~~~ It proves that indoor only cats are safer than the ones who are allowed to roam free without their people's supervision. If cats are spayed and/or neutered they won't wander off as often as the ones who aren't, so they have a better chance not to get hit by a car. It could also prove that there are stray cats in the area,and people haven't taken notice of them,so they're in peril of lots of things besides getting hit by a car.~~~
2007-11-17 12:43:10
·
answer #1
·
answered by donelle g. 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
It suggests that the car hit the cat but all it proves is that there is a dead cat and a car with blood on it. It doesnt prove that the two are connected. Although, a person would put those to together and would probably be right.
2007-11-17 05:44:42
·
answer #2
·
answered by Beka14 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
It proves that the cat is dead and the car has blood on it. Further investigation would be required to establish any correlation between the two observations.
2007-11-17 05:00:13
·
answer #3
·
answered by Sophrosyne 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Cat would have died of organic reasons and then a predator got here by applying later finding for a snack. the reality that there became no blood makes me think of the Cats physique layed exterior for a impressive on the same time as allowing the blood and muscular tissue to initiate deteriorating. What did you think of it became? A Vampire?
2016-10-17 02:13:20
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
That I have the ability to distinguish cat DNA in a red substance from a distance or that I am attempting to use deduction to predict the probability that the car with red fluid is involved with the dead cat in the road or a dead something somewhere.
2007-11-17 04:43:53
·
answer #5
·
answered by @@@@@@@@ 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
That there is one less cat in the world? The car is irrelevant unless you either witnessed the incident or did some DNA testing to find out if the apparent cat's blood is connected to the dead cat.
2007-11-17 04:27:16
·
answer #6
·
answered by megalomaniac 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
hmmm...how can you prove it's cat blood without taking a DNA sample?? The car could have just committed a hit and run on some elderly pedestrian! Don't go all jumping to conclusions that the driver is a shameless cat murderer! You know what they say about making ASSumptions...
2007-11-17 04:23:43
·
answer #7
·
answered by smellyfoot ™ 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
You can't just look at a car and determine the blood is cat blood, it proves nothing.
You can't just look at blood and know which animal/person it came from. It is all red, the fact that you said "and a car with cat blood" make this a loaded question.
2007-11-17 04:21:53
·
answer #8
·
answered by von_meat_helmet 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
it proves that a cat died, and that a car is driving away with some cats blood on it. anything more is just your mind inventing theories, and not proof
2007-11-17 06:30:32
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
First, there is the burden of proof. Unless there is DNA evidence that proves within a shadow of a doubt that the cat is indeed owner of the blood then you cant say whether it is cat blood or not. Could be possum or raccoon blood.
2007-11-17 04:26:09
·
answer #10
·
answered by M 6
·
1⤊
1⤋