Comments on: Atrocity and Memory http://www.david-campbell.org Wed, 17 Jun 2009 04:09:40 +0100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: David Campbell http://www.david-campbell.org/photography/atrocity-and-memory/comment-page-1/#comment-229 David Campbell Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:08:03 +0000 http://www.david-campbell.org/?page_id=76#comment-229 Goran M: The libel trial against Living Marxism for running the erroneous Thomas Deichmann story on Trnopolje was a jury trial. This means all determinations of fact, and the final judgment, was reached by the unanimous decision of twelve citizens, after they had heard all the arguments and seen all the evidence, including all the video. As such, the judge in the case, Mr Justice Morland, did not make any final rulings about who was right or wrong. Despite this, many people who want to continue to discredit the story of Fikret Alic and revise our understanding of Trnopolje call attention to an opinion the judge expressed about the fencing in the camp. Most people wanting to make this case have relied on a BBC news story about the libel trial that contained a paraphrase of the judge's opinion -- but this BBC story was subsequently found to be misleading and unfair by the Broadcasting Standards Commission. My articles above put everything in context and provide the detailed evidence. If you read part 1, pp. 20-21, you will see the judge's comments quoted and discussed, and in part 1, p. 7, you will see the details of the inaccurate BBC story. The judge did not say the picture was a misrepresentation, though he did question parts of ITN's account about the condition and location of the fences at Trnopolje. In the end, this was a minor and contested point that did not have any impact on the jury's deliberation and unanimous decision. It certainly cannot be used to call the veracity of the Alic image and the full ITN report on Trnopolje into question. A full reading of my two articles demonstrates why that is a secure conclusion. Goran M: The libel trial against Living Marxism for running the erroneous Thomas Deichmann story on Trnopolje was a jury trial. This means all determinations of fact, and the final judgment, was reached by the unanimous decision of twelve citizens, after they had heard all the arguments and seen all the evidence, including all the video. As such, the judge in the case, Mr Justice Morland, did not make any final rulings about who was right or wrong.

Despite this, many people who want to continue to discredit the story of Fikret Alic and revise our understanding of Trnopolje call attention to an opinion the judge expressed about the fencing in the camp. Most people wanting to make this case have relied on a BBC news story about the libel trial that contained a paraphrase of the judge’s opinion — but this BBC story was subsequently found to be misleading and unfair by the Broadcasting Standards Commission.

My articles above put everything in context and provide the detailed evidence. If you read part 1, pp. 20-21, you will see the judge’s comments quoted and discussed, and in part 1, p. 7, you will see the details of the inaccurate BBC story. The judge did not say the picture was a misrepresentation, though he did question parts of ITN’s account about the condition and location of the fences at Trnopolje. In the end, this was a minor and contested point that did not have any impact on the jury’s deliberation and unanimous decision. It certainly cannot be used to call the veracity of the Alic image and the full ITN report on Trnopolje into question. A full reading of my two articles demonstrates why that is a secure conclusion.

]]> By: Goran M http://www.david-campbell.org/photography/atrocity-and-memory/comment-page-1/#comment-226 Goran M Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:28:25 +0000 http://www.david-campbell.org/?page_id=76#comment-226 Mister Campbell, why did the English judge say the picture of Fikret Alic was misrepresented? He claimed this before he ruled that LM was liable of slander for claiming that ITN doctored the photo intentionally. Mister Campbell, why did the English judge say the picture of Fikret Alic was misrepresented? He claimed this before he ruled that LM was liable of slander for claiming that ITN doctored the photo intentionally.

]]> By: David Campbell http://www.david-campbell.org/photography/atrocity-and-memory/comment-page-1/#comment-178 David Campbell Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:23:25 +0000 http://www.david-campbell.org/?page_id=76#comment-178 Seventeen years after the event, notwithstanding all the evidence in the articles and images above, there are those who still make unsupportable claims about the 1992 picture of Fikret Alica at Trnopolje. On 6 April 2009, Edward Herman, sometime co-author with Noam Chomsky, wrote an article on the alleged demonization of the Serbs (see http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5973) in which he stated: "An important part of the fix was dishonest demonization, as with the famous August 1992 picture of Fikret Alic, an emaciated prisoner behind barbed wire in a Serb 'concentration camp.' But the UK journalists had pushed forward a man who was sick and quite unrepresentative: the barbed wire was around the journalists, not the camp, and it was a transit camp, not a concentration camp." Herman's claims about the nature of the camp, who was detained there, and the journalists conduct, are totally without foundation. (His other points are dealt with in a response by John Feffer - see http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5972). Why does Herman feel able to constantly repeat claims that are countered by the evidence and demonstrably untrue? Seventeen years after the event, notwithstanding all the evidence in the articles and images above, there are those who still make unsupportable claims about the 1992 picture of Fikret Alica at Trnopolje.

On 6 April 2009, Edward Herman, sometime co-author with Noam Chomsky, wrote an article on the alleged demonization of the Serbs (see http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5973) in which he stated:

“An important part of the fix was dishonest demonization, as with the famous August 1992 picture of Fikret Alic, an emaciated prisoner behind barbed wire in a Serb ‘concentration camp.’ But the UK journalists had pushed forward a man who was sick and quite unrepresentative: the barbed wire was around the journalists, not the camp, and it was a transit camp, not a concentration camp.”

Herman’s claims about the nature of the camp, who was detained there, and the journalists conduct, are totally without foundation. (His other points are dealt with in a response by John Feffer – see http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5972).

Why does Herman feel able to constantly repeat claims that are countered by the evidence and demonstrably untrue?

]]>