Tuesday, July 29, 2014

The problem with cuddle cat


Initially we are told it was an early 4th birthday present from her uncle, thus implying she was given it immediately prior or close to the start of their vacation.
It is unlikely then to have been have favorite comforter as those are usually something given from birth or in the early months.
An attachment form between it and the child and never the twain shall part without much tears and tantrums causing parent to resort to sneaky laundering and ad hoc repairs until the child moves on.
From the pictures it would seem that the pink blanket we saw on the bed was in fact her comforter, her favorite must have.

Given cuddlecat was allegedly an early birthday present , when did kate take it into to work with her in the 2 weeks before the vacation, that she dealt with allegedly multiple corpses in her part time work as a locum, why would she then take it out on house calls to certify a dearth and how did cuddlecat come into contact with said corpse?

If as she then tells us it was an old toy and Maddie's favorite, how did she separate Maddie from her favorite toy and comforter, more importantly why? and why did she then take it out on house calls?

Was the removal of Maddie's comforter a form of punishment?
You are naughty you lose your comforter perhaps?
Was it used as a form of control over Maddie?
Good Maddie gets the toy, bad Maddie doesn't?

Neither explains how cadaverine got on it.

Having dealt with many corpses in various states of death from recent to icky to OMG it's a jigsaw puzzle ( trees and no brakes on a steep hill make for an interesting night)
Appropriate clothing is worn, and, if it is a GP certifying a death, most times they will look at the body and it it pretty obvious they are dead or they will look for a pulse wrist , neck , stethoscope on occasion.
Contact with a corpse is minimal , especially if the death is expected.

What they won't be doing is carrying around their child's alleged favorite toy and touching the body with it, especially since their will likely be relatives or medical/nursing/ carers present and they will ask what the heck are you doing with that toy? only probably not as politely.

What is noticeable is, kate has neither confirmed nor denied the claim, probably figuring out if she says nothing then it will eventually be forgotten about.

I would be interested to know what the relative who said this was told by kate, or, if it was an assumption on their part, in which case, surely they would have thought to themselves, who checks a dead body for life with a child's cuddly toy?

If we go with it being the new toy, the early birthday present, then kate is again stuck for an answer in reply to how cadaverine got on it.

Cross contamination won't work if she claims it contaminated her pants and the child's top whilst in the suitcase since, if that were the case, every item in contact with any of those items would have been contaminated and we would be looking at a suitcase full of items, which, as we know, was not the case.

If we go with her wearing the check pants and taking cuddlecat on her rounds as a GP certifying multiple deaths, how does she explain the child's t shirt being indicated for cadaverine?

There is no logical explanation.

It wouldn't fit her, and, wouldn't have been worn by cuddlecat and, who takes a child's t shirt to work and when they are certifying corpses?

What I would like to see done is luminol the whole apartment, even after this time it would/could still indicate any presence of blood and also show what clean up had been done and where.

Blood on the wall and floor can reveal a lot such as low or high velocity spread, direction, position of the body and all sorts.
Also what would show up on their clothing and in the hire car?

Luminol indicating in the hire car is a huge problem for them since it wouldn't show for sweat or meat or fish or any excuse they used.
What would Kate's pants show if she still has them/

The same for any clothing of the twins and Maddie, especially if the room is as it has been kept before the vacation.

Luminol would be very revealing and would cause them huge problems if there is a lot of blood spilt
If it revealed behind the sofa where the dogs indicated then they are in trouble, lifting all the tiles would show any spread, even if not visible to the human eye.

Slightly off topic, regarding the dog bite.

What treatment did kate seek given that rabies is found in Portugal although confined to bats mostly, it is still a remote possibility that a dog could be infected (personally if there is rabies in any country i will assume all mammals to be a risk such as cats and dogs, since we may not always see an infected stray cat or dog)
If it broke the skin (which would explain the bloody footprint) then there may be damage to her jogging pants, blood on her trainer and would require cleaning, possibly sutures or butterfly stitches depending on size and depth plus there would be a dressing over it, bruising and possible scarring.

No one has mentioned seeing any dressings or bruising on her calf nor commented on it in their rogs, and this is something worth noting, a friend was bitten by a stray dog etc etc.

Kate made no mention of her bruising until we questioned it and then it was initially via one of the tapas group.

I wonder if the tapas 7 realise they could face charges as accessories after the fact as well as perverting the course of justice, obstruction of justice, filing a false police report and lying as witnesses.

They would also be liable to face being sued for any monies they were awarded out of court, not fun if, as they claim, it was all donated to the fund and by default the mccann's pockets.
It's hard to pay back hundreds of thousands when you don't have it and they would have to then sue the mccanns for return of it perhaps claiming they were conned by them, the money was obtained fraudulently by the mccanns or it was to go only on the search etc.
It could get real messy.

1 comment:

Post a comment