gareth wrote:It doesn't look to be in chronological order - the narration includes the suggestion the lad may already be dead when you see the cameraman sat in a living room holding his brother. This suggests to me that Channel4 have been provided with a piece they didn't edit. Otherwise, they'd have seen enough footage to know wouldn't they? At the very least the family would be wanting to help keep him alive or take him to hospital.
Basicly you are right. The video material is clearly not in chronological order. But that is what the Channel 4 narrative suggests. The statement that the boy already might have been dead at one point implies that they wanted to say that it is - at this point - not clear whether he is dead or not. Which means that they hypothetically have ordered this sequence before the visit at the hospital.
The video is fishy.
The CHannel 4 narrative is complete crap.



