ZaZara
AstraZaZara
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2014
- Messages
- 8,464
- Reaction score
- 18,234
Meurtre du caporal Noyer. Procès de Nordahl Lelandais : ce qu'il faut retenir de ce mardi matin
Le Dauphiné Liveblog, Day 7
6.10am: The day's programme
This Tuesday 11 May promises to be decisive with the pleadings and the indictment which will occupy the whole day.
Me Boulloud, lawyer for the civil parties, will speak first before the public prosecutor's closing arguments. Then it will be the turn of Me Jakubowicz, the defence lawyer, to try to convince the judge and the jury one last time.
If they finish early enough, the jury and the court will deliberate and give their verdict in the evening. If not, it will be Wednesday.
The hearing is scheduled to resume at 9am.
9.05am: The hearing begins, Me Boulloud takes the floor for the plea of the civil party.
The plea of Me Boulloud, lawyer for the family of Arthur Noyer
"4 years and 29 days after Arthur's death, 7 days of hearings and Nordahl Lelandais is still standing firm in his boots [ arrogantly confident ], in his truth. Despite the urging of the court, of the two families that he saw getting closer to each other, despite the insistence of his close friends and even his lawyer, he will never tell the truth about the circumstances of Arthur's death. To save his own skin. His lies are only a decoy, intended to deceive justice. The manipulations of this man will not fool or blind the court. He doesn't want to tell us the truth. Why not? Let's not kid ourselves. Because he would inevitably fall in the Maëlys case. But perhaps he no longer has enough courage to become a responsible man and return to the community of men to which he still belongs. He is not a monster. Hats off to Nordahl Lelandais, after prison I predict a bright future in show business.
Arthur is no longer there, he is in his grave in Bourges. Discreet like him. In a coffin where lies what remains of him. A few fragments gnawed by animals. Yes Arthur, Nordahl killed you, on purpose. And he's there, well off, presenting himself as the ideal son-in-law. He is there to defend his skin, certainly with the right, but without faith or shame. Arthur's spirit is there in this room, materialised by his face (the portrait placed near the civil parties). The problem with this case is the physical absence of the victim, the disappearance of crucial clues such as Arthur's body. On 12 April 2017, the accused went to great lengths to make the evidence of his crime disappear. Having deliberately concealed the evidence, he knows that the prosecution will have great difficulty in proving the intentional nature of the murder. This is what he hopes for. Doubt favours the accused, it is true, and Nordahl Lelandais knows it. That is why he is content to put doubt in the minds of jurors.
But he has forgotten that after having rolled the dice, you (the jurors) can have recourse to your own conviction. Convictions, said Nietzsche, are more dangerous than lies. Your conviction will counterbalance the lack of evidence.
What he wanted was to achieve the perfect crime, but there is no such thing. The mistake he made was to use an Audi A3 in the Noyer and Maëlys cases. That's what made it possible to get to him. Nordahl Lelandais had several versions that he spread out like a mille feuilles wafer. He never tells the truth spontaneously. It's when he's confronted with evidence that he confesses. You have heard his last version. It's 'I came across Arthur Noyer hitchhiking, he was upset, he would have started a fight'. And he unintentionally kills him after hitting him in the face and not knowing what to do, he turns off his phones and looks for a place to hide the body. He dumps the body like a garbage bag in nature and goes home as if nothing had happened and resumes a normal life. A few months later he does it again (Maëlys), same modus operandi, same defence. And always straight in his boots.
Arthur would have asked him to go to Saint-Baldoph, that is completely false. How could he go against the evidence? When Nordahl Lelandais is in custody, he tells the gendarmes 'Au col de Marocaz'. How is it that in his mind the name of the Col de Marocaz spontaneously came up? You had very clear testimonies like the barmaid who said that Arthur wanted to go back to 13! Or the bar owner who said that Arthur wanted to go home to the barracks! Arthur had a kind, anaesthetic alcohol, he never fought. He wasn't mean when he was drunk. That was his personality. And there are the witnesses and that's the file, nothing but the file.
The theft of the phone would be the cause of Arthur's anger. You have to be serious. All the witnesses said that Arthur did not care about his phone. In Saint-Baldoph (according to the Lelandais version), Arthur punched him because he thought he was the thief of his phone and afterwards there was a chain of violence. If there had been blows, Nordahl Lelandais would have had injuries. But he never had the marks of a fight. You should have gone to the hospital, Mr Lelandais. Your friends did not see anything. Arthur Noyer, it must be deduced that he never hit Nordahl Lelandais. It was Nordahl Lelandais who hit Arthur to cause his death. Where did he actually kill him? Let's go back to the telephone line. There are three minutes too many on the way to Saint-Baldoph. It is in this interval that something must have happened, that Arthur realised and that he killed him. This is the family's version. He says he did CPR for two minutes? A cardiac massage can last 45 minutes, the first aiders know that, but that' s Lelandais' story.
I say that for someone who is panicked, stressed, it is not possible. He is rational at that moment, he knows perfectly well what he is doing. He hides the body in a secluded place, he turns off his phones. He is a liar, a manipulator who enjoys the suffering of others. The next day he goes to parties and movies. This man has no feelings because he attacks people he doesn't know. The character you are going to judge is certainly not the one who was said to have a problem because he was not at the level of his friends on a social level. He is able to hide his prey after killing them.
Our version is that he struck him a mortal blow. This blow that he learned in the army. My role is not to accuse in place of the public prosecutor, I don't pretend to do that, but if our word is not worth less than yours, Mr Lelandais, isn't our version closer to the truth?
BBM
Le Dauphiné Liveblog, Day 7
6.10am: The day's programme
This Tuesday 11 May promises to be decisive with the pleadings and the indictment which will occupy the whole day.
Me Boulloud, lawyer for the civil parties, will speak first before the public prosecutor's closing arguments. Then it will be the turn of Me Jakubowicz, the defence lawyer, to try to convince the judge and the jury one last time.
If they finish early enough, the jury and the court will deliberate and give their verdict in the evening. If not, it will be Wednesday.
The hearing is scheduled to resume at 9am.
9.05am: The hearing begins, Me Boulloud takes the floor for the plea of the civil party.
The plea of Me Boulloud, lawyer for the family of Arthur Noyer
"4 years and 29 days after Arthur's death, 7 days of hearings and Nordahl Lelandais is still standing firm in his boots [ arrogantly confident ], in his truth. Despite the urging of the court, of the two families that he saw getting closer to each other, despite the insistence of his close friends and even his lawyer, he will never tell the truth about the circumstances of Arthur's death. To save his own skin. His lies are only a decoy, intended to deceive justice. The manipulations of this man will not fool or blind the court. He doesn't want to tell us the truth. Why not? Let's not kid ourselves. Because he would inevitably fall in the Maëlys case. But perhaps he no longer has enough courage to become a responsible man and return to the community of men to which he still belongs. He is not a monster. Hats off to Nordahl Lelandais, after prison I predict a bright future in show business.
Arthur is no longer there, he is in his grave in Bourges. Discreet like him. In a coffin where lies what remains of him. A few fragments gnawed by animals. Yes Arthur, Nordahl killed you, on purpose. And he's there, well off, presenting himself as the ideal son-in-law. He is there to defend his skin, certainly with the right, but without faith or shame. Arthur's spirit is there in this room, materialised by his face (the portrait placed near the civil parties). The problem with this case is the physical absence of the victim, the disappearance of crucial clues such as Arthur's body. On 12 April 2017, the accused went to great lengths to make the evidence of his crime disappear. Having deliberately concealed the evidence, he knows that the prosecution will have great difficulty in proving the intentional nature of the murder. This is what he hopes for. Doubt favours the accused, it is true, and Nordahl Lelandais knows it. That is why he is content to put doubt in the minds of jurors.
But he has forgotten that after having rolled the dice, you (the jurors) can have recourse to your own conviction. Convictions, said Nietzsche, are more dangerous than lies. Your conviction will counterbalance the lack of evidence.
What he wanted was to achieve the perfect crime, but there is no such thing. The mistake he made was to use an Audi A3 in the Noyer and Maëlys cases. That's what made it possible to get to him. Nordahl Lelandais had several versions that he spread out like a mille feuilles wafer. He never tells the truth spontaneously. It's when he's confronted with evidence that he confesses. You have heard his last version. It's 'I came across Arthur Noyer hitchhiking, he was upset, he would have started a fight'. And he unintentionally kills him after hitting him in the face and not knowing what to do, he turns off his phones and looks for a place to hide the body. He dumps the body like a garbage bag in nature and goes home as if nothing had happened and resumes a normal life. A few months later he does it again (Maëlys), same modus operandi, same defence. And always straight in his boots.
Arthur would have asked him to go to Saint-Baldoph, that is completely false. How could he go against the evidence? When Nordahl Lelandais is in custody, he tells the gendarmes 'Au col de Marocaz'. How is it that in his mind the name of the Col de Marocaz spontaneously came up? You had very clear testimonies like the barmaid who said that Arthur wanted to go back to 13! Or the bar owner who said that Arthur wanted to go home to the barracks! Arthur had a kind, anaesthetic alcohol, he never fought. He wasn't mean when he was drunk. That was his personality. And there are the witnesses and that's the file, nothing but the file.
The theft of the phone would be the cause of Arthur's anger. You have to be serious. All the witnesses said that Arthur did not care about his phone. In Saint-Baldoph (according to the Lelandais version), Arthur punched him because he thought he was the thief of his phone and afterwards there was a chain of violence. If there had been blows, Nordahl Lelandais would have had injuries. But he never had the marks of a fight. You should have gone to the hospital, Mr Lelandais. Your friends did not see anything. Arthur Noyer, it must be deduced that he never hit Nordahl Lelandais. It was Nordahl Lelandais who hit Arthur to cause his death. Where did he actually kill him? Let's go back to the telephone line. There are three minutes too many on the way to Saint-Baldoph. It is in this interval that something must have happened, that Arthur realised and that he killed him. This is the family's version. He says he did CPR for two minutes? A cardiac massage can last 45 minutes, the first aiders know that, but that' s Lelandais' story.
I say that for someone who is panicked, stressed, it is not possible. He is rational at that moment, he knows perfectly well what he is doing. He hides the body in a secluded place, he turns off his phones. He is a liar, a manipulator who enjoys the suffering of others. The next day he goes to parties and movies. This man has no feelings because he attacks people he doesn't know. The character you are going to judge is certainly not the one who was said to have a problem because he was not at the level of his friends on a social level. He is able to hide his prey after killing them.
Our version is that he struck him a mortal blow. This blow that he learned in the army. My role is not to accuse in place of the public prosecutor, I don't pretend to do that, but if our word is not worth less than yours, Mr Lelandais, isn't our version closer to the truth?
BBM