Re: Jane Tanner Liar?

by **AnneCGuedes** 03.12.24 0:48

Thank you, Clishmaclaver, I'm sorry I didn't express myself correctly, "why" only concerned the "when" whether you had or not a conviction about the moment of death, actually why not on Wednesday ?
I agree with the sofa area and light sedation but why "before the parents went out" ?

by Clishmaclaver 03.12.24 1:21

AnneCGuedes wrote:Thank you, Clishmaclaver, I'm sorry I didn't express myself correctly, "why" only concerned the "when" whether you had or not a conviction about the moment of death, actually why not on Wednesday ?
I agree with the sofa area and light sedation but why "before the parents went out"

The fall from the sofa would no doubt have been when they were out.

I mentioned the resuscitation in the sofa area after sedation and before they went out, only because of Genreith's idea about M being given something (I'll not say what) before bedtime, which could have gone very wrong, hence resuscitation.
See [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - MMcC-doku
Click on backlinks at bottom of page. Choose forensic articles from list on left - click. Look down the list to No. 11 Cause of Death

It is interesting and anaphylactic shock could have been involved.

I did say in my post on the other thread - Bernt Stellander Interview [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - that G & K wouldn't have gone out if it had happened before the children went to bed. Then, again, who knows? We don't know everything about their movements and lies have been told. T staff could have been confused, also. One could have gone out and then the other could have followed at some point. And there was supposed to be someone missing from the table each night!

Perhaps resuscitation did take place when they discovered M after having been out, and thought there was a chance of survival, hence the fine blood spray on walls, curtains and sofa back.

Anyway, a big mystery. -- or CMOMM.

by **AnneCGuedes** 03.12.24 14:46

So you think "it" could have happened on Thursday. I think anaphylactic shock happens within minutes, but I doubt that K would give a new substance to M or increase the dose.
Anyway do you eliminate the possibility of that scenario occurring on Wednesday ?

by Clishmaclaver 03.12.24 15:17

AnneCGuedes wrote:So you think "it" could have happened on Thursday. I think anaphylactic shock happens within minutes, but I doubt that K would give a new substance to M or increase the dose.
Anyway do you eliminate the possibility of that scenario occurring on Wednesday ?

No ... I didn't say that I thought 'it' happened on the Thursday. In my posts yesterday, I said that my feeling is that there was too much to be done and 'it' could have happened earlier in the week, as has been thought by many. If it happened on the Wed. evening, I still think the same way. I try keep an open mind about that, however, and I wasn't going to argue with B.S., especially after he started turning on people!!

I have to bear in mind that the McCs and friends were young, well above av. intelligence, and could think and move quickly, due to their profession. As I'm older, I am finding that hard to imagine! We also don't quite know about the assistance they had around the time of, and after, the 'event'.

I think Genreith's theory is interesting where resuscitation is concerned, but I don't go along with the 'event' happening just before the children's bed-time. Maybe he wasn't thinking about timing.

I think the anaphylactic shock theory, after a particular drug being introduced is also interesting, but maybe a bit too far fetched.

by **AnneCGuedes** 03.12.24 16:05

Clishmaclaver wrote:
I have to bear in mind that the McCs and friends were young, well above av. intelligence, and could think and move quickly, due to their profession. As I'm older, I am finding that hard to imagine!

Hard to imagine, yes, (though those people weren't properly young), this is even how you realize you're getting old..