The third car, a “greeny teal looking” car without tinted windows had been in motion, driven by a man she got only a “fleeting” look at but who had given her a knowing glance.
She described him as “thick-necked”.
“He was sitting back from the steering wheel,” she said.
“He was a big man … late fifties, a man who has been in the sun a long time, that old weathered look.
“I can still as I am talking to you … see him.
“I am firm I saw that man; that car was there.”
Inside the divided inquest into the three-year-old’s disappearance
bbm
I do not remember the FFC being challenged at all on her account of what she witnessed at the inquest. Her statement gives me the impression that she has been challenged on her sighting of this man and vehichle or perhaps the other vehichles before. IMO