Claim No. 4: “Sometimes you have internal bleeding. Sometimes you have some injuries where a bullet gets in and out sometimes it doesn’t bleed.” critique

Charles Enderlin’s speculation here about wholly internal bleeding seems like a puzzling backpedal from his dogged insistence (see below) that there was blood visible during the alleged shooting. Rather than admit the possibility of error, Charles Enderlin invents a bizarre theory that compounds it. Enderlin’s conjecture here is a spectacular reach, for even in a factual vacuum, Enderlin’s surmise of internal bleeding to explain the absence of visible bleeding might conceivably account for one bloodless wound, at best. Is it reasonable to believe that all the remaining 10-14 remaining shots alleged to have hit Jamal and Muhammad Al Durah also produced only internal, invisible bleeding – or no bleeding at all? Such credulity on the part of an investigative journalist — especially one of Enderlin’s stature — is profoundly disturbing.

Even a single piercing by a high velocity round– and certainly an explosive round – would likely leave a very visible mark… and blood spatter.

When  interviewed by Esther Schapira on another occasion, Enderlin explicitly endorsed the veracity of the Shifa hospital autopsy report, alleging that at least one of the fatal rounds that pierced Muhammad Al Durah produced an exit wound in the back. By the time  Enderlin posited the suggestion of bloodless bullet wounds discussed here, however, he was already aware of the German video evidence calling into question the Palestinian account of events.

We don’t know what Charles Enderlin was thinking when he posited the possibility of a bloodless injury, here. Perhaps he was unwilling to grant the absolute credulity he had given his sources and film crew for the story, earlier… However, he still seems completely unwilling to admit the possibility that he might have erred, grievously.


Let’s listen to and read Charles Enderlin’s own words, in context, as he responds to  questions from journalist Esther Schapira. Note how Enderlin still resists the task of actually confronting the evidence militating against his narrative.

Schapira: [0:00:01.1]But if I remember correctly – or if I try to imagine the scene –

Enderlin: [0:00:06.9] Listen – talk to General Osama El Ali  – He is a general – Palestinian general – who went early the next day on the scene -who saw the blood with camera and a photographer who took the pictures who – he picked up the bullets. He is the one who changed the stone on the barrel. He is – uh – today in India … New Delhi. Talk to him. [0:00:28.9]

Schapira: [0:00:29.6] Ok – we will try. But still, if I imagine if- the situation and the father got nine bullets? – [0:00:37.7]

Enderlin: [0:00:38.3] I don’t know how many bullets –

Schapira:  – [0:00:39.0] The child. Right. But that’s what he said. Right.

Enderlin: – [0:00:40.9] You have a list of his injuries- in the-

Schapira:  [0:00:43.9] Right. Right –

Enderlin:  [0:00:43.6] -in the Jordanian report that you filmed.

Schapira: [0:00:44.9] Right. So if I see these injuries and if I hear that -uh – the poor boy had received…

Enderlin: [0:00:51.3] Listen –

Schapira:  [0:00:51.5] …two bullets in the stomach.  And Talal [just] the stomach exploded in front of him…

Enderlin: [0:00:54.8] He didn’t see it. He – he- –

Schapira: [0:00:57.1]…there must be a lot of blood.

Enderlin:  [0:00:56.6] … he saw blood. He- First of all there was blood. There was blood. The – again – they call it -uh – a handkerchief- a red handkerchief. Your- Shachaf and Karsenty and so on, call it a handkerchief. That’s one. Two – uh- I’m not a doctor. We have talked to two doctors. Sometimes you have internal bleeding. Sometimes you have – uh -some injuries where a bullet gets in and out sometimes it doesn’t bleed. I don’t know. Ask the doctors. This is probably -uh – what you should do. But – again– I don’t know. [0:01:32.1]
In the above interview segment, Charles Enderlin claims that Brigadier-General Osama al-Ali, a member of the Palestine National Council, commander of the local Palestinian police post on the day of the alleged shooting  (– who contaminated the scene by rearranging some evidence [such the stone that sat atop the barrel during the shooting scene] and removing other crucial evidence [– e.g. bullets – precluding their forensic examination by anyone else] witnessed blood at the scene of the alleged shooting and had it photographed. However, there was no blood whatsoever at the scene immediately following the reported shooting. As we mentioned in our critique of claim #2 in this section, Enderlin himself personally narrated videotape of the location, which showed no blood whatsoever at the scene, and was broadcast by France2 the day after the alleged shooting. Charles Enderlin – certainly by the time he had the above exchange with Esther Schapira –  and most probably by the day after the alleged shooting – knew or should have known the Palestinian general’s claim that there was blood at the scene –  “evidence” of the reported shooting –  could not possibly have been be factual.


In the interview segment, with Esther Schapira reproduced above, Charles Enderlin first insists that there was blood visible (on Muhammad) and refers disparagingly to Philippe Karsenty’s and Nahum Shachaf’s observation that the red blotch appearing and disappearing on Muhammad’s clothing is actually a “handkerchief”. (In our critique of Claim #1 and Claim #2 of this section we showed that France2’s own video confirmed that observation.)

Enderlin’s speculation about a bloodless wound also flies in the face of other “eye-witness” testimony about the extraordinarily bloody injuries Muhammad was supposed to have sustained as a result of the shooting.

For instance: On August 24, 2008, Canal+ broadcast the testimony of someone claiming to be an ambulance stretcher bearer who allegedly transported Muhammad Al Durah to the Shifa hospital, who reported that Muhammad’s intestines were outside of his body when the ambulance collected him. That description of this injury was echoed by Dr. Muhammad Tawil, the admitting doctor at Shifa Hospital on the day of the alleged shooting, who described Muhammad Al Durah’s arrival at the hospital

In addition, the Shifa hospital pathologist – Dr. Abed El Raqez El Masry – who allegedly autopsied Muhammad, described similar wounds and also stated that a second bullet exited the boy’s left hip after shredding major blood vessels.

In light of the foregoing, one stands dumbfounded at the lengths to which Charles Enderlin has gone to avoid confronting the contradictions in the narrative he continues to defend and purvey – even to this day.