Good point about the blood. Why has the fact that overdosing normally does not involve BLOOD apparently escaped so many commentators? Something doesn’t add up here.
A plausible scenario is this: After their overmedicated child succumbed, the panicked parents decided they could not bear the cost of being held responsible (loss of jobs, criminal penalties, etc.) They decided their only reasonable option was to dispose of the body, but could not immediately because of all the attention paid to them. Some time later they rented the car and disposed of their child with as much dignity as could be afforded under the circumstances.
But all this still does not explain the apparent presence of blood.
She could have hurt herself due to being sedated, falling off a bed and hitting her head, or getting up to go to the bathroom and hitting her head in there.
that was also my first reaction, however, how much easier would it have been, if the child had been administered a sedative, to maintain that the pills were left where she could access them? In other words, the child took them herself? And seek immediate medical attention by calling an ambulance?
But all this still does not explain the apparent presence of blood.
it certainly doesn't.
I am always reminded of the Lindy Chamberlain case in Australia, the mother went to jail for years before she was exonerated. An 'expert' provided evidence that there was blood found in their vehicle. It turned out to be rust-proofing residue.
Why has the fact that overdosing normally does not involve BLOOD apparently escaped so many commentators?
************
Who said “BOOD”? They said BODILY FLUID. All you CSI buffs around here sure are missing that BODILY FLUID doesn’t necessarily mean BLOOD, URINE,SPIT or FECES?