France - Maëlys De Araujo, 9, found deceased, Pont-de-Beauvoisin, 27 Aug 2017 #2

[ZaZara]

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

 

[Niner]

Oops, that is a big bowl full of word soup! Are you sure this is a serious source? 'able to try to build'..... eeh....

Oh I forgot - these people (reporter) do NOT know English - I really posted it because of the picture!

 

[ZaZara]

Le Dauphiné Liveblog, Day 7


10.29am: The hearing resumes. The public prosecutor, Thérèse Brunisso, will argue on behalf of the prosecution.

10.33am: "On the seventh day of this hearing, I think I can say that we have collectively worked well. The challenge was for this trial to take place like an ordinary trial in an exceptional context. This trial has taken place away from the tumult outside. A criminal trial is a concentration of suffering. To be deprived of the body of one's child is an unheard-of violence that was inflicted on the Noyer family. On the other hand, others also suffered, as the mother of a criminal or the sister of a criminal, it's not easy, you're alone, you don't have public opinion on your side.

10.37am: "Only Nordahl Lelandais knows the truth. But as a representative of society, I have an obligation of impartiality. And I evaluate the elements of the case for the prosecution and the defence. It is in the name of this impartiality that the public prosecutor's office in Chambéry considered that premeditation was not retained in this case. In order to judge, you will have to clean up a certain number of things. Forget everything you have seen or heard about Nordahl Lelandais over the last three years. Everything you have seen or heard about the Ariane cell (which examines the unsolved cases of missing persons).

10:41am: "Of these forty or so files (of the Ariane cell), no cross-checking has been done to date. In the state of investigations, Nordahl Lelandais is not linked in any way to any of these disappearances.

10:55am: "The intimate conviction is not an emotion or a simple impression or a vague impression. It must be based on your reason. You have to use your intelligence. First question, did Nordahl Lelandais voluntarily kill Arthur Noyer? The last of the versions of the accused is consistent with certain elements of the file but that is normal because he built it gradually. Nordahl Lelandais will never say exactly the same thing. We don't have a crime scene. Did the events take place in Saint-Baldoph as he says? It is unlikely. I don't believe it very much. The chemin de Ronjou where he had regular meetings with an ex-girlfriend? We thought of that. Maybe, but that's all we know. In the stadium car park, where he also used to hang out? He made sure we didn't know. Coroner said there were some fractures on the skull. Injuries just around the time of death, but he couldn't say whether it was just before or just after.

What are the objective elements of the case? On the evening of the facts he spends the evening at a friend's house. He exchanges text messages to have sex. At 11.06 p.m., the exchange ends. At 23:20, he is in Chambéry. He is then seen in the streets of the city. At 3 o'clock, his phones are circulating with that of Arthur Noyer". The public prosecutor then goes on to describe the timing of the telephone ringing.

11.01am: "Arthur Noyer was drunk and vulnerable. We know from witnesses that he was not attached to his phone, he did not attach any importance to this object. We know that he was not aggressive when he was drunk. He was even calm and courteous with the barmaid who helped him. He could not therefore have been at the origin of a fight with Mr Lelandais. We know from witnesses that he wanted to go back to the barracks. There is no doubt about his destination as he wanted it. Saint-Baldoph as Nordahl Lelandais says does not hold water. How does Arthur Noyer react when he realizes that he is not heading in the right direction? We don't know. But why does Nordahl Lelandais take him to Saint-Baldoph if not to have a sexual relationship? I've looked hard but that's the only motive. This sexual obsession of Nordahl Lelandais, the whole file reveals it.

11.08am: "What is he doing in Chambéry in the Curial square until 3am. What is he doing other than looking for a meeting? I don't see, for my part, anything else. I'm not saying that he's looking for a prey but someone to have a sexual relationship with. There is nothing in his phone records to show that he wanted to meet his friends. The sexual motive is the only one that stands up on the face of the record. Why doesn't he admit it? Perhaps, as the psychologist said, out of fear of a breakdown. But perhaps also because if he admits it in this first case, it will have an impact on the Maëlys case.

11:17: "About the use of cocaine, it is difficult to re-establish a chronology of his consumption. We have nothing to prove that before April 11, 2017, he was massively consuming cocaine. We have no certainty that Nordahl Lelandais was using cocaine massively and regularly and that he had used it before the facts.

In any offence there is a material element and an intentional element. We don't know what caused the death. He made the body disappear by hiding it as deeply as he could. He prevents you from knowing what Arthur Noyer died of. We don't know whether the blows were inflicted with the bare hand or with a brass knuckle or a hammer. If we discard the explanations of the accused, the cause of death is undetermined. But we do know that Nordahl Lelandais was the cause. On the intention of homicide, the will to kill at the precise moment. It is absolutely essential this intention to kill, fundamental. If you follow Nordahl Lelandais in his version, he can only be guilty of fatal blows but we are not in the same category of sentence (15 years maximum). The fatal blows, we see them in the courts of assizes, are from a brawl. And there, the perpetrator will not hide the body and behave like Nordahl Lelandais."

11.28am: "So how do we establish this desire to kill because we are not in the head of Nordahl Lelandais? We look at the elements in the file. Not having a body is a difficulty. But other elements are important. The disconnection of the phones, is this the attitude of someone who has killed in spite of himself? The body, Nordahl Lelandais will spend a lot of energy to ensure that it is never found. When he disposes of the body in Marocaz it is not just by letting it slide to the side of the road as he says, the reconstruction has proved it. If the body was found at 12 metres, it was because he took it there. This body was so well hidden that it spent a whole spring and summer in the pass. Why did he hide it so well? Why this internet search for the decomposition of a human body?

Even if the defendant's thesis was correct? In this very thesis, the will to kill is obvious. Faced with a drunk man who is 13 cm shorter and weighs 15 kilos less, Nordahl Lelandais will nevertheless attack his victim with extreme violence. This is a sign of his desire to kill. Even in this hypothesis, Arthur Noyer, in his drunken state, could only have been a victim down that Nordahl Lelandais finished off.

In the days that followed, he behaved in a completely normal way (cinema, party, sexual relationship). Is this the behaviour of a man who killed in spite of himself? No."

11H37: "Finally, would a man who killed in spite of himself return to killing again less than 5 months later (Maëlys)? No. The sentence must be proportional to the gravity of the facts. The desire to make the body disappear is a factual aggravation. The testimony of his friends showed how much he was surrounded and that he could have support if he needed it. On the psychological assessments, he is not crazy, he is fully responsible for his actions. He is dangerous. He always needs to check that he is alive through constant excitement. He is a dangerous man for his fellow men. He is liable to 30 years' imprisonment for murder. There is a special rule in the code of criminal procedure that provides for a threshold effect. If you do not vote for the maximum, you are forced by law to go down to 20 years. I consider that the seriousness of the murder committed by Nordahl Lelandais and his peripheral actions, in particular the desire to make the body disappear, justify a sentence of 30 years of criminal imprisonment with a sentence of two-thirds of the time and with a 10-year socio-judicial follow-up.

The hearing is adjourned until 2pm.


BBM

 

[ZaZara]

Le Dauphiné Liveblog, Day 7

14:06: The hearing continues.

Mr Jakubowicz has the floor for his defence.

One of his colleagues begins.

14:10: "Judge Mr. Lelandais like anyone else."

"The public prosecutor recalled the wish you had made, Mr. President, to judge Mr. Lelandais like anyone else. The law, the whole law, nothing but the law".

14:14: "In this trial, the media has had a great deal of influence."

"But she brushed it all aside with a wave of her hand. As if this promise was untenable. He disappeared on 31 August 2017 because of the media outpouring. In this trial, the media had an influence. And a media figure was offered to you. In our debates: "did you see him, did you hear him or did you hear him in the media? "We needed a monster that was equal to the crimes he was accused of."

14:16: "You were presented with a man of an ordinariness, I would say often distressing".

"Sixteen personality witnesses were heard, 14 of whom were called by the prosecution. And you were presented with a man of an ordinariness, I would say, often distressing.

14:23: " He may not like to work, he may not like authority. But that does not make him a monster or a serial killer.

"Why blacken Nordahl Lelandais to the point of questioning his ratings in his military file? Every time you are told that he is a good man, you are told the opposite. They tell you that he is a P4 reformed to make you believe that he is crazy. But after all, if it would suit everyone, he would end his contract.

"Yes he doesn't like to work, he doesn't like authority. But that doesn't make him a monster or a serial killer but a man of distressing ordinariness.

"His friends said he was a good friend, helpful, always available. I'm not saying that he's a saint, but note that in 2017, nobody wanted to believe the facts of which he was accused. These testimonies tell you everything about the ordinariness of this man.

14:25: "Give him this ordinariness".

"He was anticipating the testimony of his best friend. You will have his words in mind when you retire to deliberate. Give him that ordinariness. It won't take away the horror of this crime but it will perhaps put some truth back into this case that everyone was looking for.

14:26: Mr Jakubowicz's female colleague now takes the floor

14:27: "I felt an unhealthy curiosity".

"We talked about booty calls, active, passive, bondage, heterosexuality, homosexuality. I had the impression that we were on a ridge with morality on one side and the law on the other. I felt an unhealthy curiosity. "

2.30 pm: "I did not find the sexual predator in the speech of his former companions and lovers"

"We know why sex was so present in this hearing. Because he was described as hyper-sexualised. I did not find the sexual predator in the speech of his former companions and lovers. Yes, he is unfaithful, verbally impulsive, frankly vulgar. But I did not recognize the man who does not respect consent."

14:39: "It makes life easier for all of us to think that he is a monster"

"Everything has been sifted through in his private life. As for his sexuality, I refuse to describe it as normal, we are not here to judge. It is banal and always within the limits of consent of others. Even in 2017 when he is in sexual overdrive, it is without violence and without domination. It is the same when he sees a man by exploration. We are far from a sexual predator. What you call frustration I call vexation.

"Her sexual needs would be higher than the average man. Is that so? There are statistics. And even so. If you have high needs you are a sexual predator? "

"About his love life, he doesn't live only through sex. But he has had periods of love, real, sometimes toxic, yes.

"This reality that we are trying to deconstruct is your work, Mr. President, thanks to the questions you asked. It makes life easier for all of us to think that he is a monster.

"When we move away from the spectre of the serial killer and judge a man, it is more difficult. We don't want to know if our next-door neighbour isn't a good person too.

14:40: It is now Me Jakubowicz's turn to plead.


BBM

 

[ZaZara]

Le Dauphiné Liveblog, Day 7


14:40: It is now Me Jakubowicz's turn to plead.

14:45: "When Mr Noyer reached out to the Lelandais family, this was already the success of this trial, a form of healing"

"Humanity in its brightest and darkest, that's what a trial is all about."

"The meeting with the members of the Noyer family marked me. They are not for nothing with the serenity and dignity of our debates. When Mr. Noyer reached out to the Lelandais family, it was already the success of this trial, a form of healing. Of course, the main thing remains: to judge this man. This is justice, far from the tumult of the TV sets. But there is only one accused here, and that is Nordahl Lelandais. What distinguishes civilisation from barbarism is the rule of law.

14:48: "The time of the Maëlys trial will come. You are not here for that."

"The time of the trial Maëlys will come. You are not here for that. Because whether you want it or not, it is necessarily in a corner of your mind. We are only talking about one victim and that is Arthur Noyer. Nothing is worse than rumour. The theory of the monster, of the serial killer, again on Friday evening on a TV channel. No no no, he is not a monster but a man. So who is he? "

14:59: "A plea is about putting the pieces together and putting the puzzle together

"You heard from his friends, his lovers, his sexual partners. And what did they tell you? "

"A case is about putting the pieces together and putting the puzzle together. And what you saw was this normality. We analysed everything, his relationship with his mother, his father. And it would be so convenient to believe that he's not like us, this sensitive thread that the press plays on. It's so symptomatic of this case. "

"This ex-girlfriend that we saw in all the media. The least credible of all, who must have reasons to be angry with him. Who said she feared for her life. They met in a forest where he was coming to erase a heart on a tree. And from that everything was made and remade."

"I will finish with the media. A journalist was talking about the hearing on TV on Friday evening, she said 'Nordahl Lelandais, it's not what we thought'.

3.02pm: "I'm sorry but we will go into detail. I will not hide anything".

"We all know here that he was addicted to cocaine. This is the man we find in 2017, who has this Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde form and who loses himself. This total breakdown that those close to him do not see. You can't understand 11 April 2017 if you don't have this breakdown in your life in mind.

"The heart of our topic, April 11, 2017. I'm sorry but we're going to go into detail. I won't hide anything. "

3.12pm: "You are told that he is looking for a sexual partner. There is nothing to justify such an interpretation"

"First contact 8.31am with his lover. This contact will resume at 1pm. It is his lover who resumes contact and asks 'When do we meet? 3.42pm, contact with a sexual partner. This continues while he is having dinner at his friend's house, it's in a humorous tone, we're in a playful exchange. "

"He leaves his friend's house at 23.06 and goes to Chambéry. At 11.10pm, he is in the centre of Chambéry, in a wine bar belonging to one of his friends. On the hunt for a sexual partner. At 01:40 he is seen walking around the carré Curial, which lasts 4 minutes. He then goes to the theatre and the tobacco shop. At 01:50, we see him driving around in a car until 02:07, we don't know why. And he tells you 'I'm looking for friends, I'm lost'. And you are told that he is looking for a sexual partner. There is nothing to justify such an interpretation."

15:22: "Let's go back to Arthur Noyer's evening.

"The video surveillance serves me. He then leaves the Curial square at 2:51am to go to Saint-Alban-Leysse and he returns to Chambéry. And then, it's the fateful moment. Let's go back to Arthur Noyer's evening

"We have images of Arthur Noyer at the exit of the RDC. Yes, he is not well, clearly he has had too much to drink. The brawl would have taken place at that moment, I would say. Only, we have a young man of 23 in the prime of his life and that makes recovery easier. Between 2 and 3 o'clock, there is plenty of time for a young man of that age to sober up. "

"The police officers who intervened in the theft of his phone just afterwards said that he was clearly standing up.

"Even his friend who was with him all evening said 'he was standing'.

15:27: "At 02:45, he (Arthur Noyer) had recovered perfectly, the whole file shows it".

"In the following video sequences, we see him walking normally, he does not stagger at all. He even calls his colleague three times. And this scene in the RDC where he gets his jacket back, he even checks that he has his wallet, this is not the behaviour of a drunk man. At 2.45 a.m. he had recovered perfectly, the whole file shows that.
"And that awful moment that we all wish hadn't happened. It is the moment when Arthur Noyer's path crosses that of Nordahl Lelandais. Arthur Noyer gets in the vehicle of Nordahl Lelandais.

15:38: "His final version? We have objective references."

"Because he lays the groundwork in custody, everyone feels it. Very quickly he comes to the truth. It is not true that he denies everything. From his first interrogation on the facts, he said: "I dropped him off at Saint-Baldoph."

"It is not always easy to tell the truth. It's even complicated in the state he's in. There is already the Maëlys affair and all that is said about what a monster he is".

"He has varied on anecdotal things. But on the rest, he has not varied since 29 March 2018.

"If it's not an accident, and we never talked about an accident, it's a fight, why didn't he call the police? In the context that is his, he makes the wrong choice but that does not prove anything."

"His final version? We have objective references. At 3.08am, the vehicle was in Saint-Baldoph. We see it again at 5.40am. If it happened as the prosecution says, with a punch, that knocks down the whole thesis of the prosecution, it removes all the motive, there is no longer anything sexual."

3.45pm: "In Marocaz, sorry I am ashamed for the family to use this term, he is going to get rid of the body, he is not trying to hide it"

Me Jakubowicz returns to the data of the health application of his client's iPhone to demonstrate that his thesis is consistent.

"He did not choose this place in Saint-Baldoph. The steps in the health application are the fight. And if it's not the truth, it's up to you to demonstrate it, Madam Advocate General.

"Then he panics. I don't know how one reacts when one has killed a man.

"Afterwards he wanders around, stopping and starting again. He looks for a place to leave the body."

"In Marocaz, I'm ashamed for the family to use this term, he will get rid of the body, he does not try to hide it. Michel Fourniret died yesterday, nobody is mourning him, we are still looking for Estelle Mouzin. That's hiding a body."

15:56: "The lies and inconsistencies of an accused do not make him guilty

"There are still inconsistencies, yes there are. A priori yes, Arthur Noyer had no reason to go to Saint-Baldoph. There are some leads but I don't know. I say that the unfortunate Arthur Noyer, when he was on a binge, sometimes behaved inconsistently. I too am puzzled by this element of Saint-Baldoph in the version of Nordahl Lelandais.

"Yes, Arthur Noyer had no reason to fight over a telephone."

"(To the jurors) I am obliged to talk to you about law. The lies and inconsistencies of a defendant do not make him guilty. Lying in French law is a right. Be careful, we take risks in the quantum of the sentence but not in the qualification of the facts. You have the right not to incriminate yourself. The Advocate General has been reduced to suppositions. If the prosecution does not provide a version, you cannot superimpose your own. "

"You can't say: "There is no evidence but it's still Nordahl Lelandais."

"He is here to have vo-lon-taire-ment given death to Arthur Noyer. To answer this question, what happened before and what happened after is totally irrelevant. It is the precise moment of the fight that counts.

16:04: "Homicidal intent? Let's be clear, there is no weapon".

"Basically, to make things clear, it's not because on 13 April he was in the evening celebrating, that on 11 April he wanted to kill Arthur Noyer."

"The material element is not a problem. He killed Arthur Noyer in Saint-Baldoph, he caused his death."

"The intention to kill? Let's be clear, there is no weapon. The fact that he led Arthur Noyer to a place that he didn't want to go, how does that characterise an intention to kill? Unless there was premeditation."

"The motive? He would have acted out of sexual impulse. If that's the case, he's got the solution. Instead of going cruising in a deserted Chambéry, he has the choice between a man and a woman (his lover and his sexual partner with whom he has had text exchanges). "

16:18: "Nordahl Lelandais killed but he did not want to kill"

"If he wants to satisfy a sexual need, he does not need poor Arthur Noyer. And even if he did? That doesn't prove that he wants to kill him. It doesn't prove the will to kill."

"The last point remains. That of Arthur Noyer's vulnerability, the different height and weight. The obvious drunkenness is not true. The physical shape of Arthur Noyer compared to the cocaine addict described... Arthur Noyer knows how to fight and better than the other, he is trained and can stand on his own two legs.

"What about the cause of death? It's true, we make do with what we have. Whiplash is possible, the expert said so.

"The fact that he is not telling the truth is possible, but it is his right. And that doesn't make it homicidal intent. It is not possible. It is up to you to demonstrate that. Nordahl Lelandais killed but he did not want to kill. He was a confused guy.

"Nothing in his life on 11 April 2017 predestined him for this. "

"On the psych experts. A professional is someone who knows how to say 'I don't know' (only one of the 4 experts convinced the lawyer). Those we have seen, swollen with pride, asserting truths in a peremptory manner. Let's remember the Outreau case. "

"Is Nordahl Lelandais dangerous? This question is out of debate, another judicial appointment awaits him soon."

"Daval was sentenced to 25 years because he was prosecuted for assassination. I regret the qualification. But in matters of murder it is 30 or 20 years. "

"This case, no matter how unsympathetic it is, is not worth 30 years! "

"Even if it is Nordahl Lelandais, to the first question did he voluntarily cause the death? You will answer no! "

"Judge firmly but judge justly! "

Nordahl Lelandais stands up: "I want to apologise. Forgiveness is not a magic formula but for me it is necessary. I have seen the very strong testimonies of a mother, a father, a brother, a grandmother. You went to my family, I thank you for that. That shows your intelligence and your dignity. Arthur Noyer, I never wanted him dead. I offer my most sincere apologies to you and your family, Mr Arthur Noyer. "

16:28: The debates are over. The court retires to deliberate.


BBM

 

[Niner]

So how long did they deliberate? I see it ended about 16:30 - so maybe a 1/2 hour, an hour?

Did not know this:
Lying in French law is a right.

 

[ZaZara]

The verdict is expected tomorrow, or even tonight.

The central question is:

Did Lelandais deliberately kill Arthur Noyer? It is the "deliberately" that can increase the sentence from 15 years to 30 years of criminal imprisonment.


BBM


IMO some of the problems and questions of this trial would not have occurred if the trials of little Maëlys and Arthur Noyer hadn't been separated.

 

[ZaZara]

After a little over 6 hours of deliberation, the verdict is imminent. The family of Arthur #Noyer and their lawyers, the mother of #NordahlLelandais and his counsel are back in the courtroom. Impressive silence in the courtroom.

Still waiting for Nordahl #Lelandais to return to the dock.

The verdict has been imminent for almost an hour now

 

[ZaZara]

Nordahl Lelandais has returned in the courtroom.

 

[ZaZara]

reporterMarion Dubreuil
@MarionDub


The hearing resumes the president asks Nordahl #Lelandais to stand up for the verdict "the accused is found guilty of having voluntarily caused death to Arthur #Noyer" guilty of murder so

BBM

 

[ZaZara]

France 3 Alpes
@f3Alpes

Trial #Lelandais: after nearly 7 hours of deliberations, Nordahl Lelandais sentenced to 20 years imprisonment with a security period of two thirds of the sentence, for the murder of Arthur Noyer


BBM

 

[ZaZara]

Thibault Malandrin Justice reporter TF1, LCI
@tibomalandrin
Pas de réaction particulière de la part de Nordahl #Lelandais, à trois mètres de nous
Il reste debout, les mains croisées, visiblement ailleurs #Lelandais

No particular reaction from Nordahl #Lelandais, three meters away from us
He remains standing, hands crossed, visibly elsewhere #Lelandais

 

[ZaZara]

Le verdict. Nordahl Lelandais condamné à 20 ans de prison pour le meurtre d'Arthur Noyer

Le Dauphiné Liveblog

23:30: The hearing is resumed

23:33: Nordahl Lelandais sentenced to 20 years in prison

After nearly seven hours of deliberation, the court of assizes found Nordahl Lelandais guilty of murdering Arthur Noyer and sentenced him to 20 years in prison.

The sentence includes a two-thirds period of imprisonment as well as a 10-year socio-judicial follow-up, with a penalty of 5 years in prison if it is not respected.


BBM

 

[ZaZara]

https://twitter.com/BFMTV/status/1392246944186122250

Nordahl Lelandais sentenced: for the lawyer of the parents of Arthur Noyer, "what mattered was that the notion of murder was upheld."

"The length of the sentence is not up to me, it won't bring Arthur back to us"
Didier Noyer reacts to Nordahl Lelandais' conviction for his son's murder

(His voice breaks)

"We wanted the world to know that this was a murder and that our son was a victim"


BBM

 

[ZaZara]

https://twitter.com/BFMTV/status/1392250177675726851


Alain Jakubowicz, Nordahl Lelandais' lawyer: "We will not appeal"

We will not appeal foremost out of respect for the family, we know what families have to go through a second time. We the team have decided this together. We know that another trial awaits us. And we are no fools, no babes in the wood. We know whom we have defended. We wanted him to be judged for what he had done and only for that. And that the sentence he would get ... would be appropriate... look around you (at other cases) there is a system in it.

BBM

 

[ZaZara]

Meurtre d'Arthur Noyer: Nordahl Lelandais condamné à 20 ans de prison

After seven days of trial in the Savoy court, Nordahl Lelandais was found guilty of the murder of Arthur Noyer and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

Guilty. The verdict of the court of assizes of Savoy fell this Tuesday: the jurors considered that Nordahl Lelandais had voluntarily caused the death of Arthur Noyer in the night of 11 to 12 April 2017.

As such, he was sentenced to 20 years of criminal imprisonment, with a security measure of two thirds and socio-judicial follow-up for 10 years. The court also ordered Nordahl Lelandais to pay 45,000 euros to each of Arthur Noyer's parents, 30,000 euros to the victim's brother and 18,000 euros to each of the corporal's three grandparents.

After seven hours of deliberation, Nordahl Lelandais remained impassive, hands clasped and white shirt, at the announcement of a verdict that closes seven days of a trial in Chambéry. It is a first judicial step for the defendant, before his next trial before the Grenoble assizes, in 2022, for the death of the little Maëlys De Araujo.

BBM

 

[Niner]

Tuesday, May 11th:
*Trial Continues (Day 9)-VERDICT REACHED! (@ 9am CET) - France – Arthur Noyer (24) (April 11-12, 2017, Chambéry (Savoie); skull found Sept. 7, 2017, id’d in Dec., 2017 & the rest of his bones found Jan. 2018) - *Nordahl Lelandais (34/now 38) questioned (Dec. 18, 2017) & indicted (Dec. 20, 2017) with “assassination” (voluntary manslaughter).
Trial began on May 3, 2021& & ended on May 11, 2021. Court of Assizes of Savoy with 3 professional magistrates & 6 jurors.
Trial info from May 3 to May 10 (Day 1 thru 6 of trial) reference post #258 here:
Found Deceased - France - Maëlys De Araujo, 9, Pont-de-Beauvoisin, 27 Aug 2017 - #2
May 11th Tuesday, Day 7 of trial: 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 & the jury one last time. If they finish early enough, the jury & the court will deliberate & give their verdict in the evening. If not, it will be Wednesday. The plea of Me Boulloud, lawyer for the family of Arthur Noyer. Final words: 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?
More info see post #261 here:
Found Deceased - France - Maëlys De Araujo, 9, Pont-de-Beauvoisin, 27 Aug 2017 - #2
The public prosecutor, Thérèse Brunisso on behalf of the prosecution. Closing words: I consider that the seriousness of the murder committed by Lelandais & his peripheral actions, in particular the desire to make the body disappear, justify a sentence of 30 years of criminal imprisonment with a sentence of two-thirds of the time & with a 10-year socio-judicial follow-up.
More info see post #263 here:
Found Deceased - France - Maëlys De Araujo, 9, Pont-de-Beauvoisin, 27 Aug 2017 - #2
Mr. Jakubowicz has the floor for his defence. One of his colleagues begins. Also Mr. Jakubowicz female Colleague takes the floor.
More info see post #264 here:
Found Deceased - France - Maëlys De Araujo, 9, Pont-de-Beauvoisin, 27 Aug 2017 - #2
Mr. Jakubowicz takes the floor. And at about 16:30 the court retires to deliberate.
More info see post #265 here:
Found Deceased - France - Maëlys De Araujo, 9, Pont-de-Beauvoisin, 27 Aug 2017 - #2
After nearly 7 hours of deliberation, the verdict is imminent. The hearing resumes the president sks Lelandais to stand up for the verdict. The accused is found guilty of having voluntarily caused death to Arthur Noyer: guilty of murder. Lelandais sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. The sentence includes a two-thirds period of imprisonment as well as a 10-year socio-judicial follow-up, with a penalty of 5 years in prison if it is not respected. The court also ordered Lelandais to pay 45,000 euros to each of Noyer's parents, 30,000 euros to the victim's brother & 18,000 euros to each of the corporal's three grandparents. Alain Jakubowicz, Lelandais' lawyer: "We will not appeal". We will not appeal foremost out of respect for the family, we know what families have to go through a second time. It is a first judicial step for the defendant, before his next trial before the Grenoble assizes, in 2022, for the death of the little Maëlys De Araujo.
Also charged/Indicted for:
*Maëlys De Araujo (9) (Aug. 27, 2017, Pont-de-Beauvoisin, Isère; found Feb. 14, 2018) - *Nordahl Lelandais (34/now 38) arrested (Sept. 3, 2017) & indicted with murder & kidnapping & forcible confinement of a minor younger than 15; being held in jail. Maleys' DNA found in his car.
*Charged (July 3, 2017) & indicted (Feb. 27, 2020) with sexual assault of a minor under 15 yrs re sexual assault on his young cousin (14) during a visit for her father’s funeral, a month before Maëlys’ abduction.
*Indicted (Dec. 7, 2018) for sexual assault on a minor & recording of child *advertiser censored* images. According to concurring sources, this indictment concerns the sexual touching of a little girl who was four years old at the time of the incident. Abusing his goddaughter, the daughter of a close friend. The video was taken in 2017 before the one where he was seen with his 6-year-old cousin. (NL admitted in particular that he had "for some time" been attracted to children & had pedophilic tendencies. "I didn't really make the difference between a woman and a child," he told the investigating judges).

 

[Niner]

Shizzle - the last part should be NOT in red - but it won't let me change the color...

So @ZaZara - all I need is the next hearing for Maëlys' case...

 

[ZaZara]

Shizzle - the last part should be NOT in red - but it won't let me change the color...

So @ZaZara - all I need is the next hearing for Maëlys' case...

All you need...? Hmm... be careful what you wish for

IMO the Maëlys trial was planned for the fall of 2021, but apparently it has been postponed, maybe due to COVID.
I can find no other info than 2022. Sorry!

 

[ZaZara]

Justice. Procès de Nordahl Lelandais : voilà ce qui a motivé le verdict des jurés

Nordahl Lelandais trial: here's what led to the jury's verdict

Nordahl Lelandais was sentenced Tuesday evening to 20 years of criminal imprisonment for the murder of Arthur Noyer. The jurors have thus retained the intention to kill, something that the accused always denied.

Tuesday evening, the court of assizes of Savoy convicted the 38-year-old man of the murder of Corporal Arthur Noyer in 2017, and sentenced him to 20 years of criminal imprisonment with a security sentence of two thirds. This is less than the 30 years requested by the public prosecutor.

The court acknowledged the "homicidal intent" of Nordahl Lelandais, based on "the disconnection of his phones by Nordahl Lelandais "at a time close to the commission of the facts" as well as "his search for a place to hide the body out of sight," according to the four pages of the verdict.

According to the court and jurors, the version of Nordahl Lelandais does not hold as to the drop off of Arthur Noyer in Saint-Baldoph, after having given him are ride in Chambery where he was hitchhiking, and as to the reasons why he allegedly became upset during this deadly night of 11 to 12 April 2017.

Arthur Noyer "had no acquaintance" in this commune of the Chambéry agglomeration. In addition, he seemed "indifferent" to the theft of his phone, the cause, according to the accused, of a deadly brawl, the court notes.

This theory of a fight was also challenged by the three professional magistrates and the six jurors. The victim was "a calm, non-aggressive man, even under the influence of alcohol," according to the witnesses heard at the trial.

This, for the court, could not allow for a participation in a fight, especially since Arthur Noyer was seen staggering and "collapsing in the street, then taking long minutes to get up," before being picked up by Lelandais.

"Arthur Noyer was not in full possession of his physical means and was thus in a vulnerable situation," the court ruled, in contrast to the thesis defended by the defence.

The court added that "by making the body disappear and preventing any findings at the scene of the crime, and by his evolving and false statements," Nordahl Lelandais prevented clear answers on the circumstances of the death of the 23-year-old Alpine hunter.

The court did not take into account a possible sexual motive, which was discussed at length during the hearing and was defended by the prosecution.

Seven hours of deliberation were necessary to reach this decision. The legal classification was therefore clearly the subject of lengthy debate.

As for the sentence, if the accused was guilty of murder, the court had two options under the law: either it sentenced him to the maximum penalty, i.e. 30 years' imprisonment - which the prosecution requested - or it pronounced a sentence of 20 years or less. An intermediate sentence was not legally possible.

The jurors considered the acts to be "particularly serious" because of the abandonment of the body "in order to conceal (the) crime" and thus leaving a family "for many months in uncertainty, not knowing whether (their loved one) was alive or dead".

In addition, Nordahl Lelandais' "significant dangerousness" "with characteristics of an unfavourable prognosis" will make it necessary "to impose a care order, as emphasised by the experts, to limit the risk of repetition."

However, "the absence of a criminal record of violence, a relatively good social integration and a good behaviour in detention" obviously led the court to reduce this sentence to 20 years of criminal imprisonment.

Nordahl Lelandais has not yet been tried in the case of the death of little Maëlys, that came after the death of Corporal Arthur Noyer.

Nordahl Lelandais has also been sentenced to a 15-year ban on carrying weapons and ordered to undergo socio-judicial monitoring for 10 years.


BBM


It is strange indeed that the sexual motive was not considered proven. NL still has to be tried for the murder of Maëlys, and also for sexual acts on his young cousins. If the cases had been brought before the court together, cross references might have been made.

This issue has been raised before, and it keeps on returning with regard to serial killers:

"Michel Fourniret n'est pas le dernier des tueurs en série français"

Interview by 'Marianne' with Yves Charpenel, former Public Prosecutor of Reims. He was leader of investigations into serial killer Michel Fourniret (who has recently died.) Yves Charpenel is of the opinion that 'justice still needs to improve in order to tackle serial crime.'

Nordahl Lelandais, who admits to having killed little Maëlys and Corporal Noyer by accident, has been the subject of two judicial inquiries, in Grenoble and Chambéry, and will be tried twice...

The Chancellery should have asked the prosecutors to refer the case to the Court of Cassation. But can you see the enthusiasm of the examining magistrates at the idea of dropping their case? In my opinion, grouping cases is obviously always more efficient. You have a wider vision, you can cross-reference data. You can go faster. Obviously, it's better. There is no doubt about it...

When we look at the number of worrying disappearances of young people in France and particularly in the Alps, is this a sign of the presence of undetected serial killers?

It's a very worrying phenomenon of which we are not sufficiently aware. Bodies left in the forest can disappear quite quickly. Without a body, there is no crime scene, and therefore no "killer" and no "series." And when human remains are found, there's not much else that one can do.

BBM