…by Hicham Hamza, Panamza.com, Paris
Translated by Kevin Barrett, Veterans Today Editor
Don’t miss my other translations of Panamza.com’s investigation of Charlie Hebdo: Zionists linked to Charlie Hebdo terrorists’ escape and Charlie Hebdo Bombshell: Suicided Officer’s Family Denied Access to Autopsy. -KB
INFO PANAMZA. Find out how – and why – the first images of the attack on Charlie Hebdo were deliberately altered.
On 02/08/2015 at 4:22 p.m.
It was precisely noon, Wednesday, January 7, 2015.
Twenty minutes after the men responsible for the attack on Charlie Hebdo had fled, the channel I-Tele was already broadcasting the first jittery, confusing images of the event.
At 11:47, the videographer behind these images – filmed from the roof of the appartment building – had posted this tweet:
Martin Boudot, a journalist from the Premières Lignes agency, curiously appears (around 0’33) in the video that he supposedly had filmed himself at about 11:40 a.m..
Later questioned by CNN and BFM TV about his scoop, Boudot made a strange statement that was broadcast on RMC radio. During his interview (broadcast live the following morning) with Jean-Jacques Bourdin, the young man, a product of the 2008 Tours School of Journalism, said in passing (at the 11’50 mark) that “we were well acquainted with the maintenance manager” who was the first to be shot by the terrorists.
Problem: the manager in question – a certain Frédéric Boisseau, employed by Sodexo – was working his first day in the building where, since last summer, the offices of Charlie Hebdo and Premières Lignes have been located next to each other.
Disturbing detail: Boudot’s boss expressed the same untruth – twice. Interviewed in the late evening on CNN and the next day by a Canadian channel, Paul Moreira – founder of the agency led today by his colleague Luc Hermann (both in the image above) – also claimed to know well – and even “enjoy and appreciate” – Frédéric Boisseau, whom he claimed to have run into “every morning.”
Could Boudot and Moreira have confused Boisseau with another maintenace man? It seems unlikely: The name and face of the first victim of the terrorists was known since the evening of the attack, several hours before their respective (and factually impossible) statements.
A falsified video
Whatever the motive of the false statements of the Boudot-Moreira duo, one thing is certain: Everyone had seen, partially or fully, the images of the young man, broadcast and rebroadcast by all the TV channels beginning Wednesday, January 7th, at noon.
Here is a longer excerpt broadcast by France 24.
Another excerpt, rebroadcast from France 2 by JT at 1 p.m.
The Dailymotion platform of France Télévisions has also posted two similar versions of Martin Boudot’s amateur video.
Same reaction in the TF1 Group: at 1:24 p.m., LCI broadcast these images, also commented on, at the same time, by Jean-Pierre Pernaut. JT at 8 p.m. did not fail to broadcast them, like its competitor France 2. In the newscast of David Pujadas, journalist Franck Génauzeau delivered (at 10’15) this comment about the sequence displayed below: “There are two men in this picture.”
This is false.
In reality, there are four: two terrorists (in the middle of the street); and, visible just above, two unknown men standing on a terrace.
The grand prize for dirty tricks goes to to BFM TV: during its interview with Martin Boudot, the channel (whose star Ruth Elkrief was the first to interview Jeannette Bougrab in her problematic new role as the grieving widow of Charb) circled the images of the terrorists. Consequently, the two strangers, already reduced to two vaguely mobile black blobs, were not likely to attract the viewer’s attention.
The presence of these men (also visible, more clearly, in the left side of the picture below) had already been highlighted by Panamza in a report published January 22nd.
One of them would be a Polish worker responsible for another “amateur” video obtained by Reuters January 13th and broadcast by most television media.
Today we can affim that the activity and the identity of the videographer -present at that crucial moment- were deliberately hidden by the mainstream press.
On Saturday, January 31st, Vice News posted an interview with cartoonist Luz, a surviving member of the Charlie Hebdo team, who offered his views on the consequences of the attack for the future of the newspaper.
At 2’42, a visual sequence of the interview jumps out at us: we discover a high quality excerpt from the Martin Boudot video.
The contrast is striking: Since January 7th, the images filmed by Boudot and broadcast by all channels (including foreign ones, such as CNN and Sky News) appeared – in terms of their blurry appearance – to have been captured with an old cell phone.
That turns out not to be true: The copy obtained by the Vice News Paris correspondent reveals, for the first time, a visual format worthy of modern smartphones. Hence the question: why did the TV channels air a degraded version of the historic Boudot video?
Specifically: Apart from the aesthetic quality, what fundamental difference could there be between the low-end version broadcast on all major television media since January 7th, and the high-end version broadcast only by an American web magazine that is relatively unknown in France?
Answer: The visibility of an anomaly.
Namely: The intriguing image of this standing man whom we learn, a week later, was a Polish worker filming – in a perfectly relaxed manner – two terrorists shooting at police just below him.
In the images broadcast by TF1 and its counterparts, this videographer was a barely-moving black blob. In Vice News Video, he is more discernable due to the higher quality of this version of the film.
Why have they hidden the existence of this individual? After all, he was a direct witness to terrorists’ escape. His own narrative, accompanied by images he himself captured that would eventually (six days later) be broadcast by Reuters, would have elicited, in normal times, the keen interest of the French press.
Strangely, this was not the case.
The question is, who is behind this deliberate alteration of the video: the journalist Martin Boudot, his news agency (Premières Lignes), the channels that received the video, or a mysterious intermediary? One thing is a given: Though there is obviously no “invisible hand” that can secretly control the entire print and broadcast media, one little-known constraining influence is nevertheless exercised in most major newsrooms. It comes from the DGSE, the French bastion against espionage.
According Le Canard enchaîné and Le Point’s brilliant investigative report entitled “The Spy President” (released January 2012), secret agents are indeed installed – under cover – in the mass media, in order to guide coverage of sensitive subjects, and to censor any information deemed compromising to national security.
Is the DGSE then responsible for scrambling the Boudot video? And if so, why?
Coincidentally, the Director of DSGE, Bernard Bajolet, lost his former bodyguard, Franck Brinsolaro, in the Charlie Hebdo attack. Brinsolaro, responsible for the protection of Charb, also happened to have been Bajolet’s bodyguard when the current French spy chief was France’s ambassador to Afghanistan. Key detail: Bajolet, whose term expires next year, is currently in conflict with his assistants. Among them is a figure close to the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France: Christophe Bigot, former Ambassador of France in Israel, an admirer of the ethnic cleanser David Ben-Gurion and the new director of strategy within the DGSE.
Looking for Janek
As for the blurry man in the Boudot video, he has vanished without a trace after delivering his own pictures to Reuters.
Questioned by Panamza, his employers have refused to divulge the identity of this individual, who is supposedly a Polish worker, present that day on a work site – in this case, the roof of a building located just in front of 10, rue Nicolas Appert.
The first to be questioned was David Dahan, the boss of the company initially in charge of the work. Just after beginning our exchange, when I mentioned the name of this worker – “Janek” – the phone call was abruptly terminated. Called back, Dahan let me know – without further explanation – that he was no longer involved in the project. He offered to put me in touch with “M. Geoffroy,” the building owner – who turned out to be as voluble as Dohan had been taciturn. Geoffroy launched an indignant tirade about Janek, who had been “forcibly expelled” from the worksite for selling a video filmed while on the job. The two men are no longer in contact.
I wanted to know more about the individual who gave Janek access to the roof of his building. Contrary to what Dahan’s formula would suggest, his last name is not “Geoffrey”. That is his first name.
By accessing the online archive of the City of Paris, I discovered that the man in question – whose profile is not exactly that of a small-time Parisian landlord – is named Sciard…Geoffroy Sciard.
Co-founder of a chic, gay-friendly hotel in Paris’s Third Arrondissement, this dapper gentleman in his forties is the former “Director of Development for a humanitarian association” and manager of a real estate agency located near the premises of Charlie Hebdo. The same Geoffroy Sciard is the son of Alain Sciard, former naval Captain (notably of the submarine “L’Africaine”) who became co-director from 1967 to 1980 of CNEXO, a public institution devoted to the strategic study of the seas. With Claude Riffaud, former head of the SDECEE Action Service (forerunner of the DGSE), he was assigned to Naval Armaments. An oddity concerning this retired amateur handyman and ex-military officer Alain Sciard remains unexplained to this day: during the years 1983-1986, he was kept under surveillance by the French government.
His son, Geoffrey, has distinguished himself in another area: his singular relationship with the powerful Dassault clan.
In December 2013, Geoffroy Sciard sold a prominent winery which he was co-owner with his brother Thibaut: Château Faurie de Souchard. The lucky buyer: the winemaker next door, Laurent Dassault.
Since 1955, the Sciard and Dassault families have owned gigantic vinyards – adjacent to each other – in Saint-Emilion. Geoffroy Sciard managed the family estate from 2006 to January 2014 before ceding it to Laurent Dassault, the head of Château Dassault since 1994.
Four months after the transaction between the Sciard brothers and Laurent Dassault, a bonus gift: Dassault invested (up to 15%) in the management company founded and co-directed by Thibaut Sciard. The head of Dassault Financial, Olivier Costa de Beauregard and now co-owner of Delta-AM, is the one who took the reins – in the name of Laurent Dassault – at the winery that had belonged to Sciard.
What is so special about Laurent Dassault, son of the UMP Senator Serge Dassault and director of Artcurial (the leading French auction house) – who also happens to be vice-president of a wealthy family group (the sixth richest in France) and partner of the DGSE?
His close connection with the Israeli military-industrial complex.
Closely associated with several influential figures of the French Zionist movement (especially David, Benjamin, and Eric de Rothschild, as well as Patrick Drahi, head of the Israeli channel i24news) and longtime financial supporter of Nicolas Sarkozy, Laurent Dassault cultivates, alongside his family ties in Israel, intimate relations with formidable local businessmen (including Stef Wertheimer) and many leading figures of the ruling class in Tel Aviv, including the extreme right.
Dassault is a director of an investment fund run by Edouard Cukierman (also spokesman for the Israeli army) alongside Roger Cukierman (President of CRIF) and Yair Shamir. Member of an ultra-nationalist Israeli party, the latter, son of former prime minister and Mossad agent Yitzhak Shamir, recently resigned from Netanyahu government because of a corruption scandal involving officials of his group. The journal Intelligence Online has this former high-ranking military officer as the “Dassault’s Israeli lobbyist in Israel.” A funny detail: the extreme right party, headed by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, recently garnered attention by promoting Charlie Hebdo in the streets of Tel Aviv.
In November, Laurent Dassault co-hosted, together with Gilles-William Goldnadel and Claude Goasguen, a ceremony honoring General Pierre Bénouville, a man celebrated in Zionist circles for violating DeGualle’s 1967 arms embargo against Israel.
No surprise: In 2008, the Israeli daily Haaretz published an article about Dessault, that zealous promoter of Bénouville. According to the journalist Ora Coren, Laurent Dassault “sees himself as continuing” the work of his grandfather, Marcel Dassault, who “at the birth of the state, armed Israel with its first aircraft.”
To sum up: At the origin of this video – filmed, oddly enough, without apparent fear of being hit by a stray bullet – in which one of the Charlie Hebdo attackers (who would soon flee in the direction of a Parisian establishment used by the Israeli army) declaims, with his left index finger pointed towards the sky, that he had “avenged the Prophet” – is a mysterious anonymous Pole, blurred by the television media, who vanishes without a trace – having been employed by a long-standing family enterprise of Laurent Dassault, ultra-Zionist multimillionaire connected to the military and radical wing of the Tel Aviv regime. And as the Israeli channel i24news was the first in the world to “reveal” the double French-Algerian nationality of the perpetrators of the attack, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wasted no time politically exploiting an “terrorist and Islamist” event which he himself had described in rough outline, and insisted was immanent, back on August 7th.
Are these and other emerging facts just bizarre coincidences? Or are they gradually-gathered pieces of a complex puzzle?
In any case, the story of Janek irresistibly evokes that of another immigrant worker: Pavel Hlava Czech.
Accompanied by his employer Mike Cohen (both in the picture above), the man claimed to have accidentally filmed (like the Naudet brothers) the two plane crashes into the World Trade Center on September 11th 2001. And like Geoffroy Sciard, Cohen would later criticized his worker – who has likewise evaporated into thin air – for having sold his pictures to the media.
To date, only one thing is certain: the terrace with white edges from which Janek supposedly captured his video has disappeared.
Panamza has obtained images – filmed on January 24th – showing the condition of the worksite, began last summer and obviously finished.
Surprise, surprise: The installation that permitted the comfortable filming of the terrorists’ thunderous departure – here filmed from the best angle – no longer exists.
What appeared to be a terrace turns out to be a simple gray roof.