When you put a dozen witnesses in a room and ask them to replicate what occurred on a previous occasion you will usually get a result of sorts. Unfortunately, since most of the tapas 9 were drinking that evening I fear the results may not be as focussed as one would like. However, that said, the detectives would be looking for any signs of inconsistency and divergences from the original statements and if found I have no doubt some explaining would be required.
Remember also that there are two potential sites within Luz where sightings have been claimed. The PJ would possibly run both reenactments together to establish exactly where everyone was that we know about. That in itself could very well have put to bed the oft mentioned contention that it was Gerry who was seen down town by the Smiths.
Which brings me to the issue of why wasn't Gerry asked to take part in a reenactment for the benefit of the Smiths. That again would hopefully have shown once and for all that Martin Smith's original identification was mistaken.
The contention that Madeleine's father was the man who was the carrier in the alleged Smith sighting is one which will never be put to bed by the people who choose to believe it no matter what the result of contemporaneous
re-enactments.
The people who actually matter ... the PJ and SY ... obviously put it to bed long ago.
We already know that Martin Smith's identification was mistaken ... just as the almost identical statement made by Mr McCluskey which pre-dated it was mistaken.
On the other hand, if the Smith party of nine had revisited their route and venues of the evening ... an independent witness might have remembered seeing them ... or even remember serving them drinks.
