Je Suis Helric



Helric Fredou and his mother

Further to this

Derek B writes:

Me again! I wanted to throw my tinfoil hat in the ring again and share (as there is a mainstream media blackout on these details) some new details concerning the apparent suicide of Helric Fredou [the police commissioner charged with interviewing Charlie Hebdo relatives]. On the night Helric died he had been preparing a report on Jeannette Bougrab, who was apparently the partner of Charlie Hebdo editor ‘Charb’ (but was not allowed to go to his funeral by Charb’s family). More ominously, Helric’s mother has been refused access to her son’s autopsy….Anyone?


Why can’t he just accept the official narrative?

Stupid bacofoil non-Charlie truthtard.

Previously: Ridicule Is Nothing To Be Scared Of

Sponsored Link

18 thoughts on “Je Suis Helric

  1. AlisonT

    I’m pretty sure all officers of his rank in France were assigned to the case following the initial shooting. So it should read [one of the many police commissioners charged with interviewing Charlie Hebdo relatives]

  2. sickofallthisbs

    Good god, is this what we have to put up with every time a journalist is shot? You’d swear they actually contributed something worthwhile to society.

  3. Lilly

    A bit fishy that Charb’s family deny she was his partner and that Helric’s family did not want her at the funeral. Did she set them all up? The official story reeks of BS alright but I doubt the truth will emerge any time soon.

  4. C Sharp

    Why would the family of the police commissioner have any say about who attended the funeral of Charb?

    More ominously (dun de dun dun)..

    Seriously, what the f**k?

    Less than nothing to see here.

    1. f_lawless

      But why isn’t it a tad ominous that, along with the other circumstances Fredou’s mother and her daughter have raised, his own mother would be refused access to the autopsy report to which she’s legally entitled? It raises my eyebrow that there’s a possibility of a cover up of some sort going on- whatever that may be – but you assert “Less than nothing to see here” -why? Should we ignore what they have to say? Tell us what you know! Are they serial liars? Don’t keep us in suspense!

  5. rotide

    What’s far more ominous is that the contributor was originally called ‘Derek B’

    Now (‘me again’), he’s called ‘Des L’


  6. Kieran NYC

    Ah. More “muttered whispers and no actual proof” crackpot clickbait.


    Just because YOU don’t know the answer to some random questions, doesn’t mean there’s a sinister answer.

    I don’t know how to make an iPhone. Arggg! Steve Jobs is an alien!

    1. f_lawless

      “no actual proof” of what exactly? That the family of the deceased have been denied access to the autopsy report? Has this story already been debunked as fabricated?
      All I’m getting from your comment is: people who ask questions about official narratives of contentious events are to be ridiculed even when things emerge that don’t sit with that narrative.
      Why does one have to have outright proof that something is amiss before being querying it?
      By the way, you don’t have to be wearing a tinfoil hat to know that “false flag” terrorist operations have been documented throughout history eg “Invasion at Gleiwitz” (the Nazi’s pretext for invading Poland), the “Lavon Affair” (a bungled Israeli operation in Egypt), the “Gulf of Tonkin Incident” etc, etc.
      I think that when it comes to the West’s ongoing “War on Terror” and, bearing in mind the lies told about WMDs, the prudent among us should be viewing these “official narratives” presented to the public with a skeptical mind. Skeptical in the true sense – ie: not to simply believe either “yes” or ‘no” – rather to say “I don’t know. Could be yes, could be no, I would need to see some real data first.”

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link