We thought it is good to show the public what went wrong in a Dutch tv-show in which Peter R. de Vries, a well-known "crime-journalist" callously depicted Harry as having committed the crime of murder, whereas this was not said by the attorney interviewed.
Due to a (purposeful?) subtitle-error Harry was depicted as a murderer. Something that has brought much harm to him and to the cause of justice.
Due to a (purposeful?) subtitle-error Harry was depicted as a murderer. Something that has brought much harm to him and to the cause of justice.
Reactie van Harry en Linda op uitzending Peter R. de Vries over Harry Bout (2008)
- door Sandra -
Ik heb Linda (zus van Harry) de dvd van het programma over Harry opgestuurd en Harry heeft via de telefoon de uitzending kunnen beluisteren.
Er zijn nogal wat reacties gekomen op het feit dat zelfs mr. John Beason (Harry's voormalige advocaat) gezegd zou hebben dat Harry schuldig zou zijn.
Hier de reactie van Linda en Harry:
Greetings Sandra,
Harry has called me again, and asked that I write down the subtitles to what John Beason said, so I did. I need to let you know that what he said and what was written in the subtitles is incorrect... here is the what he actually said:
Peter: Do you consider this as a failure of justice?
Beason: No.
Peter: Ziet u het als een gerechtelijke dwaling?
Beason: Nee.
This was a portion of an interview with Beason, but it was added right after the interview with Prosecutor Klavins, to make it seem like Peter was asking this in relation to what Klavins was speaking about... very tricky.
Continued...
Beason: I think that Harry got himself caught in a situation, in a case where all the ingredients are there. Sex. Drinking. And guns.
Beason: Ik denk dat Harry in een situatie is terechtgekomen en in een zaak...Het bevat alle ingredienten: seks, drank en pistolen.
Beason: I couldn't get past the letters, I couldn't get past the body, I couldn't get past the concrete, I couldn't get past the bury, and I couldn't get past Dawn Bean. You add those up and you got a guilty. (Which means you got a guilty verdict, with all of that going up against you. He did not say Harry was guilty. He said in very poor grammar...you got a guilty)
[translation in subtitling:] Beason: Ik kon de brieven, het lichaam en het beton...het verbergen van het lijk en Dawn Bean niet negeren.
[Translation is EVERYTHING!]
[translation in subtitling:] Beason: Tel dat allemaal bij elkaar op en hij is schuldig.
THIS IS NOT WHAT ATTORNEY BEASON SAID!! HE SAID:
"You add all those up and you got a guilty." As in, you get a guilty verdict when you have all that going against you. He was trying to say he tried his best, but with all that was against him in defending him, he got a guilty, instead of an innocent. Harry is not innocent of participating in all of this, but he is innocent of shooting Al.
THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE.
As far as Al's son stating that he was not there in the court in support of Harry, but to see that he did not get released... Harry said that H. R. told him that Al's son was there, and that he did not believe that Harry actually did this. I am thinking that maybe H. R. spoke with him (Al's son) and maybe he said he was in disbelief that Harry could do, or did do this. (because he was a very good friend of his father). I do not know how the conversation went, nor does Harry, but Harry said that this is what H. R. said to him about Al's son being there.
Harry would have no way of knowing anything about Al's son unless someone else told him this. He could not talk to anyone, including Al's son, to get this kind of information. Harry was not LYING to get people to believe that Al's son was supporting him, he was simply repeating something that H. told him. It would be craziness to say his son supports him and doesn't believe he did this, if he REALLY didn't say it. It would make Harry look like an real idiot to say something that Al's son did not truly say. Like I said before, I think it depends on the context of what was being talked about and way that his son said anything to H. that day in the court.
I think that the translation regarding Attorney Beason was TOTALLY incorrect and that they should do something to rectify it. He did not say Harry was guilty. He said he (Beason) got a guilty verdict because of all the things he had to contend with in defending Harry.
I feel awful that the Dutch people who saw this think that Harry's own attorney said he was guilty. THAT IS NOT TRUE!!
What can we do about this?? Peter and his subtitle people either did this by accident or they did this purposefully to mislead their viewers of the program. Either way, it was a bad and wrong thing to have happened. This did no justice to Harry....it only hurt him.
[Note from the webmaster: this carelessness, suggesting Harry was guilty, about such a serious case, creates injustice to all involved. Peter R. de Vries was challenged on this broadcast, but the Dutch Media Board of journalists cast the complaint aside. This shows the dreadful level of Dutch media. On Peter R. de Vries' website, this broadcast was no longer shown, maybe that is their way of admitting that something IS wrong?]
0 Comment