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

[jassi]

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.

I haven't mentioned Gerry at all. Identifying Smithman is crucial, whoever he turns out to be. Identifying Murat look-alike seems much less important as he was only seen after the event and wasn't carrying a child.

[pegasus]

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.

 &%+((£

Good comparision Alfred. The people who claimed that RM was at the scene that night were FP RO ROB DP SB CP and reportedly [Name removed] and AW. The thing all those people have in common is that they did not know RM at all, not even by sight. They made their identifications only retrospectively after seeing RM on a later date either in person or on TV.   

The people who claimed they saw GM carrying a child that night were MS and (in a different location) tourists RM and SM. They did not know GM at all, not even by sight. They made their identifications only retrospectively after seeing GM on TV at a later date.

All those identifications were absolutely wrong, they are examples of human brains subconsciously and retrospectively merging in memory two people they did not know.

[Alfred R Jones]

I haven't mentioned Gerry at all. Identifying Smithman is crucial, whoever he turns out to be. Identifying Murat look-alike seems much less important as he was only seen after the event and wasn't carrying a child.

It would be quite important if it turned out those witnesses were right and Murat was lying though wouldn't it?

[Alfred R Jones]

Good comparision Alfred. The people who claimed that RM was at the scene that night were FP RO ROB DP SB CP and reportedly [Name removed] and AW. The thing all those people have in common is that they did not know RM at all, not even by sight. They made their identifications only retrospectively after seeing RM on a later date either in person or on TV.   

The people who claimed they saw GM carrying a child that night were MS and (in a different location) tourists RM and SM. They did not know GM at all, not even by sight. They made their identifications only retrospectively after seeing GM on TV at a later date.

All those identifications were absolutely wrong, they are examples of human brains subconsciously and retrospectively merging in memory two people they did not know.

[jassi]

It would be quite important if it turned out those witnesses were right and Murat was lying though wouldn't it?

Not necessarily. If he had lied about his whereabouts, (which hasn't been proved), it could have been for reasons totally unrelated to Madeleine's disappearance.

[Admin]

Good comparision Alfred. The people who claimed that RM was at the scene that night were FP RO ROB DP SB CP and reportedly [Name removed] and AW. The thing all those people have in common is that they did not know RM at all, not even by sight. They made their identifications only retrospectively after seeing RM on a later date either in person or on TV.   

The people who claimed they saw GM carrying a child that night were MS and (in a different location) tourists RM and SM. They did not know GM at all, not even by sight. They made their identifications only retrospectively after seeing GM on TV at a later date.

All those identifications were absolutely wrong, they are examples of human brains subconsciously and retrospectively merging in memory two people they did not know.

A good point well expressed.

[Alfred R Jones]

Not necessarily. If he had lied about his whereabouts, (which hasn't been proved), it could have been for reasons totally unrelated to Madeleine's disappearance.

It would be important to establish the reason for lying to the police though don't you agree? He was an arguido after all! 

PS: I don't believe he was lying so don't all jump down my throat.

[ferryman]

Not necessarily. If he had lied about his whereabouts, (which hasn't been proved), it could have been for reasons totally unrelated to Madeleine's disappearance.

Agreed!

[Alice Purjorick]

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.

 &%+((£

Why ask a question then answer it yourself ?
T.O.W.I.A

[ferryman]

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.

Surely the key point is that, (at least so far as we are aware) there is nothing linking Murat to Madeleine's abduction.

Murat was legally and lawfully entitled to be out on the night (whether he actually was or not) and there might be reasons wholly unconnected to Madeleine's disappearance why he might not be keen for it be known that he was out and about.

At most, that amount to an informal witness's obligation to answer all questions truthfully (an internal Portuguese matter, I imagine, they would not choose to pursue this far down the line.)

There was also the find of Summers and Swan that a landline phone call was made from the Murats' residence to his girlfriend at (I think) around Midnight?

Murat must have been home to make that call.

[faithlilly]

It would be quite important if it turned out those witnesses were right and Murat was lying though wouldn't it?

As it would be with Gerry.

[ShiningInLuz]

Not necessarily. If he had lied about his whereabouts, (which hasn't been proved), it could have been for reasons totally unrelated to Madeleine's disappearance.

His mother's statement is that he was home with her from about 8pm to about midnight and that he never left the house in that period.

Therefore, for there to be anything in this would require Murat to lie, and his mother to lie, and we are in conspiracy territory.

It's a lot more believable that some people who did not know him at the time, but became alerted to him later, simply mistakenly identified him.

[jassi]

His mother's statement is that he was home with her from about 8pm to about midnight and that he never left the house in that period.

Therefore, for there to be anything in this would require Murat to lie, and his mother to lie, and we are in conspiracy territory.

It's a lot more believable that some people who did not know him at the time, but became alerted to him later, simply mistakenly identified him.

One thing that puzzles me is why anyone should have specifically noticed this person (whoever he was) given that he would have been one of dozens, if not hundreds of people  out and about after the event that night.

[pegasus]

His mother's statement is that he was home with her from about 8pm to about midnight and that he never left the house in that period.

Therefore, for there to be anything in this would require Murat to lie, and his mother to lie, and we are in conspiracy territory.

It's a lot more believable that some people who did not know him at the time, but became alerted to him later, simply mistakenly identified him.

Agreed, it's retrospective mistaken identification. But it's important to realise that FP RO ROB DP CP SB [Name removed] and AW were not deliberately lying - they did see a different man that night, who is bilingual and (to people who know neither of them, and none of those 8 witnesses did) vaguely resembles RM. I've already pointed people to DP's rog statement, he saw and briefly spoke with this man, thought it might be RM, but was certainly not sure of that, which is why he did not fly out to Portugal on 15th June.

[faithlilly]

Agreed, it's retrospective mistaken identification. But it's important to realise that FP RO ROB DP CP SB [Name removed] and AW were not deliberately lying - they did see a different man that night, who is bilingual and (to people who know neither of them, and none of those 8 witnesses did) vaguely resembles RM. I've already pointed people to DP's rog statement, he saw and briefly spoke with this man, thought it might be RM, but was certainly not sure of that, which is why he did not fly out to Portugal on 15th June.

Which would suggest that FP, RO and ROB were adamant that the man they saw was RM and didn't change their stance after the stand-off.