To the right of the previous video that I reviewed, I found a link to a further Hideho video about the car.
I have made a few comments about that one as well.
If I have made any errors in the post I will willingly correct them. It is very hard to be 100% accurate in every post made about such a massive topic when like me you are not an expert.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8NVS-_19g00:19 Question asked on the video: "Was Madeleine's body moved in the McCann's car rented THREE WEEKS after Madeleine's disappearance?
0:24 TV Interviewer asks blunt question of the McCanns "Did you kill your daughter?"
0:26 Gerry and Kate answer. Gerry makes the point that it would have been impossible to hide her in the face of an immediate search. Kate makes the entirely logical point that moving a body after it having been successfully hidden would be foolish.
0:45 You post that "Residue/cellular material" was found in the trunk of the car and sent for forensic testing. You fail to point out that the testing found no blood matching Madeleine and the DNA match was inconclusive.
0:47 You then lie (and I use that word deliberately) in the next shot by stating that Kate McCann chose to deny the existence (the implication being of the "residue/cellular matter" which you have just referred to) UNDER OATH (your emphasis) at the Leveson Inquiry.
You are fully aware that Kate McCann did no such thing. She was very specific at Leveson (you know this because you used the clip immediately after this in this video) that there were no body fluids found in the car. She never denied the existence of "residue/cellular material". You have simply posted in this video a blatant and libellous claim.
0:56 Extremely short clip of Kate McCann saying there were no body fluids in the car, proving that you know full well that Kate never denied the existence of "residue/cellular material" as you have claimed. I repeat you have simply lied.
1:00 Screen with the claim that 15/19 markers matched Madeleine's DNA. Again a lie. The 15 markers which matched Madeleine's DNA and very crucially that of other people as well were from the 37 which were identified.
1.:03 You then correctly state that it was "Considered inconclusive and not PROOF it was Madeleine's".
Unfortunately you then return to the irrelevant comments made in your previous video in this short series about the car.
1.08 The FBI statement has nothing to do with the McCann case. It does not take into account the fact that this low quality DNA sample from the car was from at least three separate people.
If you can show what possible relevance this CODIS information from the USA has to the McCann situation where a mixed sample of three people's DNA is being tested I would be grateful. If you cannot show relevance I will assume it is irrelevant as I believe, having read your post on the aimoo forum where again you provide no indication of relevance.
I have a strong suspicion that you have not understood that the figures in the McCann case are 15/37 not 15/19 as you so often quote and your contention that 15/15 or 19/19 would be even more unlikely shows lack of knowledge about the specifics of the McCann case. However I will freely admit my error if relevance is proven.
1:20 You then repeat your links to the quotes from Madame Adamis from the previous video. And once again you fail to point out that this is not a comparable situation to the one that was put to Madame Adamis. She was clear that only in a case of a quality DNA profile which this McCann profile is not and in the case of it being 15/19 markers which in this case it is not should her comments be taken as true and only then would the 1 in a billion claim you repeat be true.
Either deliberately or through a lack of understanding of the differences between what Adamis is saying and what is actually extant in the McCann case you are clearly posting information here which is totally incorrect and which is clearly misinforming the viewers of the video.
2:00 You show a video clip of the McCanns and Mitchell where he states that there are entirely innocent explanations for the claims made against them. As people who are claiming to be innocent you would expect them to offer such explanations.
2.04 Sky news video continues. Three DNA explanations are given by a source (possibly though not necessarily Mitchell).
Sweat from her flip flops.
Nappies from twins.
Up to 30 others who used the car whilst it was on hire including blood relatives.
2:30 Martin Brunt asked to explain some of variables relating to DNA in car including that it might not have been Madeleine herself in the car.
2.48 Brunt says evidence says very strongly that it was not her DNA that has been transferred. He then has to correct himself when he has said it is a fact that the DNA shows a full match to Madeleine, a 99%+ match, to it just being an allegation. He then says this allegation, according to the police, shows the presence of her body, not her clothing or the transfer of her DNA onto anything else. He claims the police are adamant that this shows that this was Madeleine's body in the boot of the family car at least five weeks after she disappeared.
BUT (as you so often say in your videos).
You know as I know that none of this allegation by the police was factual. You know as I know that these allegations bore no resemblance whatsoever to the actual FSS report on the DNA which John Lowe was clear was inconclusive.
Once again you have simply used the false news reports from six years ago to back up your story and have not offered the slightest clarification that the story has since been proven to be nothing more than the allegation which Blunt described it as.
You are being utterly deceitful and deliberately denigrating the McCann explanations when you know that your so-called facts are nothing but unsupported allegations.
3:16 Next you quote Amaral who says that everything pointed to the body having been moved by car twenty something days after the disappearance.
As he was presumably aware of the Lowe report which provided no evidence of any such claim it is a reasonable question to ask why this man, convicted of lying in another similar missing child case, should be making this claim.
Was it deliberate or did he lack understanding?
3:35 Brunt reappears this time talking about body fluids in the car from a de-composing body.
Unfortunately like the PJ, Brunt never provided the slightest evidence for any such body fluids or for a de-composing body in the hire car. It was as we all now realise media hype (later punished in many cases by large financial penalties) based on the leaks from the PJ which Brunt freely admitted on air.
3.44 Next you post the extraordinary claim by Amaral that being police experts they can say that the type of body fluid in the car indicates the cadaver was frozen. Total and utter invention. As there was no body fluid in the car it is impossible for this to be supported by evidence. By the release of the files this has been shown to be utterly untrue.
Why you still publish in your video such imaginative rubbish is a poignant question which impinges on your underlying motives and/or understanding of the facts in the case.
3:47 You carry on posting the imaginative nonsense from Amaral about the hot weather melting the body and when the car was on a curb something fell above the wheel.
Where do you think the evidence for all this is? In the missing pages of the files? If so, why was no reference made to these body fluids in the FSS report? Nothing there suggesting fluids of any kind let alone ones which had melted out of a decomposing frozen corpse. It is complete fantasy and very sick fantasy at that.
And a very significant propaganda point is just how long you have allowed these particular shots within your video.
In comparison to other sections they hold their position on screen far longer. Why, I wonder might that be?
3.58 Having spent 10 full seconds on the 15 words about the curb and something falling on the wheel, you now only allow 4 seconds for the 18 word screen explaining that even Amaral only considers this frozen body scenario to be SPECULATION.
That is an extremely telling time allocation, something that matters to video makers, something they spend a lot of time deciding.
Your time priorities for the screenshots are very good indicators of your bias.
4:10 Further circumstantial claims about the car boot being seen open are not developed beyond saying that there was a possible reason given by Sandy Cameron about blood having seeped from a plastic bag and the car was aired after this.
4:19 2 second shot of the car with its boot open. Could have been at any time for any length of time but your insinuation is that it was part of some cover up to justify the blood and smell in the car as you lead on to ...
4:21 Amaral speculating on this possibility. And him claiming that the boot of the vehicle was left open overnight.
Is there any reference to this boot being open overnight in the files or is this something only Amaral knows about?
Or is it just a media story like so many others? I genuinely do not know so would appreciate a pointer to the source.
4:28 You then introduce your climactic point about this open boot, that cadaver and blood dogs only detect human odour and fluids.
Since you have gone from the speculation about the reason for the boot being open to this it seems you are pointing us towards a very illuminating claim.
But, you then spoil it again with your reliance on those old news reports.
4.32 Sky again saying a full match and a partial match of DNA was recovered after the dog alerts.
Unfortunately for your propaganda that was proven to be completely wrong by the reports. It is very strange that you missed those reports from John Lowe which utterly debunk this claim on Sky and are still propagating these myths. One could almost believe it was deliberate.
5:04 A man on the Sky report says the parents will be worried. Innocent or guilty they would be worried. If they know they are innocent, even without the FSS report they will know that the claims are ludicrous (as Kate stated in your video).
And of course once they read the files and saw the Lowe report they knew how justified in their worry they were and how right they had been to be worried.
I believe it both to be sad and at the same time shameful that having had time to digest the full forensic reports you continue to peddle this speculative nonsense in the way you do.
Again if I have made any errors in what I have claimed about the video I stand to be corrected.