Why Were We Lied to By the BBC ?

[slartibartfast]

This is the most positive identification we have of someone of interest in this case and some still want the quibble about it, I wonder why?

[Eleanor]

It’s the same thing.

Have you forgotten Innocent Until Proven Guilty?

[Mr Gray]

This is the most positive identification we have of someone of interest in this case and some still want the quibble about it, I wonder why?

because imo it is impossible to be 80 % sure that he saw gerry mccann  when he also states — States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.

[jassi]

Agreed but I can't imagine he would ever be used as a credible witness.

I'm sure he won't need to be. If it ever gets to that stage, there'll be far, far stronger evidence than that.

[Wonderfulspam]

was he....is he fairly sure the man he saw was gerry mccann...based simply on the way he was holding the child hes fairly sure it was Gerry Mccann.....I dont think he would make a very good witness

Perhaps SY agree, hence Not Suspects, add to that, the shear weight of abduction evidence in their possession.

[Eleanor]

This is the most positive identification we have of someone of interest in this case and some still want the quibble about it, I wonder why?

Someone who is 60% to 80% sure of a person whose face he didn't see  Not very sure, is it.

[Erngath]

This is the most positive identification we have of someone of interest in this case and some still want the quibble about it, I wonder why?

Most of the "quibbling" about this identification is taking place on another forum where those sceptics who adhere to the theory that Madeleine met with her fate on the previous Sunday/ Monday, are really not best pleased with this article.
Not at all!

[Wonderfulspam]

Someone who is 60% to 80% sure of a person whose face he didn't see  Not very sure, is it.

Why do you keep claiming he didn't see his face?

That's a myth.

He recalled the man had neither glasses nor beard, ergo, he saw his face.

[slartibartfast]

Have you forgotten Innocent Until Proven Guilty?

Irrelevant a degree of certainty and uncertainty are just opposite calculations

[jassi]

Someone who is 60% to 80% sure of a person whose face he didn't see  Not very sure, is it.

That's an average of 70%. Not to be sneezed at.  Well on the way towards certainty.

[slartibartfast]

Why do you keep claiming he didn't see his face?

That's a myth.

He recalled the man had neither glasses nor beard, ergo, he saw his face.

True

[barrier]

Most of the "quibbling" about this identification is taking place on another forum where those sceptics who adhere to the theory that Madeleine met with her fate on the previous Sunday/ Monday, are really not best pleased with this article.
Not at all!

Their opinion is the same as on here,it means diddly squat.

[Eleanor]

Why do you keep claiming he didn't see his face?

That's a myth.

He recalled the man had neither glasses nor beard, ergo, he saw his face.

I require a Cite for this.

[Wonderfulspam]

I require a Cite for this.

Are you new to this case?

He had an average build, a bit on the thin side. His hair was short, in a basic male cut, brown in colour. He cannot state if it was dark or lighter in tone. He did not wear glasses and had no beard or moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was not very good.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

[Erngath]

Their opinion is the same as on here,it means diddly squat.

Indeed.
It only proves again that you can please some of the people some of the time ...........etc
As  G'OD is about to find out!