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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
PRESSER PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OF GRENOBLE THIS AFTERNOON


20Miniutes.fr
http://www.20minutes.fr/justice/217...ait-enquete-apres-mise-examen-suspect-meurtre


This time, we no longer talk about a "simple" kidnapping anymore. Nordhal Lelandais, 34, suspected of kidnapping Maëlys on 27 August at a wedding to which he had invited himself, was indicted on Thursday for "murder preceded by a crime" after his hearing before the investigating magistrates. Even if the girl's body hasn't been found yet. 20 Minutes takes stock of the information provided on Thursday evening by the Public Prosecutor of Grenoble.


A precise chronology of the night. The suspect's schedule for the evening of Maëlys' disappearance was scrutinized, and "the investigators set out to give a precise chronology of the evening and night," according to Jean-Yves Coquillat, the public prosecutor. Their investigations were based on testimonies "to be taken with reservation", on videos extracted from the surveillance cameras of the commune of Pont-de-Beauvoisin and on analyses carried out on a Nordhal Lelandais telephone "which he had forgotten to mention during his first hearing."

It was therefore determined that the former soldier had made three return trips in the evening between the party hall and his home and a one-way trip to his home. The first two were made from 9:49 pm to 10:08 pm and then from 10:33 pm to 11:09 pm, i. e. before the child's disappearance. The third was done at 2:47 a. m., only two minutes after Maëlys vanished.


Maëlys removed in 37 minutes. Investigators are formal on one point: the girl disappeared at 2:45 a. m. on the night of August 26-27." At 2:46 and 12 seconds, Nordhal Lelandais puts his phone in plane mode,"the prosecutor continues. A minute later, his vehicle was spotted on one of the cameras in downtown Pont-de-Beauvoisin." There's a small figure on the front passenger seat. She is wearing a white dress and has loose brown hair,"says Jean-Yves Coquillat.

Half an hour later, at precisely 3:24 a. m. and 29 seconds later, the Audi A3 goes back in the opposite direction. "This time the driver is alone."
At 3h25 and 58 seconds, Nordhal Lelandais deactivates the airplane mode. His phone will be pinged down by a relay cell near the party hall. Which indicates the suspect is back at the wedding. He'll be home definitively at 3:57, shutting down his cell phone again.

The little girl was indeed in the car. Here again, investigators are formal on this point. "The photos extracted from the videotapes (which were broadcast to the press) are much less accurate than the video itself. We're not talking about a white spot, but a silhouette that we can clearly see," the prosecutor said. For him, there is no doubt: this is Maëlys. "We can say that it's her. We don't know who else it could be," he replied, adding that the suspect never mentioned that he had been robbed of his car." He simply replied that at that time he was in the party hall, tired and resting in his vehicle.

Another certainty: the Audi we see on video surveillance is the one of the thirty-something, even if here again, the suspect denies the evidence. "We prove by various expertises that this is his car. Details show it: stickers, rims but also a lack of lighting on the rear part," Jean-Yves Coquillat sums up. And adds:"Everything is consistent."

The girl missing forever? "This case will not be completely resolved until the child is found. It will be difficult to find... her body, let's say it now, if we don't know where to look. It is not certain that we will manage to do so," the prosecutor said, indicating that the investigation is continuing.

During his hearing Nordhal Lelandais firmly denied everything,"speaking calmly in cold blood" even when confronted with surveillance camera footage." His lawyers have not made any observations either. The suspect now risks life in prison, but until then "he enjoys the presumption of innocence," the prosecutor concludes.

The lawyer for Maëlys's parents, who spoke to BFMTV, explained that they were "waiting for a confession" and were therefore "angry and disappointed." "They had until now been convinced that there were overwhelming charges" against the suspect.


BBM
 
Thank you very much ZaZara for the updates! I noticed in none of the articles there is no court date for the next hearing. Do you happened to know?

TIA! :wave:
 
Thank you very much ZaZara for the updates! I noticed in none of the articles there is no court date for the next hearing. Do you happened to know?

TIA! :wave:

Thanks for the thanks :)

I haven't seen a mention of a new date.
 
FATHER OF THE SUSPECT IS CONVINCED OF HIS INNOCENCE

Paris Match
http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/Fait...spect-sur-et-certain-de-son-innocence-1408670


The pressure is tightening around Nordahl L. The suspect in the case of the missing girl Maëlys was indicted on Wednesday for murder. But he still denies any involvement. His father is convinced of his innocence.


Three months after Maëlys' disappearance, the mystery remains unresolved. The main suspect in the case, Nordahl L. still denies any involvement in the abduction of the 9-year-old girl on the night of 26-27 August during a marriage in Isère. On Friday, Nordahl L.'s father said he was "sure and certain" of his son's innocence. "It can't be Nordahl. It's me the daddy talking, but he's a very nice boy who likes kids. He would never do things like that. There is no point," he told RTL.

On Wednesday, the 34-year-old former army dog handler was indicted for murder in addition to the kidnapping charge. "They have no proof. The car's story with the shape doesn't make sense either. He says it wasn't his car," the father continued. At 2:47 a. m. on August 27th, a camera filmed Nordahl L.'s car with a "frail, small figure dressed in white and with hair that looks brown" on the front passenger seat, according to public prosecutor Jean-Yves Coquillat. According to investigators, these characteristics are consistent with the missing child. The father is of the opinion that justice is "hounding" his son. "He responds in cold blood, not intimidated by the judges. He defends himself ."

The lawyer of Nordahl L. will break on Monday the silence to which he was committed in an interview at BFMTV at 7:30 p. m. to answer the "TV indictment" of the prosecutor of Grenoble, announced on Friday Alain Jakubowicz. "I will not give in to the little phrases behind a microphone at the last minute. What is happening is outrageous, we all have our share of responsibility, lawyers included," the defence lawyer told AFP.

Alain Jakubowicz✔ JakubowiczA

https://twitter.com/JakubowiczA/sta...spect-sur-et-certain-de-son-innocence-1408670

The televisual indictment of the #Prosecutor of Grenoble compels me to leave the reserve to which I am committed in the terrible file of the little #Maelys. I will speak on Monday at 7:30 pm on @ruthelkrief's set on @BFMTV.



BBM



Video of disputed presser here:

https://france3-regions.francetvinf...du-procureur-republique-grenoble-1375643.html
 
Thanks from me too ZaZara!
:tyou:

Why are the parents of the suspect so sure that he is innocent, are they in deep denial, being loyal to the family, or do they have a compelling reason to believe him ?
Of course innocence must be presumed until proven otherwise, but does anyone else think that it is even possible someone else is responsible for the disappearance of Maelys?
imo, speculation.
 
Thanks from me too ZaZara!
:tyou:

Why are the parents of the suspect so sure that he is innocent, are they in deep denial, being loyal to the family, or do they have a compelling reason to believe him ?
Of course innocence must be presumed until proven otherwise, but does anyone else think that it is even possible someone else is responsible for the disappearance of Maelys?

The evidence is overwhelming. They have the right guy.

Nordahl Lelandais abducted Maëlys, a nine-year-old girl who had her entire life ahead of her, used her for sex for a few minutes, then murdered her and threw her away.

France needs to bring back the guillotine.

(And yes, his father is denial, as most fathers would be.)
 
So the father's answer to this damning evidence, of the car leaving the wedding, two minutes after the child's disappearance, is that it is 'the wrong car.' And the phone info of going to airplane mode--is it 'the wrong phone' too?



Maëlys removed in 37 minutes. Investigators are formal on one point: the girl disappeared at 2:45 a. m. on the night of August 26-27." At 2:46 and 12 seconds, Nordhal Lelandais puts his phone in plane mode,"the prosecutor continues. A minute later, his vehicle was spotted on one of the cameras in downtown Pont-de-Beauvoisin." There's a small figure on the front passenger seat. She is wearing a white dress and has loose brown hair,"says Jean-Yves Coquillat.

Half an hour later, at precisely 3:24 a. m. and 29 seconds later, the Audi A3 goes back in the opposite direction. "This time the driver is alone." At 3h25 and 58 seconds, Nordhal Lelandais deactivates the airplane mode. His phone will be pinged down by a relay cell near the party hall. Which indicates the suspect is back at the wedding. He'll be home definitively at 3:57, shutting down his cell phone again.


The father is in deep denial. :no:
 
THE INVESTIGATION FACED WITH A BLACK HOLE OF THREE HOURS DURING THE NIGHT OF MAËLYS' DISAPPEARANCE


Le Parisien
http://www.leparisien.fr/faits-dive...ou-noir-dans-l-enquete-02-12-2017-7428273.php


Investigators are still trying to find out what the alleged kidnapper and murderer of the girl did for three hours on the night of the disappearance.

The disappearance of Maëlys, 9 years old, which occurred three months ago, is still an equation with many unknowns. Although the police's scientific investigation made it possible to pinpoint part of the suspect's schedule, Nordahl Lelandais, 34, at the time of this tragic wedding in Pont-de-Beauvoisin (Isère) on August 27, there are still many grey areas.

Now indicted for "murder" while he had been indicted since 3 September for "kidnapping" and "unlawful detention", the ex-military officer denies the charges, which are based on video surveillance images of a camera in the centre of Pont-de-Beauvoisin and a study of the suspect's mobile phone activity. Elements that seem overwhelming to Nordahl Lelandais. However, there is still a three-hour gap in the chronology of that night. And here the investigators are blind for the time being.


At "2 h 46 and 12 seconds", Nordahl Lelandais took care to put his phone in plane mode, according to statements made on Thursday by Jean-Yves Coquillat, the prosecutor of Grenoble. At 2:47 a. m., the camera at the outlet of the main road filmed an Audi that investigators believe to be the suspect's "with a frail, small-sized silhouette, dressed in a white dress on the passenger seat", which could correspond to Maëlys. The magistrate even points out that this silhouette has "loose brown hair".

The Audi A3 will return in front of the camera at 3:24 a.m. and 29 seconds, returning to the party hall where the wedding to which he had invited himself was taking place. But this time,"the driver is alone on board," says the prosecutor. The removal of Maëlys took place during these 39 minutes as far as the prosecution was concerned. Nordahl Lelandais reappears among the guests in search of the little girl, missing since 2 h 45.

If the kidnapping has now been committed, the court knows "nothing of what the suspect could have done between 3:57 a. m. and 7:06 a. m., when he returned to his home in Domessin (Savoie)," he said. There is an entire segment missing in the chronology of this tragic night plus a crime scene,"notes a source close to the file. These three hours and nine minutes, the suspect could have "taken advantage of them to make the child that he had hidden somewhere during his first absence in the early morning disappear for good." The telephone's demarcation does not appear anywhere, no road video or trade film between Savoie, Ain and Isère, no witnesses have come forward. Excavations were carried out in the lakes, wells, water points and woods in the vicinity, an area twenty minutes' drive from Pont-de-Beauvoisin. In vain.

"But where to look? That's the dilemma. It is a steep mountainous region with hundreds of kilometers of roads and paths, pit caves, faults. The area he can reach with his car during the black hole of his timetable is at least 100 km 2. We can use all the dogs of the world; if there is not a certain start of the trail somewhere to put them on a track, it won't do any good," a dog specialist warns. Once again this week, springer Spaniels and Malinois shepherds specialized in the search for human remains were in the area. Once again, in vain.




BBM
 
So at one point, Maelys might've been located within a 15 minute radius of the wedding reception? Unless he handed her off to someone else...
 
I wouldn’t be surprised if he had acted alone and taken her life for a few minutes of his own selfish enjoyment, but I’m also leaning quite strongly to the possibility of him abducting her and handing her off to traffickers, as a way to appease his dealer.

I think that that could be why his family are so convinced of his “innocence”, that he told them that he just handed her to someone and therefore did not murder her. It’s twisted logic, but maybe that’s why they say he’s innocent, they don’t mean he’s innocent of kidnapping, but rather innocent of murder.

What are you guys’s thoughts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I wouldn’t be surprised if he had acted alone and taken her life for a few minutes of his own selfish enjoyment, but I’m also leaning quite strongly to the possibility of him abducting her and handing her off to traffickers, as a way to appease his dealer.

I think that that could be why his family are so convinced of his “innocence”, that he told them that he just handed her to someone and therefore did not murder her. It’s twisted logic, but maybe that’s why they say he’s innocent, they don’t mean he’s innocent of kidnapping, but rather innocent of murder.

What are you guys’s thoughts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

She could still be alive then. How did she get in the car? Do people think she was drugged? Or groomed that evening?

I thinking, if she has been given to this mans dealer she’ll get hooked on drugs and sent out for prostitution


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I was very surprised that according to the timeline, NL would have had the time to abduct Maëlys, abuse and murder her, hide her body where no one could find her and return to the party as if nothing had happened. All within a mere 39 minutes. That is a very small window. It is perhaps possible, but very small.

On the other hand, if he handed her over to someone else, wouldn't there have been some contact by phone before and during that time?


IMHO he drugged and hid her, returned shortly to the party to create an alibi of sorts and then had 3 hours time to play out all his morbid fantasies.


:(
 
Sick sick people in this world. How awful for the family of this little girl.
 
MAËLYS: THE FIGURE ON THE VIDEO IS NOT THAT OF THE LITTLE GIRL, ACCORDING TO THE SUSPECT'S LAWYER

RTL.fr
http://www.rtl.fr/actu/societe-fait...fillette-selon-l-avocat-du-suspect-7791261824


"I admit, it could be his vehicle. On the other hand, to say that it is a small figure of a child is contrary to the objective reality." Alain Jakubowicz, lawyer of Nordahl L., principal suspect in the case of Maëlys' disappearance, was the guest of BFMTV on Monday December 4.

During the interview, the lawyer heavily implicated Grenoble prosecutor Jean-Yves Coquillat, accusing him of giving the press an "impossible" chronology of the night the girl disappeared.

"When the public prosecutor himself appears before the press to say things that are objectively totally contrary to the reality of the case, then I cannot accept it," the lawyer, who had hitherto remained silent, thundered on the set of BFMTV.

Another point of contention for Me Jakubowicz concerns the silhouette in the suspect's car, filmed by video surveillance cameras of the commune, that is to say the one characterized as the girl. "I concede, it could be his vehicle. On the other hand, claiming that it is a small figure of a child is contrary to objective reality," the lawyer points out.

"It's not true that we can see a child on this recording, which is an important piece of the prosecution's indictment," Me Jakubowicz said. According to him, the shape that can be seen on the front passenger seat of the vehicle has detached hair and a different dress neck shape than that worn by the missing girl with, above all, a "woman's neckline" and not that of a child.

According to the lawyer, a cousin of Maëlys's mother said on three occasions in front of the investigators that he had seen Maëlys at 03:15 in the wedding hall on the night of 26-27 August, during which she disappeared.

"We know with near certainty that before 3:30 a. m. nobody worries about Maëlys' disappearance", but "the prosecutor's whole accusation rests on the assumption that the child disappeared at 2:45 a. m.", the lawyer denounced, adding that his client had left the party hall of Pont-de-Beauvoisin at 3:55 that night.


BBM
 
LAWYER: THE SILHOUETTE ON THE PHOTO IS NOT THAT OF A GIRL


BFMTV.com
http://www.bfmtv.com/police-justice...o-n-est-pas-celle-d-une-fillette-1319255.html


On our station, Nordhal Lelandais lawyer Alain Jakubowicz, has virulently dismantled the chronology of events as presented by the public prosecutor last Thursday. He also assured that the silhouette seen on the video surveillance camera photo was not that of a child but of a woman.

He had promised to respond to the "televisual indictment of the prosecutor of Grenoble". Alain Jakubowicz, the lawyer of Nordhal Lelandais, indicted for the kidnapping and murder of Maëlys, came out of silence this Monday evening against Ruth Elkrief. On our programme, he has dryly questioned, point by point, the chronology of events as it was presented last Thursday by the prosecutor of the Republic of Grenoble.


According to the latter, the girl disappeared at 2:45 a. m. on the night of 26-27 August last, before Nordhal Lelandais put his phone in plane mode at 2:46 a. m. and was spotted by a video surveillance camera of the village at 2:47 a. m. However, according to Alain Jakubowicz, the public prosecutor has "stated things that are totally contrary to the reality of the case".


"At 2:45 a. m., the hour at which the prosecutor places the disappearance, little Maëlys is with her grandparents at the wedding," he explained. "I'm having fun, I'm not going home," the girl would have told her grandparents at whose place she had to sleep. Alain Jakubowicz also stated that "the grandmother's sister confirms this 2:45 a. m. time by indicating that she looked at her mobile phone."


"At that time, she's going to play football with little Maëlys in the children's room. Other witnesses confirm that at 2:45 a. m. the child is playing football," he added.

And the principal suspect's lawyer went on to say vehemently that at three o' clock in the morning, when there was "a wave of departure", little Maëlys was always "in the room and several witnesses came to testify this. One of the witnesses said:' she was with everyone, they were dancing, singing'. Other witnesses leave at 3:10 a. m. There's nothing unusual about it. Maëlys has not disappeared"
.

According to Alain Jakubowicz, Maëlys's mother's cousin leaves the wedding at 3:15am. "The moment he leaves the wedding, he meets Maëlys. And Maëlys tells him' See you again, give your daughter a kiss from me'. The witness would have confirmed that time three times.

According to the lawyer, all these testimonies make it possible to say "almost certainly that before 3:30 a. m., nobody worries about Maëlys' disappearance". "At this hour, he (Nordhal Lelandais) is in the hall, everyone sees him," he continued, insisting that the "chronology of the prosecutor is impossible.

In reality, the public prosecutor and Alain Jakubowicz have a different interpretation of the case. In particular, the former had indicated that he had dismissed two witnesses from his investigation, without stating the reason. The defense lawyer focuses on these two witnesses, including Maëlys's mother's cousin.


The lawyer for the principal suspect also questioned the investigators' exploitation of a photo taken from a video surveillance camera on the evening of the girl's disappearance, asserting that the photo did not show Maëlys' silhouette in the white Audi passenger seat.

"To come and say that this is a small figure of a child is contrary to objective reality. It's not true that we can see a child. There is indeed a passenger with long, brown hair. I say the little girl had her hair up," he said.

Above all, the lawyer is certain to distinguish a woman's cleavage, and not a child's neckline, on the silhouette: "The little girl has a wedding girl's dress as we all know them with a round collar that goes down a little bit. The neckline in question is a woman's décolleté, which is deep, which goes up to birth the chest and which is square. This is one of the few things that can be seen in this picture," he explained.


BBM


Video at link. In the first seconds, the lawyer tells the anchor that the reconstruction of the picture that BFMTV has made is "a disgrace."

"You reconstructed a disgraceful photo, it wasn't a picture, it came from a video. How could anyone have been able seen this picture?" (and later: How can responsible people present a file they know nothing of?)

Anchor and lawyer are almost shouting at each other.
Anchor: ".... but the Prosecutor has said...."
Lawyer: "Because the Prosecutor says so it is true? Allright, then I will leave now!
See how you frame your questions?!"
Anchor backs off.


More videos at this link, apparently BFMTV has cut the interview into several parts: http://www.bfmtv.com/mediaplayer/vi...dossier-pour-l-avocat-du-suspect-1010163.html
 
I scrolled back to see what the times were that we were told back at the beginning of the case:

On the famous night of August 26-27, Nordahl returns to the wedding between midnight and 1am. He does his small business but it is mainly his behaviour with the children that raises questions. "Obviously, he did not behave appropriately with them," a source close to the investigation says in Paris Match. "The suspect was seen by many witnesses in the room where the children slept under the baby-sitter's eye. In this secluded room, he was talking to Maëlys and showing her pictures of his dogs on his mobile phone, one of the little girl's passions."

At about 1h30, the nanny who looked after the children left the premises. Maëlys, on the other hand, does not sleep and still talks with her grandmother around 2:45 am. She was the last person to see her.

At 3:00 in the morning, his parents start looking for her. At 3:10 a. m., the DJ makes an announcement to report the child's disappearance. The mother has a bad feeling and immediately thinks of abduction.



7SUR7
http://www.7sur7.be/7s7/fr/1505/Mond...-cocaine.dhtml
 
MAËLYS: THE FIGURE ON THE VIDEO IS NOT THAT OF THE LITTLE GIRL, ACCORDING TO THE SUSPECT'S LAWYER

RTL.fr
http://www.rtl.fr/actu/societe-fait...fillette-selon-l-avocat-du-suspect-7791261824


"I admit, it could be his vehicle. On the other hand, to say that it is a small figure of a child is contrary to the objective reality." Alain Jakubowicz, lawyer of Nordahl L., principal suspect in the case of Maëlys' disappearance, was the guest of BFMTV on Monday December 4.

During the interview, the lawyer heavily implicated Grenoble prosecutor Jean-Yves Coquillat, accusing him of giving the press an "impossible" chronology of the night the girl disappeared.

"When the public prosecutor himself appears before the press to say things that are objectively totally contrary to the reality of the case, then I cannot accept it," the lawyer, who had hitherto remained silent, thundered on the set of BFMTV.

Another point of contention for Me Jakubowicz concerns the silhouette in the suspect's car, filmed by video surveillance cameras of the commune, that is to say the one characterized as the girl. "I concede, it could be his vehicle. On the other hand, claiming that it is a small figure of a child is contrary to objective reality," the lawyer points out.

"It's not true that we can see a child on this recording, which is an important piece of the prosecution's indictment," Me Jakubowicz said. According to him, the shape that can be seen on the front passenger seat of the vehicle has detached hair and a different dress neck shape than that worn by the missing girl with, above all, a "woman's neckline" and not that of a child.

According to the lawyer, a cousin of Maëlys's mother said on three occasions in front of the investigators that he had seen Maëlys at 03:15 in the wedding hall on the night of 26-27 August, during which she disappeared.

"We know with near certainty that before 3:30 a. m. nobody worries about Maëlys' disappearance", but "the prosecutor's whole accusation rests on the assumption that the child disappeared at 2:45 a. m.", the lawyer denounced, adding that his client had left the party hall of Pont-de-Beauvoisin at 3:55 that night.


BBM

The attorney says " "We know with near certainty that before 3:30 a. m. nobody worries about Maëlys' disappearance", but "the prosecutor's whole accusation rests on the assumption that the child disappeared at 2:45 a. m.",


The suspects attorney is either mistaken or outright lying, when he says that ^^^, from what we can see in earlier timelines:




- 1.30am: the childminder engaged to look after the ~20 children present at the wedding reception leaves. This is announced over the microphone by the DJ so that families are aware

- 2.45am: Maelys seen by/speaks to her grandmother

- "Around this time" (early articles, now either edited or unavailable mentioned ~2.30am): NL leaves the site. Early articles (now edited or unavailable) mentioned "to get cigarettes". NL's statement (during his first detention) says "to change his shorts because they were stained by wine". At some point he throws away the shorts "in a bin on the road". He claims to have been absent for "about an hour".

- ~3am - 3.10am (both times have been reported in articles quoting guests): DJ announces over the microphone that Maelys is missing & people (wedding guests) start searching - some take their cars to do so

- NO TIME ESTIMATE (it's just too fluid, because based on NL's lawyer's quotes and "sources" speaking to Dauphiné Libéré) NL returns to the site.

- Sometime between 3/3.10am and the arrival of LE, NL is seen onsite (outside the hall). He leaves before LE arrives (new info from Maëlys' mother, quoted by her lawyer)

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...eauvoisin-27-Aug-2017&p=13617619#post13617619


So we see that the family urgently reported her missing on the microphone between 3 and 3:10 am. They asked everyone to immediately begin searching for her.

So the suspects defense attorney is mistaken when he states that 'noone worries about her disappearance' before 3:30 am.

here is another source:


TorinoStar
http://www.torinostar.it/mondo/644_u...o-quella-notte

Nordhal Lelandais, who had joined the wedding party after dinner, around 11:00 p. m., disappears for one hour from 1:30 a. m. to 2:30 p. m., just when the traces of Maëlys go missing. This is confirmed by numerous witnesses. He had been invited by the groom "for dessert".

Witnesses saw him talk to Maelys before her parents accompanied her in the room where she would have to rest with other children waiting for the end of the party.[*] The alarm is raised at 3 a. m. at night, when the mother discovers that Maelys has disappeared.
 
The attorney says " "We know with near certainty that before 3:30 a. m. nobody worries about Maëlys' disappearance", but "the prosecutor's whole accusation rests on the assumption that the child disappeared at 2:45 a. m.",


The suspects attorney is either mistaken or outright lying, when he says that ^^^, from what we can see in earlier timelines:




- 1.30am: the childminder engaged to look after the ~20 children present at the wedding reception leaves. This is announced over the microphone by the DJ so that families are aware

- 2.45am: Maelys seen by/speaks to her grandmother

- "Around this time" (early articles, now either edited or unavailable mentioned ~2.30am): NL leaves the site. Early articles (now edited or unavailable) mentioned "to get cigarettes". NL's statement (during his first detention) says "to change his shorts because they were stained by wine". At some point he throws away the shorts "in a bin on the road". He claims to have been absent for "about an hour".

- ~3am - 3.10am (both times have been reported in articles quoting guests): DJ announces over the microphone that Maelys is missing & people (wedding guests) start searching - some take their cars to do so

- NO TIME ESTIMATE (it's just too fluid, because based on NL's lawyer's quotes and "sources" speaking to Dauphiné Libéré) NL returns to the site.

- Sometime between 3/3.10am and the arrival of LE, NL is seen onsite (outside the hall). He leaves before LE arrives (new info from Maëlys' mother, quoted by her lawyer)

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...eauvoisin-27-Aug-2017&p=13617619#post13617619


So we see that the family urgently reported her missing on the microphone between 3 and 3:10 am. They asked everyone to immediately begin searching for her.

So the suspects defense attorney is mistaken when he states that 'noone worries about her disappearance' before 3:30 am.

here is another source:


TorinoStar
http://www.torinostar.it/mondo/644_u...o-quella-notte

Nordhal Lelandais, who had joined the wedding party after dinner, around 11:00 p. m., disappears for one hour from 1:30 a. m. to 2:30 p. m., just when the traces of Maëlys go missing. This is confirmed by numerous witnesses. He had been invited by the groom "for dessert".

Witnesses saw him talk to Maelys before her parents accompanied her in the room where she would have to rest with other children waiting for the end of the party.[*] The alarm is raised at 3 a. m. at night, when the mother discovers that Maelys has disappeared.


You cannot know for certain that one timeline is true and another is not. What appears in the press, even if it is MSM is not necessarily correct, or perhaps it only reflects the knowledge available at a certain moment.

For instance, there have been later reports that no one invited NL to the party, but that he 'invited himself' instead.

The lawyer warns that what the Prosecutor says is not necessarily true. IMHO he is right in doing so.

The lawyer has complained officially about the leaks to the press. An official investigation into the sources of these leaks has followed.
The lawyer now warns about the timeline, and the interpretation of the images caught on CCTV.


Le Figaro
http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-fr...-formellement-la-chronologie-du-procureur.php

Alain Jakubowicz first denounced the "unacceptable" leaks that appeared in the press on this issue. "This is not the time for communication. Parents and families are suffering, waiting, incensed. This situation requires respect and this respect imposes silence," he assured BFMTV. "In this type of case, hearings are held before the investigating judge and the examining magistrate." The famous lawyer also added that he "will not give in to the little phrases behind a microphone at the last minute. What is happening is scandalous, we all have our share of responsibility, lawyers included ". When the public prosecutor himself appears before the press to say things that are objectively totally contrary to the reality of the case, then I cannot accept that." he added.

BBM
 
You cannot know for certain that one timeline is true and another is not. What appears in the press, even if it is MSM is not necessarily correct, or perhaps it only reflects the knowledge available at a certain moment.

For instance, there have been later reports that no one invited NL to the party, but that he 'invited himself' instead.

The lawyer warns that what the Prosecutor says is not necessarily true. IMHO he is right in doing so.

The lawyer has complained officially about the leaks to the press. An official investigation into the sources of these leaks has followed.
The lawyer now warns about the timeline, and the interpretation of the images caught on CCTV.




BBM

The original timeline was used to help the public try and find the missing child. The family told the police that they announced to the party that she was missing between 3 and 3:10 am. I see no reason to question that assertion because it would have been easily verified and remembered by many people. EVERYONE was ;alerted at the same moment and asked to stop what they were doing and begin to look for the child.

I really doubt there is a lot of confusion or disagreement about the timing of that alert. I bet everyone looked at their watch or phone when that urgent alert first went out.

The defense attorneys claims make no sense. He says that no one was aware she was missing yet at 3:30 am. However, we know that the police arrived at 3:47 am. Does that seem possible ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
157
Guests online
1,859
Total visitors
2,016

Forum statistics

Threads
601,691
Messages
18,128,461
Members
231,127
Latest member
spicytaco46
Back
Top