If anyone was in any doubt on whether the Panorama team were complicit in the Dodgy Napalm Report, they made 29th August, this may help you decide. I don't know whether to be shocked or not.
I did know Panorama had televised the full program on 30th Sept but had not got round to viewing it. A post on the Guardian CIF prompted me to check it out (thanks to Atvar48). It linked to this article.
In the original report Dr Rola Hallam is shown saying one thing. In the later full Panorama episode it appears they have cut and pasted the audio so Dr Rola is saying 'chemical weapon' instead of 'napalm'. As Dr Rola is wearing a mask as she is speaking they've not had to worry about lip-synching. Unless you had the original to reference you wouldn't even realise it.
Original report (see 2:16 to 2:38): "I need a pause 'cause it's just absolute chaos and carnage here. Erm..we've had a massive influx of what looks like...serious burns..err...seems like it must be so some sort of...I'm not really sure....maybe napalm...something similar to that. But obviously within the chaos of the situation it is very difficult to know exactly what is going on"
Later report: (see 32:29 to 32:40): " It's just absolute chaos and carnage here. Erm...we've just had a massive influx of what looks like...serious burns..err...seems like it must be some sort of...chemical weapon...I'm not really sure"
Alternative Later Report (see 2:00 to 2:13)
While the footage of Dr Rola speaking with her mask on looks similar in both reports, note the guy with the the fluorescent jacket standing just behind to the side. In the original report he has his hands behind his back. In the second report, in the full Panorama program, he has his hands to the side. The footage is totally different. How much had Dr Rola said during this time? The only other reason we could have this difference is that her 'impromptu' interview had to have several takes, which is just as incriminating. But I have listened to the audio over and over. Each 'erm' and 'err' is exactly in the right place. The pitch of her voice etc. appears to be the same.
So why change her words to say 'chemical weapon' instead of 'napalm'? Did it look too suspicious with Dr Rola concluding napalm in all this 'chaos'? You'll also hear Dr Rola's associate say straight after "We don't know what we're dealing with" - as if to reinforce their innocence in all of this. Was 'chemical attack' more suited to the narrative?
Now, whatever the BBC claim about balance we all know they show whatever fits their bias. But when it comes to altering what someone has said in such a way then we're really in another ballpark altogether.
There are many more discrepancies which need a better look at, such as teenagers suddenly appearing in this later report which were totally absent from the first one. Now we can confirm that the guy with the stubble and faded jeans, who looks in his early 20s, showing Panorama around the 'school', is supposed to be the headmaster for seniors. Really?
They've also excluded the 'witness' pleading to the camera with his script on the full programme.
Note BBC iplayer may not be viewable outside of the UK. You can instead view the shorter BBC report here. And hopefully the BBC won't have tried to edit it again!