Up there with “we accidentally erased the cctv” IMO.
An interesting testimony nonetheless (IMO) since it:
1. Maintains the possibility that the boy was taken by an 'outsider.'
2. Alibis his dog.
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.
Up there with “we accidentally erased the cctv” IMO.
But a jarring bit of NEW information. A NEW last person to see the little boy...Aye.. bizarre in so many ways..
I almost don't bring new articles here any more because they all say the same thing.
TOS etc
It's not new.But a jarring bit of NEW information. A NEW last person to see the little boy...
Like I said, I'm sticking a pin in this.
Why would Emile be in distress, why would his dog alerting have changed things...
If his dog were there, and his dog responded to distress, then he would've known to intervene? Huh?
A two year old on a holiday adventure by himself is cause enough! It's not like he was 8 on a scooter...
This is the most important detail to date.
Jmo
Yes, but didn't he say he SAW the child? Isn't he saying there was no stranger because his dog would've alerted him to one (then remembering his dog hadn't been there, implacation being, there could've been a stranger, he wouldn't have known)?
I'm just drawing the big red circle, by virtue of his being the last confirmed sighting of Emile.
Unless I read it completely wrong!
Jmo
but it says in the morning so I assume he is a different one to whom saw Emile walking away? this case is so complicated to followYes, but didn't he say he SAW the child? Isn't he saying there was no stranger because his dog would've alerted him to one (then remembering his dog hadn't been there, implacation being, there could've been a stranger, he wouldn't have known)?
I'm just drawing the big red circle, by virtue of his being the last confirmed sighting of Emile.
Unless I read it completely wrong!
Jmo
Morning witnesses:From Shadwell's link above ...
A couple, was heard for several hours this Thursday, three hours for the husband and two hours for the wife.
On Saturday morning July 8, the husband was one of the last residents to see little Émile playing in the hamlet. He and his wife were absent at the time of the disappearance.
"Why did you leave? Where were you? What did you do three days before?".
Investigators search, interrogate, note the slightest hesitation and press on the detail that could be wrong.
Found it in translation.ccording to a Paris Match survey to be found on newsstands this Thursday, July 20, the last two people to have seen Emile would be a teenager and a man in his sixties " whose statements are formal" . The magazine focused more on the second. The latter was not alerted when he saw the little boy of 2 and a half years appear alone in this street of Haut-Vernet. The reason ? It is common to see children from the hamlet playing there without necessarily being accompanied by adults...
Another element allowed this man not to be alerted. His dog didn't bark. Our colleagues report that he "knows very well that when a stranger moves around or when danger threatens" , his Bernese shepherd "reacts systematically" . But here, that was not the case. And for the simple and good reason that it turns out that the animal was in fact perhaps not present on the day of the disappearance of the little boy...
"A couple".From Shadwell's link above ...
A couple, was heard for several hours this Thursday, three hours for the husband and two hours for the wife.
On Saturday morning July 8, the husband was one of the last residents to see little Émile playing in the hamlet. He and his wife were absent at the time of the disappearance.
"Why did you leave? Where were you? What did you do three days before?".
Investigators search, interrogate, note the slightest hesitation and press on the detail that could be wrong.
fair enough. Your gut is good.Found it in translation.
Same reaction. Feels like an oversplain.
I'm noting it.
JMO
What do you find confusing about that?"A couple".
Just like in Australia (Tyrrell case) in 2014; it doesn't get much more mysterious than that.
Found it in translation.
Same reaction. Feels like an oversplain.
I'm noting it.
JMO
Possible but there would have been blood and the alarm was raised quickly..What do you find confusing about that?
Interrogating the husband and wife helps establish/support the timeline. It confirms the report that he arrived and was alive to that point.
It doesn't undo later reports, the nap and the car-loading and the possibility that he went MIA because he's two and everybody thought somebody else had eyes on him.
Is it possible the 60 year old's dog WAS there? Animal attack whereby BOTH the animal and the boy needed hiding? Nope, nope, no distress here, no dog.
Where WAS his dog then?
I'm not accusing anyone. I just want to ask more questions.
Jmo
Possible but there would have been blood and the alarm was raised quickly..
Confusing to me is, that "a couple" isn't even named "mother and father of Emile" (let alone their names).What do you find confusing about that?
Interrogating the husband and wife helps establish/support the timeline. It confirms the report that he arrived and was alive to that point.
pavement, wherever the dog would have attacked the child... there wouldn't have been time to get rid of dog, child and mop pavement or whatever they were standing on at time.Where would the blood have been?
Confusing to me is, that "a couple" isn't even named "mother and father of Emile" (let alone their names).
Otherwise you are right, of course.![]()