In name and photo.. A film reveals the killer of Sherine Abu Aqla | policy

The film takes the viewer on an intense visual and audio journey, based on a combination of archives, field scenes and meticulous technical investigations.

Al Jazeera correspondent Sherine Abu Aqla was killed on May 11, 2022, when she was shot in the head while covering the Israeli occupation army’s storming of the city of Jenin in the northern occupied West Bank.

Read also

list of 4 itemsend of list

From the first shot, the spirit of professional search for the truth is evident, as the three journalists decide to start from scratch: the same place where Sherine fell, and the scene that is still etched in the memory of everyone who witnessed the moments of her assassination.

But the film does not repeat the image, but rather goes beyond it, examining what is behind the lens and what the official narrative concealed.

On the way to the camp, the voices of soldiers are heard from afar, and the line of fire that besieged the Al Jazeera crew in Jenin appears. The film focuses on the small details: the sound bouncing off the walls, the confusion of colleagues, the steps that suddenly receded before everything fell silent.

The film relied on an analysis of the original clips taken at the moment of the assassination, and reconstructs them using 3D simulation technology, with the help of experts in ballistics and determining sound trends. Step by step, each official narrative is overturned on its table.

The investigation proves that the shooting was not random, and that the bullet that penetrated Shirin’s helmet came from a specific military site where occupation soldiers were stationed.

Bullet path

The camera follows the bullet’s path precisely, while the screen shows images of maps and military sites, and the voice of one of the journalists is heard saying that the distance between the camera and the bullet is “mere seconds, but they are enough to change the course of the truth.”

The film presents a combination of professionalism and sentiment. Each of the three journalists talks about the personal relationship that linked them with Shirin, and how the tragedy turned into an incentive to complete her message, not a passing emotional appeal.

At a later stage, the investigation moves to compare the Israeli army footage with the photos taken by eyewitnesses, and contradictions are revealed one by one: the locations of the shooting, the angles, the timing of the sounds, and even the reflection of light on the walls.

An expert is shown analyzing frame by frame, proving that the bullet was fired at an angle that clearly indicates a specific location where an Israeli soldier was stationed inside an armored vehicle.

Here begins the main moment of revelation in the film, as the picture stops at the features of the soldier who opened fire, and footage of the training of the unit to which he belongs is shown, and in a calm voice one of the journalists says, “We knew that we would reach this moment… the moment we see the face of the killer.”

The scene is breathtaking as field photographs intersect with leaked army files that show the name and rank of the soldier, Israeli soldier Alon Scagio. For the first time, visual and nominal evidence is presented together in an independent, non-governmental investigation, putting before public opinion who bears responsibility for the assassination of the journalist who carried the word instead of the weapon.

Field certificates

Because the truth is not based on the image alone, the film uses field testimonies from Sherine’s colleagues who were next to her at the moment of her injury. Colleague Shatha Hanaysha narrates precise details about the first sound and her scream as she tried to drag Sherine’s body amid the hail of bullets.

The scene documents human and professional confusion at the same time. The journalist tries to escape death while not abandoning the camera, which has become an additional witness to the crime.

The narrative moves to the political dimension, as the film compares the silence of official investigations with the effort of independent journalism.

This highlights the contradiction between the Israeli story, which tried to evade responsibility, and what is revealed by technical data collected by international teams, which confirm that the shots came from a precisely aimed military weapon, and not from a random exchange of fire as the army claimed.

The film not only revealed the criminal, but also raised an important question: What happens after the fact? It shows footage of Sherine in her previous reports, and her voice saying, “We are now in Jenin,” as a symbolic conclusion. Even if Sherine is absent, she is still in Jenin, and in every place where the camera is raised in the face of a bullet.

With this narrative structure, the film achieves a balance between humanitarian document and journalistic evidence, and provides an example of the power of investigative journalism when it confronts denial with questions and impunity in name and image.

Through the tireless work of three journalists who did not know how to back down, the old question turns into a new certainty: Sherine was not killed by chance, but was targeted because she was there, holding the word in the face of the gun.