Wha? Wait a minute. Firstly, you disputed with Davel the “reality” of the evidence the PJ have, suggesting that Davel is wrong to say there is no real evidence of McCann involvement. Secondly there is evidence which eliminates them but because it mostly comes from the Tapas group you have decided it’s not “real”. So, I ask again what is the “real” evidence that suggests McCann involvement?
'Real' evidence is a concept invented by Davel, imo, so it means nothing to me. Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion, because evident things are undoubted. (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence)
So evidence, it seems, needs to be something which is evident. Evident means easily seen or understood.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/evidentThe evidence given by the holiday group is not easy to see or understand, so cannot be described as undoubted. People disagree with each other, with the group statement they prepared, and, in some cases, with their own statements. Their evidence is also disagreed with by other people's statements.