Why is it that every 'anti' McCann resorts to the tried and tested line (ah but they are guilty of neglect) when pro's say, they are innocent until proven guilty, when we say that, you know that we mean innocent of murder as things stand today.
The neglect part of the case was debated fully in the begininng, it is way past that now.
I have seen virtually nobody disagree with the fact that leaving their children alone was neglectful.
When discussing this topic with Pro's try and come up with something new, or at least accept that we agree they were neglectful.
The pro's are agruing about the right to be innocent until proven guilty, what is wrong with that?
We are arguing that no evidence is supporting the suggestion that the McCanns were responsible for harming their child, why cant you accept that?
2007-09-18
00:48:51
·
15 answers
·
asked by
LEXY
4
in
Current Events