Two criminal investigations - in Chambéry (Savoie) for the murder of Arthur Noyer and in Grenoble (Isère) for that of Maëlys - and two trials for the same alleged perpetrator: would justice not have become more effective in joining the files of the murders of Arthur Noyer and Maëlys De Araujo, perpetrated five months apart in 2017 in two neighboring departments?
The question resurfaced at the opening of the debates Monday morning before the Assizes of Savoy, when the defense of Nordahl Lelandais asked the court to cancel a recent psychiatric expertise - which it obtained. This is an expertise which she had requested but which she considered tainted with impartiality and procedural errors - because one of the two experts (Professor Bensussan) had spoken on television before. during a program devoted to the hypothesis that Lelandais is a serial killer and that the order designating the second (Professor Rouillon) was marred by a lack of motivation and oath.
On these grounds, the court therefore declared the annulment of this report and of the summons of these experts to the bar during the current trial. Exit the contested piece and does it seem overwhelming in the defense of the accused? No, not quite. Because it was explained that these same psychiatrists had been appointed for another complementary expertise (also requested and contested by the defense) in the file investigated in Grenoble on the murder of Maëlys. The Advocate General at the trial, Thérèse Brunisso, suddenly requested the admission of this other report to the proceedings before the current Assize Court ... This makes it possible for her conclusions to be referred to at any time by the parties during the trial in progress in Chambéry. “The president of the Assize Court could also decide, by virtue of his discretionary power,to hear the two experts ”, indicates a prosecutor of the spring.
"One of the two cases could have erased the other"
It was during the debates on this procedural incident that Thérèse Brunisso, who happens to be the general prosecutor at the Chambéry court of appeal, gave other explanations.
The magistrate thus indicated that "these cases being intrinsically linked, the investigating judges had exchanged documents which were useful" upstream of the Chambéry trial - other expertises in particular.
She stressed that “neither the defense nor the civil parties had sought to have these cases joined.
“Then developed the reasons why the hypothesis of a junction, considered by the two general prosecutors (his and that of Grenoble), had been ruled out.
“The status quo was preferable for three arguments, advanced Thérèse Brunisso. First “because the rhythm of the two instructions was not the same”. The Maëlys De Araujo case, which also includes the facts of sexual assault on two little cousins of Lelandais, is "more complicated, gives rise to more appeal and requires more time", confirmed to our newspaper Me Yves Crespin, lawyer of the Enfant-Bleu / La Voix de l'Enfant associations in this dossier. Then, continued the Attorney General, because "of the very different nature of the two cases", one concerning a young man, "with a single indictable offense", the other a little girl "and criminal acts". Finally, she argued, because in a single trial, “one of the two cases could have erased the other.This was indeed the fear of Arthur Noyer's parents, who preferred a trial dedicated to the death of their son.