Comments on: Dam Bursts at Al Dura Trial

By: rich

rich — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:07:59 +0000

The Supreme Court of the United States, an appellate court, recently viewed, and made available as part of its opinion, a video tape in the case of 05-1631 Scott v. Harris, 04/30/07 | VIDEO (Real Player, 93Mb). Decision: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1631.pdf Video: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/video/scott_v_harris.rmvb

By: Gregory Koster

Gregory Koster — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 03:46:17 +0000

Are we taking bets about whether the 27 minutes will be lost/destroyed/erased in the future, or if it has already happened? The French saw what happened to Nixon and his tapes even with an 18 1/2 minute gap. Better to destroy the film, stage a pose in the best gee-Judge-Trebucq-we’re-sorry-it-was-an-accident Ollie North/Clinton tradition and rely on the good old legal principle recognized by all nations “Well, what are you going to do about it?” No raw footage= one cooked journalist, all in the great cause of getting rid of those dam Israelis. What’s a fine for the French equivalent of contempt of court? And being surprised that no reps of the press showed to cover this trial displays a charming naivete. The Press, raised on cocktails of 200 proof cynicism, laced with LSD in Dan Rather’s case, knows what to do when the past starts catching up.

By: Seva Brodsky

Seva Brodsky — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 03:28:21 +0000

Is Enderlin a moron? Sure looks it:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3451821,00.html

Reacting to Wednesday’s court ruling Enderlin told Ynetnews he welcomed the decision. “I am very happy about this decision. From the start, our position has been that we will not release raw footage except through a judicial process. We will not release the footage to militants or private individuals,” he said.

“I’m very happy that it will be seen in court. I hope that this is the end of a smear campaign which has gone on for seven years, and which has been difficult for me and my family,” he added.

“People have accused us of staging an event which is an absolute lie. I am very happy at last to have the possibility (to show it),” Enderlin said.

Does he realize he makes no sense whatsoever and that he contradicts himself? There are so many things wrong with these statements that I don’t know where to begin.

By: Sean Robins

Sean Robins — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 01:39:13 +0000

dan Rather and CBS News would last about three seconds under what appear to be the rules for journalists in France.

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 01:28:54 +0000

As Cook says, why will we ever see any “raw footage”? No doubt we’ll soon learn that it was accidentally destroyed, or overexposed, or burned in a warehouse fire, or fed to pigs, or SOMETHING.

The only way that they’d have a hope of seeing the footage would be if the judges had ruled that they would get in a car RIGHT NOW, and DRIVE TO PARIS, where they would enter the France 2 archives and sieze the footage.

By: Dr. Ellen

Dr. Ellen — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 01:26:55 +0000

They’re going to find some kind of accident to destroy the film, if it hasn’t been destroyed already. I trust any television network somewhat less than I trust Richard Nixon’s clandestine tapes and their gaps, and French TV even less than that.

Dreyfus redux.

By: Christopher Cook

Christopher Cook — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:36:58 +0000

Great Job, Nidra!In our post (Amazing break in the l'affaire Al Durah!) calling attention to your article today, we wonder aloud....will this footage, now that it must be turned over to the court, end up at the bottom of the Seine? Or perhaps underneath a wine cellar floor in some obscure chateau in the Loire valley? Can France 2 possibly allow it to be seen?

By: Anat

Anat — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:14:45 +0000

Nidra,

Should it be the same judges for the coming sessions up to February, or is it possible for the case to pass to other judges?