Found Deceased France - Émile S., 2, outside grandparent’s house, Le Vernet, Alpes-de-Haute-Provence, 8 July 2023

[shadwell]

Up there with “we accidentally erased the cctv” IMO.

An interesting testimony nonetheless (IMO) since it:

1. Maintains the possibility that the boy was taken by an 'outsider.'

2. Alibis his dog.

 

[Megnut]

Aye.. bizarre in so many ways..
I almost don't bring new articles here any more because they all say the same thing.
TOS etc

But a jarring bit of NEW information. A NEW last person to see the little boy...

Like I said, I'm sticking a pin in this.

Why would Emile be in distress, why would his dog alerting have changed things...

If his dog were there, and his dog responded to distress, then he would've known to intervene? Huh?

A two year old on a holiday adventure by himself is cause enough! It's not like he was 8 on a scooter...

This is the most important detail to date.

Jmo

 

[kittythehare]

But a jarring bit of NEW information. A NEW last person to see the little boy...

Like I said, I'm sticking a pin in this.

Why would Emile be in distress, why would his dog alerting have changed things...

If his dog were there, and his dog responded to distress, then he would've known to intervene? Huh?

A two year old on a holiday adventure by himself is cause enough! It's not like he was 8 on a scooter...

This is the most important detail to date.

Jmo

It's not new.
The old man was saying that had a stranger been around his dog would have alerted but he had left his dog at home that day.
If you read the earlier posts they describe a tiny village safe for small children with hardly aby cars.. this is a mere village where kids played freely on the street..
no blame.

 

[shadwell]

Haut Vernet residents re-interviewed; forensic inspection of vehicles; investigators’ attitudes ‘hardening.’

The tone has changed. The questions are more incisive and compassion has given way to extreme firmness, almost two weeks after Émile's disappearance. About twenty investigators from the Marseille research section still work uninterruptedly, often on the premises of the Seyne-les-Alpes gendarmerie.

Since Tuesday and the opening of a judicial investigation, now led by the Aix-en-Provence investigation center, residents of Haut-Vernet have once again had to face these interrogation professionals.

Disparition d’Émile: des habitants du Haut-Vernet de nouveau entendus, des véhicules passés au peigne fin

Des véhicules ont été inspectés. Une vingtaine d’enquêteurs travaillent presque jour et nuit, notamment dans la gendarmerie de Seyne-les-Alpes.

www.bfmtv.com

 

[Alyce]

From Shadwell's link above ...


A couple, was heard for several hours this Thursday, three hours for the husband and two hours for the wife.

On Saturday morning July 8, the husband was one of the last residents to see little Émile playing in the hamlet. He and his wife were absent at the time of the disappearance.
"Why did you leave? Where were you? What did you do three days before?".
Investigators search, interrogate, note the slightest hesitation and press on the detail that could be wrong.

 

[Megnut]

Yes, but didn't he say he SAW the child? Isn't he saying there was no stranger because his dog would've alerted him to one (then remembering his dog hadn't been there, implacation being, there could've been a stranger, he wouldn't have known)?

I'm just drawing the big red circle, by virtue of his being the last confirmed sighting of Emile.

Unless I read it completely wrong!

Jmo

 

[kittythehare]

Yes, but didn't he say he SAW the child? Isn't he saying there was no stranger because his dog would've alerted him to one (then remembering his dog hadn't been there, implacation being, there could've been a stranger, he wouldn't have known)?

I'm just drawing the big red circle, by virtue of his being the last confirmed sighting of Emile.

Unless I read it completely wrong!

Jmo

MSN

 

[UK Girl]

Yes, but didn't he say he SAW the child? Isn't he saying there was no stranger because his dog would've alerted him to one (then remembering his dog hadn't been there, implacation being, there could've been a stranger, he wouldn't have known)?

I'm just drawing the big red circle, by virtue of his being the last confirmed sighting of Emile.

Unless I read it completely wrong!

Jmo

but it says in the morning so I assume he is a different one to whom saw Emile walking away? this case is so complicated to follow

 

[renarde]

From Shadwell's link above ...


A couple, was heard for several hours this Thursday, three hours for the husband and two hours for the wife.

On Saturday morning July 8, the husband was one of the last residents to see little Émile playing in the hamlet. He and his wife were absent at the time of the disappearance.
"Why did you leave? Where were you? What did you do three days before?".
Investigators search, interrogate, note the slightest hesitation and press on the detail that could be wrong.

Morning witnesses:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/euro.dayfr.com/trends/amp/518267

<moo>

 

[Megnut]

ccording to a Paris Match survey to be found on newsstands this Thursday, July 20, the last two people to have seen Emile would be a teenager and a man in his sixties " whose statements are formal" . The magazine focused more on the second. The latter was not alerted when he saw the little boy of 2 and a half years appear alone in this street of Haut-Vernet. The reason ? It is common to see children from the hamlet playing there without necessarily being accompanied by adults...

Another element allowed this man not to be alerted. His dog didn't bark. Our colleagues report that he "knows very well that when a stranger moves around or when danger threatens" , his Bernese shepherd "reacts systematically" . But here, that was not the case. And for the simple and good reason that it turns out that the animal was in fact perhaps not present on the day of the disappearance of the little boy...

MSN

Found it in translation.

Same reaction. Feels like an oversplain.

I'm noting it.

JMO

 

[FromGermany1]

From Shadwell's link above ...


A couple, was heard for several hours this Thursday, three hours for the husband and two hours for the wife.

On Saturday morning July 8, the husband was one of the last residents to see little Émile playing in the hamlet. He and his wife were absent at the time of the disappearance.
"Why did you leave? Where were you? What did you do three days before?".
Investigators search, interrogate, note the slightest hesitation and press on the detail that could be wrong.

"A couple".

Just like in Australia (Tyrrell case) in 2014; it doesn't get much more mysterious than that.

 

[kittythehare]

Found it in translation.

Same reaction. Feels like an oversplain.

I'm noting it.

JMO

fair enough. Your gut is good.

 

[kittythehare]

if he was attacked in the village, it can't have been pre-planned because nobody knew he would be there if what we have been told is accurate.
in a village that small everyone knows everyone and the police know everyone.

 

[Megnut]

"A couple".

Just like in Australia (Tyrrell case) in 2014; it doesn't get much more mysterious than that.

What do you find confusing about that?

Interrogating the husband and wife helps establish/support the timeline. It confirms the report that he arrived and was alive to that point.

It doesn't undo later reports, the nap and the car-loading and the possibility that he went MIA because he's two and everybody thought somebody else had eyes on him.

Is it possible the 60 year old's dog WAS there? Animal attack whereby BOTH the animal and the boy needed hiding? Nope, nope, no distress here, no dog.

Where WAS his dog then?

I'm not accusing anyone. I just want to ask more questions.

Jmo

 

[shadwell]

Found it in translation.

Same reaction. Feels like an oversplain.

I'm noting it.

JMO

Heh. Not heard that one before, but it sums it up so well. Very "we didn't burn him!"

 

[kittythehare]

What do you find confusing about that?

Interrogating the husband and wife helps establish/support the timeline. It confirms the report that he arrived and was alive to that point.

It doesn't undo later reports, the nap and the car-loading and the possibility that he went MIA because he's two and everybody thought somebody else had eyes on him.

Is it possible the 60 year old's dog WAS there? Animal attack whereby BOTH the animal and the boy needed hiding? Nope, nope, no distress here, no dog.

Where WAS his dog then?

I'm not accusing anyone. I just want to ask more questions.

Jmo

Possible but there would have been blood and the alarm was raised quickly..

 

[shadwell]

Possible but there would have been blood and the alarm was raised quickly..

Where would the blood have been?

 

[FromGermany1]

What do you find confusing about that?

Interrogating the husband and wife helps establish/support the timeline. It confirms the report that he arrived and was alive to that point.

Confusing to me is, that "a couple" isn't even named "mother and father of Emile" (let alone their names).
Otherwise you are right, of course.

 

[kittythehare]

Where would the blood have been?

pavement, wherever the dog would have attacked the child... there wouldn't have been time to get rid of dog, child and mop pavement or whatever they were standing on at time.
my hope is that dog was gone shopping with his missus. I want that dog off the hook..

 

[ChatteringBirds]

Confusing to me is, that "a couple" isn't even named "mother and father of Emile" (let alone their names).
Otherwise you are right, of course.

The confusion is just the translation App imperfectly translating, I think.

The couple means the male "witness" who claimed to have seen the child and the wife of the witness.

IMO he probably talks about the dog who would have alerted, because he wants a reason for why he didn't take action upon seeing the child alone.