Fwd: Haaretz: Independent expert: IDF bullets didn't kill Mohammedal-Dura

Unfortunately, this is like explaining that the Jews did not kill Jesus. The
debunking explanation does not have the emotional impact of the original
libel especially in view of the fact that you can make a first impression
only once.

Nevertheless, this should be disseminated as widely and as graphically as
possible. Sometimes it does work. The British put out propaganda early in
the First World War that the Germans murdered Belgian nuns and cut off their
breasts and also killed and ate Belgian children. Germany succeeded in
showing that the reports were all lurid fiction and it cost the Brits dearly
in terms of credibility. It's a pretty unusual case but it does happen.

Jack


Last update - 06:03 02/03/2008
INDEPENDENT EXPERT: IDF BULLETS DIDN'T KILL MOHAMMED AL-DURA
BY ADI SCHWARTZ

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."
Advertisement
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.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/959836.htmlaaretz