The Al-Dura Verdict--And Enderlin's Version Of It

Richard Landes of The Augean Stables has provided a rough translation of the actual court decision that dismissed the libel charges against Philippe Karsenty.

He sums it up nicely:

Generally speaking, I think this is a devastating decision. The judges go out of their way to criticize everyone involved on the side of France2 (including some backhanded swipes at the lower court), but especially to point out the pervasive “incohérences” not only in Enderlin’s initial broadcast, but his subsequent explanations and actions. In particular, after emphasizing the sharpness of both Karsenty’s language and his accusations — which indeed are defamatory and strike at Enderlin’s and France2’s honor and reputation — the judges assert that, given the evidence he had every right to make these statements, in particular given the importance of the case, the damage it did worldwide, and the fact that Enderlin, as a professional of information with a high public profile has to expect to be subjected to this kind of criticism from co-citizens and colleagues.

Now, let's take a second look at the translation that The Augean Stables provided of Charles Enderlin's post on his interpretation of the decision of the French court in the Al-Dura case.

Inserting relevant passages from the court's actual verdict, here is what Enderlin wrote:

M. Karsenty was condemned by the tribunal in Paris for having said that France2 and i, myself, produced a fake news report.

The Appeals court ruled:

1 That these accusations were, in fact, defamatory.

[True the nature of the charges leveled by Karsenty--if without justification--would be considered defamatory by their nature:

Considering the defamatory character of these accusations, which the tribunal (i.e. the first court) justifiably considered that the deed of knowingly fooling and disseminating and/or causing to disseminate a false report containing images that do not reflect reality, in representing a “false death”, even if the author took care to accompany his accusation with a certain number of explanations, unquestionably such an accusation strikes at the honor and reputation of information professionals, and that all the more when the defamatory deed is accentuated by the use of terms like “masquerade,” “imposture,” “deception,” to qualify the attitude of FRANCE2 and “staged scenes,” “pure fiction” to qualify the initial reporting;]

2 That M. Karsenty did not bring proof of this supposed “staging” and the lying character of the report.

[In fact, according to the court's written verdict, proof is exactly what would be required from Karsenty:

But considering that, as the first judges recalled, to produce a exculpating effect provided for by article 35 of the law of 29 July 1881, the proof of the truth of the defamatory claims must be perfect, complete, and corresponding to the defamatory accusations in their materiality and their weight;

The decision then outlines the various proofs and witnesses brought by Karsenty and dismisses none of it--the same can not be said for France2 and Enderlin.]

3 But on the other hand, the Appeals court, contrary to the initial tribunal considered that Karsenty had the right to virulently criticize this report, the subject having created a notable emotion, and recognized that he had carried out his investigation that permitted the Court of Appeals to grant him the benefit of doubt in the matter of his good faith.

[On the contrary, according to the court--the only doubt rests with France2 and the evidence and proof that they brought:

Considering that, if none of the arguments of the accused – neither the conclusions of the inquiry conducted at the personal initiative of General SAMYA (counter-offer of proof #12), nor “the imprudent affirmation” of Charles ENDERLIN already discussed – seemed sufficiently decisive to the first judges to make a judgment about the disputed report, it seems on examination, in the case of the appeal, of the `18 minutes of rushes that Talal Abu RAMAH, communicated by FRANCE2 does not permit one from dismissing the opinion of the professionals heard during the course of the procedure or having given their contributions to the debate, theses attestations produced by the care of the cameraman (counter-proof, #5-10) cannot, on the contrary given their presentation as well as their content, be considered perfectly credible ;

This goes alot further than giving Karsenty a bye on the basis of 'good faith'.]

Obviously we do not share this last analysis and we are planning to appeal this to the highest court (Cassation).

[Landes writes that is exactly what France2 and Enderlin are going to do]

Read the complete translation of the court ruling.

Let's hope this actually does go to the French Supreme Court--we could use the publicity.

Crossposted at Soccer Dad

[Hat tip: JoshuaPundit]

Technorati Tag: Al-Dura and Karsenty.