The trial was beautiful, the Palais de Justice is beautiful with its aspiring architecture and gilded gates, it was a beautiful late summer evening in mid-September as we walked out of the Courthouse at 8:30 PM, exhausted and relieved. Richard Landes and I danced out of there singing Vive la France.
The trial was almost the opposite of what I expected. I thought the issue was going to get laminated in legalese, evaporated in ennui, entangled, garbled, swallowed up under the high ceilings of the 17th Correctionel Chamber of the Tribunal de Grande Instance. No, it was a genuine debate conducted in a civilized manner by intelligent responsible citizens aware of the importance of every word they uttered. Except, of course, for the Plaintiff, France 2-Chabot-Enderlin, who apparently thought they could flitter through the court with the same arguments and the same methods they have been using for the past six years to cover up the cover up.
The presiding judge and his two associates (I’ll get the details straight tomorrow) were human, humane, attentive. Especially the judge. He listened attentively, smiled, put people at ease, engaged in no silly manners or intimidating attitudes. The prosecutor, was bright, forceful, and forthright. Her name is Madame Halimi-Selam (more on that later). If the judge follows her appreciation of the case, Karsenty will win. He is free to ignore her interpretations and recommendations but I don’t think he will.
I can’t save this anecdote for tomorrow: a journalist from Le Figaro said to a photographer sitting near him in the press box—the prosecutor looked at the case that way because she’s Jewish. I’ll find out his name tomorrow and tell you a bit more about him.
There were not many journalists in the courtroom, not many people in the audience…they don’t know what they missed.
It was a beautiful trial. It was held in an atmosphere of respect for justice. Karesenty’s lawyers presented solid arguments and four sincere witnesses. The al-Dura affair, which is so difficult and complicated, was presented in such a way that an outside could follow the arguments. My impression is that the judge started out with what I would call the James Fallows approach, a middle ground position safely installed in the reasonable zone. It is too radical to suggest that the Israelis killed the boy in cold blood, it is too extreme to suggest that the whole thing was a shoddy hoax, so it has to be that he was killed in a crossfire. Never mind that there IS NO CROSSFIRE in the death scene as filmed. So what’s so reasonable about dragging in all that ammunition and gunfire when in fact it is nowhere to be seen.
It is easier to see the hoax than the crossfire.
(La suite sur le blogue de
Pyjamas).
Nidra Poller with a breaking report from the Al-Dura Trial
