ChatterBank2 mins ago
At Least She Won't Be Able To Hide Behind A Burka In France.
35 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Mush,
It turns out the French Security Services had stopped watching this cell. Which is why they had no idea that she was out of the country. The Turkish authorities informed the French that she entered Turkey from Madrid in 2nd January.
Obviously, if she had been with her husband when the policewoman was murdered, then she would be a a fugative criminal. But she was thousands of miles away at the time.
No doubt the Gripping Hands idiot will be on soon accusing me of being anti-Police/anti-Services.
It turns out the French Security Services had stopped watching this cell. Which is why they had no idea that she was out of the country. The Turkish authorities informed the French that she entered Turkey from Madrid in 2nd January.
Obviously, if she had been with her husband when the policewoman was murdered, then she would be a a fugative criminal. But she was thousands of miles away at the time.
No doubt the Gripping Hands idiot will be on soon accusing me of being anti-Police/anti-Services.
//What's her crime? //
//"We can call this complicity by furnishing of means," Christophe Crepin, spokesman for the UNSA police union, told the AP in an interview.
The judicial records say she was known to French internal security services as being very close to Islamic radicals, and an official circular distributed Friday by French police said she should be considered dangerous and potentially armed.//
http://
Sounds worth investigating to me.
//"We can call this complicity by furnishing of means," Christophe Crepin, spokesman for the UNSA police union, told the AP in an interview.
The judicial records say she was known to French internal security services as being very close to Islamic radicals, and an official circular distributed Friday by French police said she should be considered dangerous and potentially armed.//
http://
Sounds worth investigating to me.
Does France have an extradition tready with Syria?
If she was a criminal and a danger, the French Authorities should have arrested her before 2nd January. If they were actively trying to arrest her, they should have put her on a no fly list and Her passport would flag up if she tried to fly from the EU. Turkey were able to name her as entering from a flight from Madrid, meaning there was not a no fly warrant on her.
If she was a criminal and a danger, the French Authorities should have arrested her before 2nd January. If they were actively trying to arrest her, they should have put her on a no fly list and Her passport would flag up if she tried to fly from the EU. Turkey were able to name her as entering from a flight from Madrid, meaning there was not a no fly warrant on her.
Naomi,
I see you have edited the quote. Here it is in full.
// "We can call this complicity by furnishing of means," Christophe Crepin, spokesman for the UNSA police union, told the AP in an interview. "We must interrogate her so she explains exactly if she did this under influence, if she did it by ideology, if she did it to aid and abet." //
That was clearly written before it was known she was in Syria at the time of the shootings. She could not have done anything 'under influence' or 'aid and abet' if she was thousands of miles away at the time of the attack.
The French stopped watching this cell and were clueless of her whereabout until they were informed by the Turkish authorities.
I see you have edited the quote. Here it is in full.
// "We can call this complicity by furnishing of means," Christophe Crepin, spokesman for the UNSA police union, told the AP in an interview. "We must interrogate her so she explains exactly if she did this under influence, if she did it by ideology, if she did it to aid and abet." //
That was clearly written before it was known she was in Syria at the time of the shootings. She could not have done anything 'under influence' or 'aid and abet' if she was thousands of miles away at the time of the attack.
The French stopped watching this cell and were clueless of her whereabout until they were informed by the Turkish authorities.
Gromit, I posted the bit of the quote that was relevant. The men who perpetrated the recent atrocities in Paris were on radar – as she was - but were nevertheless free to do what they did.
//She could not have done anything 'under influence' or 'aid and abet' if she was thousands of miles away at the time of the attack.//
Rubbish! She wouldn’t have needed to be standing beside the gunmen to have been complicit. There were 500 phone calls between her and the companion of one of the murderers!
I don’t understand your reasoning. Why wouldn’t you want someone who may have been complicit in murdering people investigated?
//She could not have done anything 'under influence' or 'aid and abet' if she was thousands of miles away at the time of the attack.//
Rubbish! She wouldn’t have needed to be standing beside the gunmen to have been complicit. There were 500 phone calls between her and the companion of one of the murderers!
I don’t understand your reasoning. Why wouldn’t you want someone who may have been complicit in murdering people investigated?
I am not saying she should not be interviewed, but her guilt seems to be assumed. She is a person of interest to the investigation, especially as the French now seem to be trying to work out why there was a security lapse. She may have been involved in the planning, but that is just conjecture. Because she is now in Syria, it is unlikely that the French will get answers from her.
// There were 500 phone calls between her and the companion of one of the murderers! //
Hardly damning.
// There were 500 phone calls between her and the companion of one of the murderers! //
Hardly damning.
alot on complicite - ici
It appears to be four-square with being an accessory [old law]
or assisting an offender.... ( recent law)
http://
"complicite" always comes back to "responsailite penal"
It appears to be four-square with being an accessory [old law]
or assisting an offender.... ( recent law)
http://
"complicite" always comes back to "responsailite penal"
// I am not saying she should not be interviewed, but her guilt seems to be assumed. //
remember it is a completely different legal system - see 'Engrenages' - the word from les avocats sur les couloirs seems to be:
if you didnt do it - tell them everything and if you DID keep quiet
( not the sort of advice you would get in England)
and if the juge d'instruction ( wh we dont have at all) sends a mandat to the procureur de la Republique saying he thinks you have done it, you are in big big doggy doo ....
remember it is a completely different legal system - see 'Engrenages' - the word from les avocats sur les couloirs seems to be:
if you didnt do it - tell them everything and if you DID keep quiet
( not the sort of advice you would get in England)
and if the juge d'instruction ( wh we dont have at all) sends a mandat to the procureur de la Republique saying he thinks you have done it, you are in big big doggy doo ....
-- answer removed --
1. She is in Syria, so is unlikely to be interviewed
2. If she was an accomplice will have to be determined without her
3. The French authorities had her as a co-suspect for the policewoman murder, when she wasn't in the country
4. They even thought she was in the Supermarket, but had escaped. Again wrong.
5. She is a person of interest, but unfortunately out of reach.
6. She was married to one of the dead terrorists, but that doesn't mean she is automatically guilty.
7. She spoke with one of the brothers' companion on the phone. Has that companion been charged? If not, what is the relevence of to her
8. Has the wife in Leicester been interviewed/arrested/charged?
2. If she was an accomplice will have to be determined without her
3. The French authorities had her as a co-suspect for the policewoman murder, when she wasn't in the country
4. They even thought she was in the Supermarket, but had escaped. Again wrong.
5. She is a person of interest, but unfortunately out of reach.
6. She was married to one of the dead terrorists, but that doesn't mean she is automatically guilty.
7. She spoke with one of the brothers' companion on the phone. Has that companion been charged? If not, what is the relevence of to her
8. Has the wife in Leicester been interviewed/arrested/charged?
Latest Posts
Jobs & Education3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Technology9 mins ago
ChatterBank20 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.