NEW EVIDENCE IN AL DURA LIBEL CASE IN PARIS – DECISION TO BE HANDED DOWN IN MAY
March 4th 2008 04:07
A report presented to a French court last week by an independent ballistics expert maintains that the death of Mohammed al-Dura, a Palestinian child seen being shot in the Gaza Strip during the first days of the intifada in September 2000, could not have been the result of Israeli gunfire, corroborating claims that the shocking footage was doctored.
Ha’aretz reports that the ballistics expert, Jean-Claude Schlinger, presented his conclusions last week in a Paris court after reviewing the footage, which shows Dura and his father cowering by a wall after being caught in the crossfire between Palestinian gunmen and Israel Defense Forces soldiers at the Netzarim junction.
A few weeks later France 2 and Enderlin sued him for libel. In October 2006 Karsenty was found guilty and was required to pay symbolic damages of 1 euro (and 3,000 euros in court costs).
Karsenty appealed. The judge asked to examine all of the film footage in the report of the shooting before rendering a verdict.
In his report, Schlinger wrote, "If Jamal [the boy's father] and Mohammed al-Dura were indeed struck by shots, then they could not have come from the Israeli position, from a technical point of view, but only from the direction of the Palestinian position."
He also wrote, "In view of the general context, and in light of many instances of staged incidents, there is no objective evidence that the child was killed and his father injured. It is very possible, therefore, that it is a case [in which the incident was] staged."
According to his report, there is no evidence that the boy was wounded in his right leg or in his abdomen, as was originally reported.
Ha’aretz reported that this is the first time that an independent ballistics expert, not representing the State of Israel, undertook to examine Karsenty's claims.
The Editors Weblog reported that it obtained an exclusive interview with Philippe Karsenty, after the hearing in Paris on Wednesday February 27 lasted which lasted over six hours, resulting in the court adjourning its decision to May 21.
According to Karsenty, France 2's Al Dura "coverage is the media's biggest masquerade to have had such impact." But he doesn't believe that the allegedly fraudulent report is representative of more widespread manipulations in media coverage.
He said the France 2 camera man's footage was offered to CNN, which refused to initially air the report because it didn't obtain the guarantees of authenticity it was asking for.
Editors Weblog said, “There is another intriguing issue in this affair: in the years since this controversy has started, few French traditional media have openly taken Karsenty's defense or been willing to place it high in the news agenda.
“Blogs and independent media have increasingly covered the story, many of them outside of France though. According to Karsenty, a similar affair would have never dragged on as long in the US, because bloggers and truly independent media would have long dug out the truth (evoking Dan Rather and the Killian documents controversy).
“’’at the Al Dura affair also shows is that France is (still) a ‘system with dominating media that don't recognize their mistakes,’ says Karsenty..
According to Karsenty, a US website will shortly be publishing the 18 minutes of raw footage that France 2 showed in court (out of 27 minutes filmed by the camera man).
Karsenty says he is confident about the outcome of the appeal when the court will make its decision public on May 21.
| 46 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
