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 some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

Clarence Mitchell: Presence of McCanns in Lisbon was an error - Page 2 Mm11

Clarence Mitchell: Presence of McCanns in Lisbon was an error - Page 2 Regist10
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 some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

Clarence Mitchell: Presence of McCanns in Lisbon was an error - Page 2 Mm11

Clarence Mitchell: Presence of McCanns in Lisbon was an error - Page 2 Regist10

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

Clarence Mitchell: Presence of McCanns in Lisbon was an error - Page 2 Empty Re: Clarence Mitchell: Presence of McCanns in Lisbon was an error

Post by aiyoyo 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.
aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

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