French Ballistics Expert Concludes IDF Could Not Have Shot Al-Dura

Jean-Claude Schlinger, French ballistics expert who has been featured in French courts for two decades, presented his findings to the court that the IDF could not have killed Muhammad Al-Dura. He further found that there was no evidence that Muhammad was actually killed. For a more detailed French account of Schlinger’s report, see Veronique Chemla’s account for Guysen News.

Haaretz reports:

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 day of the intifada in September 2000, could not have been the result of Israeli gunfire, corroborating claims that the shocking footage was doctored.

The ballistics expert, Jean-Claude Schlinger, presented his conclusions 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.

The case revolves around a libel suit brought by the France 2 television channel and its Middle East correspondent, Charles Enderlin, against Phillipe Karsenty. On November 22, 2004 Karsenty wrote on his Web site, Media Ratings, that Dura’s death had been staged and that France 2’s conduct “disgraces France and its public broadcasting system.”

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.

On Saturday, Enderlin rejected Schlinger’s findings, arguing that “only partial evidence was given to him for evaluation.”

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.”

Schlinger confirmed these statements in a telephone conversation with Haaretz.

Schlinger has served as an adviser on ballistic and forensic evidence in French courts for 20 years.

In his examination, he recreated the incident emphasizing the angle from which the shots could have been fired, the types of injuries and the types of weapons used by the IDF and the Palestinians.

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.

Regarding the injuries reportedly suffered by the father, Schlinger wrote that “If the injuries are genuine, they could not have occurred at the time of the events that television channel France 2 reported.”

Regarding the angle of the shots, Schlinger wrote, “Assuming that the shots came from the Israeli position, only the lower limbs could have been hit, because the rest of the body was protected by the house at the location.”

This is the first time that an independent ballistics expert, not representing the State of Israel, undertook to examine Karsenty’s claims.

13 Responses to French Ballistics Expert Concludes IDF Could Not Have Shot Al-Dura

  1. Lynne T says:

    Has this news received any coverage in the European press yet? Recently, I had Ami over at Zionation defend an analogy he used, that I challenged. He seemed to take the opinion that Enderlin’s account should be given the benefit of doubt.

  2. Joel says:


    That said, the legions of Israel haters won’t believe Mr. Schlinger anyway.

    Charles Enderlin is the premier capo of our time; at least, the bloodiest.

  3. Richard says:

    Fantastic! Excellent, yet more proof of the duplicity and double standards in Western intelligensia.

  4. Barry Meislin says:

    I think that about sums it up:

    “Let’s give liars the benefit of the doubt.”

    “Let us exalt dishonesty.”

    “And let us praise prevaricating thugs.”

  5. andrew says:

    What I have read from the meagre reports currently
    available seems to imply that the expert’s testimony was rejected for reasons “of procedure” or, more
    precisely, from the fact that Karsenty should not be
    allowed to bring in support not already available at the time of its so-called libel. I may be wrong here,
    and I think that this point ought to be clarified. If such should be the case, this would seem to be a repetition of the famous “La question ne sera pas posee” from the court during Zola’s trial on the occasion of the Dreyfus affair: this meant that no mention could be made of the Dreyfus affair, only of the libel of which Zola was guilty.

  6. fp says:

    i will go as far as to say that even if enderlin loses his job on this — and the odds for that are nil — it won’t make a difference.

    The amount of lies and dishonesty currently in the media is of such proportions that what he did is tame by comparison. What he’s doing is the norm now, not the exception.

    The damage was done and is being done and nothing can change that. The west has lost the war by committing cultural suicide. What is happening now to Israel is an indicator of that.

    The rest is conversation.

  7. Sophia says:

    I think it might make a BIG difference. People in France and elsewhere in Europe are probably still amenable to reason.

    You know what I fear most of all – the British media. British government policy, under Chamberlain and Bevin, were overtly hostile to the Jewish community. It’s probable that more could have been done to stem the genocide itself – but that’s conjecture.

    It ISN’T conjecture that Chamberlain and Bevin really hurt us and the BBC and Reuters are keeping it up. The Guardian has printed cartoons that would have fit right in with der Sturmer. These media giants have a global reach.

    That is something we CAN address and really must. The Jewish community in Britain is small and probably too close to the issue to really see it clearly. Their daily lives, with some appalling exceptions, feel safe – therefore perhaps they don’t realize the dreadful effects their press is having on the global Jewish community including, of course, global perceptions of Israel.

    And, politics in Britain in general are bruising.

    But, that’s not an excuse. In fact people were attacked on Holocaust Day, which I think, due to Muslim pressure, isn’t even about Ha Shoah any more, but rather about some generalized comment on genocide.

    The narrative targeting Israel and, I think, prolonging conflict, is largely being driven by British interests (of course there is the awful bigotry in the M.E., but this is something we can’t really change.

    So, I am thinking this is one area that could be a focal point of efforts to present the facts and some historical balance. Bias is so obvious it’s made reportage ahistorical, even inaccurate; and the MSM could probably even be accused of driving conflict – clearly not what journalism is supposed to be about.

    The underlying question, of course, is “why”. Does it really come down to petroleum interests? It think that’s a great part of it; another is a romance with Araby; centuries of antisemitism are obviously a problem there.

    In any case I think this situation needs to be reviewed and addressed.

  8. fp says:

    Anybody who believes that reason is still possible and does not realize that rabid anti-semitism based on ignorance and fear is on the rise globally — including the US, where I am hearing and seeing things that several years ago I would have thought impossible — is only fooling himself.

    The US universities are stepping over each other to get billions from Saudia, the rich arab states and princes are buying everything in sight, particularly sections of the financial system, and funding undermining front groups like CAIR and MSA and mosques where hatred is preached. Even the expectation of arab dollars induces US institutions and corporations to prostitution. Add the oil addiction and jews better beware.

  9. Sophia says:

    Well unfortunately fp makes some good points.

    One of the other problems, also involving our so-called allies, is a simple addiction to playing “divide and conquer,” aka “The Great Game.” Russia was the other historic partner. Both are heavily invested in high oil prices.

    However, the man in the street, suffering from the same high oil prices that enrich corporate owners and leaders and oil rich nations, probably won’t read detailed histories of the Raj, listen to Gary Kasparov on Putin’s divisive tactics, and will blame the obvious “culprit”: Israel.

    I think we are in Big Trouble.

  10. Eliyahu says:

    Talking about the Fall of Reason, the success of Obama, whether he wins or loses the Dem nomination, shows how far mass hysteria, brainwashing, simplistic slogans, political theater and sleight of hand can go. I don’t especially like either hilary or mccain, but they do talk about issues [unsatisfactorily to be sure]. Obama avoided issues, promising Change!!!! And the lower-middle brows went for it. And many in those thoughtless mobs are “college students” and “college graduates.” Politicians were promising Change 50 years ago. Didn’t Jack Kennedy promise Change?? How about LBJ and most of the rest??
    Obama’s rallies are like semi-orgasmic rock concerts. How about the Nuremberg rallies in Nazi Germany? All of obama’s talk of being New, of being “against Washington,” “not part of Washington,” “not part of the Establishment” — carter made the same claims in the 1976 presidential election campaign. Zbig was carter’s national insecurity advisor. Obama is like a fresh, young mask on the hideous face of Zbig Brzezinski. Perhaps he is Dorian Gray while his portrait, the real man, is Zbig.

    Maybe the powers that be don’t like civilization.

  11. fp says:

    The obamamania is obvious to anybody with half a brain; unfortunately the majority doesn’t own even less than that.

    But the real problem is that no matter who wins the presidency, he/she will inherit a reality which will make certain appeasement of the arabs and dumping israel. so don’t believe anything they say, either they’re blatant lies, denial, or ignorance.

    after all bush started as one of the most supportive presidents of israel and is ending up with the idiot rice forcing it to commit suicide. the american era is over due to suicidal policies, both internal and external, and beware of america in decline. it is not used to it and anybody who depends on it, god help them. and i am an atheist.

  12. David says:


    I hope I’m not too late to rebut some of this anti-O’Bama nonesense. Note, I didn’t vote for him in our primary and doubt I’ll vote for him in the general election, but pointing him out as a sign of the decline of reason is nuts when we have a man so proud of his ignorance and anti-intellectualism in the White House. O’Bama may not be wonkish in his speaches, but he’s at least an educated and thoughtful man.

    I don’t agree with a lot of O’Bama’s conclusions, but Bush is the prime example of the failure of reason in western culture.

  13. fp says:

    Nobody said that Obama is evidence of the fall of reason.

    You have made an assertion without providing any evidence. Should we believe it just because you said so?

    Obama, like so many americans, is not educated, he is schooled. Not the same thing.

    I have not heard Obama make one well-thought out consistent comment. Everything is superficial and contradictory. A lot of it old leftish fantasies.

    The most insightful piece on Obama is this:

    A Mother’s revenge

    That there is a limited person in the white house does not mean another who wants to be there is not limited too. In fact, most of those who seek the WH are. You gotta be to want it.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *