Pathetic and Dishonest - Sedation

by **PeterMac** 30.10.14 10:54

One of the things that irritates me about the book is the total lack of "follow through' on the topics it mentions.
Here are three pages about sedation.
Pathetic and Dishonest - Sedation <a href=

Pathetic and Dishonest - Sedation <a href=

Pathetic and Dishonest - Sedation Sedati10

" />

Pathetic and Dishonest - Sedation Sedati11

" />

Quite apart from the drivelling and boring way in which it is written, the insistence on so many paragraphs about Sevoflurane ignores totally the inherent unlikeliness of its use.
It costs £ 180 per 250ml, only on prescription, and the clinical notes include

Causes serious eye irritation. Suspected of damaging fertility or the unborn child. May cause drowsiness or dizziness.
Wash thoroughly after handling. Obtain special instructions before use. Do not handle until all safety precautions have been read and understood. Wear protective gloves/protective clothing/eye protection/face protection. Avoid breathing mist or vapor. Use only outdoors or in a well-ventilated area.
If in eyes: Rinse cautiously with water for several minutes. Remove contact lenses, if present and easy to do. Continue rinsing. If eye irritation persists: Get medical advice/attention. If exposed or concerned: Get medical advice/attention. If inhaled: Remove person to fresh air and keep comfortable for breathing. Call a poison center/doctor if you feel unwell.

Sevoflurane is an inhaled anaesthetic that is often used to put children asleep for surgery.[4] During the process of waking up from the medication, it has been known to cause agitation and delirium.[4] It is not clear if this can be prevented.

It is also administered with oxygen, or with oxygen and Nitrous oxide, not on its own.

6 months to <3 years
2.8% in oxygen or 2 % with 65% N2O/35% oxygen

The failure to examine or explain this is frankly dishonest.

But the throwaway line at the end "Amateur anaesthesia can kill" must surely be followed up, for the benefit of people who do not know the whole story by a sentence such as
"But in this case we must remember that two people at the scene, both allegedly during the afternoon, and certain during the evening, and who notably and negligently failed to perform any checks on the remaining children
are both professional anaesthetists."

by **PeterMac** 30.10.14 11:01

[img]

Pathetic and Dishonest - Sedation Dog_za10

[/img]

Here we see the same pattern. Having discussed the McCanns discussion of the Zapata case, they again come to a totally wrong conclusion,
trying to put out that a Judge refused. . . When we know that this was first instance, and a defence submission - likely for obvious reasons to be 'spun'

Ironically, the accused man subsequently confessed to the crime.

without further explanation is downright dishonest

For the benefit of the six people in the world who do not know about the case, and for the three people who still refuse to accept the dogs' findings
Zapata did change his plea, and during his statement admitting his Guilt made it clear that he HAD moved his wife's body around for the 25 years, and that the dogs had been absolutely accurate in every place to which they had alerted.

S&S's failure to state that is, frankly, dishonest.

by biggles 30.10.14 16:51

By trying to argument what could & couldn't have happened, they've (imho) given us the basic outline of what happened.

Brown discoloration on Madeleine's arm due to administration of drug (check - see photos)
Twin's hair cut short before it could be tested (check)
Extreme weariness noticed in Madeleine (check)
Subject wakes before / during drug takes effect (check) - possibly attributed to one of Kate's TV interviews)
"Cardiac arrest may occur" - well I guess that's what happened then.

They try to suggest that all these things would be noticed (such as the odour of the drug) and wouldn't K&G have noticed that? well they probably did, as there's a good chance it was they who were doing the administering.

Quite sad that there is a term for it (DFSA - drug facilitated sexual assault), again its the book mentions it

by biggles 30.10.14 17:01

The book's explanations of the cadaver dogs is hilariously bad.

"Another key point, the authors were repeatedly told, is that the term 'cadaver dog' is something of a misnomer. Such an animal can indicate where a dead body is or has been, but could more precisely be called a 'human remains' dog. It's an important distinction.

Seriously? Is that supposed to disprove that the dogs found cadaver scent? Is this the best form of rhetoric these fools can muster?

"can indicate" - well thats good that they acknowledge this, because that's exactly what happened.
"human remains dog" - yup, human remains is another way of describing a dead body
"its an important distinction" - in your feeble minds it might be, but anyone else can see that its the exact same thing.

Its just so amateurish and so so bad...

by **PeterMac** 30.10.14 17:51

biggles wrote:
Its just so amateurish and so so bad...

I read that as a feeble suggestion that if you were wandering round the apartment and your penis fell off, and lay behind the sofa for some hours
before your wife threw it away, then a dog might detect where it had been, even though you were still alive - though very depressed !

Anyone know if any of Madeleine's fingers fell off, or ears. Did any previous tenant mention missing body parts
It is just disgusting.
The dogs indicate very clearly what happened,and where, and a probable, or certainly possible and credible, sequence of events afterwards.

by jeanmonroe 30.10.14 18:46

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/480081/Madeleine-McCann-Sniffer-dogs-used-in-April-Jones-case-enlisted-in-search

Tito and Muzzy, two specialist cadaver dogs from South Wales Police, worked with handlers Sally Richards and David Brake combing the area around the iron sheet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I wonder WHY DCI Mahogany used/deployed, at great expense, Tito and Muzzy, two specialist cadaver dogs, BETTER, apparently, than EVRD dogs, Eddie and Keela, in Portugal, if he WASN'T 'looking' for a 'cadavar'?

Why didn't he just use, Wayne and Waynetta, the local 'sniffer/tracker' dogs?

Oh, i know why, 'THEY WUZ 'AVIN A FAGGGGGG!'

imo, the sooner the wee mite is 'given up' the better for everyone.

And i'm including both the McCann and Healy families in that.

THEY, both families, KNOW that Madeleine IS 'alive and well and unharmed', (hence the total LACK of 'searching' by either family) waiting for the big 'reveal' or that Madeleine is in a cold, dank, dark 'place'.

If she's in the 'latter', how do they sleep at night, possibly knowing that?

I'm just so thankful i'm not 'related' to either 'family'

All imo, obviously.

by **PeterMac** 31.10.14 11:00

@UnterdenTeppich 25m25 minutes ago
@summersandswan Book How does "not a shred of evidence" go with Scotland Yard reanalysing DNA from the hired car?

by jeanmonroe 31.10.14 13:24

I still 'don't get it'

WHY would DCI Mahogany use/deploy TWO (Tito and Muzzy) SPECIALIST 'cadavar' dogs, in Portugal, if he was NOT 'looking' for a 'cadavar'?

Drugs 'dogs' ONLY 'alert to drugs, don't they?

"Money" dogs ONLY alert to 'money', don't they?

"Bomb" dogs ONLY alert to 'explosives' don't they?

"Cadavar" dogs ONLY alert to 'cadavars' don't they?

DCI Mahogany did NOT use/deploy 'money/drugs/bomb' dogs in Portugal, did he?

ONLY 'specialist' CADAVAR dogs!

Do we think it will come out, in 'released' Portuguese 'files' WHY DCI Mahogany only took 'cadavar' dogs with him to 'search' in Portugal?

What 'intell' did he possibly have access to?

And where did that possible 'intell' come from?

From the 'few things' that DP knew/considered were 'relevent and pertinent' to 'establish the material truth' about the 'disappearance' of Madeleine McCann?

by Stillthinking 31.10.14 15:12

That's the first time I've seen Kate's mention of the "tea stain" being linked to possible sedation. Is that an assumption the authors have come to themselves or was the sedation-stain link mentioned by Kate previously? I've seen her mention of the stain but no explanation of what she thought it might be.

by Liz Eagles 31.10.14 21:19

Sometimes when using hydrogen peroxide to remove stains from fabric it can leave what looks like a tea stain.

Hydrogen peroxide is a much better cleaner than bleach and leaves no smell. It's a good all round household cleaner.

Hydrogen peroxide is very cheap and readily available in supermarkets. I believe it also comes in home hair dye kits.