I listened intently to your utterances on MTV news concerning the death of the four-year-old boy in Grenville and would like to thank you for your revelation. You said that the documents from the hospital revealed that the cause of death is multiple fractures; so this rules out drowning as even the cops suggested due to the amount of liquid in the hole.
But Sir, I must ask you if anybody saw what had happened or whether you are basing what you said, on circumstantial evidence? It is hard to believe that falling into a hole with liquid and soft matter can result in multiple fractures enough to cause death as you said in the news. Did the autopsy suggest what may have caused the broken bones and what parts of the body these broken bones are? Can somebody collide with material hard enough to break bones but not cause bruises or cuts on their body? What else did the autopsy reveal that can be taken as factual? Did the child breathe in any of the stuff in the man hole?
You said you represent the father so maybe that’s why you spoke the way you did. Some weeks ago I read an editorial on this paper with a load of unanswered questions relating to the boy’s death. Mr Edwin some questions are still left hanging while you have come to the conclusions of what you said in MTV news. Maybe it’s your focus on looking into placing a suit on somebody that caused you to flip quickly over the cause of death (or so it seems).
That death of the little boy still remains a mystery; we need the whole story which should be found after intense investigation. I don’t know that any autopsy report can say what cause the broken bones and no one has come forward to say what they saw. The report can describe the condition of the damage to the body. It is now left up to the police to do the rest. Or should we call Perry Mason or Sherlock Holmes? Maybe the truth will come out when the matter goes before the court.