The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as many of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!

Clarence Mitchell: Presence of McCanns in Lisbon was an error

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Clarence Mitchell: Presence of McCanns in Lisbon was an error

Post by vaguely1 on 30.01.10 18:10

@jack wrote:Let's see....but remember...as yet we have only heard Amaral's witnesses and one of them said that there is a fifty fifty chance Maddie is still alive, so he doesn't think much of the dog's evidence.


50/50 was what stuck in my head. Forget all the trumpet blowing and old boys network.....the 50/50 is the important thing. It's the only thing that actually involved Madeleine's welfare.

____________________
Does my IP look big in this?
avatar
vaguely1

Posts : 1992
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Clarence Mitchell: Presence of McCanns in Lisbon was an error

Post by aiyoyo on 31.01.10 6:47

Imo even if the AG thought the evidence weights heavily on Maddie is dead ...he would still have played safe by saying 50/50 in order to appear to stay objective on the case.

Either there is evidence Maddie is dead or there isnt. What does it mean by a half-half...maybe dead maybe not? My take is he is saying she is dead but we'll need a break into the irrefutable proof.

If there wasnt any evidence of that he would have said so.
IF there was evidence of abduction he would also have said so.

To say 100% then shelved the case is to appear ridiculous. 50/50 in this case, imo, meant she is dead but he couldn't possibly quantify it as 100% because the evidence is not yet 100% but good enough to show she is dead.
avatar
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Reputation : 321
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Clarence Mitchell: Presence of McCanns in Lisbon was an error

Post by vaguely1 on 31.01.10 8:46

He could have presumed her dead by the hands of her parents, or he could have presumed her dead at the hands of a third party. These would be fair assumptions to make based on the time she's been missing for.

In my opinion she is probably dead. But then again in my opinion Jaycee Lee Dugard and Natascha Kampusch were probably dead too.

I hope he was staying objective.....it might be the child's only chance.

____________________
Does my IP look big in this?
avatar
vaguely1

Posts : 1992
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Clarence Mitchell: Presence of McCanns in Lisbon was an error

Post by Cath on 31.01.10 11:10

I couldn't agree more Vaguely.
Nobody would have blamed him if he'd said it's a 70/30 or 90/10 chance she's dead, considering the time that's passed since she disappeared.
If she's still alive, men (and women) like him are her only chance to be found.

Cath

Posts : 597
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-12-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Clarence Mitchell: Presence of McCanns in Lisbon was an error

Post by vaguely1 on 31.01.10 11:16

Inyx wrote:I couldn't agree more Vaguely.
Nobody would have blamed him if he'd said it's a 70/30 or 90/10 chance she's dead, considering the time that's passed since she disappeared.
If she's still alive, men (and women) like him are her only chance to be found.

I actually included a long list of 60/40, 70/30 etc in my post and scrubbed it.... I couldn't work out where I was going with it. But the point is, 50/50 is pretty good odds given the circumstances. It means it could go either way and there's no bias towards one outcome.

____________________
Does my IP look big in this?
avatar
vaguely1

Posts : 1992
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Clarence Mitchell: Presence of McCanns in Lisbon was an error

Post by aiyoyo on 01.02.10 11:24

@vaguely1 wrote:He could have presumed her dead by the hands of her parents, or he could have presumed her dead at the hands of a third party. These would be fair assumptions to make based on the time she's been missing for.

In my opinion she is probably dead. But then again in my opinion Jaycee Lee Dugard and Natascha Kampusch were probably dead too.

I hope he was staying objective.....it might be the child's only chance.

I dont think the comment was made on the basis on presumption that with passage of time she is likely dead than alive.

It would most certainly have been on the presumption of existing evidence so far, especially since he had made this under oath during the recent hearing. I dont believe a presumption based on passage of time justifies saying it under oath.

Imho, he would have a pretty good idea whose hands caused her demise, but again I dont think he could have pointed at the parents without appearing ridiculous when evidence is not yet 100%,and without appearing void of objective. If there was no evidence of abduction, logic dictates she couldnt have died under the hands of stranger. The answer is obvious, couldnt be any other than her parents.
avatar
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Reputation : 321
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum