I think that the witnesses are totally credible. Didn't the police indicate that there was a group of three women who were together at the time? I must look for a link.
If they were driving along the highway, then they were going somewhere ... bank, shopping, dentist .. and they surely would have lotsof paperwork, emails, visa receipts, calendars, to support the date and time.
And, I can well image that the strange man was seered into their memory:
Thelma: Look at this weird guy walking down the highway!
Louise: He's dragging a suitcase. What's he doing?
Joan:He's probably filling it with rocks to sell on ebay! Haha!
Thelma: Do you think we should offer him a ride?
Lousie: No way! He's too weird!
Joan: He looks pretty clean cut. He's probably heading back to his car.
Thelma: What car? Did anyone see a car?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...lent-death-remains-unidentified-10403658.html
Hilarious!
Yes, I have to confess that even though the rational part of me says that he probably has nothing to do with it - much more likely statistically that the suitcase with remains was just tossed from one of the many cars passing by - certain things about him stick.
For example, the fact that he was seen by several witnesses (4 or 5 as far as the public know, and possibly more now that police have spoken to everyone in the town) shows that he really did exist. That's really something. I think Des Bray even said 'this man exists', because it's not something that can be taken for granted where there is only one witness report.
Given the degree of human error when it comes to retaining and recalling information to which witnesses are notoriously subject, the word of one witness alone is worth very little, even if it appears that the person is not being mendacious; many cases have gone pear-shaped because of reports from a single witness that turn out to be wrong or red herrings. (We never knew if Tannerman, for example, in the Madeleine McCann case, really existed, because we were relying entirely on the testimony of only one person.)
In this case however, we know that suitcase man really was in Wynarka, he really was carrying a suitcase, and he really did return on at least one occasion! Police must have asked for proof of dates from witnesses, and will probably have spent many hours with each witness going through what they saw and what their own movements were that entire day, just to put everything in context.
Secondly, the fact that the witness reports apparently corroborate each other, not only with regard to the timing and physical descriptions but also the feelings the witnesses seemed to have regarding the man's behavior, gives credibility to the witnesses themselves, who in corroborating each other, have proven themselves to be reasonably accurate and honest reporters. This is good for police not only with regard to the details regarding suitcase man himself, which one could take as being reasonably reliable, but in respect of any questions police might have to ask those people in the future.
I happen to think it is mighty strange, then, given that suitcase man really does exist, that he hasn't come forward. Especially considering the fact that there seems to be a family tradition of not coming forward in this case (mother, father, quiltmaker, dumper of the suitcase.) How can he have forgotten that he was in the town on two occasions not that long ago?
Of course, it's more than possible that our Wynarka witnesses are all part of a conspiracy in the town to cover something up, as has been hinted at. But until we have real evidence of that, we have to assume that they are telling the truth.
and any info, no matter how little we think it is, can be very useful. I agree that there are many coincidences here!
