The Strange Case of Nora Quoirin

Parents telling lies, not being co-operative with the police - where have I heard that before?!

They must have had a reason to lie yet they lied knowing there was the risk of CTV footing at the airport revealing the lie - hence the reason to lie must have been important.

One theory I have is that her two younger siblings encouraged her to join them on a moonlight walk to get some air - it was probably very stuffy in the house. There was an accident or they lost her. They sneaked back in. The parents are protecting them.

Or she went out alone, got very lost and died from exhaustion and lack of food and water. Horrible.

There is just no way there could be a criminal element.

It sounds plausible about the other children's involvement but I can't see why the parents would have lied about Nora's mobility. They wanted her found - didn't they?

The wandering about for days is feasible too but the problem is that she had very few scratches and abrasions to back this up.

If the other children had inadvertently caused this tragedy the parents would have wanted this covered up - so an evil kidnapper who came through the window with allegedly a broken latch is the way to explain Nora's disappearance. This involves the lie about her mobility - 'she can't walk unaided so somebody must have have taken her.'

Would the terrain she obviously covered have been so bad she should have been covered in bruises and scratches? We don't know it was. Maybe it was just uneven with lots of greenery and very hot.

If the limited mobility story is untrue, it would seem that there was no particular danger then in allowing Nora to sleep on the mezzanine floor with its difficult spiral staircase access.

Freedom wrote:It is from The Sun but don't let that put you off. It's interesting as it shows that the parents' claim that Nora could not walk far unaided was false. The police didn't start looking in a larger area until 8 days after she disappeared in the mistaken belief that she couldn't have got far. Now why would anyone want to hinder a police investigation by not giving correct information?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12504238/nora-quoirin-cctv-walking-death-jaungle-inquest/

I've just noticed that we've lost our great poster Canada12.

So the parents lied about Nora's ability to walk unaided? Surely parents who were concerned about finding their daughter would be scrupulously honest to the police about their daughter? What a coincidence that once the police started looking in a larger area 8 days after she disappeared - having seen cctv of Nora walking normally with her travel bag on arrival in the country -  it was just one day after this  that Jim Gamble endorsed the parents in offering a reward for Nora's safe finding.

Nora was found dead that very same day, I do believe, by walkers. Why wouldn't a 'child protection' expert recommend a reward within the period of time that Nora would reasonably expected to been found alive?

Uhh?

Come back Canada12!

The other thing about this case is that I think it has been said that Nora would have been on some kind of medication, or even several medications. If this had been the case, then why weren't the parents pleading with the 'kidnapper' that Nora needed her medication etc? There is evidence that the parents lied about Nora's ability to walk unaided which meant that for over a week the search was located within a relatively small area. The search was only widened, it has been claimed, when police saw cctv footage of Nora walking normally with her travel bag. This indicates deception on the part of her parents and this surely places an entirely different light on the parents claim that Nora was 'kidnapped' or 'abducted'.

I can only presume that police did not believe the kidnapping story, which is partly why the search was very local - they didn't believe that a mystery person had stolen her and whisked her away and so believed that she could not have gone far away by herself.

Once the police realized that the parents had been deceptive about Nora's ability to walk normally, they widened their search and found her shortly afterwards. By an extraordinary coincidence it was the day that Jim Gamble had recommended the parents offered a reward for finding her safe and well - nine days after her disappearance. I wonder what Jim Gamble thought had happened to her to recommend to her parents this course of action after nine days? Did he think she was being held against her will, perhaps, and that this reward would 'flush out' the abductor, as it were?

Perhaps I am being cynical but it seems highly unlikely that this reward for finding Nora alive and well would ever be paid out and it would seem that in the early days, before any reward was offered, there were plenty of people who would have been willing to search without the offer of any monetary gain. The police did a very thorough search of the local area and did not find her.

Given that Nora was found without evidence of having walked barefoot for miles - no bad scratches on her feet for instance - commonsense would suggest that she could have been held somewhere during the time that the police were carrying out their searches.

Again, call me cynical, but how extraordinary that Nora was found - tragically dead - on the same day that Gamble recommended the offer on a reward be made public. Is it possible that whoever had been hiding her/holding her responded to this message which is why the body was found that same day?

I wonder what types of insurance the family had in the event of a tragic accident/loss? It strikes me that fund-raising by the family started very early on but not sure why it was really needed when there was a massive police search and the family would have been given consular assistance?

A very strange case, imo.

Now add a mysterious stranger to the McCann - sorry Quoirin - cooking pot.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/stranger-approached-nora-quoirin-family-22586180

The 'mysterious stranger' seems to me to be a caring individual seeing 3 children apparently on their own and just saying hallo to check they were Ok. The children ignored him (rightly) as they had been warned about talking to strangers. A desperate attempt by the parents telling this anecdote to back up their story of a criminal element involved in Nora's disappearance.

Antonia wrote:The 'mysterious stranger' seems to me to be a caring individual seeing 3 children apparently on their own and just saying hallo to check they were Ok.  The children ignored him (rightly) as they had been warned about talking to strangers.  A desperate attempt by the parents telling this anecdote to back up their story of a criminal element involved in Nora's disappearance.

Possibly slightly strange that they didn't all go to meet Nora's mother at the arrivals gate. Perhaps there was lots of luggage and Nora's father felt it was easier for the children to stay with the luggage if the arrivals gate was nearby. International airport arrivals halls are incredibly busy and they are not places to leave luggage unattended, let alone children.  

Rather as in another infamous case of a missing child, the parents and the family seem fixated on financial gain from a very early stage, imo. We know that the McCanns used the fund money donated by members of the public for purposes other than finding their daughter - hiring lawyers among other things not connected with searching for Madeleine.

Did the Quoirins also hire lawyers at an early stage?  They set up a fund very quickly for 'expenses' such as the wider family flying out. This seems quite presumptious, imo. I'm not sure I'd expect the public to fork out for flights for wider family if one of my children mysteriously disappeared. Unless they - the wider family - were all experts in finding children but even then I'd hope that family were genuinely concerned enough to pay for their own flights, at least in the first instance.

I wonder what the outcome of the parents suing the resort was?  If the parents wanted 24/7 security, why did they chose that particular remote spot which was very much 'back to nature'? The parents would have known in advance about the set-up and the absence of locks is largely irrelevant when it seems that the houses were partly open to the elements.

I hadn't come across the term 'netizens' but it sure beats 'trolls' or 'conspiraloons'.

https://worldofbuzz.com/nora-annes-parents-sue-seremban-resort-for-rm152k-netizens-claim-they-killed-her-for-insurance-money/

I suspect the lawsuit is still in progress and the inquest result will be relevant to the decision. The parents will hope that the inquest will find a evil person entered the (insecure) holiday home and took Nora and this is the resort's fault.

Poster, I think you are right - they left the children guarding the luggage rather than carry it to the arrivals gate which would have been crowded and which was not far away.

There appears to be something of a script being followed here: The child could not have wandered off on her own (when it appears that in both cases they could have done)  the window is  ajar, the latch broken and there is no security or cctv along the entry gate. The child was therefore abducted.

Now, where have we heard that before?


Sankara Nair, lawyer for her parents Meabh and Sebastien Quoirin, said the family strongly believed Nora was abducted as she has mental and physical disabilities and couldn't have wandered off on her own.

The lawsuit says a cottage window was found ajar, its latch broken, the morning she disappeared. The resort gate was left open at all times without any security and there was no surveillance camera except for the reception area, it said.

There was no evidence of abduction and, just as in the McCann case, the prime suspects initially would be parents and family. They would need to be ruled out, particularly as in both cases it was the parents who last saw the child.

I wonder what medications Nora was on and whether she, and possibly her siblings,  had taken anything to help with jet-lag? Things like anti-malarials can have adverse effects, for instance.

This whole case stinks but what makes it stink the most is that JIM GAMBLE  puts his ugly mug above the parapet. Why doesn't he keep his mouth shut and let the police carry out their investigation? His interference in the McCann case with his childish twitter rants could not have shown him in a more unprofessional light. He came over as a petulant eight year old.

IMO!


https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/u-k-teen-s-family-sues-malaysian-resort-over-her-death-1.4776384

ETA: I think there are quite a few 'lost in translation' moments here and rather as in the McCann case, in order to prove a point, nonsensical statements are made such as: 'Nora was abducted as she has mental and physical disabilities'. Would that really make her an attractive proposition for an abduction? Of course, what is meant is that because of these difficulties she could not have wandered off on her own. But it appears that the parents exaggerated these disabilities and Nora walked reasonably normally judging by cctv airport footage. The McCanns, too, claim that Madeleine could not have got out of the apartment on her own which seems a bizarre statement to make about a lively, bright nearly four year old who would very easily be able to negotiate doors, stairs, gates etc.

We live and learn - here's what netizens mean, not necessarily as in McCann fans parlance trolls and haters.

The term netizen is a portmanteau of the words Internet and citizen, as in a "citizen of the net" or "net citizen". It describes a person actively involved in online communities or the Internet in general.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8685107/Nora-Quoirin-dead-four-days-rescuers-not-sexually-assaulted.html

So it's thought she lived for six days after she was reported missing. Had her parents been honest about how far she could walk unaided, she might well have been found in time.

Freedom wrote:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8685107/Nora-Quoirin-dead-four-days-rescuers-not-sexually-assaulted.html

So it's thought she lived for six days after she was reported missing. Had her parents been honest about how far she could walk unaided, she might well have been found in time.

The lawyer for her parents, Sakthy Vell, asked: “We know that she had died four days prior to being found in the flowing stream, so would DNA remain on her face and naked body?”

So who placed her body in a flowing stream? Or is the verdict that she wandered off and fell in the stream? This seems unlikely - she is not a toddler and appears to have been able to walk unassisted. If she had fallen into the stream she would have tried to get out.

Her father gives me the creeps.

https://crimerocket2.com/2019/08/19/does-body-language-tell-us-anything-about-noras-parents/

I do wonder about the media role in this case. The poor girl died a horrible death yet it appears that the parents did not give an accurate picture of Nora's ability to walk unaided. I still don't understand why the family started fund-raising so quickly when an active police search was taking place, albeit with what appears to have been incorrect information about Nora's walking abilities.


https://crimerocket2.com/2019/09/10/on-the-day-of-noras-funeral-in-belfast-two-distasteful-stories/

This seems to be the latest report available.

https://www.irishpost.com/news/eight-fingerprints-found-on-window-of-malaysia-villa-where-tragic-schoolgirl-nora-quoirin-disappeared-192131

Interesting article.

Good to see the parents misinformation about her (alleged) lack of walking ability being exposed.

Finger prints on an upper window sill revealed.

Will the parents claim that the kidnapper used a ladder to enter via the upper window rather than the ground floor window where didn't they claim there was a defective latch?

The finger prints that are clear but unidentifiable surely belong to former guests. One is from Nora's mum. I can't think of any foreign holiday I had in a warm country where I wouldn't have opened the windows when I was in, and shut them when out for security reasons.

I've just noticed the reference to blood on the bathroom floor with the Assistant Commissioner saying that he was not at liberty to say whose it was.

Very strange - unless maybe it's a translation problem and the blood is unidentified.

Freedom wrote:I've just noticed the reference to blood on the bathroom floor with the Assistant Commissioner saying that he was not at liberty to say whose it was.

Very strange - unless maybe it's a translation problem and the blood is unidentified.

There were just a few drops - maybe Nora or her mum were having their period? The Assistant Commissioner maybe didn't want to mention this delicate woman's matter.  Or somebody in the household had cut themselves in a minor accident. Nora after all as her parents tell us is clumsy and limited in mobility. A few drops hardly indicates an evil person breaking in through the upper window, then hurting Nora in the bathroom and then taking her out through the upper window.  And then there should have been more blood spatters on that window?

Oh yes, I thought it could easily have a perfectly innocent explanation - nose bleeds, shaving cuts etc - but the wording makes it sound more suspicious than it probably is.

Was/is there a conclusion to this?

No. I keep checking for updates on the inquest but nothing as yet.

Covid was the hold up it seems.


NORA Quoirin’s family received a ransom email from a sick “scammer” demanding Bitcoin after their teenage daughter disappeared in Malaysia.

The inquest into the death of the 15-year-old started two months ago but has just resumed after a witness came into contact with a Covid-19 patient.


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13000740/nora-quoirin-parents-ransom-demand-bitcoin-malaysia/

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40079906.html

This article details Nora's mother's evidence at the inquest. Reminds me of the McCanns - blames the police and Nora was too frail to have climbed out of the window. She has a new excuse over the McCann - she thought she heard whispering early in the morning in the house but she was half asleep at the time and went back to sleep.