Witnesses claimed to have seen Robert Murat the night Maddie disappeared.

[faithlilly]

Inconsistencies can suggest many things besides innocence or guilt, such as a lack of knowledge or inaccurate recollection. Sometimes they can even be as a result of the question being misunderstood (especially when there is a language barrier).

So, by your reasoning, the inconsistencies in Murat's statements are just as likely to be innocent misunderstandings/inaccurate recollection/ lack of knowledge than pointers to guilt.  Thank you for clearing that up.

[mercury]

SB told the PJ that RM was there that night and told them to ask JW and BW to confirm it.
Therefore SB had seen JW and BW there at the same time she saw the man she mistook for RM.
That's why she told the PJ to ask them.
Both JW and BW said definitely RM was not there.

SB never identified RM

[mercury]

Why would the GNR/PJ have previously employed him to translate for them when they had an official list of translators? The scale of translation required in the aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance was unprecedented, hence the police welcomed whatever help was available.
Wherever the "translator" was, he certainly wasn't standing outside the Tapas Bar or 5a all night.
Why change his original alibi - he wasn't originally under any suspicion. If he had been, he would have had to explain his early presence that night, bearing in mind the cars with the sirens went to the 24hr reception first.

I can't answer questions that I have no knowledge about...but there's no real evidence he was there, Im not sure why gu so want him to have been there

[mercury]

So, by your reasoning, the inconsistencies in Murat's statements are just as likely to be innocent misunderstandings/inaccurate recollection/ lack of knowledge than pointers to guilt. Thanks for clearing that up Misty.

Indeed, Murat was interviewed weeks later, poor recall is a concrete excuse for  any Inconsistencies

[misty]

I can't answer questions that I have no knowledge about...but there's no real evidence he was there, Im not sure why gu so want him to have been there

Can you find reference in a statement to any translator, other than Sylvia B, being present on the scene that night?

[mercury]

Can you find reference in a statement to any translator, other than Sylvia B, being present on the scene that night?

It doesn't matter, for all the reasons given before......Murat being the abductor just doesn't  cut it
Unless you have a theory.....of what he did when and how

[misty]

It doesn't matter, for all the reasons given before......Murat being the abductor just doesn't  cut it
Unless you have a theory.....of what he did when and how

Of course it matters. He was physically identified as being the person seen for a period that night by more than one witness. That was reinforced by the person offering his services as a translator. He was in the vicinity of 5a.
So, if it wasn't RM, just who was it? Another person the PJ failed to identify, interview & eliminate?
My theory is almost irrelevant to this issue.

[mercury]

Of course it matters. He was physically identified as being the person seen for a period that night by more than one witness. That was reinforced by the person offering his services as a translator. He was in the vicinity of 5a.
So, if it wasn't RM, just who was it? Another person the PJ failed to identify, interview & eliminate?
My theory is almost irrelevant to this issue.

Nope, all wrong,sorry misty, there is no reliable evidence he was there... If you have this then share it

And your theory certainly IS relevant if you're calling into doubt and suspecting someone...

[misty]

Nope, all wrong,sorry misty, there is no reliable evidence he was there... If you have this then share it

And your theory certainly IS relevant if you're calling into doubt and suspecting someone...

See post #60, Mercury.
Who was the person they all saw, if not RM? Did they all imagine the same person - and think very carefully about how you answer that when you know my opinion of Smithman.

[stephen25000]

See post #60, Mercury.
Who was the person they all saw, if not RM? Did they all imagine the same person - and think very carefully about how you answer that when you know my opinion of Smithman.

You really have it in for Murat, don't you.

Why is that ?

[Eleanor]

Let's not start with the insults, please.  It is Sunday.

[Alfred R Jones]

So, numerous people (and not limited to the McCann group) claiming to have seen Murat out and about on the evening of May 3rd must all be mistaken.  That's fair enough.  Where does that leave Mr Smith's "60-80% sure the man carrying the child was Gerry McCann" then? 

Are we now able to concede that witness statements are not terribly reliable and therefore by accepting that obvious fact, can we conclude that it is highly unlikely given everything else we know about the events and movements of that evening that Smithman was Gerry?

No, I thought not.

 &%+((£

[Mr Gray]

So, numerous people (and not limited to the McCann group) claiming to have seen Murat out and about on the evening of May 3rd must all be mistaken.  That's fair enough.  Where does that leave Mr Smith's "60-80% sure the man carrying the child was Gerry McCann" then? 

Are we now able to concede that witness statements are not terribly reliable and therefore by accepting that obvious fact, can we conclude that it is highly unlikely given everything else we know about the events and movements of that evening that Smithman was not Gerry?

No, I thought not.

 &%+((£

excellent post

[jassi]

While I can see the significance of Smithman, who was seen carrying a small child at a crucial moment, I cannot see the significance of a Murat look-alike, who wasn't.

[Alfred R Jones]

While I can see the significance of Smithman, who was seen carrying a small child at a crucial moment, I cannot see the significance of a Murat look-alike, who wasn't.

No, what you can see is what you want to see.  You want it to be Gerry, you don't want it to be Murat.  Your prejudice is showing.