I feel dumb

The 'boy' in the attic had boobs though, and the tape said the girl was locked in a secure room, which was the attic.

It's better to rest in the warm body of a friend, than in a cold hole in the ground.

When watching "REC" for the first time two days ago, I intuitively thought the (obviously infected?) child-like person in the attic to be the "Medeiros girl" once Pablo coincidentally got view of her through the night-vision camera; because I firstly assumed that she escaped from the attic after it had accidently opened and, through Pablo's camera's spotlight, became aware of the opening of her confinement and the presence of "prey" (if living, or more specifically non-infected, humans or other mammals or whatever can be called "prey" of the infected organisms in "REC"); and secondly because, from the very short moment we can actually see whatever is in the attic (and what made the noises coming from the ceiling when Angela and Pablo first enter the penthouse), I assumed physical similarities, especially (or mostly) of the face, both of which hinted in my opinion towards that the "thing" and the "Medeiros girl" were intented to be regarded by the viewer as the same being.

This could be very well possible, I believe, because disorientation of the viewers (even with a foreseeable shock moment like the "thing in the attic suddenly jumping at the camera" one) can only be clarified afterwards, not during the events of the film itself: only a closer look at the frames comprising this scene can lead to findings such as that the "attic thing" and the "Medeiros girl" not looking alike. So this may be more a technical than a narrative issue of the film and should probably be approached as such.

But this thread forces me to reconsider this notion, because I now have to ask myself the question why the being in the attic didn't attack Angela and Pablo once being inadvertently let free, as the "Medeiros girl" did immediately once she reliazed their presence in the penthouse - did the attic's "inhabitant" escape at all? Maybe it did, for if I remember correctly, Angela and Pablo are disoriented not only by the surrounding darkness but also by several noises coming from different directions and parts of the penthouse. Which would require very swift movements which the "Medeiros girl" doesn't seem to be capable of herself (tattering around in the darkness, she seems rather clumsy for a predator - and the infected persons themselves seem less like hunters than like rabid animals not actually able to effectively "stalk" their "prey"). The tricky part is probably that she only appeared after the attic incident, suddenly approaching from the far end of the penthouse and additionally wielding a mallet (a small detail, the use of tools, which to me puts her above the other "regular" infected who seem more "savage" in a way than her) - was she there all the time and only entered the scene once alarmed by the racket caused by Angela, Pablo and the "attic thing" or did she quickly pass by them and grab herself the hammer? Probably not, because she doesn't seem to have any advantage of sorts over Angela and Pablo when moving in the dark.

This has turned into another very interesting aspect of the film which coincides with and integrates into the film's POV scenario perfectly: it not only limits the viewer to what the subjective camera sees, but also plays with the regular techniques of cinematics, for example using actor doubles (or, in this case, creating a camera-paradox by, to me at least, potentially implying that "the thing in the attic" and the "Medeiros girl" are supposed to be the same person, but also contradicting this assumption by not using cuts, for example, which would make it more plausible in hindsight). - In the end, it's probably like another user said before me: there's a lot of loose ends which aren't meant to be tied up, really, but to confuse and disorient the viewer.

Sorry if I digressed a tad too much, but I really liked this film and this leads to babbling. :D