Looks like even the French aren't falling for this Pallywood BS. From your link:
2006: Enderlin-France 2 v. Karsenty [edit]
Philippe Karsenty was sued for calling the footage a hoax. In 2008, the French court ruled that Karsenty had presented a coherent mass of evidence, and had exercised in good faith his right to criticize.
In response to the claims that it had broadcast a staged scene, Enderlin and France 2 filed three defamation suits, seeking symbolic damages of €1 from each of the defendants.[111] The most notable lawsuit was against Philippe Karsenty, a deputy mayor of Neuilly-sur-Seine and financial consultant, who runs a media watchdog, Media-Ratings.[112] He wrote on November 26, 2004 that the shooting scene had been faked by the cameraman, that Muhammad had not been killed, and that Enderlin and Chabot, France 2's news editor, should be sacked.[113] On December 9, 2004, Enderlin issued a writ for libel, followed by France 2 on December 3, 2005.[114]
The case began on September 14, 2006. Witnesses who testified for Karsenty included the French journalist Luc Rosenzweig, media professor Francis Balle, American historian Richard Landes, Gérard Huber, author of Contre expertise d'une mise en scene, and Daniel Dayan, research director of the French National Centre for Scientific Research.[43] Enderlin submitted as evidence a February 2004 letter from Jacques Chirac, then president of France, which spoke of Enderlin's integrity.[16] The court upheld the complaint on October 19, 2006, fining Karsenty €1,000 and ordering him to pay €3,000 in costs.[2] He lodged an appeal that same day.[115]
2007: Karsenty v. Enderlin-France 2 [edit]
The case opened on September 19, 2007 in the Paris Court of Appeal, the three-judge panel presided over by Judge Laurence Trébucq.[116] The court asked France 2 to turn over the 27 minutes of raw footage the cameraman said he had shot, to be shown during a public hearing on November 14. France 2 produced only 18 minutes; Karsenty refers to this as "the first tampering of the evidence."[115] Enderlin told The Jerusalem Post on the day of the hearing that France 2 had produced all the raw footage it had, based on "an original tape that was kept in a safe until now. We presented a DVD that was made in front of a bailiff from the original tape... not from the various copies you can find here and there." He said, "I do not know where this 27 minutes comes from. In all there were only 18 minutes of footage shot in Gaza."[81]
Karsenty commissioned Jean-Claude Schlinger, a ballistics expert, to write a 90-page report for the court.[118] Schlinger recreated the incident, examining the angle of the shots, the weapons, and the reported injuries. A diagram he produced (right) included a position behind the France 2 cameraman and in front of the al-Durrahs, a circular dirt berm known locally as "the pita," where Palestinian police were armed with automatic rifles.[31] This position did not appear in the cameraman's report; see the image on the left above. Schlinger concluded: "If Jamal 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 said there was no evidence that the boy was wounded in his right leg or abdomen, as reported, and that if the injuries were genuine, they did not occur at the time of the televised events. Had the shots come from the Israeli position, he wrote, only the lower limbs could have been hit.[119]
2012: Appeal decision quashed [edit]
On February 28, 2012, the French supreme court quashed the decision of the appeal court in the France 2 vs. Karsenty case, ruling that the demand of the appeal court to France 2 to provide the raw footage was not legally well-founded: although the defendant can demonstrate his good faith by the existence of particular circumstances, the proof is incumbent only on him, and the judges are not entitled to cause, complete or refine the establishment of said proof. The text of the decision is available at.[124] The case is therefore sent back to the appeal court.
2013: Second appeal [edit]
The new appeal hearing took place in January 2013, the decision is expected on April 3.[125]
In June 2010 Karsenty won another libel suit, this one against the French channel Canal+ broadcast and the Tac Press news agency over an April 2008 documentary comparing his arguments to 9/11 conspiracy theories.[126]
Impact of the footage [edit]
