Court Decision.
This is a PDF of the court decision on the Karsenty case. I welcome any sections that readers translate.
May 22, 2008
The Court’s Decision
« Why the French Court Decided against France2: They Looked at the Evidence
Better version of my video Presentation available at Youtube »
10 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. | TrackBack URI
short resume:
incoherence of the rushes,contradictory answers of Charles Enderlin
to the interrogations about the cuts in the rushes
contradictory answers of the cameraman Talal about the progression of the filmed scenes and the conditions of the filming.No coherence between the images chosen by the cameraman and the commentary of these images by Charles Enderlin
the thesis of the MENA comes from the fact that since one sees young palestinians playing scenes of war in front of the cameras and that France2 refuses to show the rushes something might be fishy.Charles Enderlin was imprudent enough to say that he cut the agony of the child,but Rosenzweig,Jambar and Lecomte saw,out of 27 minutes of rushes,more of 23 minutes of filmed scenes having no relation to the images shown by France2
and consisting in a series of falses scenes of war by young palestinians.
Karsenty says that the version of the playacting has more probability than the version of France2 and Lecomte and Jambar say the same thing.
.The 2 journalists told Arlette Chabot that they would not speak about their doubts
if they could see in the rushes the agony of the child
that Charles Enderlin had cut because it was too insufferable.But after seeing the rushes,they discovered that there was no agony,that when Charles Enderlin says that the child is dead,nothing permits him to say so and even less to say that israeli soldiers shot him.The commentary about the barbary of the israelis has no relation at all whith the images that went all around the world.Jambar and Lecmte refuse to believe in the thesis of the playacting because they are shown a film by Talal Abu Rama the 18 november 2004 trying to prove that the wounds of the father correspond whith the bandages he had at the hospital,the day after,without seeing the contradiction between these photos of the wounds and the tee shirt with no trace of blood.Considering that Richard Landes had declared that he thought that the playacting of the scene had a probability of more than 95 per cent,that the first declarations of Tsahal were based only on the images of France 2,considering that,by responding to Jambar and Lecomte that”the image corresponded to the reality of the situation in Gaza and in Cisjordania”Charles Enderlin recognized that the film which went around the world and provoqued so much violence ,did not perhaps correspond to the commentary he made of it.
In the end Karsenty had no personnal grudge against Enderlin , spoke in good faith and won his case
Bravo,Madam trebuq,bravo Karsenty,bravo Richars Landes
Comment by judith rosay — May 22, 2008 @ 10:42 pm
It was not a comment,it was a resume of the judgment of the french Tribunal
Comment by judith rosay — May 22, 2008 @ 10:45 pm
The BBC got the gist of it:
“In its ruling on Wednesday, the appeals court said it was “legitimate for a media watchdog to investigate the circumstances in which the report in question was filmed and broadcast, in view of the impact which the images criticised had on the entire world”.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7415858.stm
Comment by E.G. — May 23, 2008 @ 2:51 am
I went through the whole court decision.
This time the court has made a very serious and profound work, and has gone through and understood most of the whereabouts of the controversy.
Although the court had only to judge on the libel accusation, they went through the whole controversy since the beginning of the affair. For once, and contrary to the MSM, the court seriously listened and analyzed the arguments of those who opposed Enderlin (although at the start they considered Karsenty as a lunatic conspirationist) and the court’s decision exposes in detail and explicitly the testimonies of those who did not agree with Enderlin (Shapira, Mena, Huber, Richard Landes, Rozenzweig, Jeanbar, Leconte etc).
The result being three to four pages which are absolutely damning and devastating for Enderlin and France 2.
With such a judgment it seems crazy to me they could envisage going to the Supreme Court.
Maybe they have to in order to try protect themselves; indeed, following this judgment they now can be sued for their responsibility for the damages they have caused.
But Richard is right: Zeus maddens those he wants to destroy.
I regret not having the skills to translate the decision.
Comment by sirius — May 23, 2008 @ 8:55 am
@sirius
On Nov. 13, 2007 the BBC quotes Mr. Enderlin:
“I can’t imagine that a court can vindicate people who say that Muhammad al-Durrah’s death was staged. That would mean that you can cast doubt on any report,” he adds.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7092262.stm
When one holds such opinions, one would do a lot-even risk going to the Supreme Court - in order to prevent anybody from casting doubt on any report.
Comment by E.G. — May 24, 2008 @ 2:05 am
The text of the judgment is quite lengthy and involved,
well summed up by Judith Rosay. There is some unexpected irony in the very last paragraph before the formal decision: “Philippe Karsenty has not gone beyond the freedom of expression as defined by article 10 of the European Agreement on fundamental rights: this freedom is to be granted not only for what concerns ideas within general acceptance, or unoffensive or indifferent ones, but also for those which go against [the general point of view] or are bound to make [some people] uneasy.”
Is it not a beauty ?
Comment by andrew — May 24, 2008 @ 6:36 am
When one holds such opinions, one would do a lot-even risk going to the Supreme Court - in order to prevent anybody from casting doubt on any report.
And if you were the french supreme court wouldn’t you want to make sure that such doubts would not arise?
Comment by oao — May 24, 2008 @ 11:49 am
@ oao
I very much hope the French Supreme Court doesn’t want to make sure that doubts do not rise.
Comment by E.G. — May 24, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
RL, I’d like to translate a page or 2 of the verdict. But in order not to do what someone else has already done, it might help to have a table where people would register which pages they are going to translate, so that the work is not duplicated. Or maybe people should indicate on a comment on this thread which pages they will do. It’s up to you to decide.
Comment by Eliyahu — May 25, 2008 @ 2:04 am
Derfner digs deep…
My contempt for Larry Derfner goes back a ways. In the 90’s he was one of the Israel correspondents for every Jewish American weekly. As an extreme leftist, he used that platform to present Israel in the worst possible light. But with is critique of t…
Trackback by Soccer Dad — May 29, 2008 @ 4:14 am