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

[renarde]

Cherchez la femme...

 

[ZaZara]

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 ?

Hi katydid, I can only assume that the lawyer has the entire file of the case, and that this file contains statements of people who claim they saw Maëlys after 03.00 hrs and later.
If the prosecutor charges the defendant with abduction of Maëlys at 02.45 hrs and people state that they saw her in the room or the hall at that time and also at 03.15 hrs, then the lawyer must lawfully point out that the prosecutor has no case unless of course the prosecutor explains with good reason why he dismisses these statements.

http://www.liberation.fr/france/201...pect-conteste-la-version-du-procureur_1614430

It's not the case, I say it eye to eye," the lawyer said, outraged to see his client "thrown to the lions" and "labelled as enemy number one" to the public. According to him,"at 2:45 a. m., little Maëlys is with her grandparents at the wedding, they ask her to go home with them and she wants to stay, a testimony confirmed by the grandmother's sister who adds that at that time, she is going to play football with little Maëlys in the children's room".

http://www.liberation.fr/france/201...pect-conteste-la-version-du-procureur_1614430

"What has happened in the last three months is an insult to justice, an insult to the girl's parents," Alain Jakubowicz thundered, appalled. "You're treating this man as a monster, while in the file, there's no shade of a hint of the beginning of an element that could suggest, and everything has been searched, that he may have even the slightest pedophile inclination."

BBM


If the case goes to court, it is up to the court to make a decision about the disputed elements.


IMHO this case is still confusing. I would probably go with the timeline of the prosecutor, but I find it strange that after the abduction of little Maëlys, first, NL would return to the party within 40 minutes and second, when he does, nobody notices anything about him, except that he did not appear interested in the search. He would have been minutes away from committing a crime, probably a murder! Nothing about his clothes? Hair? Scratches? Sweat? Breathing?

:waitasec:

 

[Jennifer17]

Hi katydid, I can only assume that the lawyer has the entire file of the case, and that this file contains statements of people who claim they saw Maëlys after 03.00 hrs and later.
If the prosecutor charges the defendant with abduction of Maëlys at 02.45 hrs and people state that they saw her in the room or the hall at that time and also at 03.15 hrs, then the lawyer must lawfully point out that the prosecutor has no case unless of course the prosecutor explains with good reason why he dismisses these statements.





BBM


If the case goes to court, it is up to the court to make a decision about the disputed elements.


IMHO this case is still confusing. I would probably go with the timeline of the prosecutor, but I find it strange that after the abduction of little Maëlys, first, NL would return to the party within 40 minutes and second, when he does, nobody notices anything about him, except that he did not appear interested in the search. He would have been minutes away from committing a crime, probably a murder! Nothing about his clothes? Hair? Scratches? Sweat? Breathing?

:waitasec:

Wasn't he wearing different trousers or shorts? I thought that I read that earlier in the thread.

 

[Niner]

But who at the wedding would be looking at their watches?? I believe the witness "time" is approximate. I'll go with what the prosecutors have....

and Again Thanks for the updates ZaZara!

 

[ZaZara]

FATHER OF THE SUSPECT: THINGS DON'T ADD UP

RTL.fr
http://www.rtl.fr/actu/societe-fait...-estime-le-pere-du-suspect-sur-rtl-7791263431


The relatives of the main suspect in Maëlys' disappearance, Nordhal L., have decided to go on the offensive. After the lawyer's remarks, it is the suspect's father, Jean-Pierre L., who denounces the judicial hounding in this case. "It doesn't add up, there are some things that don't fit," he told RTL.

Main problem? The chronology drawn up by the investigators. "He is accused of kidnapping Maëlys while at 3:15 she was still at the wedding. There are witnesses, it's important. This needs to be taken into account," he added.

These words echo those of Nordhal L.'s lawyer, Alain Jakubowicz. Invited by BFM TV on Monday, December 4, he heavily criticized Grenoble prosecutor Jean-Yves Coquillat, accusing him of having given the press an "impossible" chronology of the night the girl disappeared. "We know with near certainty that before 3.30 a. m. nobody worries about Maëlys' disappearance", but "the prosecutor's whole accusation is based on the assumption that the child disappeared at 2:45 a. m.", denounced the lawyer.

Nordhal L., who was quickly suspected after the disappearance of Maëlys, was indicted for murder on 30 November at the end of his hearing.


BBM

 

[jade32]

It reminds me a bit of the Madeleine McCann case. In mainland Europe it is more common for sleeping kids to be left unattended by an adult in a specific area, while the adults socialize elsewhere, than it is in the US.

I think someone went in and led her out. Very scary. They need to interview and locate every single guest and staff member.

I don't know about that to be honest. I am from Holland and here we don't leave our kids alone or unattended while adults socialize elsewhere. My daughter is seven years old and i don't even leave her home alone or even when i go upstairs i want her with me. Too much scary things are happening also here. I will do everything to prevent that. I guess some people are easier in it than others. But it's definitely not a common thing in Europe, maybe in some countries but not all.

 

[ZaZara]

LAWYER OF THE SUSPECT: YOU CAN'T SEE A THING ON THAT PICTURE

France Info
https://www.francetvinfo.fr/faits-d...nordahl-lelandais-contre-attaque_2500193.html

It is not yet a plea, but lawyer Alain Jakubowicz has decided to counter-attack in the media to answer the prosecutor's accusations. Main point contested by the defense: the chronology of Maëlys' disappearance. According to him, Nordahl Lelandais cannot have abducted the girl at 2:45 a. m., as the prosecutor suggests, because many witnesses would confirm that Maëlys was still present at the wedding party at 3:15 a. m.

Another point contested by the defence is the interpretation of the photograph of a car from a surveillance video showing a frail silhouette sitting next to the driver. According to the prosecutor, it could be Maëlys. "As for the allegedly material elements, this famous photograph taken from a video, very honestly, you can't see a thing," the lawyer for Nordahl Lelandais reacted. For him, it is therefore a whole section of the prosecution's case that is being called into question, even if he acknowledges that his client still has to explain himself on certain grey areas identified in his schedule during the night of Maëlys' disappearance.


BBM


I've been reading the first 25 pages of this thread, and confusion reigns about the timeline from the beginning. Either NL wasn't there, or he was back again, and a recurring theme is that Maëlys spoke with her grandparents at approximately 02.45 hrs, only to be abducted at 2.46 hrs according to the prosecutor.

The prosecutor now seems to have fixed the timeline on the basis of the CCTV, discounting all the statements of those who claimed to speak with Maëlys at a later time.
The lawyer is of the opinion that the many testimonies are valid, and discounts the picture on which Maëlys is allegedly seen. And BTW it could not be her in the car at that time if she still was in the hall.


:thinking:

 

[ZaZara]

LAWYER: 'NO LITTLE GIRL IN THAT CAR.' COULD THERE BE A POSSIBLE NEW WITNESS?

France Soir
http://www.francesoir.fr/societe-fa...-cle-trafic-pedophile-femme-decollete-enquete

He was obviously furious. Alain Jakubowicz, the lawyer for Nordahl Lelandais, the main suspect in the kidnapping and murder of Maëlys de Araujo, defended his client forcefully on the BFMTV set. If in front of Ruth Elkrief, he fed the thesis of a missing child between 3:15 and 3:30 am -defended by several witnesses and which would exonerate Nordahl - he was also horrified about the famous "photo" (actually a video-surveillance image) of a car taken at 2:47 am in the center of Pont-de-Beauvoisin (on the side of Savoie, two homonymous communes exist on both sides of the river le Guiers, in Isère and Savoie.)

He criticized the illustration made by BFMTV - which is quite suggestive - showing a child's white silhouette. However, if Alain Jakubowicz admits that the filmed car (whose license plate is however invisible) could be that of his client, he is not in the company of a little girl. "I concede, it could be his vehicle. On the other hand, pretending to say that this is a small figure of a child is contrary to objective reality,"he said. The lawyer explains that on the photo (which was not broadcast in the media, only illustrations were published) the person's cleavage at the passenger seat is not Maëlys's. The girl was wearing a sleeveless white dress whose collar was close to her neck. However, it is a relatively plunging neckline, ending with the beginning of the breasts that would be on the image.

This explanation, if proven, is crucial. Indeed, if it is the Audi A3 of Nordahl Lelandais which is visible on this piece of evidence from the prosecution, it would mean that there is a person who could totally clear the former soldier. This woman, if she was with the suspect, would give him an unstoppable alibi: if he was absent, it was not because he took the child with him. In this hypothesis, the schedule of the disappearance would even matter little. And if the woman who was spotted by the camera at 2:47 a. m. in the deserted streets of the commune had nothing to do with the former soldier, it could confirm that this is not his car. This would not rule out the suspect's possible involvement - he could have gone in another direction - but it would put a damper on the accusation that the vehicle is Nordahl Lelandais'.

However, no one has so far come forward as the person with this "woman's cleavage" in the lawyer's words. And the suspect will not give any name since he assured the judges on Thursday, November 30 that it was not his car. An inconsistency moreover disturbing with the words of Alain Jakubowicz who "concedes" that the Audi A3 "could be" that of his client... without affirming it with certainty.



BBM

 

[renarde]

What time were the gendarmes / police first called? Who called?

 

[easynic150]

What are the chances she just wandered off and had an accident and she’s laying somewhere where nobody has looked?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[easynic150]

What time were the gendarmes / police first called? Who called?

The police must have a record of that. Wouldn’t it be an emergency, and they’d be there in minutes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jennifer17]

What are the chances she just wandered off and had an accident and she’s laying somewhere where nobody has looked?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What kind of an accident? Something like meeting an adult who put her in his car and raped and killed her? That kind on 'accident'?
w

 

[ZaZara]

What are the chances she just wandered off and had an accident and she’s laying somewhere where nobody has looked?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What kind of an accident? Something like meeting an adult who put her in his car and raped and killed her? That kind on 'accident'?
w

Sniffer hounds followed her tracks and these tracks stopped abruptly on the parking lot. The area around the hall was searched extensively anyway. There is no mystery here.

 

[ZaZara]

THE 3 POINTS OF THE INVESTIGATION THAT SET THE DEFENSE AGAINST THE PROSECUTOR

L'Express
https://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/s...opposent-la-defense-au-procureur_1966487.html


The lawyer for Nordahl Lelandais came out of his silence on Monday evening to contest in particular the time of disappearance of little Maëlys, set at 2:45 am by the prosecutor.

"It's an insult to justice, an insult to the girl's parents!" Serious face closed, powerful voice distorted by anger, Alain Jakubowicz fulminates and becomes exasperated. The lawyer of Nordahl Lelandais had been silenced for three months: here he is on the set of BFMTV on Monday evening to, he said, re-establish the truth in the face of charges against his client, suspected of kidnapping and killing the young Maëlys in Isère on 27 August.

"When the [Grenoble] 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," he justifies. The counsel vigorously contests the chronology put forward by the prosecution. When contacted, the prosecutor of Grenoble did not wish to react and "fuel a controversy". The magistrate and the lawyer are in fact relying on the same elements of the case file. But they draw a radically different interpretations from it.

Time of disappearance

What the prosecutor says. According to the magistrate, the investigators set Maëlys' disappearance at 2:45 a. m., based on the testimony of the guests, memories of the music released by the DJ during this wedding ceremony but also on the basis of a connection with technical elements: Nordahl Lelandais activated the airplane mode of his telephone at 2:46 a. m. to escape geolocation, according to the gendarmes. A minute later, a car that seems to be his is filmed in downtown Pont-de-Beauvoisin with a "small"passenger. In short, it is a whole cluster of clues - and not an eyewitness testimony - that makes it possible to date the time at which the girl was last seen.

As the prosecutor himself pointed out, however, two witnesses are causing trouble: they claim to have seen Maëlys after 3 am. These testimonies are considered marginal by the investigators, who take them with caution:"No one is clinging to his watch in the middle of a wedding evening and a fortiori in the midst of a panic of disappearance,"points out a source close to the L' Express file.

What Nordahl's lawyer says. For the suspect's lawyer, on the contrary, these two conflicting testimonies are crucial. They also come from close relatives of the victim. In this case, a cousin of Maëlys' mother and the grandparents of the little girl.

According to the defence, the first testimony was repeated three times before the investigators. The cousin said that he saw Maëlys at 3:15 a. m. in the wedding hall when he himself was leaving. He calculated this schedule based on his travel time. A schedule corroborated by the testimony of his wife who said that she looked at the clock and reached their home around 3:35 a. m. that night. However,"the prosecutor's whole accusation is based on the assumption that the child disappeared at 2:45 a. m.", Master Jakubowicz denounces. He adds that Maëlys' grandmother talked to the girl around 2:45 a. m., and that at the same time she was seen "playing football in the children's room", which is hardly compatible with her presence in Nordahl's car two minutes later in the city centre.

No one was concerned about the girl's absence before 3:30 a. m., the time he set for the disappearance. At this time, however, the suspect's phone is no longer in "plane mode" and is located in the party hall. So he would be on the scene. As for disconnecting the phone, it was - according to the suspect - to save his battery. It doesn't matter if his client changed his version of the facts. During an initial interrogation consulted by L' Express, the man had simply mentioned network problems. Before being denied by technical investigations that show a voluntary switch to airplane mode.

The car

What the prosecutor says. It is therefore at 2h47 that the passage of a car corresponding to the model of Nordhal Lelandais is captured in Pont-de-Beauvoisin: an Audi A3. A car that has also been at the heart of the investigation since the beginning of the case, because the DNA of the little girl was found there during the investigations and its more than meticulous cleaning, in the aftermath of the tragedy, raises many questions.

Problem: on the images, we can't distinguish either the driver of the vehicle or his license plate, as the prosecutor of Grenoble conceded. But for the prosecution the car remains perfectly identifiable thanks to the combination of four elements: a rear plate lighting defect which corresponds to damage to the suspect's vehicle, the position of the stickers attached to the windshield, the presence of singular stickers and the model of the rims.

What Nordahl's lawyer says. The lawyer admits that the filmed car is indeed an Audi A3 but, according to him, nothing indicates that this is the car of Nordahl Lelandais. "There were three parties in this town that night. How many Audi A3s do you have in France?" he asks. During his first interrogation, Nordahl himself admitted that he had taken to the road again, before the search began, but to "pick up narcotics in St. Albin". The defence does not dwell on this point. "It could be his vehicle", Alain Jakubowicz seems to admit, for whom, in any case, the disappearance happened after the vehicle had passed through.

The picture of a "human figure in a white dress"

What the DA says. For the prosecution, even of poor quality, the video surveillance footage of the city of Pont-de-Beauvoisin is crystal clear. In the photos taken from the video, in addition to the car, or rather inside it,"at the front, a frail silhouette, small in size and dressed in a white dress," explains the prosecutor of Grenoble for the first time. Later, he goes on to say:"It looks like a child or at least someone small, with a white dress and brown hair." In short, a character who corresponds in every way to the description that is made by her close relatives of Maëlys that night.

What Nordahl's lawyer says. However, the interpretation of the defense is quite different. "It is not true that we can distinguish a child," Alain Jakubowicz asserts "There is indeed a passenger with long, brown hair. I would like to point out that the little girl had her hair up." According to the lawyer, the silhouette would rather be that of a woman and, in any case, the cut of the dress, or rather its cleavage, one of the rare elements that we can really distinguish on the images according to him, clearly differs from the outfit that Maëlys was wearing that night.

"The little girl has a wedding dress for little girls like we all know them, with a round collar that only goes down a little bit. The cleavage in question is a woman's cleavage that is deep, extends to the top of her chest and is square," says the suspect's lawyer in support of his rebuttal.





BBM

 

[ZaZara]

THE TESTIMONIES OF MAËLYS' RELATIVES WHO CORROBORATE NORDAHL L'S DEFENSE


France Soir
http://www.francesoir.fr/societe-fa...n-jakubowicz-enquete-affaire-info-france-soir

EXCLUSIVE FRANCE-SOIR - For more than 15 weeks now, little Maëlys de Araujo has been missing. It happened on the night of August 26 to 27, in the parking lot of the multipurpose hall of Pont-de-Beauvoisin, in Isère, on the fringe of a wedding party. And for almost as long, only one suspect has been facing the charges. Nordahl Lelandais, 34, present at the wedding when he was not invited at first, has been in prison since 3 September. Almost everything seems to accuse him in the investigation into Maëlys' disappearance. A DNA trace of the child was found in his vehicle. He was absent from a schedule presented by the prosecution as that of child abduction. A video surveillance image shows a vehicle that could be his Audi A3 passing with a silhouette on the passenger seat, and coming back empty soon after. The man was also seen socializing with the girl by several witnesses, cleaned his car very thoroughly after a first interrogation by the gendarmes on Sunday 27 August, and has a profile that is not very flattering in some respects: a small-time drug dealer, living with his parents and unemployed, fired from the army for behavioural problems, with a criminal record for a nasty restaurant fire and described as violent by some of his former partners.

Yet the man consistently denies everything. It's not his car on the video surveillance footage (the license plate is not visible), the little girl got into his Audi A3 while it was parked to check the presence of dogs (he is a keen amateur), he cleaned his vehicle in order to sell it. Above all, he denies the thesis of Maëlys' disappearance at 2:46 a. m., as announced by the public prosecutor in a press conference on 30 November, after a hearing of this "number one suspect" before the three investigating magistrates. For his lawyer, she disappeared after 3:00 a. m., at the time of his absence between 2:46 and 3:25 a. m., during which he put his cell phone in "plane mode", which made it impossible to locate him, ensuring that it was to save battery power.

On BFMTV's air on Monday 4, his lawyer Alain Jakubowicz played down his cards, the only ones in defence. "At 3:00, there's a wave of guests leaving and Maëlys is in the room. Maëlys is not missing. At 3:15 a. m., Maëlys' mother's cousin leaves the marriage and sees her and talks to her," the suspect's counsel assures. He therefore asserts that testimonies describe a scene which not only does not follow the scenario put forward by the prosecution, but which also exonerates his client from any involvement, not being in the hall at the time of the events.

And indeed, disturbing testimonies do exist. Some relatives of Maëlys, present at the wedding, and solicited in informal exchanges on social networks, confirmed having seen the child and especially at an advanced moment in time.

Guenaëlle F., a cousin of the missing girl's cousin answers an anonymous question about the presence or absence of a nanny (several children were under the supervision of an adult in a dedicated room), and explains that "we lost Maëlys at 3:15 a. m." At that time, Nordahl Lelandais had been gone for half an hour, according to the investigation. This exchange took place on 19 September and has since been deleted. Contacted by France-Soir, the young woman does not formally deny the authenticity of the exchange but refuses to say more: "You do not need to know, it is none of your business."


Maëlys' aunt, Séverine C., has visibly declared a similar disappearance:"We have noticed her absence at 3:30 am." Which is 45 minutes later than the schedule announced by the prosecutor. Also contacted, this witness did not wish to reply to France-Soir.

However, these documents must be considered with caution, as those concerned have not denied [ or confirmed ] their veracity. They seem to feed Alain Jakubowicz's thesis, especially since those close to Maëlys in their later exchanges burden Nordahl Lelandais, and are therefore a little suspect of being complacent, of wanting to voluntarily frame the suspect. However, they are far from proving the innocence of the former soldier. The thesis of an error of these relatives on the exact time is always possible in a wedding party gradually approaching its end, and of which a witness described to France-Soir the still very festive atmosphere, for some guests also alcoholic, at this time of night. It is not excluded that the little girl disappeared at 2:45 am but that, in the general atmosphere, her loved ones didn't realize her absence until half an hour later.

The only thing that these elements prove is that the evidence advanced by Alain Jakubowicz is very real and that the lawyer, as he showed during his vehement intervention on BFMTV, will focus his defense on it to sow doubt. However, according to our information, about half of the 180 guests were still present when the disc-jockey stopped the music and asked the guests to look for the little girl. It is not clear how many of these guests claim, in line with the accusation, that it was just over 2:46 a. m. on Sunday 27 when the Maëlys case began.



BBM


Screenshots of the original FB posting in the article at the link.

 

[Ozoner]

It is not excluded that the little girl disappeared at 2:45 am but that, in the general atmosphere, her loved ones didn't realize her absence until half an hour later.

That comment really says it all. The defense's tactics are nothing but smoke and mirrors. I'd say that France needs to bring back Le Rasoir National, but that would be too quick a death for Lelandais. For him, they need to bring back drawing and quartering--with very slow horses.

 

[ZaZara]

MAËLYS CASE: MAIN SUSPECT QUESTIONED ABOUT THE DISAPPEARANCE OF CORPORAL NOYER IN CHAMBÉRY


Dauphiné Libéré (liveblog)
http://www.ledauphine.com/isere-nor...teurs-aupres-du-suspect-le-pont-de-beauvoisin

According to information from the Dauphiné Libéré, the officers of the SR [ Section de recherches - Gendarmerie nationale ] de Chambéry interrogate Nordahl Lelandais on the disappearance of Corporal Arthur Noyer. The young soldier disappeared on the night of 11-12 April in Chambéry, after an evening with friends. The corporal was last seen on April 12 at about 4 a. m., hitchhiking, rue de la République, in the Carré Curial sector of Chambéry.

A few days after Corporal Noyer's disappearance, the Chambéry prosecutor's office had opened an investigation for kidnapping and sequestration. An investigation then qualified as sensitive, entrusted to the SR of Chambéry.

Nordahl Lelandais was taken from his cell in Saint-Quentin-Fallavier. A large number of gendarmes ensure the security of the thirty-someting man. A large convoy, eight police vehicles for criminal identification, is en route to Chambéry.

According to information from the Dauphiné Libéré, Nordahl Lelandais and Corporal Noyer frequented the same establishments in downtown Chambéry.

A search is under way at the 30-year-old's home in Domessin, Savoy. The neighborhood is surrounded by law enforcement.

The search has just ended at the residence of Nordahl Lelandais in Domessin. The gendarmerie convoy is now heading for Chambéry.

According to a judicial source who confided in the Dauphiné Liberée, investigators say they are "confident" about the elements at their disposal in the disappearance of Corporal Noyer.

Although the Chambéry prosecutor confirmed that Nordahl Lelandais' detention began at 10.30 am on Monday, he did not wish to comment. Police custody is expected to last 48 hours.

The gendarmerie convoy has just arrived in Chambéry. It rushed into the barracks housing the premises of the grouping and the SR de Chambéry. In one of the vans, Nordahl Lelandais was spotted surrounded by several gendarmes.

Contacted by Dauphiné Libéré, Alain Jakubowicz, who assists Nordahl Lelandais in the case of Maëlys' disappearance, did not wish to comment on the custody of his client in this new investigation.

According to a source close to the file, Savoyard investigators wonder about "the presence of Nordahl Lelandais in the same place as the corporal, the night of his disappearance".

The data carriers seized during the first detention of Nordahl Lelandais on 31 August at his home in Domessin were said to have begun to reveal certain secrets. According to information from the Dauphiné Liberé, their analysis showed that the 34-year-old ex-military officer had consulted, in April, websites that intrigued the investigators, dealing in particular with how to make a body disappear.



BBM


From Domessin (where the suspect lived) to Chambéry is about 30 minutes by car.

This is the missing Corporal Arthur Noyer:




With his dark hair, eyes and sharp eyebrows IMHO there are certain similarities with little Maëlys (who had her long hair UP, as the lawyer mentioned).
If (if) something comes from this, then the objective of NL may not have been a young girl specifically, but possibly a certain type of person.


:thinking:

 

[Bit of hope]

Poor little one....pfffff.....

 

[ZaZara]

PRIME SUSPECT IN THE MAËLYS CASE ALSO SUSPECTED IN ANOTHER DISAPPEARANCE

Le Figaro
http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-fr...ire-maelys-entendu-dans-une-autre-enquete.php


Arthur Noyer, 23, disappeared on the night of April 11 to 12. This Corporal of the 13th Battalion of Alpine Hunters (BCA) spent an evening at a nightclub with comrades in downtown Chambéry. Then he decided to return alone to the barracks in Barby, five kilometres away. He walked along the road and no longer had a jacket (...)," a witness said at the time to the local press. He was last seen around 4:00 a. m. when he was hitchhiking in a street in Chambéry and then disappeared without a trace. His phone went off around 5:00 in the morning.

The corporal did not report for duty the next day. The 13th BCA raised the alarm and the gendarmes of Challes-les-Eaux called for witnesses. They deployed considerable resources for the search, such as divers to survey several bodies of water around the city. Without success. The Chambéry prosecutor's office finally opened an investigation on 20 April for kidnapping and sequestration, eight days after his disappearance.

Eight months after this disappearance, investigators are now wondering about the role of Nordahl Lelandais. They are intrigued by several elements. Starting with the cell phones of the two men that pinged in the same area the night of the disappearance, reports France Info. A witness may even have seen the 34-year-old former soldier in this famous nightclub where Arthur Noyer spent the evening, according to Le Parisien. A nightclub that the suspect used to visit, his ex-girlfriend confirms. The investigators therefore believe that the two men may have crossed paths that night from April 11 to 12. "The two phones even moved together," according to France Info.

According to Le Parisien, the gendarmes are also wondering about another troubling element: why did Nordahl Lelandais spend so much time searching the Internet to find out how to make a body permanently disappear? According to a source at AFP, the suspect did the research after Corporal Noyer disappeared. One was military, the other as a dog handler. Investigators will also look into whether the two men knew each other and if so, in what context.

It is not yet known how Nordahl Lelandais, already under investigation for the murder and abduction of Maëlys, reacts to police questions. He has always denied any involvement in the disappearance of the 9-year-old girl, and he must now explain himself on his schedule during that April night and the strange Internet searches he had made on his phone and computer at the same time. Since the beginning of his detention, his lawyer Alain Jakubowicz has made no statement.

According to numerous accounts in the local media, Arthur Noyer was an adult "happy and fulfilled in his battalion", a member of a "close-knit family". Wanted notices in the streets of Chambéry, articles in the local and national press... For months, his parents, Cécile and Didier Noyer, struggled to find him. In vain. After the announcement of this new detention, both were cautious. I'm waiting to see what the investigation will yield," his mother told Le Parisien. At the time, his father had hypothesized that he might have been involved in a car accident in which the perpetrator had wanted to conceal his victim.


BBM

 

[Niner]

Interesting that he is now a suspect in an earlier abduction!!

Thank you again for keeping us updated!