Found Deceased France - Maëlys De Araujo, 9, Pont-de-Beauvoisin, 27 Aug 2017

[katydid23]

From what I am reading in the french news he opened the door of his car, pushed the seat back (i understand it only has 2 doors) and let 2 kids (males and a boy) in the back seat as they wanted to see wether there were dogs in the boot. He only admitted this after being confronted with DNA evidence... but Her DNA was found on the dashboard not the back seat. He then claimed the windows of his car were left open during the wedding...

Is the 'boot' the same as the trunk of a car? Who keeps dogs in the boot of a car? He had an Audi, I believe, correct?

 

[ZaZara]

Is the 'boot' the same as the trunk of a car? Who keeps dogs in the boot of a car? He had an Audi, I believe, correct?

His AudiA3 is probably a hatchback.

 

[katydid23]

His AudiA3 is probably a hatchback.

Probably. And If so, they wouldn't have needed to climb into the car to see if there were dogs in the back.

 

[Sjm_qc]

I am sure this has to do with translation issues---but something has me confused about the dogs and his car.

He said the kids went in the back seat to look in his trunk, to see if the dogs were there.

Who puts dogs in their trunk?


ETA:



BFMTV
http://www.bfmtv.com/police-justice/...e-1248816.html

The 34-year-old man claims that the girl had climbed into the car with another child to see if there were any dogs in the trunk.

The imprisoned man, who had a dog training business in the past, explains that Maëlys and another child would have entered his car in the backseat to see if his dogs were in the trunk.

Is the 'boot' the same as the trunk of a car? Who keeps dogs in the boot of a car? He had an Audi, I believe, correct?

His AudiA3 is probably a hatchback.

Katydid23: yes, "boot" is British English for "Trunk" (American English). "Hatchback" is a (usually smaller) type of what Americans call a "station wagon"

If you google* "Audi 3 Sportback" you'll see what we mean .

Basically, in this case, boot and/or trunk refer to the cargo area (it's not a sedan type trunk, IYSWIM ).

* My phone won't let me post a picture, otherwise I wouldn't ask you to google.

 

[Sjm_qc]

Probably. And If so, they wouldn't have needed to climb into the car to see if there were dogs in the back.

No, I agree they wouldn't. And that's why I want to know if the dogs WERE there, in the car, at the party, that night.

Either way, my gut says bovine doodoo to that particular story.

 

[katydid23]

Katydid23: yes, "boot" is British English for "Trunk" (American English). "Hatchback" is a (usually smaller) type of what Americans call a "station wagon"

If you google* "Audi 3 Sportback" you'll see what we mean .

Basically, in this case, boot and/or trunk refer to the cargo area (it's not a sedan type trunk, IYSWIM ).

* My phone won't let me post a picture, otherwise I wouldn't ask you to google.

Thanks.

Yes, I already googled. And it seems obvious the kids would not have to get inside the car to see if there were any dogs in the back.

Also, why would they think so? Did they know he used to train dogs ? Did he meet them previously?

 

[ZaZara]

My sarcasm-metre agrees with yours .

BBM: this bothers me too. I'd like to pin down the timeline more precisely.

I've been combing through reports, and *think* that:

- the last confirmed sight of Maelys was ~1am (possibly in the parking lot?)
- the alarm was raised & people (wedding guests) started searching ~3am
- LE were called & arrived on site ~4am
- the wedding photographer (who had left ~9.30pm/21:30) was called to come back with his photos ~5am

- It was noticed & reported that NL left "around the time" Maelys went missing
- It isn't clear to me whether he returned before or after the alarm was raised
- it also isn't clear whether "around the time" Maelys went missing refers to last sighting (1am), or alarm raised (3am): there's a possible >2 hours right there!

RSBM


This is an overview of the evening, dating from September 3, apparently it wasn't yet known that the suspect had not been arrested for the second time:

LCI.fr
http://www.lci.fr/faits-divers/disp...e-la-soiree-a-replay-sept-a-huit-2063312.html


It's been a little over a week since 9-year-old Maëlys disappeared around 3 a. m. at a wedding in Pont-de-Beauvoisin, Isère. The teams from Sept à Huit met Joëlle Martin, mayor and close friend of the bride's mother. Present at the wedding until late at night, she tells the story of a night that has turned upside down.

On August 26th, the commune of Pont-de-Beauvoisin in Isère is celebrating. More than 180 guests are gathered in the Church to attend the wedding of two children from the region. "It was a very beautiful ceremony, there were a lot of people,"said a neighbour who had gone out of her house to admire the event. The bride and groom leave in a nice convertible car,"she says.

Joëlle Martin is the mayor who united the young couple. A friend of the bride's family, she is invited to the wine of honour and the wedding dinner. 180 guests are gathered for the occasion. "It was a festive atmosphere. They had made a rustic decoration," says Joëlle Martin, visibly moved by the drama.

During the evening, she remembers happy children playing musical chairs in the town's party hall. Her grandson, who was quickly eliminated, played alongside Maëlys. "I remember looking carefully because Leopold, my grandson was involved." At her turn, young Maëlys was eliminated.

Throughout the evening, a babysitter takes care of the twenty something children invited to the event. Around 1h30, she left the premises: "The DJ made an announcement at the microphone to say that the babysitter was leaving, and that the parents had to pay attention to their children. At that time, the atmosphere is festive: "Everyone was dancing" the mayor recalls.

Shortly after the announcement, around 1h30, Joëlle Martin decides to go to bed. She's heading for her car, in the parking lot of the party hall. "I didn't see anything special," says the elected official.

An hour and a half later, around 3:00 in the morning, the girl was seen for the last time. After 3:10 a. m., the parents, a plumber and a nurse from the Jura region, who came to the ceremony with their two daughters, notice Maëlys' absence and the guests help them to look for the little girl for about forty minutes before warning the gendarmerie at 3:57 a. m. precisely. The gendarmerie arrived on the scene immediately but found no trace of the child.

In the report broadcast on Sunday in Sept à Huit, the warden of the party hall, whose home was searched on Monday morning, shows journalists around the premises. The room has obviously been tidied up since the party. It is large and has two spaces. The adults had dinner in one, the children in the other. The wine of honour had been held outside in the early evening. Surrounding the hall, a dense forest.

It is therefore doubtful that the 9-year-old girl would have wanted to venture out in the middle of the night. As the guard shows, there is a gate around the hall. But that evening the gate was open, to allow guests to leave the car park with their vehicles. The police dogs track the child's trail to the parking lot. Beyond that, nothing more.


BBM


If this is correct, then the window of disappearance would have been like 10 or 15 minutes!

 

[Sjm_qc]

Thanks.

Yes, I already googled. And it seems obvious the kids would not have to get inside the car to see if there were any dogs in the back.

Also, why would they think so? Did they know he used to train dogs ? Did he meet them previously?

According to his lawyer, quoted in the Press, NL and Maelys/the unknown boy had talked about NL's dogs at some point during the evening... (I need a dripping sarcasm emoticon).

Note that the lawyer also quoted an alternative suggestion as to why M's DNA was in the car: the windows were open all night so the child(ren) could have got in alone... (where's that dripping sarcasm emoticon when I need it??) So WHICH was it Nordahl???

 

[Sjm_qc]

ZaZara: Thank you VERY MUCH for your post #147 (sorry, can't seem to quote at the moment) is VERY helpful - I'm adding that link to my list for a timeline.

 

[Sjm_qc]

I've just worked out (I think) how and why I erroneously had 1am in my brain (and notes) for last sighting, rather than ~3am. I've conflated reports/didn't check original sources .

ZaZara: you're right about last sighting = ~3am (based on MSM reports), and I am wrong. Which makes the timeline even more difficult, IF NL did what he's accused of.

I'm still working through all references I can find, BUT I'm having serious problems with the tiny window of time available...

 

[Elainera]

If this is correct, then the window of disappearance would have been like 10 or 15 minutes!

RSBM

Well it says "around 3:00" and "After 3:10 a. m.", I think the window can be stretched to half an hour. jmo

 

[katydid23]

RSBM

Well it says "around 3:00" and "After 3:10 a. m.", I think the window can be stretched to half an hour. jmo

Sometimes, we have seen in other missing child cases, the child has not been seen for a bit longer than initially reported.

No one wants to say that they were not watching closely...And it is hard to keep track of an older child in a large group of friends and family. We tend to think they are with cousins or friends and are fine...heartbreaking situation...

 

[Littlegreenlady]

Thanks.

Yes, I already googled. And it seems obvious the kids would not have to get inside the car to see if there were any dogs in the back.

Also, why would they think so? Did they know he used to train dogs ? Did he meet them previously?

Maybe this is a translation error - I assumed he meant that they went into the back of the car to see the dogs, not see if there were dogs. If the car is similar to the hatchback we had as a family car as kids, the kids could have climbed into the back seat and would have been able to have touched/petted the dogs.

 

[Sjm_qc]

Maybe this is a translation error - I assumed he meant that they went into the back of the car to see the dogs, not see if there were dogs. If the car is similar to the hatchback we had as a family car as kids, the kids could have climbed into the back seat and would have been able to have touched/petted the dogs.

I don't think this aspect IS translation error: it's been niggling a few of us here (and elsewhere) and we're reading the original articles, in French (there are *at least* three of us on the thread who are fluent/bilingual/native speakers, and we're careful to monitor and question ourselves and each other when there's a doubt).

There are multiple articles, all quoting NL's lawyer, and they all have this "to see/check if..." element.

I've even watched the video of the lawyer speaking more than once.

NOW of course, the lawyer MAY have misspoken and introduced unnecessary confusion.

It's definitely a point I'd like to elucidate because it either blows a huge hole in NL's story (no need to get IN the car to see, IF in fact the dogs were there), or not.

 

[ZaZara]

Maybe this is a translation error - I assumed he meant that they went into the back of the car to see the dogs, not see if there were dogs. If the car is similar to the hatchback we had as a family car as kids, the kids could have climbed into the back seat and would have been able to have touched/petted the dogs.

You cannot really say unless you know the layout of the car. For instance, he may have had a safety net between the back and the seats or kennels where he locked the dogs up - there are picture of him with three (?) agile shepherds - one wants to keep those in place while driving.
Or the children did not quite understand the idea of having dogs in a car and wanted to look anyway. I mean, who would think that you'd take your dogs to a party and leave them in the car all night? IMHO this doesn't make sense, but perhaps it is children's logic.

It was assumed previously that the suspect was a friend of sorts of the family, but they have since denied any connection with the man. Follows that Maëlys did not know him nor his dogs until she met him at the party.

Since the 'little boy' still hasn't been found, we can also assume that the suspect may have made the entire story up. OR that he hasn't told his next step, namely that he offered to show his dogs to Maëlys and he lived quite nearby.....

 

[ZaZara]

I've just worked out (I think) how and why I erroneously had 1am in my brain (and notes) for last sighting, rather than ~3am. I've conflated reports/didn't check original sources .

ZaZara: you're right about last sighting = ~3am (based on MSM reports), and I am wrong. Which makes the timeline even more difficult, IF NL did what he's accused of.

I'm still working through all references I can find, BUT I'm having serious problems with the tiny window of time available...

Holes in the timeline:


Acccording to the lawyer, the suspect had already returned to the venue with clean shorts before the time when Maëlys would have gone missing.

It was also said that the suspect claimed he was away for an hour. It is a 10 minute drive to his home, and 10 minutes back. Give him another 10 minutes to calm the dogs, greet his mother (who apparently confirmed this) and put on a new short and he has already spent 30 minutes of that hour.

Which would leave him with 30 minutes for an abduction and preventing discovery. That isn't a whole lot of time and IMHO it would hardly be enough. He is on sick leave with backpains or hernia and he won't be digging a grave, rowing a boat on a lake at night or carry even a small body over a distance.

The odd part of the story is of course IMHO that he would have left at around 02.00 hrs am and then returned around 03.00 hrs, as if that party would continue forever. Guests like the mayor were already leaving, there were families with young children, this wasn't a disco or a festival. Why would he want to return?

Presuming innocence, I'd say that he was dealing drugs at the party. He ran out of supplies and had to meet his dealer to get some more. This would also explain the second mobile phone which he uses for the drug deals. That half hour of the hour, or maybe the entire hour that he went missing was used for a meeting with the dealer. He cannot blow the cover of the dealer, so he makes up a story about wine stains on his short. Now LE wants to know where that short is. OMG! He says he threw it in a bin. Whatever. Wherever. That short will never be found, because it does not exist.
The reason man returns to the party is to deliver the drugs to his clients.

Meanwhile, Maëlys has been abducted by someone else.


IMHO LE is working very hard on the timeline and all images captured by video cameras in the entire area.

 

[Sjm_qc]

ZaZara: this is a very good post! My mind has been mulling very similar thoughts to yours.

I'll have a big post (sort of timeline) coming up later today, once I've checked, double-checked, re-checked & x-referenced all my references... .

I now think it's possible I wasn't as wrong as I thought about last confirmed sighting of Maelys.

 

[MzOpinion8d]

Holes in the timeline:


Acccording to the lawyer, the suspect had already returned to the venue with clean shorts before the time when Maëlys would have gone missing.

It was also said that the suspect claimed he was away for an hour. It is a 10 minute drive to his home, and 10 minutes back. Give him another 10 minutes to calm the dogs, greet his mother (who apparently confirmed this) and put on a new short and he has already spent 30 minutes of that hour.

Which would leave him with 30 minutes for an abduction and preventing discovery. That isn't a whole lot of time and IMHO it would hardly be enough. He is on sick leave with backpains or hernia and he won't be digging a grave, rowing a boat on a lake at night or carry even a small body over a distance.

The odd part of the story is of course IMHO that he would have left at around 02.00 hrs am and then returned around 03.00 hrs, as if that party would continue forever. Guests like the mayor were already leaving, there were families with young children, this wasn't a disco or a festival. Why would he want to return?

Presuming innocence, I'd say that he was dealing drugs at the party. He ran out of supplies and had to meet his dealer to get some more. This would also explain the second mobile phone which he uses for the drug deals. That half hour of the hour, or maybe the entire hour that he went missing was used for a meeting with the dealer. He cannot blow the cover of the dealer, so he makes up a story about wine stains on his short. Now LE wants to know where that short is. OMG! He says he threw it in a bin. Whatever. Wherever. That short will never be found, because it does not exist.
The reason man returns to the party is to deliver the drugs to his clients.

Meanwhile, Maëlys has been abducted by someone else.


IMHO LE is working very hard on the timeline and all images captured by video cameras in the entire area.

Nah...if this were the case, her DNA wouldn't have been in his car, and he wouldn't have been making up reasons just in case they found traces of her being in the trunk (searching for dogs?!). He wouldn't have discarded the shorts he was wearing.

He took her, assaulted her, and left her somewhere. Her blood was probably what was "staining" his shorts, and he put her in the trunk to transport her. He returned to the party to make it appear he had never left, but obviously that didn't end up working.

It's entirely possible he took her to his home and assaulted her, killed her, and left her there. Returned to the party, made his presence known, then left again and got her body and disposed of it. Just because his mother says he's a good boy doesn't mean anything. She could be clueless or covering for him.

 

[katydid23]

Nah...if this were the case, her DNA wouldn't have been in his car, and he wouldn't have been making up reasons just in case they found traces of her being in the trunk (searching for dogs?!). He wouldn't have discarded the shorts he was wearing.

He took her, assaulted her, and left her somewhere. Her blood was probably what was "staining" his shorts, and he put her in the trunk to transport her. He returned to the party to make it appear he had never left, but obviously that didn't end up working.

It's entirely possible he took her to his home and assaulted her, killed her, and left her there. Returned to the party, made his presence known, then left again and got her body and disposed of it. Just because his mother says he's a good boy doesn't mean anything. She could be clueless or covering for him.

I think this is possible. I am not sure I trust the 3AM version of the last time the child was seen. I think it is highly possible she was taken earlier than 3 am---and no one noticed because it was a crowded party and no one was worried because it was all friends and family surrounding her. So they thought...

 

[ZaZara]

Nah...if this were the case, her DNA wouldn't have been in his car, and he wouldn't have been making up reasons just in case they found traces of her being in the trunk (searching for dogs?!). He wouldn't have discarded the shorts he was wearing.

He took her, assaulted her, and left her somewhere. Her blood was probably what was "staining" his shorts, and he put her in the trunk to transport her. He returned to the party to make it appear he had never left, but obviously that didn't end up working.

It's entirely possible he took her to his home and assaulted her, killed her, and left her there. Returned to the party, made his presence known, then left again and got her body and disposed of it. Just because his mother says he's a good boy doesn't mean anything. She could be clueless or covering for him.

There is no DNA of her on his T-shirt, nor on his shoes. If there was blood, how did it end up only on his shorts?
The DNA-sample of Maëlys that was found in the car, was mixed with his DNA and may be a transfer. No one denies that they were both at the party, they were even seen speaking to each other.
He is currently living at his parents' home and the house isn't big, it has neighbours on both sides.
IMHO it is very unlikely that he would take her there for whatever reason.

The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and given what is known at the moment about the timeline and the 'evidence', the man in custody may get off the hook. Because if it was confirmed that he had returned to the venue while it was also confirmed that Maëlys was still there, then it would follow that he wasn't the one who took her.

If I were his lawyer, I'd go for the 'my drug-selling client wanted to protect his supplier' line. For now, that is.

No doubt there will be changes once LE gets the results of the forensic investigation and the images of the VCR's along the streets and roads.

Meanwhile, I am looking forward to the new timeline that Sjm_qc has promised us....

:innocent::innocent::innocent: