Bertie reckons he can prove he is correct

RTE is reporting that Bertie says he engaged a currencies expert who can prove that the money lodged was not dollars.

Is the Tribunal not morally obliged to ask for this expert to testify or to allow Bertie's team to put him in the box? Doesn't Bertie have a constitutional right to reply to the accusations levelled against him by faceless number crunchers? Wouldn't we all like to hear it?

The fact that Ahern's team have consistently refused to offer any proof of their supposed calculations, despite constant request, speaks volumes. Does it even exist?

How can they offer proof when they can't call witnesses? Bertie's counsel has set out the basis of the contention [see droghedasouth post in thread about the net and Bertie]. Why not let them prove it?

[The Earl of Desmond]

The fact that everyone else gets a going rate but Bertie need an actuarial calculation kinda gives the game away.

I lodged 3 different currencies to an account 2 weeks ago and got three different lodgement tallys so I know exactly where the Stg amount came from US$ = x £amount + ZAR = x £amount = € = x£amount. So if I am ever up at a tribunal I can show them the statement with the lodgement breakdown. It seemed pretty easy but I guess they do things differently in Bertieland.

Very good point made by Miriam Lord in the IT - wondering if when Bertie was sitting outside the bank waiting for herself did he have a balaclava

Bertie's calculation appears to be based on the complex mathematical operation of addition. This difficult mathematical function is generally only taught to honours students pursuing degrees in pure maths. Whereas "2 + 2 = 4" leaves you or I baffled, certain academic geniuses and actuaries can read it like their native language.

[toxic avenger]

Didn't want this thread to die without some comment from someone, nearly two weeks since the last entry and I'm sure the 'formula' has been discussed since...

[Insider2007]

Didn't want this thread to die without some comment from someone, nearly two weeks since the last entry and I'm sure the 'formula' has been discussed since...

He admitted on Monday that it . . . em . . . doesn't work. So the explosive evidence that the bank was wrong became explosive evidence that the tribunal evidence may be right. Oh dear. :P