Found this what do you think?
I have had a look at one of the videos which Hideho has created which dealt with this issue.
I have done a timed set of comments on the video.
If anyone (especially Hideho) would like to offer comments about what I perceive to be the deception within the video I would be very willing to reply.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RP30PRieuU4
0:11 Utterly erroneous news report shown which no sane person now believes to be correct. No explanation given in the video as to the fact that this headline is a proven lie. In fact it will be used again at the end of the video to compound the deceit.
0:30 Kate McCann states "there were no body fluids in the car".
0:33 You immediately and deliberately ignore Kate's statement and you refer to "residues" which you know is not what Kate said.
0:41 You then refer to these "residues" located by the blood dog as having been sent for testing but fail to point out the results of those tests which determined that the blood was on the key fob and belonged to Gerry McCann.
0:54 A voice from news media (remember media reports are not evidence) refers to "fluids from a corpse and hair" but this is precisely what Kate McCann was referring to. There is nothing suggesting fluids existed other than the wanton errors in the news media which you are now using as evidence to back up your claims. If you cannot understand that your use of the very media which Kate is decrying to back up your claim that it is true is ridiculous then you really are not a very good reporter.
1:06 You now change from referring to "residues" to declaring that "cellular material" was found. What you fail to mention is that Kate never claimed otherwise. She simply said no fluids were found. Your attempt to make it look like Kate has lied has failed because you are not referring to what she referred to at all.
1.16 Again there is a reference in your video about blood being found. This time it is an allegation from the PJ via Justine McGuinness. But yet again you fail to mention that the blood was later discovered not to have been in the car boot but on the key fob and was from Gerry McCann. Your deliberate unwillingness to add these correct interpretations suggests your motives are not honest.
1.35 You repeat the accurate report in the AG letter that "cellular material" had been found as if someone had denied that fact. But nowhere so far in your video has anyone denied that fact. You are deliberately muddling the fluid and blood claims with that "cellular material" reference to dishonestly make it look as if Kate was lying to Leveson.
The following fifteen seconds of the video repeat this again. Cellular material was found. Absolutely no-one on your video has denied that fact. A shame that you don't point out that the results of the DNA tests on this material could only find a mixture of markers some of which could have related to Madeleine but most of which did not.
1.52 You repeat that Keela found blood on the key fob.
2.00 You stress that Keela alerted to the key fob even when it was placed elsewhere.
2.03 You then state that forensic tests were carried out on the key fob but dishonestly withold the vital information that the results of those tests showed no connection to Madeleine but identified the blood found as being that of Gerry McCann.
2.25 You go then to a shot of Kate denying the erroneous media report that it was Madeleine's blood in the car. Why? It is a fact that anyone reading the forensic reports can see that it was not her blood. Just because your video witholds the information that it was not her blood does not mean that it was.
2.30 Your next point is wholly biased. You post a quote saying "there seemed to be the POSSIBILITY of compatibility between MADELEINE'S DNA profile and some of the collected residues..." Again no fluids.
This is a disgraceful use of a partial quotation to completely alter the sense of the original.
The original full quotation is as follows.
"It should be stressed that the option towards that Laboratory was and remains obvious taking its prestige, its independence and its scientific reputation into account, although on an initial approach there seemed to be the possibility of compatibility between MADELEINE'S DNA profile and some of the collected residues (of which those that existed in the Renault Scenic vehicle that was rented by the McCann couple were in great quantity), taking the contents of the fax that is reproduced below exactly as it appears in the files, into account (pages 2620 and following) but whose compatibility, as can be concluded from the above mentioned final FSS report, was not confirmed after the performance of lengthy and complex tests."
The letter referred to is from John Lowe and absolutely denies that there is a match to Madeleine McCann on the swab from the boot. He states "There is no evidence to support the view that Madeline McCann contributed DNA to the swab 3B". How much more conclusive do you need the report to be before you listen?
Why did you deliberately reverse the meaning of the quote you used by your deliberate selective quotation?
2.41 You further claim it was 15 out of 19 markers found. That is simply not true. On reading the report carefully you will find it was 15 out of 37 markers from at least three different people.
"A low level mixed DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the fibre coated luggage component (286C/2007-CRL(10(1))) from the motor vehicle. In my opinion this result is too complex to interpret at this stage."
And you somehow manage to forget to mention that the report says the result is too complex to interpret.
You then say that anything less than 99% match is inconclusive. I would love to know where that claim comes from. Oddly you do not source it.
And your addition that it doesn't exclude the possibility that the DNA came from Madeleine misses the point that it is not evidence that it does and also does not preclude it having come from other sources. Why do you only ever post one side of the argument and withold all other possibilities?
3:01 Next comes a question posed to an expert from a European University. "Do 15 markers out of 19 prove it is the right person?"
3:05 And the experts answer? "If the profile is complete and quality, no doubt."
But you know and I know and everyone who has read the files knows that the profile was not complete and quality as needed for such proof. That you choose to include this question and answer here when you know it is not referring to the kind of sample Lowe tested can only mean that you are deliberately trying to deceive the viewer.
The answer from the expert in Louvain has no bearing at all on the McCann case. And by your continuation of the deception with the statistic of 1 in a billion chance you are trying just too hard to make a point which has no validity.
3.24 You go back to Kate McCann under oath stating the absolutely correct fact that there were no body fluids found in the car. (just Gerry's blood on the key fob).
It is such a disgraceful attempt to pretend that Kate is lying when you have given no evidence in this video that she is doing so. Your twisting of the claims about residues and cellular material to make it appear that Kate is lying is quite sickening.
3.29 You pose the question "Why did Kate DENY THERE WERE BODY FLUIDS found in the McCann's (sic) rented car?" and add a question "What cellular material was sent for forensic testing?"
Seriously are you unable to comprehend the difference between the two phrases "body fluids" and "cellular material"? Do you think they are always identical in meaning? Because they are not. Kate was correct that no body fluids were found.
3.36 You then repeat the wholly wrong claim that 15 out of 19 markers were found showing that you simply do not understand the actual report. That is not a good situation for a propaganda video maker to be in.
3.42 You then attempt to decieve by twisting the fact that the low quality DNA was considered INCONCLUSIVE by Lowe the expert who did the testing by re-introducing the general quote from the FBI who had no direct knowledge of the samples and Mdme Adamis who was only speaking about full quality profiles and therefore is irrelevant to this case. Oh and you try the old trick of not using the actual word inconclusive but saying "not CONCLUSIVELY" trying to focus the viewer's mind on the opposite with your use of captitalisation and your use of the wholly irrelevant Adamis claim about 1 in 1 billion chances. I find that kind of deception tantamount to lying.
3.51 More use of news headlines which were full of lies and PJ leaks to bolster your completely erroneous claims about the DNA being matched to Madeleine when you know the actual forensic report states it was not.
By such repetitive use of 6 year old media reports from the days before the truth about the contents of the FSS report were available it makes you look as though you simply cannot accept the truth. No newspaper ever posted such claims after the FSS report was published because their editors understood the report proved that they were simply not true. It is a great shame that you either do no understand that or have chosen to deliberately ignore the truth. It is entirely consistent with your total refusal to accept that the Almeida report was simply the interim summary of what was at that time being investigated and has been superseded by the later reports which you resolutely ignore.
By beginning and finishing your video with a news article claiming "Corpse found in McCann Car" you demonstrate simply that you are creating videos which contain complete lies because you know there is absolutely no truth that any corpse was found. I think that you should be totally ashamed of this video.
WHY did Kate DENY the BODY FLUIDS in the car? - McCANN FORENSICS v NO EVIDENCE Pt 2
Why did Kate DENY, under oath at the Leveson Inquiry, that there were body fluids found in their.
|
#1
