Dr. David: Here’s How Mohammed al-Dura Really Died

Dr. Yehuda David who won his own Supreme Court case in France, regrets not being part of the latest Al-Dura hoax slander suit, & gives Mohammed al-Dura’s real cause of death.

By Maayana Miskin

 

The Israeli doctor who won a libel suit victory in the Mohammed al-Dura case regrets that he was unable to help French media analyst Philippe Karsenty to do the same.

Dr. Yehuda David won his case in France’s Supreme Court in 2012 after being accused of libel for revealing that Jamal Al-Dura, Mohammed al-Dura’s father, had lied. Karsenty lost his own Supreme Court case this week, and was convicted of defamation for accusing French state television of deliberately staging the hoax.

In an interview with Arutz Sheva, David repeated his assertion that the Mohammed al-Dura shooting video was fake, and revealed what he believes was the child’s real cause of death.

“Mohammed al-Dura’s father assisted Israel. Hamas murdered one of his children. Then they demanded that he bring a different son – Rami al-Dura – and make it look like IDF soldiers were murdering him,” he declared.

“That child who was supposedly killed by the IDF is alive to this day,” he added.

David has previously noted that Mohammed al-Dura is on record as having been admitted to a Gaza hospital several hours prior to the alleged shooting involving the IDF.

He expressed regret that he had not been present to help Karsenty in his libel suit. David explained his own winning strategy when facing France’s highest court.

“It’s a totally political trial. That’s why in my trial I fled from politics and focused on scientific proofs based on medical documents,” he recalled.

After an initial conviction by a lower court, “I changed my strategy and focused on the science. That was Karsenty’s mistake, that he waged a political war with a political court,” David asserted.

He expressed regret that he had not been called to testify on Karsenty’s behalf, as the doctor who proved in court that Jamal al-Dura’s supposed bullet wound scars were  actually scars from surgery performed by an Israeli doctor – himself.

“That was [Karsenty’s] fatal mistake, that he didn’t use me. He had a winning card, I introduced him at one point to the man who was commander at the IDF position, his testimony was also golden – but he decided to go it alone, and that is why it didn’t work,” he said.

While he was not a part of the Karsenty trial, he still may be part of its aftermath, David revealed. “I will read up on the verdict, and if necessary I will raise the banners again” and go back to France to defend Israel, he explained.

“It is completely unacceptable that any country accuse us of murdering a child when we didn’t do it,” he concluded.

 

View original Arutz Sheva publication at: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/169402#.Uc1K4px0k9E

 


HonestReportingVideoAl Dura – What Really Happened?

2 comments

  1. Elihu says:

    Point of information. This round of the Karsenty trial was not before the French Supreme Court, but before a second panel of the Paris Court of Appeals, to where the case was remanded by the Supreme Court. The second panel of the Appeals court was forbidden by the Supreme Court, because of the following arcane principle of French law from seeing the video evidence that led the first panel of the Appeals Court to acquit Karsenty (Below is the original French and an English translation):

    “Vu l’article 29 de la loi du 29 juillet 1881;
    Attendu qu’en matière de diffamation, si le prévenu peut
    démontrer sa bonne foi par l’existence de circonstances particulières, c’est à lui seul qu’incombe cette preuve, sans que les juges aient le pouvoir deprovoquer, compléter ou parfaire l’établissement de celle-ci;”

    Translation:

    “Given Article 29 of the Law of July 29th, 1881;
    Whereas in Defamation if the defendant can
    demonstrate his good faith by the existence of special circumstances, it is he alone who must produce the evidence, without the judges having the power to provoke, complete or perfect its presentation;”

    This law as applied here by the French Supreme Court is a menace to civil society because (especially) in cases like this where an incident is most assuredly faked or staged and passed off as news by a government sponsored media outlet- the law makes it all but impossible to prove journalistic misfeasance on the part of those reporting theater as news. Forbidding a court from seeing the relevant evidence encourages the government-sponsored media to actively hide evidence of its wrongdoing and to use the ‘defamation’ cause of action as a sword (rather than shield) against individuals in order to muzzle valid criticism and avoid all accountability. Talk about blind justice. This cuts hard against the grain of Western Democratic principles.

    Note that such a law applied in a criminal context (recalling that libel in France is simultaneously a civil _and_ criminal offense) is striking to any American jurist. because under the U.S. criminal justice system the prosecution _must_ reveal all exculpatory evidence. (See: the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark case of Brady v. Maryland, #490, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), which established clearly that prosecutors have an affirmative duty, as a matter of U.S. constitutional law, to disclose all known exculpatory evidence to the accused in a criminal proceeding. If the prosecution suppresses evidence favorable to an accused, it violates due process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Due process is an essential element of every substantive proceeding even if the punishment for a crime is a fine and not imprisonment.

    It seems the French have a different model – One that is quite dangerous to Western values, which have nw been sacrificed on the alter of French honor.

Leave a comment

Leave a Reply