McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Eleanor]

Well it seems no one wants to discuss it... Perhaps, it's, a, bitter pill for sceptics to swallow

It seems that way to me.  They were all so sure that this was never going to happen.

It isn't good idea to be certain sure about anything in this case.

[G-Unit]

Anyway no more Ms O’Doherty on here.

Quite right.  The statement in the Year End accounts, despite the arguments, doesn't prove that an application has been made to the ECHR. That's not to say it hasn't, just that there's no proof that it has.

My opinion is that an application has been made because I think the McCanns are now at war with the Portuguese Judiciary as well as with Amaral.

[jassi]

It seems that way to me.  They were all so sure that this was never going to happen.

It isn't good idea to be certain sure about anything in this case.

We'll be more certain when we see a case number for this appeal

[Eleanor]

We'll be more certain when we see a case number for this appeal

I'll be more certain when I see proof of a lot of things.

[jassi]

I'll be more certain when I see proof of a lot of things.

I'll drink to that   

[Robittybob1]

I'll drink to that   

Cite please.

[jassi]

I'll have to look in my crystal glass and see i I can find one 

[Mr Gray]

Quite right. The statement in the Year End accounts, despite the arguments, doesn't prove that an application has been made to the ECHR. That's not to say it hasn't, just that there's no proof that it has.

My opinion is that an application has been made because I think the McCanns are now at war with the Portuguese Judiciary as well as with Amaral.

Good to see you are now using the correct word... Prove
It is of course evidence an application has been made and I would say very strong evidence.  The mccanns are not at war with anyone.    Just, exercising their right to appeal to the ECHR

[G-Unit]

Good to see you are now using the correct word... Prove
It is of course evidence an application has been made and I would say very strong evidence.  The mccanns are not at war with anyone.    Just, exercising their right to appeal to the ECHR

I think you should cease pontificating about proof and evidence because you are clearly confused yourself.

Your post 971

So now we have proof that the case has, been lodged

[Mr Gray]

I think you should cease pontificating about proof and evidence because you are clearly confused yourself.

Your post 971

So now we have proof that the case has, been lodged

I would say we do have proof...on the balance of probablities...thats a reasonable statement...yours that the statement in the accounts was not evidence...is plainly wrong...then we have alice who wants to argue taht evidence and proof are the same thing...which I have shown to be wrong

[G-Unit]

I would say we do have proof...on the balance of probablities...thats a reasonable statement...yours that the statement in the accounts was not evidence...is plainly wrong...then we have alice who wants to argue taht evidence and proof are the same thing...which I have shown to be wrong

If you think the statement amounts to 'proof', as in your first post, then why did you alter it to 'evidence' later? On the balance of probabilities I take that to demonstrate your uncertainty about the nature of the statement.

My position remains the same. The statement in the accounts is evidence that the McCanns claim to have applied to the ECHR. It isn't proof that they have.

[barrier]

Well it seems no one wants to discuss it... Perhaps, it's, a, bitter pill for sceptics to swallow

Whats there to discuss,a vague passing of a mention on audited accounts pertaining to the year 2016/2017 which would be before a decision was made was it not,strange set of affairs imo.

[Mr Gray]

Whats there to discuss,a vague passing of a mention on audited accounts pertaining to the year 2016/2017 which would be before a decision was made was it not,strange set of affairs imo.

It is not vague it is quite precise.......The accounts may pertain to 16/17 but were drawn up in 17 when thedecision had been taken

[Mr Gray]

Quite right.  The statement in the Year End accounts, despite the arguments, doesn't prove that an application has been made to the ECHR. That's not to say it hasn't, just that there's no proof that it has.

My opinion is that an application has been made because I think the McCanns are now at war with the Portuguese Judiciary as well as with Amaral.

if your opinion is that an application has been made then you must have seen compelling evidence/proof  that it has been made. on what basis do you believe that the application is now a fact

[barrier]

It is not vague it is quite precise.......The accounts may pertain to 16/17 but were drawn up in 17 when thedecision had been taken

Whats it to do with the accounts? unless the McCanns have used them for their litigation.