about it."