It seems to have been forgotten by some, that this situation was atypical.
A child had disappeared, and the two other children were unresponsive.
The logical and correct course of action, would have been to have the children checked out in a hospital, and samples of blood to be taken in the first instance for analysis.
That it wasn't done, or even insisted on,tends to indicate something untoward had taken place.
The question is what.
If you accept the testimony that Kate and Gerry brought up the idea of sedative use as part of the modus operandi on the 5th with the British Liaison team, what more did they need to do?
Did the Liaison team not immediately consult with the PJ about these concerns? Maybe a question about this needs to be asked in Parliament?
Make your mind up. Kate was either in a fit state or she wasn't. If she wasn't her diagnosis and monitoring of the children was likely to be unsatisfactory.
Was a psychiatrist brought in to do that assessment? Kate might have felt OK, but Fiona thought she was unfit (opinions). I don't need to make up my mind on this, all I can do is report what we are told.
Cites are cites. They can be quoted and referenced. Suggesting that a cite doesn't exist but you might find something to support your opinion later doesn't fit the bill at all.
I think I agree with that. But taking the previous post as an example you can't provide cites where it proves Fiona found Kate unfit to look after herself and the kids in her care. You just take Fiona's word for that but there is still a possibility her statement may not be factual.
...as opposed to having a diabetic emergency?
You then go through the differential diagnoses e.g. to tell if they were drinking - smell their breath.
