Wandering Off Topic

[Vertigo Swirl]

From what I've seen from the official statement, Martin Smith was answering a direct question as to whether he thought the person he saw was Murat.
And it looks like theirs was an incidental, casual acquaintance, with Smith stating they'd 'met in a bar a couple of years before'. There's reports of them bumping into eachother infrequently.
So they weren't friends and Smith didn't proffer this proclamation unprompted.

I?m not sure what gave you the impression that Smith was answering a direct question about Murat. To me it looks like he gave the information without prompting, otherwise the sentence would have started with ?questioned? or ?urged? to denote police interrogation.

States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.
? Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at that time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately.

- indeed why would the police ask him if it was Robert Murat he saw if they didn?t know that he would have recognised him if it had been?

No sorry, I think he volunteered this information and was motivated to come forward because he didn?t want Murat to be falsely accused.  It doesn?t matter if he was only a passing acquaintance, Smith came forward imo because he wanted to make the cops aware that the guy they saw carrying away the child they believed to be Madeleine (a belief they kept to themselves for 3 weeks) was not the bloke being plastered all over the news.

[Uncle Jr]

I?m not sure what gave you the impression that Smith was answering a direct question about Murat. To me it looks like he gave the information without prompting, otherwise the sentence would have started with ?questioned? or ?urged? to denote police interrogation.

- indeed why would the police ask him if it was Robert Murat he saw if they didn?t know that he would have recognised him if it had been?

No sorry, I think he volunteered this information and was motivated to come forward because he didn?t want Murat to be falsely accused.  It doesn?t matter if he was only a passing acquaintance, Smith came forward imo because he wanted to make the cops aware that the guy they saw carrying away the child they believed to be Madeleine (a belief they kept to themselves for 3 weeks) was not the bloke being plastered all over the news.

He didn't. All of that is summary answers to questions. Questions like 'where did you see him'.
'He would have recognised him immediately'. That's not a cogent sentence without a question.
Besides, 'he would have recognised Ignacio, the dentist, it wasn't him'. He was specifically asked if he looked like their current prime suspect, which was the point of the interview.

[Uncle Jr]

I?m not sure what gave you the impression that Smith was answering a direct question about Murat. To me it looks like he gave the information without prompting, otherwise the sentence would have started with ?questioned? or ?urged? to denote police interrogation.

- indeed why would the police ask him if it was Robert Murat he saw if they didn?t know that he would have recognised him if it had been?

No sorry, I think he volunteered this information and was motivated to come forward because he didn?t want Murat to be falsely accused.  It doesn?t matter if he was only a passing acquaintance, Smith came forward imo because he wanted to make the cops aware that the guy they saw carrying away the child they believed to be Madeleine (a belief they kept to themselves for 3 weeks) was not the bloke being plastered all over the news.

You missed out the crucial 3 words -He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT, as he would have recognised him immediately. Upon being asked, he states that he was accompanied by his wife...

[Joe Blogs]

You missed out the crucial 3 words -He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT, as he would have recognised him immediately. Upon being asked, he states that he was accompanied by his wife...

I may be missing something here, Uncle, but why wouldn't the Smiths automatically be asked, 'could the man that you met have been Robert Murat', after all, I presume Murat was still a suspect at that time?

[Vertigo Swirl]

You missed out the crucial 3 words -He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT, as he would have recognised him immediately. Upon being asked, he states that he was accompanied by his wife...

I didn?t miss it out, that was the next paragraph in which the police asked him who he was with when he saw the man.  It really is very clear:

At being asked, states that when he saw the individual he was accompanied by his wife, MARY SMITH, his son, PETER SMITH, his daughter-in-law, S***, his grandchildren of 13 and 6 years of age (children of PETER) TA*** and CO**, his daughter AOIFE (12 years of age), and his other two grandchildren (AI****** (10 years old) and EI**** (four years old). These are children of his daughter B***** who was in Ireland.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I may be missing something here, Uncle, but why wouldn't the Smiths automatically be asked, 'could the man that you met have been Robert Murat', after all, I presume Murat was still a suspect at that time?

Exactly, unless he had already volunteered that he knew Murat why would the police ask him if it was Murat that he saw?  Makes no sense and it?s quite clear from the witness statement that he volunteered this information unprompted, otherwise it would say ?when asked, he stated that the man definitely was not Murat?.  IMO.