What did he say during Christophe Ellul's confrontation with Elisa Pilarski's family at the Soissons court on Monday, March 29?
Claimed by Me Terquem-Adoue, lawyer for Elisa's mother and uncle, Nathalie and Vincent Labastarde, this confrontation was "
a real heartbreak
" for Christophe Ellul, indicted for manslaughter in the part of the investigation into the death of Elisa Pilarski.
The young woman six months pregnant was found dead in November 2019 as a result of "
a hemorrhage following several dog bites
" in the forest of Retz, in the Aisne.
To read also: Death of Elisa Pilarski: her companion indicted for manslaughter
Several key elements would have been evoked during this confrontation, in particular the call of Elisa to Christophe, the sms "
I make it prick
", sent to the young woman just before her death, the photos of Curtis without a muzzle, but also the hypothesis of the upheaval of the crime scene by Christophe Ellul.
Mysterious calls and sms
"
What emerges from this confrontation is that Christophe Ellul is no longer considered as a real victim, but as the tartuffe, the impostor of the civil parties
", declared to Le
Figaro
the lawyer of the defendant, Me Alexandre Novion.
Asked about the mysterious telephone call of a few minutes passed by Elisa, the magistrate indicated that the communication time between Elisa and Christophe was not that of the effective duration of the call: "
Christophe Ellul assures him that the telephone fell out of hand and didn't hear everything.
He just had time to hear Elisa telling him that she was bitten by a dog on the arm and another in the leg and that she was having trouble holding Curtis.
But then, at 1:19 pm, the phone fell and the conversation was cut, although Christophe's phone remained on,
”said the magistrate.
However, according to BFMTV, the analysis of Elisa's phone also showed that Christophe Ellul called the victim until 6:03 p.m., when the latter had already discovered the body.
“
My client never hid that once there, he tried to find Elisa's phone and, if he had wanted to erase evidence, he could have made a lot of things disappear, such as cleaning the traces of blood on his dog, while he has always said that his dog had blood on his muzzle,
”reacted to
Figaro
Me Novion.
To read also: Pilarski case: "Curtis is innocent, he loved Elisa", assures the companion of the victim
Another element of communication between the victim and his companion also intrigued the investigators: the text message "
I am getting stung
" sent by Christophe Ellul.
“
By this one text message, he recognizes that his dog is at the origin of the death of my niece.
Faced with this irrefutable evidence, Mr. Ellul refused to contribute to the manifestation of the truth, he is still in denial and refuses to accept that his dog is at the origin of the death of my niece
”, estimated in a statement released on BFMTV Elisa's uncle, Vincent Labastarde.
Christophe Ellul's lawyer assured for his part that the respondent no longer "
remembered this text
" but that the latter "
could perhaps have remembered it if we had spoken to him earlier, knowing that Elisa's phone has been under seal for fifteen months
”.
"Disruption of the crime scene"
Time-stamped images of Curtis taken by Elisa Pilarski where the dog poses without a muzzle, moments before it was attacked, also sparked debate during the confrontation.
The word of Christophe Ellul was in particular questioned, because the latter had affirmed that Curtis was indeed wearing a muzzle during the walk.
“
At the request of my lawyer, Elisa's phone, placed under seal, was analyzed more than fifteen months after the death of my niece.
We saw on this phone, after exploitation, that my niece had taken no less than 20 photos with Curtis, who walks in the forest of Retz with her on a leash, but not muzzled.
Photos stamped between 1:09 p.m. and 1:11 p.m.
That is to say 5 minutes before it is attacked by Curtis
”, declared, after the confrontation, Vincent Labastarde.
"
In the photo, we see that it is a small dog of 17 kilos, that he is not angry
", comments Me Novion, stressing that Elisa "
could have removed the muzzle simply to take a photo where the dog would be to his advantage
”.
According to the lawyer, the family of Elisa Pilarski would argue that Christophe Ellul, being the first to go to the scene, could have put a muzzle on Curtis once there, thus changing the scene of the drama.
What the dog owner's lawyer refutes: “
In their report, the experts said the lesions on Curtis' head were related to the dog trying to remove his muzzle.
So Curtis was wearing a muzzle, although he does not have one in the photos, which shows that this matter is filled with contradictions
”.
Christophe Ellul's lawyer also assures us that "to
modify the scene of the crime would have been impossible
": "
Christophe was not in the calculation, it took time to find Elisa.
Then, when he got there, he immediately called the 15th and 18th. He went to get help and found a lady to whom he showed the body.
Finally the gendarmes arrived very quickly, around 3 p.m., and Christophe was immediately taken care of.
It therefore seems to me that Christophe Ellul did not have time to upset the crime scene
”between 1:19 pm, when Elisa's companion receives the distress call, and 3 pm, when the gendarmes arrive.
Contacted by
Le Figaro
, Me Terquem-Adoue said "
never to have maintained that Mr. Ellul could have put a muzzle on Curtis after the death of Elisa Pilarski
", but underlines however to question and be surprised at the presence "
on the scene of the crime of a muzzle which belongs to another dog
”.
Me Novion also confirmed that Christophe Ellul continued to consider that the involvement of hunting dogs was "
a hypothesis
", conceding however that "
Curtis could have had a role in triggering events
".