Affaire Lelandais : "Les parents de Maëlys n’attendent plus rien du mis en examen"
Maëlys' parents no longer expect anything from the accused
In an interview to be published this Friday in the editions of the Dauphiné Libéré, Maître Rajon, the lawyer for Maëlys' parents, discusses the reconstruction of the murder, that took place during the night from Monday to Tuesday.
During the night from Monday to Tuesday, an important judicial act was carried out by the investigating judges in charge of the investigation into the kidnapping and murder of Maëlys: the reconstruction. In what state of mind were your clients, Maëlys' parents, before facing this night? Was their presence at their request?
"My clients have been a civil party since the beginning of the judicial investigation conducted by the three investigating magistrates of the Grenoble High Court. We were summoned for this reconstitution, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Let us return to the origins of this case, if I may.
From the very beginning of the investigation, and even within hours of their daughter's disappearance, my clients identified Nordahl Lelandais as being involved in the incident. From August 27, 2017, to February 14, 2018, the date on which the remains of Maëlys De Araujo were found in Chartreuse, my clients were confronted with an untenable situation, which I described as a real hostage-taking. Indeed, at that time the situation was as follows: the daughter of my clients was not found, on the ground the searches did not yield anything despite important means deployed... In parallel, overwhelming evidences characterized Nordahl Lelandais' involvement and this individual knowingly refused to cooperate and to tell us where Maëlys was. This hostage-taking was obviously unbearable for my clients. But I would add that
Nordahl Lelandais' late confessions had very serious consequences for the investigation, since the remains of the child's body, when found, were very altered and many evidence likely to confront the indicted man had disappeared..."
In other words, do you think Nordahl Lelandais played for time to make evidence disappear?
"This is indeed one of the major issues in the case. I say:
if the body had been found earlier, the file would not be the same. We could have material elements that would allow us to establish with certainty the nature of what Maëlys suffered. Nordahl Lelandais decided otherwise, and this in full knowledge of the facts, by acknowledging his involvement and revealing the place where the girl's body was lying only after six long months... My clients see it as a choice, thoughtful, cold and conscious, to better avoid his responsibilities before his judges."
What did Jennifer and Joachim expect from this reconstruction? And how did they apprehend the confrontation with Nordahl Lelandais, the alleged murderer of their daughter? Because it was the first time they saw him again after the terrible night of August 26-27, 2017.
"We were cautious, for one simple reason. During the respondent's hearings, we understood that Nordahl Lelandais' explanations were, to say the least, changing and not very credible. Need I remind you of the countless versions he gave to investigators during his police custody and then to the magistrates during his various interrogations? Not to mention his attitude during the interrogation during which I was authorized by the Examining Chamber of the Court of Appeal of Grenoble to question him... The reconstruction could nevertheless constitute a trigger likely to make the respondent evolve and move towards the truth. The night situation at the scene of the events, the presence of Maëlys' parents, could eventually lead him to finally reveal the truth. Clearly, this was not the case.
Today, Maëlys' parents no longer expect anything from the accused. I go further, they have the feeling that the worst of this evening remains hidden and is, unfortunately, not about to be revealed."
How did Nordahl Lelandais behave throughout the six hours of the reconstruction? Has he been cooperative?
Let us be clear, if being cooperative means talking to the judges and playing the game of reconstruction, yes, he was on Monday evening. Just as he was able to elaborate at length during his past hearings or interrogations during the last few months of judicial investigation... But, forgive me, that is not the point. The question is whether Nordahl Lelandais' versions are credible and correspond to what little Maelys really suffered during that tragic night of August 26 to 27. In other words, that he talks is one thing, that my clients believe him is obviously another...
Did he address Maëlys' parents directly at any time during the reconstruction?
Not a word to them. It is true that the context was very difficult and that the security system tended to dissuade any exchange between my clients and the accused. Maëlys' mother confides to me that he held his gaze, his head, when he appeared before her at the beginning of the reconstruction. In any case,
the tension was extreme during the six hours of reconstitution in which we participated.
Nordahl Lelandais delivered a new version to the judges, indicating that he had struck Maëlys very violently, four or five times, while maintaining the fact that the child had spontaneously got into his Audi and with her mother's permission. He therefore refutes the kidnapping. What do you think about this with regard to the evidence in the file and how did the parents react to these statements?
"How do you expect my clients to react?
Honestly... A few blows given with a flick of the wrist, in a car, by the driver would lead to Maëlys' death? Who can believe such a version? I would also remind you that barely a few months ago, this same Nordahl Lelandais mentioned a single blow that led to the death of the girl...
As for the fact that Maëlys allegedly got into his Audi A3 spontaneously and moreover with the permission of her mother, I think nobody is fooled, not even Lelandais' defence..... For the rest, I take care that the secrecy of the investigation is respected and you can imagine that the respondent's assertions will be scrupulously confronted with the reality of the case. My clients therefore cannot understand that Nordall Lelandais would have been cooperative, as we have read or heard in the media.
You call his thesis "implausible". In what way is it implausible with regard to the evidence in the file?
"I respect the confidentiality of the investigation and cannot comment in detail on it. It will also be up to a court of assizes to rule sovereignly on the guilt of the defendant. But yes, I do agree:
Nordahl Lelandais' version seems totally implausible in view of the findings made and the evidence on file in my possession. In other words, at the end of this reconstruction, we are still far from the truth."
BBM
