McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[jassi]

Better late than never don't you think?
Though Smithman might not think that.

[G-Unit]

If you want to be in the same state of denial as the sceptics so be it...it really doesnt matter. Its quite obvious that an action has been lodged with the ECHR but Im not surprised that some dont want to accept it. On another thread it is taken for granted that Mr Smith has made a certain statement to O'doherty yet we have no record of what smith actually said only the journalists word for it...yet posters have accepted it as the absolute truth...the double staandards comes as no surprise

I expect the McCanns have applied to the ECHR, but I don't accept that a note in their Y/E accounts is evidence.

The BBC definitely changed their Panorama recording to cut out what they said about the Smiths. I can think of no reason why they would do that except the reason given by Gemma O'Doherty.  Those casting doubt on her story need to explain that in order to prove her wrong.

[Angelo222]

If it's stated in the accounts then it is ridiculous to suggest an action has not been made

I agree but in my opinion it is a futile application.

[Angelo222]

I expect the McCanns have applied to the ECHR, but I don't accept that a note in their Y/E accounts is evidence.

The BBC definitely changed their Panorama recording to cut out what they said about the Smiths. I can think of no reason why they would do that except the reason given by Gemma O'Doherty.  Those casting doubt on her story need to explain that in order to prove her wrong.

Making an application to the ECHR is free and involves merely answering preset question in a booklet.  It is not a complicated process, any competent individual could do so, it does not require a lawyer.  Making such an application is no guarantee that it will progress to any stage.

As for the Smith sighting, I think it is time Martin Smith spoke out and reveal his true thoughts.

[Mr Gray]

I agree but in my opinion it is a futile application.

Have you done much research...I have and I would say they have a fairly strong case..On what grounds do you think they havent

[Mr Gray]

Making an application to the ECHR is free and involves merely answering preset question in a booklet.  It is not a complicated process, any competent individual could do so, it does not require a lawyer.  Making such an application is no guarantee that it will progress to any stage.

As for the Smith sighting, I think it is time Martin Smith spoke out and reveal his true thoughts.

I would welcome MS giving his true thoughts...but thats all they are ...his thoughts...nothing more

[Mr Gray]

I expect the McCanns have applied to the ECHR, but I don't accept that a note in their Y/E accounts is evidence.

The BBC definitely changed their Panorama recording to cut out what they said about the Smiths. I can think of no reason why they would do that except the reason given by Gemma O'Doherty.  Those casting doubt on her story need to explain that in order to prove her wrong.

of course its evidence...you are confusing evidence and proof...

[Alice Purjorick]

of course its evidence...you are confusing evidence and proof...

So easily done; especially as Roger's Brontosaurus offers "proof" as a synonym of "evidence".
We has a difference of opinion it seems.
Maybe you will apprise us why you believe the thesaurus to be in error?

[Mr Gray]

So easily done; especially as Roger's Brontosaurus offers "proof" as a synonym of "evidence".
We has a difference of opinion it seems.
Maybe you will apprise us why you believe the thesaurus to be in error?

So you don't know the difference either

[Brietta]

I expect the McCanns have applied to the ECHR, but I don't accept that a note in their Y/E accounts is evidence.

The BBC definitely changed their Panorama recording to cut out what they said about the Smiths. I can think of no reason why they would do that except the reason given by Gemma O'Doherty.  Those casting doubt on her story need to explain that in order to prove her wrong.

The only clarification required is from the person making unsubstantiated claims ~ Ms O'Doherty.  A terribly simple process since she does not have to protect her sources which have already been released by her into the public domain.
Without provenance I remain unconvinced by her and her allegations. Not that it really makes one whit of difference to anything other than ~ in my opinion ~ her professional reputation.

[jassi]

The only clarification required is from the person making unsubstantiated claims ~ Ms O'Doherty.  A terribly simple process since she does not have to protect her sources which have already been released by her into the public domain.
Without provenance I remain unconvinced by her and her allegations. Not that it really makes one whit of difference to anything other than ~ in my opinion ~ her professional reputation.

No doubt she will be devastated to learn that

[G-Unit]

of course its evidence...you are confusing evidence and proof...

It's evidence that they say they've applied to the ECHR, not that they have.

Gemma O'Doherty said the BBC agreed to cut their comment about the Smiths from their video and they did so. Unless you have evidence that they did it for another reason you can't prove her wrong.

[Robittybob1]

So easily done; especially as Roger's Brontosaurus offers "proof" as a synonym of "evidence".
We has a difference of opinion it seems.
Maybe you will apprise us why you believe the thesaurus to be in error?

Synonym - definition  "a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language, for example shut is a synonym of close".
So if you are confusing proof with evidence they might be close but not exactly the same but nearly the same.
What is the slight difference?

[Robittybob1]

No doubt she will be devastated to learn that

I think you have missed the point Brietta is trying to maintain GO'D's reputation. 

[G-Unit]

I think you have missed the point Brietta is trying to maintain GO'D's reputation.

How very kind.