Apparently it was not a good day for France 2, even though Charles Enderlin--whose people were responsible for the film--made his appearance in court:
The drama of today’s hearing was enhanced by the appearance of Enderlin himself, who until today had not graced this case with his presence. As the film was shown to a packed and overheated (in every sense) courtroom, Enderlin and Karsenty offered rival interpretations of the images on the screen. If Enderlin thought he would thus demonstrate the inadequacy of Karsenty’s case, he was very much mistaken. On the contrary, parts of his commentary were so absurd that the courtroom several times burst into incredulous laughter.
Enderlin offered only a vague, rambling and unconvincing explanation of why he had only produced 18 minutes of footage rather than the 27 he claimed to have received from his cameraman in Gaza (Enderlin himself was not in Gaza when these events occurred).
Apparently France 2 managed to add to the questions already being asked about the various inconsistencies in the film they have been claiming as evidence that the Israeli army killed the young boy.
There were many very strange things about this footage which just didn’t add up. When it came to the footage of the ‘killing’ of Mohammed al Durah, the following stood out:
* This sequence was not a continuous narrative but was repeatedly broken up and spliced onto footage of other scenes from the demonstration.
* Although the France 2 cameraman had told a German film-maker, Esther Shapira, that he had filmed six minutes of the al Durah father and son under continuous Israeli fire, the footage of them lasted for less than one minute. There was a camera tripod next to them
* There was no evidence of the boy actually being hit
* At one point, people in the crowd cried out that the boy was dead, while he was sitting up large as life clinging onto his father with his mouth wide open.
* After he was said to be dead, he moved his arm (the sequence I have already reported which has been available on the web for years)
On February 27, the judge will give his decision on Philippe Karsenty's libel case.
There seems to be good reason to look forward to the verdict.Enderlin offered only a vague, rambling and unconvincing explanation of why he had only produced 18 minutes of footage rather than the 27 he claimed to have received from his cameraman in Gaza (Enderlin himself was not in Gaza when these events occurred).
* This sequence was not a continuous narrative but was repeatedly broken up and spliced onto footage of other scenes from the demonstration.
* Although the France 2 cameraman had told a German film-maker, Esther Shapira, that he had filmed six minutes of the al Durah father and son under continuous Israeli fire, the footage of them lasted for less than one minute. There was a camera tripod next to them
* There was no evidence of the boy actually being hit
* At one point, people in the crowd cried out that the boy was dead, while he was sitting up large as life clinging onto his father with his mouth wide open.
* After he was said to be dead, he moved his arm (the sequence I have already reported which has been available on the web for years)
Unless you are France 2.
Read the entire article
[Hat Tip: Yid With Lid]
Technorati Tag: Al-Dura and Philippe Karsenty and Charles Enderlin.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments on Daled Amos are not moderated, but if they are exceedingly long, abusive, or are carbon copies that appear over half the blogosphere, they will be removed.