Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
From my understanding, it says the restaurant camera had footage showing him walking into the park. But his dad has seen the restaurant footage, I thought?http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/j...riel-des-agresseurs-potentiels-rencontres.php
This is an article from La Presse.
I understand the witness saw Ariel before he "seems" walking into the park. Then , they have found some blood near the area where Ariel disappeared but the result of the analyse is negative. What does that mean? How do they know where Ariel disappeared if the witness saw him before he walked into the park?
The father has said that he wants to ask the witness what Ariel was wearing. That suggests that he does not believe that the witness actually spoke to Ariel. The father is filled with grief, and it is not always easy to deal with other people's grief. On the one hand we want the witness to be compassionate with the family, but on the other hand I would not want to be in a position of being confronted by a grieving family that didn't believe my witness statement.
La Presse a frappé à la porte du restaurant. La gérante nous a dit avoir souvent vu le petit Ariel et ses amis jouer dans le stationnement des HLM voisins et près du parc riverain dans le passé.
Why does it suggest the father doesn't believe the witness?
I don't think it means he doesn't 'believe' what the witness has said. I think it means that the father wants to clarify the details and make sure she saw the correct boy.
There was no school that day. There might have been a few boys in that park at that time. How can Dad be certain it was his son she saw, and not another young boy, alone in the park?
I believe the witness is sincere and is telling the truth AS SHE SEES IT. But I wholly believe the father has the right to ask her further questions so he can try and see if it was really his son she spoke to.
Also, you bring up the father's grief quite often, and saying he should not spread his grief to this witness.
But I would think she has some grief already because of the circumstances. She must feel some kind of way about speaking to this lonely sad boy right before he may have died in the river, or been kidnapped in the park. If so, she must be feeling some grief of her own.
Wouldn't she like to know if maybe they boy she spoke to is safe and sound, and not the missing boy? I'd want to know that if I was her.
http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/j...riel-des-agresseurs-potentiels-rencontres.php
This is an article from La Presse.
I understand the witness saw Ariel before he "seems" walking into the park. Then , they have found some blood near the area where Ariel disappeared but the result of the analyse is negative. What does that mean? How do they know where Ariel disappeared if the witness saw him before he walked into the park?
Why does it suggest the father doesn't believe the witness?
I don't think it means he doesn't 'believe' what the witness has said. I think it means that the father wants to clarify the details and make sure she saw the correct boy.
There was no school that day. There might have been a few boys in that park at that time. How can Dad be certain it was his son she saw, and not another young boy, alone in the park?
I believe the witness is sincere and is telling the truth AS SHE SEES IT. But I wholly believe the father has the right to ask her further questions so he can try and see if it was really his son she spoke to.
Also, you bring up the father's grief quite often, and saying he should not spread his grief to this witness.
But I would think she has some grief already because of the circumstances. She must feel some kind of way about speaking to this lonely sad boy right before he may have died in the river, or been kidnapped in the park. If so, she must be feeling some grief of her own.
Wouldn't she like to know if maybe they boy she spoke to is safe and sound, and not the missing boy? I'd want to know that if I was her.
Green dots: Ariel walking, caught by CCTV cameras Numbers (1), (2), (3)
Number (1): Garage's CCTV footage
Number (2): Garage's CCTV footage
Number (3): House CCTV footage (Ariel turns twice)
Number (4): Restaurant's CCTV (we've only seen a still image)
Pink dots: pathway towards the park where a witness allegedly saw Ariel around 2 pm.
- CCTV cameras (1) and (2), from the Garage, do not capture the corner of Gouin and the train tracks, where Ariel would most likely have crossed the street.
Google street view here: https://goo.gl/maps/7zCDU3pd8EL2
- CCTV camera (3), from the house, only captures their side of the street, nothing showing the pathway.
Questions:
1) Did Ariel cross the street at any point in time, and headed towards the park (via pathways) after knocking the door at his friend's home, and getting no answer?
2) Does the Restaurant surveillance camera run all the time (24/7), or only activates and records when there is movement around their parking lot?
View attachment 131847
I can't find the video now but the apartment at "Habitations Gouin" where Ariel went is 1124. So it is the middle apartment of the fifth structure in Hazel's map. I am trying to find this video. It may be in Phei's link of a video that has some blank space and afterwards the video begins again. I may have also linked it at some point.
All of the unit numbers are on the grey stone at entrance to the units. https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.5460...4!1sKUIbf4wd_1HGlloakkmrUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
ETA: corrected to fifth structure
Completely agreed. No parent or any other involved love one has the right or should to question witnesses or other participants in a situation. Not trained, obviously emotional, and in some cases the actual perpetrators. Such a bad bad bad precedence.It's not really the responsibility of non-investigators to assess the credibility of witnesses. Police have deemed the witness who saw Ariel at the water front at 11:25 as very credible.
Why doesn't the family want to accept this? Why should the witness be placed in such a difficult situation of dealing with a grieving family simply because the family doesn't trust the police?
This says that La Press went to the restaurant and spoke to the manager. She said she had often seen Ariel and his friends playing in the parking lot and near the park in the past. I believe the "HLM" are the apartments near the train tracks.
http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/j...riel-des-agresseurs-potentiels-rencontres.php
According to this La Presse article the witness saw him in front of the last house in the north side of Gouin Blvd where she spoke to him.
Afterwards his image was captured by the rooftop camera at the Bordelais where footage shows him entering the park.
So the witness didn’t see him “in” the park.
And yes it was also widely reported that the father has viewed the footage from the Bordelais ( the shadowing figures in the parking lot etc) so why wouldn’t he have also seen his son entering the park?
From my understanding, it says the restaurant camera had footage showing him walking into the park. But his dad has seen the restaurant footage, I thought?
The blood it sounds like was tested but did not match him.
The father does not believe that Ariel went into the water.
A witness claims she saw him at the park at 11:25AM.
Clothes that Ariel was wearing were reported in the news.
The father claims he wants to ask the witness what Ariel was wearing.
Obviously the witness can answer that question, but so could an un-credible witness.
Furthermore, I think the witness testimony is credible based on what Ariel told her, not because of what he was wearing.
Since the father does not believe that Ariel is in the water, wouldn't he prefer to discredit the witness?
Why does he want to speak to the witness?
According to this La Presse article the witness saw him in front of the last house in the north side of Gouin Blvd where she spoke to him.
Afterwards his image was captured by the rooftop camera at the Bordelais where footage shows him entering the park.
So the witness didnt see him in the park.
And yes it was also widely reported that the father has viewed the footage from the Bordelais ( the shadowing figures in the parking lot etc) so why wouldnt he have also seen his son entering the park?
reposting Map
Note: See Matou's post for exact location of Ariel's friend home.