1 Monday, 27 August 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, you are to continue with the
7 examination-in-chief. You have used 45 minutes. You have another hour
8 and 15 minutes.
9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.
10 Thank you. I hope to be able to conclude in the time allocated to me.
11 Before I continue, I just wanted to tell you that on Saturday I
12 responded to Mr. Docherty's request, I responded by way of letter to the
13 Prosecutor, in which I stated what it is they should show, meaning the
14 photographs and documents we specified on our list.
15 WITNESS: IVICA MILOSAVLJEVIC [Resumed]
16 [Witness answered through interpreter]
17 Examination by Mr. Tapuskovic: [Continued]
18 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Milosavljevic. You know where
19 we left off last time. I tendered your report in which you stated clearly
20 what sort of proof is needed to establish the presence of a victim at a
21 crime scene; is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. During your testimony you said that an external examination, be it
24 on the spot or at the morgue or in some other place, is the minimum of
25 things that need to be done in order for one to be able to provide an
1 opinion as to the time and cause of death, as well as the mechanism of
2 causing injury, especially in extraordinary circumstances such as in times
3 of war. Is that so?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. You've also explained what it was that the police was supposed to
6 do in order to secure the most important facts and items.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Can you specify what those most important things are that have to
9 be carried out concerning external examination.
10 A. As regards external examination, first and foremost, one needs to
11 look for and know how to recognise indicia of the time of death. After
12 that one needs to describe the details found and photographs need to be
13 taken, first and foremost, of the face, which has to be photographed from
14 three different angles, as well as all other characteristics that may be
15 of assistance when trying to establish the victim's identity. Then one
16 also needs to examine all of the clothes and footwear, trying to find any
17 defects, any damage, to the items. After clothes and footwear are
18 removed, the body needs to be examined in order to see whether there are
19 any traces of injuries and other marks that can be visible on the body.
20 Q. Thank you. Only after that can one go on about doing all of the
21 other things concerning cause of death and other things that need to be
23 A. Yes. That is the bare minimum that is needed for us in order to
24 be able to conduct any further analysis.
25 Q. All this that you've shared with us and all of the things you
1 mentioned in your report concerning external examination which makes it
2 possible for you to continue your work, in all of the cases you worked on
3 from 1993 onwards, and we are talking about thousand of such external
4 examinations, did you always do the very same thing as you described?
5 A. Such external examinations were the minimum of all the things we
6 needed to do. If possible we always tried to do more than that, including
7 full autopsies.
8 Q. Are these the principles recognised by the discipline of forensic
9 pathology all over the world in similar circumstances?
10 A. These are the scientific principles of conducting forensic
11 analysis that all forensic pathologists are duty-bound to adhere to.
12 Q. Tell us this, please: Is there such a thing as a code on the part
13 of the International Red Cross when trying to prescribe the principles
14 used in such circumstances, extraordinary circumstances, not only the war
15 but floods and natural disasters, including crime scenes? Is there a
16 code, not in the sense of regulation but a code of principles at the
17 highest international level describing the procedure?
18 A. The International Red Cross is the very organisation which
19 assembled all governmental and non-governmental experts when trying to
20 establish certain recommendations, first and foremost, as part of which we
21 also have the recommendations pertaining to carry out forensic
22 examinations in circumstances such as these in which only external
23 examinations are possible so as to collect the minimum of information
24 which can be viewed as valid forensic proof.
25 Q. There is a document in existence - it is DD00-4626 - which is a
1 document from an international gathering of experts that was organised by
2 the ICRC. It contains 150 pages. It is an open-source document from the
3 internet. I wanted to present it here so that you could tell us a few
4 things concerning that document.
5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I'll repeat number. That is
6 DD00-4626. Page 5.
7 MR. DOCHERTY: Mr. President.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Docherty.
9 MR. DOCHERTY: Mr. President, on Friday the Chamber made a ruling
10 as to those documents on the Defence list which counsel would be able to
11 use in his direct examination of the witness. The document being referred
12 to now, DD00-4626, 65 ter number 392D, is one of the ones that the Chamber
13 excluded. There were some photographs and police reports that were
14 permitted, as well as Dr. Milosavljevic's own report, but this particular
15 document was excluded by the Chamber.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: We didn't allow this document so that's
18 excluded. Move on, Mr. Tapuskovic.
19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Mr. Milosavljevic, all of the things you've said so far,
21 absolutely all of it, is it in full accordance to the recommendations of
22 the ICRC that were put in place in February 2002? And have you always
23 followed those guidelines before and after that date?
24 A. All of the things I said concerning external examinations, all of
25 the facts that need to be established during such an examination can be
1 also found in the recommendations made by a body comprising numerous
2 international governmental and non-governmental experts. Some of my
3 colleagues from my country participated in the work of that conference.
4 All of the things I said about external examinations are to be found in
5 that document.
6 Q. Thank you. Mr. Milosavljevic, you were able to see a large number
7 of photographs from which I told you stem from another case that has to do
8 with the indictment against Dragomir Milosevic.
9 A. Yes, that is correct.
10 Q. Based on those photographs alone, I asked you to give us your
11 opinion as to whether you would be able to see -- to determine the place
12 at which that person was killed or to establish the manner and cause of
13 death. And based on those photographs alone, what was your answer? Did
14 you find it possible to do that?
15 A. First of all, I wanted to say that I saw 35 --
16 Q. Just a second. I was asking you in principle, based on those
17 photographs that you saw and those photographs alone, were you able to
18 determine anything that can tell us about the place where those people
19 were killed?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Thank you. And as you started answering, you said you saw 34
22 photographs on which there are victims alleged to have been killed by a
23 120-millimetre shell on the 28th of August, 1995.
24 A. Yes, I was able to see those photographs.
25 Q. In view of the things you've described, based only on those
1 photographs -- well, let me ask you this first: Were you able to reach
2 any conclusions as to where those photographs were taken?
3 A. One can presume that they were made at the morgue.
4 Q. Thank you. Based on the morgue photographs and on the photographs
5 showing blood traces from the scene, can you say for certain that the
6 victims were at the spot which is alleged that they lost their lives at?
7 A. No, that is not possible.
8 Q. On those photographs are there any victims for whom one can say
9 for certain that they were not killed by shell shrapnel?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. How many victims in total would that be?
12 A. At least in two cases.
13 Q. After I've shown you these photographs you will be able to confirm
15 A. Yes.
16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would please like
17 the witness to be shown document DD00-4989. It's an integral part of 65
18 ter document 2595. These are the photographs of victims 46, 54, and 76,
19 showing three victims from the list of victims from the Prosecution
20 document P266, page 2, admitted into evidence through Witness W-14.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Who was W-14? Would you remind us, if you can,
22 in a public session. If not, we'll go into private.
23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] In order to give you the full
24 name, we need to go into private session.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Private session.
1 [Private session]
10 [Open session]
11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
12 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness be shown from
13 this document, extracted from the 65 ter document, photograph number 3.
14 Q. Mr. Milosavljevic, what can you assert in relation to this
15 photograph and the person depicted in it?
16 A. If you look carefully at this photograph, primarily the right-hand
17 side, the top right-hand side of the photograph, that is, to the right of
18 the head of the body of the deceased person, one can clearly see two next
19 to each other and then two close together, and below the shoulder, if we
20 zoom in, you can see another three pellets, the so-called shotgun pellets,
21 which is the charge of bullets used with shotguns. So if we look
22 carefully at the face, the left eyebrow closer to the nose, one can see a
23 lump under the skin and the same lump can be seen on the tip of the nose.
24 The similar lump can also be seen below the lower lip, the left-hand side
25 of the lower lip.
1 These lumps were caused by under-skin infiltration of shotgun
2 pellets that you can see on the right-hand side of the photo. On the
3 right-hand side of the lateral side of the neck one can see a wide
4 circular wound.
5 And bearing in mind all these features and characteristics and
6 these shotgun pellets, one can say that this man --
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute. Judge Harhoff has a query.
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: Doctor, I have a difficulty in actually seeing the
9 things you say you see on this picture. Is it possible for you to
10 indicate with an arrow or a circle on the photo just where these lumps are
11 and the wound?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These are the pellets that I
13 mentioned at the beginning and these are the lumps and this is the wound.
14 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness, please, have you been able
15 to examine this yourself on site or are you basing yourself only on this
16 photograph to determine all this?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I didn't have an opportunity to
18 visit the scene. I only had an opportunity to look at the photographs
19 contained in the case file.
20 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: So, Witness, you say what you see is evidence of
22 shotgun pellets, not shrapnel.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: What is it that you're saying?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So we see shotgun pellets. Shrapnel
1 looks completely different. These are regular round smooth pellets.
2 Shrapnel is of a regular form, different sizes and shapes.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: That was my question, what is the difference
4 between shrapnel and pellets. Now, you have told us shrapnel is of a
5 regular form, different size and shape. Would you be more specific?
6 Perhaps could you indicate by drawing what it is that you would expect to
7 see --
8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: The witness said
9 irregular form.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Irregular, irregular form, I see. Could you
11 indicate what it is that you would expect to see were it a shrapnel
12 wound? Is that the drawing to the right?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is shrapnel up there and below
14 that are the shapes of wounds caused by shrapnel. There is a photograph
15 which clearly shows what I've just demonstrated.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Okay. So that's shrapnel and the wound caused
17 from shrapnel. Would you just indicate by a drawing as well a pellet and
18 the wound caused by a pellet.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a pellet and the cartridge,
20 of the bullet contains thousands of these pellets. So once it's fired
21 from a relatively close range, a cluster of pellets can cause a rather
22 large wound, round wound. Pieces of individual pellets which are not
23 within this cluster and if the distance from the body is bigger, 40, 50
24 centimetres, individual pellets leave this cluster and can be found around
25 the wound. They go under the skin and then they can be found as these
1 lumps surrounding the wound. Based on the pellets and the look of the
2 wound, together with the ballistics, we can establish a relative range of
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: And you say that the wounds that you saw on this
5 photograph were similar to those -- similar in shape to those that you
6 have depicted at the bottom of this screen.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. In my career I had an
8 opportunity to see several hundreds of wounds caused by shotguns --
9 shotgun fire from various ranges.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: And what range would you say was applicable in
11 the case of these wounds?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can only give a rough estimate
13 because it takes a ballistic and forensic expertise to establish the exact
14 distance. But based on the position of the wound and the position of the
15 pellets under the skin, the range shouldn't have exceeded 50 centimetres,
16 or let's say circa 50 centimetres.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: In other words, a very close range.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In forensic terms it's a relative
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Doctor, let me just be clear that I understand you
22 perfectly well. In your view, this witness which is shown on the picture
23 was killed not by a mortar but by a shotgun at a distance of less than 1
24 metre. Is that what you're saying?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: A shotgun would be lethal by bullets, I
2 understand, and the bullet would have an entry wound and an exit wound as
3 opposed to what we see here is the entry wound. The only thing that I
4 would identify from this picture - I must say that the dissolution of the
5 picture is poor - but there is this black spot on his left eyebrow which
6 to me could be an entry wound of a bullet, but I'm not -- I can't -- I'm
7 not sure what you're saying in respect of the lump on the nose and the
8 lump under the left part of his lower lip, nor can I make out what the
9 wound is on his neck. Can you please help me understand and to read this
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, I have to say that
12 this was a digital photograph with a lot of pixels in it, and you're quite
13 right, it's not very clear. I had an opportunity to see the actual photo
14 which shows more clearly that this is on the right-hand side of the neck
15 and that this is possibly an entry wound.
16 If you look on this pellet below the lower lip, above it there is
17 a trace on the skin which resembles a lesion, a furrow lesion made by the
18 pellet where it first goes on the surface of the skin and then entered the
19 skin and remained under the lower lip. The one on the tip of the nose
20 primarily by -- judging by its size, resembles the infiltrated pellet.
21 And it's too small to be indicative of an entry wound caused by small
22 arms, and such a wound has other characteristics that clearly
23 distinguishes it from the pellet that has ended up under the skin.
24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Maybe it can better be seen if we
2 put it on the ELMO, and we have one now on the ELMO. So if the doctor
3 could kindly look at the photograph.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Sorry. Let us hear Mr. Docherty.
5 MR. DOCHERTY: Your Honour, I understand, of course, that the
6 Chamber ruled on Friday that these photographs could be used, but I do
7 want to point out for the record and also to object that we are hearing
8 for the first time that it is this witness' opinion that victims at
9 Markale died from being shot by shotguns and not by some other effect. It
10 was not in the doctor's report, it was not in the supplemental letter that
11 Mr. Tapuskovic sent to me on Saturday, and this is not -- this is simply
12 not the way that things ought to be done. We should not be learning this
13 expert's opinion for the first time during his direct examination and I
14 object on that ground.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: I won't exclude it. If you're embarrassed by
16 hearing it for the first time, there are ways of dealing with it. There
17 are ways of dealing with that. I'm interested in seeing that the truth be
18 found and I will ensure that there is fairness in respect of both parties.
19 Now, I wanted to ask the doctor whether from the photographs that
20 he examined he saw victims who died from shrapnel wounds.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I did.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: And would that be the case in respect of the
23 victims represented by all the other photographs that you saw, apart from
24 these three?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The victims shown on some of the
1 photographs lack the external indications of injuries. On the photographs
2 I was able to see, one cannot see those. They were photographed in their
3 clothes. The pictures are of poor quality, such as this one. Therefore,
4 on the clothes and parts of body that can be seen, one cannot see clear
5 signs of injury. Also, on some of the victims, one is able to see
6 shrapnel impact and other characteristics of an explosion.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Would you have any of those photographs
9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, Judge Robinson, the
10 third photograph shows the very characteristics. This is what I wanted to
11 show this expert in the end, since we have to analyse that as well. The
12 third photograph shows that very thing. We have prepared that
13 photograph. And as for Mr. Docherty, we told him two days ago that some
14 victims seemed not to have been killed at Markale but elsewhere. They
15 were simply not killed at Markale. We have notified my learned friend as
16 to the nature of such injuries and it was clearly stated in our
17 communication. In the two days that have lapsed they may have consulted a
18 physician; they may have asked someone for some assistance. We told them
19 clearly that at least in two cases, we have this physician's opinion that
20 they were not killed at Markale but elsewhere.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: So you will be coming to evidence from
22 photographs of victims killed by shrapnel. Well, I will leave you to
24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, we have one such photograph
25 that we wanted to present, and one can clearly see what a shrapnel wound
1 looks like. For without that, the things referred to by the expert so far
2 would not be sufficiently clear. There would be no way to compare that.
3 May I continue?
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Mr. Milosavljevic, on the left-hand side there is also a light
7 spot on the photograph, to the left of the head.
8 A. Do you mean this?
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. I cannot tell you anything concerning that.
11 Q. If you believe that this photograph was taken at the morgue, what
12 do you think where these pellets came from? How did they arrive in the
13 morgue? It seems that they were on the ground under the body or next to
15 A. Judging by the position of the pellets we can only assume that
16 they fell out of the exit wound. However, that part of the body was not
17 photographed and is not in accordance with the forensic principles. The
18 body was not disrobed either, and had that been done I would have been
19 able to tell you much more clearly about the direction of fire and other
20 issues that we are supposed to examine.
21 Q. What are you trying to tell us?
22 A. These pellets may have fallen out of the exit canal of the wound
23 during transport and the putting of the body on the autopsy table when the
24 photographs were taken.
25 Q. As for the marks on the face, they are caused by what?
1 A. The three lumps I mentioned are pieces of shrapnel which have
2 penetrated subcutaneously to that part of the body. I said that in
3 addition to the lesion below the left lip, one can see the trace left by
4 the movement of shrapnel across that part of the face.
5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'd like to tender
6 this photograph with the markings.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we'll admit it.
8 THE REGISTRAR: As D370, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Docherty, the Chamber has been considering
12 your position and in particular the Chamber has been considering the
13 lateness of the notice given to you in respect of the evidence that we are
14 now hearing and which is important at any rate in relation to these three
15 victims. Are you in a position to say now whether you would be able to
16 deal with that in your cross-examination or whether you would need more
17 time to carry out consultations?
18 MR. DOCHERTY: What I've heard so far, I think I could deal with
19 in cross-examination.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please show photograph
23 number 4 to the witness from the set of photographs, DD00-4988.
24 Q. Mr. Milosavljevic, based on your experience in investigating
25 crimes, this wound seen on this victim's body, would it be indicative to
1 you of a wound of a different type if one were to seek any explanation on
2 your part as to the cause of that wound?
3 A. If we look at the wound carefully on the right side of the chest,
4 the characteristics are as follows: There is a regular circular defect in
5 the middle of the wound and there is an outer ring, the width of perhaps 2
6 to 3 millimetres. It is an abrasion. And in this specific case this
7 could be the entry defect and the ring of the wound caused by a projectile
8 fired from a small arm. Judging by the shape of the ring, the projectile
9 probably came from the right-hand side and from above as to the position
10 of the victim's body at the moment of injury.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Counsel, where was this photo taken? Is this from
12 the morgue or is it on the spot?
13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Judge Harhoff, not a
14 single photograph that has to do with the Markale incident was taken at
15 the scene. Not one. That is why this witness had more difficulty in
16 assessing those photographs. This picture was taken at the morgue, as did
17 the other photographs of other victims allegedly killed at Markale.
18 Q. Before I move on to the third photograph I wanted to ask you this:
19 You categorically stated based on your experience, having in mind the
20 ring around the wound, that this is clear proof that this was actually a
21 firearm bullet.
22 A. This could only have been caused by a firearm. Shrapnel wounds
23 are irregular in shape. They do not exhibit the bruise ring.
24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I have something for the
25 transcript. While we were discussing the previous victim, what was
1 entered in the transcript was shrapnel and the witness kept saying or
2 referring to shotgun pellets. And in one place what appeared was
3 shrapnel, which he did not mention, not once. A piece of shrapnel is
4 different from a shotgun pellet. And in the transcript we
5 have "shrapnel."
6 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The witness clearly stated,
7 said "shrapnel" on two occasions.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, if you are saying that there is
9 an error in the translation and in relation to this issue which is of
10 relative importance, you would have to point us to the precise line.
11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Line 5, page 15, and line 2.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: I do recall indeed that when the witness gave his
14 reply, the interpretation we received appeared to say that there were
15 traces of shrapnel found on the body of the first photograph victim and
16 that confused me and I'm sure it was mentioned three or four times, the
17 word "shrapnel," because if I understood the witness correctly, he was
18 asserting that the witness on the first photo was killed not by shrapnel
19 but by bullets, yet the interpretation kept on talking about shrapnel,
20 which was confusing.
21 But now that we are talking about the first photo, it confused me
22 also that you said that these -- all three photos are taken from the
23 morgue. The first photo showed bullet pellets on the wall, on the floor,
24 on the ground next to the victim. Surely there wouldn't be traces of
25 bullets in the morgue, would there?
1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Judge Harhoff, I
2 think it was mentioned that the expert thought that those pellets fell out
3 of the wound once the body had been placed on the table.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: The question is for the witness to answer, not
5 for you to give an explanation, Mr. Tapuskovic.
6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] He's already told us about that,
7 Your Honour. It didn't come from me.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Then let him repeat it.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that one of the possible
10 explanations as to the presence of the pellets on the floor or on the
11 table where the photographs were taken was that when the body was being
12 transported and placed on the table, those pellets may have fallen out of
13 the exit canal of the wound.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: I'm sure we'll see the picture again and I'll have
15 a chance to have a second look. Thanks.
16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Concerning this photograph, can you tell me this: Had you had a
18 photograph which had to have been taken during an external examination, it
19 would have been of great assistance in making your conclusions.
20 A. Yes. In that case we would have been able to see whether there is
21 an entry/exit wound in this case or whether the projectile itself still
22 remains buried in the body. If there is an exit wound, then we can be 100
23 per cent sure that it was actually a projectile that was fired, and in
24 that case we would know what the direction of the wound canal is. Coupled
25 with the characteristics visible at the place of entry, all this would be
1 of much assistance to a ballistics expert when determining direction of
3 Q. Based on the traces that we can see here, you say definitely that
4 this person was killed from a firearm.
5 A. Yes. According to all the characteristics, this victim was killed
6 by a fire -- a bullet fired from a small arms.
7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can this photograph also be
8 admitted into evidence.
9 The next photograph is on page 2 --
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we'll admit that.
11 THE REGISTRAR: As D371, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Mr. Witness, if I understand you
13 correctly, each time that a human body is touched or wounded by shrapnel,
14 these do not come out; they stay buried within the body. Is that what you
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In principle shrapnel have smaller
17 kinetic energy than the projectiles fired from small arms and they seldom
18 exit the body. However, if the person was at a close range of the
19 explosion and the travelling of shrapnel through the body is such that it
20 hits bone structures that can absorb even the bullets fired from small
21 arms, then exceptionally it may happen for shrapnel to penetrate and go
22 through the body. But in the cases that I mentioned normally the
23 travelling path through the body is very short. This usually happens with
24 stomach cavity, thigh muscles, arm muscles, and things like that. Most
25 often muscle structures.
1 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you. So in the case of a
2 shot fired, for instance, at close range, there is an entry point and an
3 exit point which may provide useful information to the ballistics expert
4 regarding where the firing came from.
5 Now, regarding shrapnel which exceptionally come out of the body,
6 could the expert reach sufficiently clear conclusions as to the entry
7 point and the exit point regarding shrapnel?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. In case of shrapnel both the
9 entry and exit wounds are similar by the way they look like - they are of
10 irregular shape, of sharp edges - because shrapnel tears the tissue that
11 it passes through because of its sharp edges, unlike a bullet which, due
12 to its high kinetic energy and regular [Realtime transcript read in
13 error "irregular"] shape, creates a regular mechanical penetration through
14 the tissue that it passes through.
15 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Line 12, it should say that the
17 bullet creates a regular shape, whereas in the transcript it says
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. That would seem to be correct. Thank you.
20 Move on.
21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Since this photograph has been
22 admitted into evidence, I would now like now the Chamber to look at the
23 wounds caused by shrapnel, and that's photograph number 2 in the document
24 that we assigned the number DD00-4988.
25 Q. Mr. Milosavljevic, can you please explain to the Judges what you
1 mentioned earlier about the wounds. What is the difference between the
2 wound made by shrapnel? Does this photograph illustrate this enough for
3 the Judges to understand it?
4 A. This photograph, in the right-hand half of the front stomach is
5 one wound, and there's another wound, too, which clearly show that they
6 are irregularly shaped with sharp edges and different sizes. One has a
7 teardrop shape; the other one has a groove shape. It depends always on
8 the shape of the shrapnel that was made as a result of detonation.
9 Q. I have no further questions about this photograph.
10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Unless the Chamber has any
11 further questions, I would like this photograph to be admitted into
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: We admit it.
14 THE REGISTRAR: As D372, Your Honours.
15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Mr. Milosavljevic, for the previous two photographs we can say for
17 sure that the wounds were not caused by shrapnel originating from a
18 120-millimetre shell.
19 A. In the first two photographs there is absolutely not a single
20 indication in the wounds that could cast a shadow of a doubt that this was
21 caused by shrapnel. Both victims' wounds show that they were caused from
22 completely different weapons.
23 Q. Thank you. Can you tell me, in forensic terms, can -- a video
24 footage can be used in the course of investigation as evidence?
25 A. I already said before that photographs and --
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, I don't understand the question.
2 Can a video footage be used in the course of an investigation as
3 evidence? How is he in a position to say what is or is not evidence? I
4 don't find that helpful at all.
5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Perhaps my question was not
6 precise enough. But, Your Honours, the witness has seen three videos and
7 one of these videos is already admitted into evidence, and he can
8 demonstrate here to you several things in this video, the most important
9 one being how the scene -- crime was tampered with, how bodies were added
10 to the crime scene.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Reformulate the question.
12 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. In forensic terms, can a video footage be significant in arriving
14 at a conclusion about what actually happened in terms of establishing how
15 the wounds were caused or the place where somebody got killed? So can a
16 video footage be used in forensics for anyone who is authorised - and in
17 this case, this is the Chamber - to draw conclusions?
18 A. Both photographs and video footage are used as ancillary tools in
19 forensics in order to provide better quality evidence of forensic
20 procedure carried out by investigators and forensic examiners, both in
21 situ and in the morgue. Both video footage and photographs are used as
22 auxiliary tools to provide both better and documented evidence of what was
23 done during the investigation.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm not helped by that kind of evidence. It's
25 not for him to say what I can use. He can say what are the advantages or
1 disadvantages of a particular method of investigation, but it is not for
2 him to say what the Chamber can rely on.
3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Judge Robinson,
4 whatever I'm doing is kind of my modest assistance to you as a Defence
5 lawyer. That is my sole purpose. And for that reason I asked the
6 question -- I asked the witness this question. As an expert, after having
7 seen this video, he can demonstrate to you the maximum number of
8 casualties in this footage, but he can also show you which bodies were not
9 there when an event took place or --
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let us move on.
11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we show the witness this
12 video so that you can see how the bodies were planted at the crime scene?
13 MR. DOCHERTY: Objection, Mr. President. This video is on the
14 spreadsheet of documents that counsel wanted to use with this witness and
15 in Friday's discussion it, too, was excluded from consideration.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: I did say, however, that the Chamber would review
17 this matter when it came up. I don't see the -- any need for this,
18 Mr. Tapuskovic. The Chamber will -- the Chamber will abide by the
19 decision that it made. We'll not have the video shown.
20 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I respect your
21 decision, but the witness has claimed about two victims that they were not
22 at the crime scene at all because they were not killed by shrapnel. And
23 the video shows how the victims that had not been killed at that location
24 were brought to this location. I'm definitely going to use this video in
25 my closing argument and this witness can be of help in demonstrating
1 positively to you how certain bodies were planted in the meantime. So
2 this is related directly with the photographs that we were looking at
3 before and that's the footage number 8623.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's not clear to me how you can use it in your
5 closing argument if the Chamber has disallowed it, but I'm going to
6 consider the matter with my colleagues.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: All right. Well, having consulted my colleagues,
9 the Chamber will allow the video to be shown.
10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm going to use
11 this in my closing argument because this is already a Prosecution exhibit,
12 P623. There are another two videos that this expert has seen, but today I
13 have decided to use this footage which already is admitted into evidence,
14 P623. I would like you to look at it and pay particular attention to the
15 first 1 minute and 30 or 40 seconds. While the video is being played,
16 because there is no commentary in the video itself, the witness can
17 describe what he's seeing, and after that we can address some other
18 issues. If the witness is going to be allowed to comment on the video
19 while it is being played --
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, you must allow the witness to
21 give the evidence.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 [Videotape played]
24 THE WITNESS: Please stop, please stop the film.
25 [Interpretation] Can you please rewind to the beginning.
1 [In English] Stop there. Okay.
2 [Interpretation] If you look carefully on the surface, in the
3 right-hand angle, there is something resembling a cardboard box. Close to
4 it there are no victims. More further on we can see a car and on the
5 left-hand side another car. So on this entire surface there were no
6 casualties, there were no dead people lying on the ground in the vicinity
7 of this object that resembles a cardboard box.
8 Can we please continue.
9 [Videotape played]
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Now you can see it even more
11 clearly. The camera is coming closer to the scene. You can see a wounded
12 person here. Then you can see a dead body here. You see a group of
13 people both dead and wounded, a large number of them. Another wounded
14 person is being carried away. We see a motorcycle rider on the left-hand
15 side with a serious injury to the head. You can see a large number of
16 casualties on the right-hand side of the screen.
17 Now, the camera goes back that we saw earlier where there were no
18 victims. There is the cardboard box and now you see a dead body that
19 wasn't there a minute ago while the camera was shooting this particular
20 area. So maybe we can rewind again to this particular segment of the
21 footage. Some 15 seconds of the footage back. A little more, please. So
22 you can see this cardboard box that we saw earlier and we saw that there
23 were no casualties, but now we can see a dead body lying there.
24 Now, if we go on, this footage shows a large number of casualties,
25 both dead and wounded.
1 Now you can see a convoy of cars in the background and beyond that
2 spot there are no other casualties. So the casualties are slowly being
3 evacuated. The normal procedure in forensics is not to allow any
4 tampering with the scene in order to offer assistance to the casualties,
5 but it is not customary to remove the bodies of the casualties from the
6 scene before the arrival of the police.
7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, there is a mistake
8 in the transcript. However, can we go back to the spot where the body of
9 that woman is close to the cardboard box, and the witness can explain how
10 is it possible that there is no blood around and under the body.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, let us do that.
12 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Your Honour, if I
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
15 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Just one thing, please, for the
16 transcript. On page 26, line 2, it says "to allow," to allow intervention
17 on the crime site to help the victims, and in English it says it's "not to
18 allow." So normally it would be "to allow" and the interpretation
19 was "not to allow." The witness said that normally you can allow to help
20 the victims, but what is not allowed, however, is to remove the deceased.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: I see, yes. So it should be: "The normal
22 procedure is to allow --" well, perhaps, tampering is not the right
23 word, "to allow some intervention in the scene in order to offer
24 assistance to the casualties, but it is not customary to remove the bodies
25 from the scene before the arrival of the police."
1 Yes, let's move on.
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. If we could see this woman from up close.
4 A. We can get a bit closer. A bit further more.
5 Q. What happened to this person?
6 A. We can see some blood on the lower part of the face and in the
7 area of the nose. We also see some blood on the chest, or rather, on the
8 clothes. We cannot tell anything about the nature of injuries, but in the
9 area immediately next to the head and around the body there are no traces
10 of blood. This is what can clearly be seen on the photograph. We also
11 saw that the body of this woman was not in this place at the beginning of
12 the footage.
13 Q. Forensically speaking --
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: And what is the conclusion you say you draw from
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As a forensic expert, my conclusion
17 is that this victim was not killed at this place. At the beginning of the
18 footage this body was not there. Had she been killed in situ she would
19 have been there. As to how the body ended up there I cannot say and I
20 cannot tell you where it originates from.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: May I be shown on the footage the cardboard box
22 to which reference was made? Can you show us that, Court Deputy?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the left-hand side, in the
24 pedestrian area. This is it. It resembles a cardboard box.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, can I use the IT lingo and ask you to zoom
1 in on that so I can see -- can it be shown more clearly?
2 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: I understand that it can't be done. I would have
4 to request one of the parties to produce a still. But I will be
5 interested in seeing the cardboard box more clearly, the size and its
6 other features.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: My colleague would like to see the video in its
9 entirety again.
10 [Videotape played]
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Stop now. It's not clear to me. Are we to have
12 seen in that video somebody carrying a box? No?
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: We are past the time for the break so we'll
16 --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.
17 --- On resuming at 10.56 a.m.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: You have about 20 minutes left, Mr. Tapuskovic.
19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
20 Q. When reviewing the footage you gave some explanations and
21 presented them to the Bench. When it comes to the woman lying next to the
22 cardboard box, even if we put aside everything you've explained so far, of
23 what importance is it that underneath the body and around it there is no
24 blood whatsoever?
25 A. Usually when there is a victim in situ, there are numerous traces,
1 first of all, blood flowing out of the wounds sustained by the victim, and
2 usually in a case like this when an explosion is concerned such blood loss
3 is significant. Blood can be found on the surface, around the body, and
4 underneath it; therefore, always there are blood traces indisputably
5 telling us that that victim had actually been killed at the spot where
7 Q. You explained what can be seen as the camera comes in closer and
8 then you told us what you can see -- what the camera is showing us a
9 minute later. You also mentioned additional two wounded people or
10 killed. Was there any blood around them?
11 A. When talking about the two injured persons, the camera pans across
12 too quickly and one cannot say whether there are or aren't any blood
13 traces at the spot where the two injured persons are sitting on the
15 Q. Tell me this, please: Forensically speaking, everything that can
16 be seen on the footage, what does it show as clear?
17 A. What one can clearly state when reviewing the footage is that
18 there is a number of people who were killed or injured due to an
19 explosion. There are injured people; there are killed people. By
20 counting carefully we cannot determine an exact number, but one can
21 estimate that the figure moves in the area of 25 to 30 people who were
22 injured or killed. We can also try and guess at an area affected by the
23 explosion at which people were killed or injured, since they were there at
24 the time of explosion.
25 Q. Thank you. I have no further questions on that topic; therefore,
1 I will move on and conclude with another topic. It has to do with
2 document D19, and I was granted leave by the Chamber to use it. It has to
3 do with the injuring of Dzenana Sokolovic and his child. Could we please
4 see D19?
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Would you like to have this video admitted? Oh,
6 it's already in evidence.
7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it is P623.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: That's the Prosecution exhibit, yes.
9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] 623. But now let us look at D19,
10 please, page 14, where the injuries on the child are mentioned.
11 Q. Before that, Witness, could you explain to the Judges this:
12 You've told us a lot of things so far and you mentioned the minimum
13 standard needed to make certain conclusions. Which medical document,
14 during the course of any investigation that has to do with a murder, is of
15 the greatest help in coming as close as possible to the truth?
16 A. The most important forensic medical document is the autopsy
17 finding. It should contain all relevant and necessary elements and facts
18 with the weight of proof based on which one can carry out a valid forensic
19 analysis and to respond to all possible questions concerning a specific
21 Q. As regards the 28th of August, at your disposal you did not have
22 an autopsy finding for any of the victims.
23 A. No, I did not.
24 Q. Have a look at the document before you. What can you tell us
25 based on the things contained therein, what can you tell us about any
1 aspects of the investigation?
2 A. Before me I have an excerpt from the autopsy file of Nermin
3 Divovic. It was signed by assistant Dr. Ilijas Dobrac, who is specialised
4 in forensic pathology, therefore he's a specialist. Contained therein is
5 the case history in terms of the cause of death. We have transclopetarium
6 capitis which means a gun-shot injury to the head. It says in the
7 brackets that entry point was on the right cheek, exit point on the left
8 side at the back of the head, which means that the direction of the canal
9 of the wound moves from the left to the right and above to --
10 interpreter's correction: from below upwards.
11 Q. Thank you. Let us go to page 11. Page 11. Please pay attention
12 to the things that you deem important and that have to do with the issue
13 discussed when talking about the killed boy. The statement contained in
14 the document, what does it tell you? It was drafted by the persons who
15 carried out the autopsy.
16 A. I see here the page pertaining to Dzenana Sokolovic, who was
17 injured. It is in this line. It says paramedially to the left one can
18 see an entry wound the size of .5 centimetres, with some blood loss.
19 Paramedially to the right, we can see the exit wound, the size of 2.5
20 centimetres, with blood loss.
21 Could we please have the page back.
22 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We cannot see that
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is difficult to read.
25 This in any case would mean that there is an entry/exit wound in
1 the abdominal area, with an exit part on the left-hand side and the exit
2 part on the right-hand side. The entry --
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: Excuse me, there must be some confusion in the
5 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, absolutely. On page 32,
6 instead of first "exit part" it should be "entry part." So what was said
7 in B/C/S was that the entry part is on the left-hand side and the exit
8 part is on the right-hand side.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: That would seem to be correct.
10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. We have the conclusion. What is the canal's direction compared to
12 the level of the ground?
13 A. Since both wounds are paramedially located, one on the left-hand
14 side and one on the right-hand side, it means that the projectile had come
15 from the left, went through the abdominal wall and exited on the right
16 side. Since there is no data on the distance between the entry and exit
17 part from the heel of the victim, we can presume that the surgeon probably
18 believed that they are positioned symetrically compared to the heel of the
19 person. That would mean that the projectile had come from the left to the
20 right, moving parallel to the ground.
21 Q. This entry/exit wound had this direction and you explained the
22 direction of the entry/exit wound through the head of the killed boy, from
23 below upwards, as you said. It entered in the cheek and exited above the
24 ear. Can a correlation be established between these two exit/entry
25 wounds? I'm not going to suggest anything to you, but can they be
1 correlated and therefore can one can say that they were caused by one and
2 the same bullet?
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Docherty.
4 MR. DOCHERTY: Mr. President, I object to this style of
5 examination. This -- the location of these wounds has been the subject of
6 a lot of testimony in this trial. Dr. Beslic, the surgeon who actually
7 operated on Dzenana Sokolovic, testified by videolink from Sarajevo and
8 explained all of this, and to go back to this anamnesis that was prepared
9 in the casualty department when Ms. Sokolovic was brought in and to not
10 present the witness with the surgeon's findings, the surgeon's testimony,
11 the surgeon's report, the surgeon's re-examination of Ms. Sokolovic is, I
12 put it, a very, very misleading way to proceed and I object to it being
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Docherty, the Chamber is of the view that the
15 question is not inadmissible because the witness has not seen those other
16 pieces of evidence to which you have referred. You may bring that to the
17 witness' attention in cross-examination.
18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
19 Q. Speaking of this, please, can the scars of an entry and exit
20 wound -- wounds as described by you 12 years later bear any influence on
21 the assessment that was recorded back in 1994 or 1995.
22 A. If one has a valid medical document from the time when the injury
23 was inflicted, scars can in no way be used as a valid proof in order to
24 qualify a wound. They particularly cannot be used in order to establish
25 accurately which of the two scars relates to an entry and which relates to
1 an exit wound.
2 Q. Thank you. But can you tell us, these two paths - as you
3 described them, one of them was horizontal - what do they indicate?
4 A. The medical records which I used to draw at my previous
5 conclusions clearly indicate that these two persons were injured by two
6 different projectiles.
7 Q. And my last question: Provided that the bullet had come from the
8 right-hand side and provided it passed as it did through the entire
9 abdomen of a person, would that bullet be capable of causing an injury or
10 death by passing through the skull of another person?
11 A. The projectile that passed through the entire abdomen, which is
12 approximately 50 centimetres at least in length, due to hydrokinetic
13 properties of a human body as well as the ballistic properties of the
14 bullet and the ballistic characteristics of the wound and the mode of
15 behaviour of a bullet while passing through a human body, in this
16 particular instance it loses a significant part of its kinetic energy and
17 it also rotates in the process. Due to that the exit wound was 3 times 2
18 centimetres because the bullet exited laterally, turning towards the back
19 side, and when this kind of bullet exits, hasn't [Realtime transcript read
20 in error "has it"] got enough kinetic energy for piercing even the skin on
21 the human body, let alone any bones.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, another thing. At
24 page 34, line 19, in English it says "has it got" instead of "has got."
25 It's the opposite. In English we have the opposite of what was said in
1 B/C/S at that line.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: So the word "it" between "has" and "got" should
3 be deleted.
4 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] "Has it got enough kinetic energy
5 for piercing."
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'll say it. The word "it" should be deleted.
7 So it should be "has got."
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: No, "has not got."
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you saying it should be "has not got"?
10 MS. ISAILOVIC: It says "has got" in the transcript and it should
11 be "has not got" enough kinetic energy to trans -- to pierce the skin on
12 the human body.
13 [Interpretation] It has "has got" and it should be "hasn't got".
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: I see. That is probably just a slight
15 misdescription. "It" then should be "n't" got, "hasn't got."
16 Yes, let's move on.
17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Thank you, Doctor.
19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Docherty.
21 Cross-examination by Mr. Docherty:
22 Q. Good morning, Doctor. You and I have not met before today; is
23 that correct?
24 A. No.
25 Q. And you understand that you prepared a report in this case which
1 was turned over around the middle of July; correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And you would agree with me, wouldn't you, that most of what you
4 have testified to today and on Friday was not in that report; correct?
5 A. Most of it is in the report.
6 Q. There is no discussion of the specifics of the Markale marketplace
7 incident of 28th of August in your report, is there?
8 A. In my report I spoke about the scene of crime. Since in the
9 entire set of documents there is not a single valid forensic or medical
10 document or report on the external examination --
11 Q. Excuse me, that is not the question I asked you. I asked you if
12 there was a specific discussion of the Markale marketplace killings in
13 your report. I understand that there are general principles. I
14 understand that you have attempted to apply those general principles here
15 today and on Friday. But it's not in your report, is it?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And the killing of Nermin Divovic and the wounding of his mother,
18 Dzenana Sokolovic, is also not discussed specifically in your report, is
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Why did you make the decision not to put those things in your
23 A. As I already said, the documents given to me for analysis, I
24 didn't find any relating to the Markale incident. I didn't find a single
25 medical record relating to the injury or any external examination or an
1 autopsy report relating to the fatalities of that incident. Therefore, I
2 didn't have valid forensic documents on the basis of which I would be able
3 to state an opinion on these incidents.
4 Q. But today and a little bit on Friday you have drawn opinions
5 concerning these incidents. You have used videos and photographs and, in
6 the last incident, medical documents to do so. So when were you provided
7 with those documents?
8 A. These documents were provided to me in late June of this year.
9 Q. So you had the documents concerning young Mr. Divovic and his
10 mother, Dzenana Sokolovic, in late June, but you did not include that in
11 your report; correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And yet you do give an opinion about those documents here today,
14 just a few minutes ago, don't you?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. So what happened to these documents to make them valid for
17 forensic opinion between late June and this morning? If you could draw a
18 conclusion from them this morning, why couldn't you draw a conclusion and
19 put it in your report?
20 A. The medical records relating to the injuries sustained by Dzenana
21 Sokolovic and then extracts from the autopsy reports regarding the killing
22 of her son are documents that are valid and properly signed by experts,
23 but they are not sufficient for a full forensic analysis in the manner
24 that forensic analysis should be done, and that is to say, to provide all
25 the answers that it's supposed to provide. In the medical document
1 relating to Dzenana Sokolovic's injury, there is only one sentence which
2 describes the location of the entry wound and the exit wound. Apart from
3 that, there is no precise data relating to the distances between these two
4 wounds and from the centre line leading to the heel of the person, which
5 are necessary for us to provide and sign a forensic report which would
6 give a precise direction of the path of the wound through the body.
7 Q. Excuse me, Doctor, it's becoming a very long answer. So your view
8 was that the documents were not sufficient for you to draw a forensic
9 conclusion. Is that an accurate or a fair statement?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. But you did offer a conclusion about 15 minutes ago, didn't you?
12 A. I only made a supposition.
13 Q. I see. Another word for "supposition" in English, Doctor, would
14 be "guess," wouldn't it?
15 A. What we have here is a professional supposition. I can say
16 exactly that this is an entry/exit wound in the abdomen. I can find where
17 the entry point and the exit point is and what the direction is. However,
18 as for other more accurate details, I am not able to provide them.
19 Q. Well, let's talk about what data you had at your disposal in order
20 to make your supposition. We've seen Defence Exhibit 19, which are some
21 police reports and some medical documentation. I take it that you had
22 those documents at your disposal when you wrote your report; correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And obviously, since they were put up on the screen in front of
25 you, you had those documents when you testified here today; correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Did you see the statement of the surgeon who operated on Dzenana
3 Sokolovic? His last name is Beslic.
4 A. I saw medical documents signed by him.
5 Q. But you did not see the statement that he provided and that was
6 introduced into evidence at this Tribunal, did you?
7 A. No, I didn't see his statement.
8 Q. Did you read the transcript of the testimony he gave when he, just
9 like you, testified before this Tribunal about this case?
10 A. No, I didn't.
11 Q. Do you know that Dr. Beslic performed a physical examination of
12 Ms. Sokolovic?
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic is on his feet.
14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, these are the
15 things that it is up to you to decide. I intentionally did not show him
16 witness statement. This is not something for an expert witness to decide
17 and weigh.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: I can't understand the basis for the objection.
19 He's simply asking him whether he read the transcript of the testimony.
20 Please go ahead.
21 MR. DOCHERTY:
22 Q. Were you aware that Dr. Beslic, at the request of the prosecutors
23 in this case, physically examined Dzenana Sokolovic a second time at the
24 Kosevo state hospital in Sarajevo? Were you aware of that until I asked
25 you this question just now?
1 A. No, I wasn't.
2 Q. Did you make any attempt to talk to the doctor who signed this
3 short autopsy report concerning Nermin Divovic?
4 A. No, although I don't think that he is alive anymore.
5 Q. All right. Well, Dr. Beslic is alive, or at least was when he
6 testified. Did you try and talk with Dr. Beslic and say to him, I've got
7 some questions about this old case of yours. Do you have a few minutes?
8 Can we talk? Did you do that?
9 A. No, I didn't.
10 Q. So you simply went with the documents that we've seen here this
11 morning, Defence 19; correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And it is on the basis of those documents alone that you draw the
14 conclusion that you do or the supposition that you do.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And you did something somewhat similar in your analysis of the
17 Markale marketplace shelling. You testified that you drew your
18 conclusions based upon these photographs alone. Do you stand by that
19 statement that you gave in your direct testimony?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Once again, you did not look at anything above and beyond these
22 photographs. No medical documents, no telephone calls to Sarajevo to
23 speak to the medical personnel concerned, just a view of the photographs;
25 A. I reviewed the entire set of documents and there were only
1 photographs there and a video footage. There was not a single medical
2 document there, nor any reports on external examinations or autopsies.
3 Q. Did it surprise you to find no such documentation, no written text
5 A. Very much so, because it's mandatory to provide medical treatment
6 and processing of all casualties or people who faced violent death.
7 Q. Did you make any efforts or any inquiries as to where these
8 documents were and whether they could be made available to you?
9 A. I did try through the Defence counsel, and I insisted on being
10 given any medical document, forensic medical document, on examination on
11 any of the casualties to be provided for me in order to do my forensic
13 Q. Did it concern you in terms of making conclusions that you did not
14 have these documents? Were you concerned about going ahead in the absence
15 of the information that you would expect to be contained in such
17 A. Of course it concerned me because a forensic medical examination
18 in absence of this type of document is simply impossible.
19 MR. DOCHERTY: Your Honour, could I have a moment to consult with
20 my colleague?
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
22 [Prosecution counsel confer]
23 MR. DOCHERTY: Your Honour, I was talking with Mr. Sachdeva
24 because I believe that a number of medical documents related to Markale
25 are in evidence and Mr. Sachdeva is going to look for the exhibit number
1 and I'll apprise the Chamber once that's been found, if it's found.
2 Q. To state the obvious, Doctor, you are not the physician who
3 conducted any of these examinations yourself. You did not see these
4 victims with your own eyes.
5 A. Yes.
6 MR. DOCHERTY: And if we could please see Defence Exhibit 370,
7 which is the first photograph that was shown to Dr. Milosavljevic.
8 Q. This is the photograph that you made some markings on during your
9 direct examination, Doctor, and your testimony -- let me just go through a
10 couple of the points that you were talking about.
11 It is your view, based on an analysis of the photograph alone,
12 that some raised bumps on this man's face are shotgun pellets; correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now, let's talk just a little bit about how shotguns work. And I
15 take it that you are -- in the course of your career, you've seen shotgun
16 injuries and you've seen deaths caused by shotgun, haven't you? I'm
17 sorry, sir, you have to answer out loud; otherwise, the court reporter
18 doesn't get it.
19 A. Yes, I have.
20 Q. Shotguns don't fire bullets, they fire cartridges, isn't that
21 right, shotgun cartridges?
22 A. That's correct, and that's what I said in my testimony.
23 Q. I'm not saying that you testified differently. I'm just trying to
24 establish some principles. And this cartridge is a tube made of some
25 material that will give way when the shotgun is fired; correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And inside that tube are thousands of tiny little pellets;
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. When the tube falls away, the pellets stay in a tube shape for a
6 while but then they start to disperse; correct?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. And some conclusions, more or less precise, more or less
9 approximate, can be made about the range at which a shotgun was fired from
10 the dispersal of these pellets; correct?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. Now, other material comes out the barrel of a shotgun as well;
13 correct? Hot gases, for example, and perhaps even some of the powder that
14 is used as the propellant; correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. The effects of the hot gas and the propellant, however, are not
17 felt very far from the shotgun. They fall away pretty quickly, don't
19 A. Yes, very closely.
20 Q. All right. And sometimes, by looking at a victim, if there are
21 scorch marks from the hot gases or if some of the propellant is embedded
22 in the victim, you know that this shotgun was fired from a very close
23 range. That is one of the things that you can sometimes tell as a
24 forensic pathologist; correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Now, you testified on direct examination that this gentleman, in
2 your opinion, was shot with a shotgun at a range of 50 centimetres. Do
3 you stand by that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. At a range of 50 centimetres, the shotgun pellets, having fallen
6 loose from the cartridge or having been released from the cartridge, are
7 not very widely dispersed, are they?
8 A. That is correct.
9 Q. And just to give us all an idea of what kind of a range we are
10 talking about, when talking about Dzenana Sokolovic, you said that the
11 width of a human abdomen was about 50 centimetres, didn't you?
12 A. Around that figure or more.
13 Q. Okay. I understand it's an approximation, but we're talking about
14 something like hip to hip, okay?
15 Doctor, if this individual had been shot at a range of 50
16 centimetres with a shotgun, I mean, he wouldn't have a face left, would
17 he? At that range the shotgun pellets are still remarkably compact and
18 carry an enormous amount of energy.
19 A. That is not correct. At that distance shotgun pellets are still
20 in a beam, which in this case hit the right-hand side of the neck
21 corresponding to this wound.
22 Q. And that would be that dark spot on the neck -- oh, excuse me.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Would you just indicate to us 50 centimetres with
1 your hands.
2 THE WITNESS: [Indicates]
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: All right. Thanks.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: And, Witness, would you also -- I know you're not
5 a ballistic expert, so not an expert in shotguns, but what -- if you were
6 shooting with a shotgun at a distance of 50 centimetres, or less than a
7 metre even, and you were shooting on a white piece of paper, what would be
8 the range of the pellets at that distance? How big would the circle be
9 that would include all the pellets? Can you -- if you know. As I said, I
10 know that you're not an expert on these matters. But what would you
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, the size of the circle
13 depends on the angle. If one is shooting at a right angle, then the
14 pellets disperse in a concentric shape around the wound. If it is at an
15 angle, then they disperse upwards. Such a circle can be up to 10
16 centimetres big depending on the distance.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
18 MR. DOCHERTY:
19 Q. And in addition, Doctor, at a range of 50 centimetres, does it
20 strike you as unusual that these pellets have done no more than insert
21 themselves under the skin?
22 A. Quite to the contrary. The main beam, the main thrust, of the
23 pellets made the wound in the neck. As for the other pellets which have
24 lost their energy, which dispersed, they only penetrated subcutaneously in
25 the region of the lower lip, the tip of the nose, and the left eyebrow.
1 Q. Doctor, in the course of your career, have you ever handled a case
2 of an individual who has committed suicide by shooting themselves in the
3 head with a shotgun?
4 A. Yes, on several occasions.
5 Q. Could you describe to Their Honours the degree of destruction of
6 the victim's head when someone does that? In other words, talk to the
7 Judges about what this close-range shotgun wound looks like.
8 A. When discussing suicide, what we have are usually the so-called
9 contact wounds or wounds occurring at very short distances, up to 5
10 centimetres. One needs to distinguish between contact wounds, when the
11 barrel is put against the body, and the wounds occurring at distances of
12 less than 5 centimetres as opposed to the wounds created at larger
13 distances of 50 centimetres or 1 metre. The difference is great, because
14 with the contact wounds you also see burns caused by gases and gunpowder,
15 whereas as you move away from the body, their effect is smaller or
16 completely absent.
17 Therefore, in cases of suicide we usually have contact wounds in
18 question. When there is a contact wound in any given case from a shotgun
19 or any other firearm, then we have a suspicion of a suicide.
20 Forensically, medically speaking, such wounds can actually exhibit a large
21 degree of destruction as opposed to the wounds of other types. And one
22 also needs to distinguish between the relative distance from a hunting
23 rifle and a firearm because there are differences there as well. We are
24 talking here about a relative distance of 50 to 100 centimetres. We are
25 not discussing the distance encountered with suicides. There we usually
1 have contact wounds or very small distances away from the surface of the
3 Q. So there is a large degree of destruction. Is that the answer?
4 A. Yes. With such wounds, the degree of destruction is significant.
5 Q. Now, in this case we've got a man shot at what you are now
6 describing as a 50- to 100-centimetre range, and the neck is, by and
7 large, intact, is it not?
8 A. On the photograph we can only see the frontal part of the neck.
9 We cannot speak about a general degree of destruction of the neck since we
10 cannot see its rear side.
11 Q. And you did not seek to find out if you could -- well, let me back
12 up. You're saying that from this photograph you can't tell; correct?
13 A. What is it that I cannot tell?
14 Q. I asked you about the degree of destruction of the neck and I
15 believe that your answer, I'm paraphrasing, is, From this photograph I
16 can't tell.
17 A. Yes. Based on this photograph one cannot discuss the degree of
18 destruction of the neck.
19 Q. And, again, you made no further inquiries. You simply used this
20 photograph, as you said several times in your direct testimony, photograph
21 alone; correct?
22 A. I asked for all other documentation and was told that it is
23 non-existent. In the documentation I received, information is rather
24 scarce; therefore, whatever conclusions I may have arrived at, I arrived
25 at by using this photograph.
1 Q. And you did not speak to the medical personnel concerned in
2 Sarajevo, did you?
3 A. I did not.
4 Q. Nor did you try to, did you?
5 A. I did through my lawyers. I tried to get some documentations.
6 However, I was told it is not in existence.
7 Q. Now, in the upper right-hand portion of this photograph you've
8 circled several items, three of them in fact. Do you see what I am
9 referring to?
10 A. In the upper right-hand corner, the right-hand side of the
11 photograph towards the top?
12 Q. Correct.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 MR. DOCHERTY:
15 Q. Two of those items have got a roughly circular shape; agreed?
16 A. They all have roughly circular shape.
17 Q. And the one that is lowest down is rather long and sort of
18 oval-shaped, isn't it?
19 A. Which one do you have in mind? The lowest one? I encircled four;
20 two towards the top and then two in the middle. One can see it much
21 better on a plain photograph. This photograph has too many pixels. There
22 are two up there and then three or even four further down below, and they
23 are all circular and regular.
24 Q. You say that there are three or even four. You can't tell if
25 there are three or four from this picture, can you?
1 A. Based on this photograph on the screen one cannot say.
2 Q. And it's your testimony that these are pellets that fell out of
3 this man's head at the morgue but not before. Is that what you're telling
5 A. I said that I suppose that one of the possible answers is that
6 those pellets fell out of the exit wound, which is probably on the back of
7 the neck, at the morgue.
8 Q. So that, again, is a supposition and in this case a possible
9 supposition, to use your own words.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Did he say possible or professional?
11 MR. DOCHERTY: I thought he said possible. At least that's what
12 the English was. Page 49, line 4, it's at least been translated as
13 a "possible answer."
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Oh, no, I meant earlier in your cross-examination
15 he described his supposition as professional.
16 MR. DOCHERTY: Yes. But I'm talking about another supposition
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
19 MR. DOCHERTY: That was the first supposition.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Counsel or Witness, may I just be sure that I
21 understand this correctly: You're saying that the pellets that we see on
22 the top right part of the photo could have dropped out of the exit wound,
23 probably on the back of the head. Would that imply that they had gone
24 through the skull of the victim?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I said the back of the neck.
1 Not the skull, the neck.
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: So that the pellet would have gone in here and
3 then out somewhere in the neck, through the neck?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
6 MR. DOCHERTY:
7 Q. But, Doctor, all of these things --
8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
9 MR. DOCHERTY:
10 Q. But, Doctor, all of these things that you are testifying about are
11 based upon the photograph; correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. The concrete slab or wooden board upon which this victim is lying
14 has got a lot of marks and a lot of discolouring on it, doesn't it?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Shrapnel is produced at an explosion when the bomb casing and
17 other parts is broken up into many, many, many little pieces by the force
18 of the explosion; correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Shrapnel comes in all shapes and sizes, doesn't it?
21 A. But not in the form of regular circular pellets.
22 Q. What I'm asking, Doctor, is that shrapnel comes in --
23 MR. DOCHERTY: Sorry.
24 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Mr. Docherty, this photograph comes
25 from you. Can I ask the question differently, phrase it differently. On
1 the background where I see the three markings of these pellets, what you
2 have called the pellets, is that a wall or is this the ground, is this the
3 floor, in the morgue? Just a point of clarification, if I may.
4 This is a question that I'm asking to the Prosecutor's Office
5 because you have been producing this photograph. I cannot tell whether
6 the background on which the head of the victim seems to be lying, is this
7 a wall or is this the floor, the pavement or the floor, at the morgue?
8 Because I can see the three markings made by those bullets or these
9 pellets on this board, whatever it is.
10 MR. DOCHERTY: Your Honour, Judge Mindua, to answer -- I have a
11 photograph that answers that question. It's obviously not on the list
12 that I was going to use, but it is a photograph of the same victim but
13 taken from the side, and you can see what he's lying on. And to answer
14 your question, I'd ask, could we put this on the ELMO. It's part of the
15 same packet of photographs. It's the immediately-preceding one.
16 And although not directly responsive to your question, of course
17 it's the Prosecution's -- you've described these as pellets, and it's the
18 Prosecution's position these are not pellets at all.
19 And, Judge Mindua, I don't want obviously to become a witness and
20 talk much about this photograph, but I'll just note the correspondence in
21 names down below in the typewritten area, and I'll also inquire if this
22 answers the question that you were asking as to what the victim was lying
24 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Yes. It seems to me that he's
25 lying on some sort of a table, on an autopsy table.
1 MR. DOCHERTY: Again, I don't want to put myself in the position
2 of testifying, but it looks like some sort of raised table, bench,
3 something like that, yes.
4 Could I tender that photograph, please, Your Honour?
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we admit it.
6 THE REGISTRAR: As P938, Your Honours.
7 MR. DOCHERTY: And, Your Honour, on this point that I'm talking
8 about the doctor about now, I'm going to ask permission to use another
9 photograph that was not on the list of documents, and if I could ask the
10 usher to show this to Defence counsel and then, if they do not have an
11 objection, to place it on the ELMO. It is another of the photographs from
13 Q. Now, Doctor, have you seen this photograph before? Was it among
14 the ones that you examined?
15 A. Yes, I have seen it before.
16 Q. And you understand that this is a photograph of various items of
17 shrapnel collected at the Markale incident scene.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And you would agree with me, would you not, that these shrapnel
20 specimens vary in size and vary in shape, would you not?
21 A. Yes, amongst themselves.
22 MR. DOCHERTY: Thank you, Mr. Usher. I'm finished with that.
23 Your Honour, I tender that photograph as well.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll admit it.
25 THE REGISTRAR: As P300 -- I'm sorry, as P939, Your Honours.
1 MR. DOCHERTY:
2 Q. In addition to shrapnel --
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: One minute.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Please continue.
6 MR. DOCHERTY: Yes. Mr. President, before resuming, Mr. Sachdeva
7 informs me that exhibits -- Prosecution Exhibits 71 through 82 on the
8 spreadsheet of medical documentation admitted at page 48 of the transcript
9 are -- excuse me, admitted as P48, so the spreadsheet is P48, and on there
10 are found medical documents relating to the Markale incident.
11 Q. In addition to shrapnel at an explosion scene, Doctor, other
12 things also fly through the air when things blow up, don't they? Cars,
13 bits of market stalls, bits of human beings, et cetera?
14 A. Yes, depending on their distance from the centre of the explosion.
15 Q. And people can die in explosions not just through shrapnel
16 injuries but also through blast overpressure; correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Through being crushed by an object that is displaced by the
19 explosion; correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And by burns; correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Is that all of them or are there more?
24 A. There are also the so-called blast injuries, injuries of internal
25 organs that can only be detected by autopsy. They occur due to the
1 overpressure at the site of explosion. They can damage blood vessels,
2 vital organs, first and foremost, the brain and the intestines, causing
3 massive haemorrhaging leading to death.
4 Q. I meant to ask about that when I asked you if people can die
5 through blast overpressure, but perhaps I didn't use the right term.
6 I'd like to turn now to the next photograph that you made use of,
7 which I believe would be Defence Exhibit 371. Now, Doctor, this again is
8 a -- would it be fair to say that your testimony that this individual has
9 been shot with a gun is another supposition based on the photograph alone?
10 A. It is my professional assumption based on this photograph and the
11 photographs of bodies of people, or several hundreds of bodies of people
12 that I saw in my career that were killed by firearms' projectiles.
13 Q. And when you talk about the several hundred people you saw in your
14 career, these are bodies that you saw yourself; right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. You autopsied them; right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. You collected, if appropriate, tissue samples and ran tests;
20 A. Yes, in those cases that required it.
21 Q. If you wanted to, you had the opportunity to talk to the police
22 officers who had done the initial investigation or to the investigating
23 magistrate, didn't you?
24 A. Yes. And I even attended the scene myself on occasion.
25 Q. But you didn't have the benefit of any of that when you made this
1 professional assumption, did you?
2 A. Yes.
3 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness' other microphone be turned on
4 as well, please.
5 MR. DOCHERTY:
6 Q. Gun-shot wounds, Doctor, can often be simple but sometimes they're
7 tricky, aren't they?
8 A. In exceptional cases.
9 Q. To take one of what might be the more common situations, if a
10 bullet ricochets and is deformed, it will produce an entry wound that
11 could be mistaken for an exit wound; correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And there are other scenarios and, as you say, they are
14 exceptional. But they happen, don't they?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And in this case, again, you are drawing, basing this professional
17 assumption about a gun-shot wound on one photograph.
18 A. Yes.
19 MR. DOCHERTY: And then finally with respect to Markale, I'm going
20 to ask for the video again and I'm going to ask the court registrar to
21 stop the video at several time marks. The first of them is time mark
22 number 8.
23 Mr. President, I'm informed that because this is the Defence's
24 video exhibit we don't have it in Sanction on our -- I'm sorry.
25 [Videotape played]?
1 It would be simpler if the Defence could please be asked to play
2 it and stop at time mark 8. We've already gone past that, if we can move
3 back to that. And then stop it.
4 [Videotape played]
5 MR. DOCHERTY: Thank you.
6 Q. Doctor, this is the frame that you were testifying about, and we
7 see this object in the foreground. Now, to be clear, you're using that
8 object as a reference point. You're not saying there's anything
9 significant about that object. It's just a way that we can tell where we
10 are at the scene. Correct?
11 A. Yes. That's the way of limiting the area within which something
12 is going on.
13 Q. Okay. It's a landmark.
14 A. Yes, yes.
15 Q. Okay. Now, you see in the background - it's a bit out of focus -
16 but do you see a white car with two wheels in the street and the other two
17 wheels up on the sidewalk?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And isn't that car blocking our view of anything that might be
20 behind it, such as the lady's body that you testified about in your direct
22 A. Yes. This car may block the view of what is happening behind it
23 but not of what is happening in front of it.
24 Q. Well, no, of course not. But -- well, we'll just -- we'll move
1 Doctor, in the course of looking at this video you saw a very
2 chaotic scene with a lot of injured and dead people being moved about. Is
3 that a fair characterisation, a fair description?
4 A. Yes, yes.
5 Q. All right.
6 MR. DOCHERTY: And I'm going to now move, with the Defence's
7 assistance, to time mark 0.21, 21 seconds.
8 Q. Doctor, here we see an individual, apparently wounded, being
9 dragged, don't we?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Where are this person's hands and arms in relation to their body?
12 A. Above his head.
13 MR. DOCHERTY: Could we now move, please, to time mark 1 minute,
14 17 seconds, and that will be the last one.
15 Q. Where are this lady's hands and arms in relation to her head,
17 A. The right arm is on the pavement above.
18 Q. Above her head; right?
19 A. Yes, above her head.
20 Q. All right. Suggesting that she, too, was dragged; correct?
21 A. That may have been the case.
22 Q. All right. It may have been, Doctor - you don't know - that this
23 woman was -- someone sought to help her and moved her a short distance by
24 dragging her the way we saw the man being dragged; correct?
25 A. Yes, but there should also be marks present of the dragging.
1 Q. Marks made by a -- well, first of all, Doctor, we can only see
2 down to her feet, can't we?
3 A. Yes, in this frame.
4 Q. It's also possible - you can't say - that this woman suffered a
5 fatal injury but lived for a certain period of time and that this is where
6 she collapsed, in this position, isn't it?
7 A. It is possible.
8 Q. And finally, as you've said, it is possible that the vehicle that
9 we saw at the 8-second time mark obscured our view of her, isn't it?
10 A. Yes. One can say all this by looking at this frame. But by
11 looking at the entire video, one can obtain much more details.
12 Q. And later on when talking about the - excuse me - when talking
13 about the area affected by this blast and by talking about the number of
14 victims, you said one can estimate, one can guess, and given the
15 information that you worked on, Doctor, that's really all that you've been
16 able to do, isn't it, estimate and guess?
17 A. Yes, based on this footage.
18 Q. Your evidence, Doctor, in a general way about Markale is an
19 assertion that we cannot be sure that victims were killed somewhere else
20 and then brought to the marketplace; is that correct?
21 A. Yes, but we also cannot be sure that all the victims died at the
22 scene of the crime, which is depicted in this video.
23 Q. Are you aware, Doctor, that other Defence witnesses - and I'm
24 speaking now about Mr. Demurenko - have said -- have explained the Markale
25 marketplace by saying that there was an explosion but that it wasn't a
1 mortar shell in the marketplace. Do you know that?
2 A. Yes, I'm aware of that.
3 Q. All right. So Mr. Demurenko says there was an explosion and that
4 killed the people and you say the people were brought here from somewhere
5 else. Do you see the contradiction there, Doctor?
6 A. No. I already said that the film shows that there had been an
7 explosion and there were some casualties, but I cannot say clearly for
8 every single victim that he or she died there, primarily having in mind
9 this victim that we have just seen on the footage.
10 Q. And you base that upon the fact that this victim is not visible at
11 the 8-second time mark but is visible here at the 1 minute, 17-second time
12 mark. Is that what you base that upon?
13 A. Not only that but also the absence of blood marks where the victim
14 is lying and the marks of the victim being dragged, if she had been
15 dragged at all.
16 Q. Doctor, under this victim there is -- under this victim's head the
17 frame is quite dark, isn't it?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. All right. Blood marks within that dark area would not be visible
20 on the video, would they?
21 A. Not in this frame. But if you look at the entire video, there are
22 some sequences where you have a close-up look of her face and her chest.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: I think we'll have to take the break now,
24 Mr. Docherty.
25 --- Recess taken at 12.20 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 12.43 p.m.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Docherty.
3 MR. DOCHERTY: Your Honour, over the break I had a chance to
4 review my notes and at this point I have no further questions for the
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Docherty.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. Doctor, before we move to the
8 re-examination, I'd like to just clarify a few things so as to allow the
9 Defence to come back on the information that is offered to you by virtue
10 of my questions.
11 Could we revert to Defence Exhibit D370, if I can ask the Defence
12 to pull up that picture again. I don't know, I don't have it. I have a
13 blue screen on my -- there it comes. Great.
14 Doctor, I have two questions relating to this picture. The first
15 is the two objects that you have identified as pellets, or possibly as
16 pellets, on the top right side of the picture, and the difficulty I have
17 with accepting your proposal that these are pellets is the size of them.
18 I would imagine that pellets in a cartridge were much smaller and even --
19 even the largest pellets that I have seen are far from the size of these
20 two objects. They would be even less than half of the size. So I would
21 like you to explain how you come to the conclusion that these are
22 pellets. And the difficulty I have, as I said, is the size.
23 The second question I have to you is in continuation of your
24 answer to me about how big the diameter of the circle would be that would
25 include all the pellet marks shot from a distance of less than 1 metre
1 with a shotgun, and you answered correctly that that would depend, of
2 course, on the angle, but that if shot at a perpendicular angle, the
3 circle would be 10 centimetres in diameter. A cartridge contains several
4 hundred pellets and if you were to put all these pellets into a circle of
5 approximately 10 centimetres, the distance between them would be very
6 small. And according to your own suggestion, the face of the victim has
7 three, four, or maybe five pellets scattered throughout his face and this
8 simply seems to be incompatible with your own suggestion that all the
9 pellets would be found within the circle of a 10-centimetre diameter. So
10 either these are not pellets from a shotgun or the distance must have been
11 much, much larger, in my interpretation of your answer.
12 Could you please clarify these two questions for me.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As for the look and the size of the
14 pellets, we saw a while ago the photograph of various shrapnel found and
15 photographed at the scene, ranging from the smallest one to the biggest
16 one, and we could clearly see that none of these pieces of shrapnel
17 resembles in the shape or the size of the pellets that we see in this
18 photograph. I am not a ballistic expert or an expert in weapons and
19 ammunition, but my estimate is based primarily on the dozens of fatalities
20 ensuing from the injuries caused from shotguns. I also saw dozens or
21 maybe even a hundred people injured by hand-grenades that also contained
22 pellets inside its body. These pellets are much smaller and they're
23 always very small, 1 to 2 millimetres in diameter.
24 Based on my professional experience regarding the size of these
25 pellets, on many an occasion I saw, because there are different sized
1 pellets than here we have the ones that are 3 to 4 millimetres in
2 diameter, not more, and I think this is the answer to your first question.
3 Concerning your second question, after firing the directed beam of
4 pellets travels in a straight line and most of them cause the wound, as we
5 can see here, the wound in the right-hand side of the neck. The pellets
6 placed centripetally in regard to an imaginary circle of the beam disperse
7 because they lose energy during the flight. This dispersion can take
8 place laterally with regard to the main wound, up to 10 centimetres
9 depending on the range, and it's concentric if the shot was fired at 90
10 degrees. If the shot, however, was fired at a different angle with regard
11 to the body and to the entry wound, then the dispersion tends to go more
12 to one side. My assumption here was that the dispersion was -- or that
13 the bullet was fired from the side and from down, therefore dispersing the
14 pellets upwards towards the face.
15 Since we have the face and we have an angle, some of them
16 dispersed in an area and only individual pellets hit the most prominent
17 parts of the face, that is to say, parts of the face that created an
18 obstacle in their path.
19 Looking at this photograph, the shape and the size of these lumps
20 on the skin, as I described them, would correspond to the pellets that we
21 see on the right-hand side in terms of their size.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. And it is your suggestion or
23 estimation that the lumps we see on the nose and under the lip are lumps
24 that include a pellet underneath; is that correct?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, and on the right eyebrow as
1 well. Yes, that's correct.
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic, any re-examination?
4 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have a few
6 Re-examination by Mr. Tapuskovic:
7 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Milosavljevic, when in June, after I had to
8 sever contacts with an expert witness and I discussed this issue with you
9 in June and you accepted to undertake the responsibility to prepare this
10 report for the Defence, can you tell me, when I asked you whether you
11 wanted to carry out your professional job in the spirit and ethical norms
12 applicable when you do these kind of assignments, what did you request
13 from me in order to enable you to provide a solid and valid expert report
14 and as you customarily do whenever somebody seeks your assistance?
15 A. I primarily asked for proper forensic and medical documents, that
16 is to say, autopsy reports and external examination reports. I also asked
17 for medical records relating to the treatment of the injured and the final
18 outcome of the treatment. And only after that, of course, I asked, in
19 addition to all of that, to be given police documentation relating to the
20 investigations carried out with regard to these specific incidents.
21 Q. And when I told you that I don't have autopsy reports or external
22 examination reports, nor the photographs from the place or the traces of
23 blood from the scene at my disposal, nor the established time of death,
24 when I told you all of this, what did you say to me?
25 A. I told you that in the absence of these kind of documents I
1 absolutely cannot prepare a valid forensic report and cannot give answers
2 to the crucial questions relating to this incident. The only thing I
3 could do was to tell you what the significance of forensic medical
4 examination is and what procedures are applied, and particularly how
5 important an investigation of the crime scene is.
6 Q. When I told you that I could only give you a medical report
7 stating somebody's death and that I had a document that something was
8 described as a serious bodily injury and nothing apart from that, what did
9 you tell me how useful that would be for you to give an expert opinion?
10 A. The document verifying and confirming death can simply tell us
11 only that a person has died and that he or she is not alive anymore.
12 Probably if it contains the diagnosis of death, one can assume the cause
13 of death and nothing more in terms of what I explained earlier. Such a
14 document cannot be used for a proper forensic and medical report.
15 Q. You will remember that I asked you, and I believe that it was
16 possible, based on such scarce documents, were you able to tell whether a
17 person was killed in a certain location?
18 A. I told you that it was absolutely impossible because that would
19 require a complete forensic investigation and a complete forensic and
20 medical analysis in order to compile all the results, make certain
21 comparisons, and establish the cause-and-effect relations.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please now look at the
24 Prosecution Exhibit P939, which shows pieces of shrapnel.
25 Q. Okay. Let us look at these pieces of shrapnel. They vary in
1 size. Does any of these pieces of shrapnel, and particularly the last
2 three ones and actually the last and the smallest ones, could this kind of
3 piece of shrapnel cause the injuries on the face of the witness shown in
4 the photograph D371 or the one shown in the photograph 370? Can you tell
5 us something about that?
6 A. First of all, what you see, that in all its variety, none of these
7 pieces of shrapnel resembles the pellets that we see in the photographs.
8 Q. Thank you. Speaking of pellets, I know nothing about their sizes
9 and I especially have no idea about the number of pellets in the
10 cartridge. That is why we have people who are experts in this field. You
11 said if it comes at an angle it disperses upwards, but these pellets
12 disperse in other directions as well when the shot is fired upwards.
13 A. I already said that pellets, the ones that lose their energy and
14 are on the periphery of the beam, disperse depending on the angle
15 vertically and horizontally. Therefore, they may go vertically upwards or
16 to the side with respect to the centre of the wound hit by the directed
17 beam of pellets.
18 Q. If the body was lying horizontally and with regards to everything
19 else you said about the pellets, how is it possible -- well, is there any
20 other rational explanation for those pellets to be there, apart from the
21 one you've provided, the pellets that were next to the head of the victim
22 on both sides?
23 A. You are talking about the pellets next to the head on the table.
24 We saw that it is a table of sorts on that additional photo we saw. Since
25 this was a body lying on a table, the possibility is even greater that the
1 pellets fell out of that particular body rather than being there from some
2 previous victim.
3 Q. So as not to go back to the footage and if we use the assumption
4 stated by my learned friend Mr. Docherty that the woman may have staggered
5 to that place and then fallen down, that she covered some distance while
6 still alive, would in that case there be some blood traces behind her and
7 is it possible not to have a pool of blood underneath her body?
8 A. If that person had sustained injuries, first of all, that person
9 must have walked up to that spot. There was that part of the footage
10 where there are no victims in that part of the street and then after that,
11 there is a body. The sequence is very short between the first and second
12 instance. Therefore, the person recording had to move towards the centre
13 of explosion. Therefore, I believe in the movement the camera would have
14 caught such a person moving towards it.
15 On the other hand, if that person was moving from the place of
16 explosion where she may have been injured, the traces of blood spraying
17 would be visible during the entire length of the path she crossed, and
18 especially in the very spot she fell down.
19 Q. My last question is this: Having in mind the distance in metres
20 and the camera observing it all and comparing that to the time that
21 elapses, which is less than a minute, you said that if that victim was
22 walking that would have been recorded and that there would have been
23 traces. What if that body was dragged?
24 A. It is fully justified to suppose that she may have been dragged,
25 but had she been dragged, that would have been recorded on the footage as
1 well because the person with the camera was moving towards the place of
2 explosion, recording the victims.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I'd like to thank Their Honours.
5 I have no further questions.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Doctor, that concludes your evidence, and we
7 thank you for giving it. You may now leave.
8 [The witness withdrew]
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, is that the case for the Defence?
10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I had no translation.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: I was asking if that is the case for the
12 Defence. Was that your last witness?
13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. This concludes
14 the Defence case. We have no further witnesses. And I'd like to thank
15 you on behalf of this Defence team for having given us the possibility to
16 state our case and for you to see the evidence that we wanted to present.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: And on behalf of the Chamber, I'd like to thank
18 both parties for the presentation of their cases and for the manner in
19 which the cases were presented. The Chamber will, after hearing the
20 closing arguments, deliberate and give its judgement.
21 As you know, the final briefs are due on Monday, the 1st of
22 October, and closing arguments were set for Monday, the 8th and Tuesday,
23 the 9th, and the Chamber is now resetting those dates to Wednesday, the
24 10th and Thursday, the 11th of October.
25 There are a number of matters which I wish to raise. At the start
1 of the case the Prosecution said it intended to tender a DVD with all
2 videos taken of the witnesses and the Prosecution investigator, but during
3 the case for the Prosecution, not all videos contained on the DVD have
4 been shown and tendered. Does the Prosecution wish to tender all the
5 videos that were shown in court into evidence?
6 MR. DOCHERTY: Yes, we do, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
8 MR. DOCHERTY: Mr. Monkhouse reminded me of this in an e-mail last
9 week. The issue that we've got is that each victim has got two
10 interviews. One of them we call the long form where the investigator
11 reads out GPS coordinates, for example; one of them shorter. What I need
12 to do is go back through and see which ones were played in court and
13 tender just those. So if it was the long one that was played, tender the
14 long one; if it was the short one, tender the short one.
15 We can do this in one of two ways and I'll be guided by the
16 Chamber. I have the 65 ter numbers and I could tender all the videos at
17 this time and then later move to withdraw those that were not played in
18 court, or by written submission later this week could ask for just those
19 that were played in court to be admitted. And I'll take the Chamber's
20 guidance on whichever route they wish.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: The latter.
22 MR. DOCHERTY: That was quick. Very well. We'll take care of
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: The next matter was the 92 bis statement of
25 Witness 109. It has not been included in e-court. This statement was
1 admitted by the Chamber's decision of the 3rd of April. Is the
2 Prosecution in a position to clarify what the status of this exhibit is?
3 MR. DOCHERTY: We are, Your Honour. At the close of the
4 Prosecution case, Mr. Whiting read off -- let me back up. On the 3rd of
5 April, 2007, the 92 bis statement of Witness 109 was admitted with the
6 registry later to give it an exhibit number. It then developed that the
7 Prosecution wished not to call this witness for reasons having to do with
8 the relevance of this witness' testimony. At the conclusion of the
9 Prosecution case, Mr. Whiting read off a list of 92 bis and 92 quater
10 witnesses. This list did not include Witness 109.
11 We had thought that that would let the Chamber know that we were
12 not persisting in seeking to admit this. It develops that our
13 communication was not as clear as we had hoped and so at this time I can
14 tell the Chamber that we are withdrawing, we will not call, Witness 109,
15 and that statement should not be given an exhibit number.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thanks for the clarification. I am to let you
17 know that the recording of the comments of the parties during the site
18 visit is being transcribed and as soon as that is done the Chamber will
19 give a decision on the admission of the document.
20 Any matters to raise, Mr. Tapuskovic? Housekeeping.
21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. My
22 learned friend Ms. Isailovic had to leave, although she wanted to address
23 you on her behalf regarding this issue. However, she put some things in
24 writing that we will present you with and you will rule on that.
25 First of all, we have the three 92 bis statements and we are still
1 seeking certification from the registrar.
2 There is also a motion in place concerning a number of adjudicated
3 facts in the Galic case. This was submitted in writing.
4 Also, there is a list of documents introduced through our witness,
5 through one of our witnesses. The translation of those documents is now
6 completed and we are still awaiting translation of those documents that
7 are outstanding and then you can rule on that issue as well.
8 At this stage I can only tell you that this is what remains to be
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. As for the motion on adjudicated
11 facts, I can let you know that we will give our decision on that before
12 the end of this week.
13 What is the first matter you mentioned, 92 bis statements in
14 respect of which you are still seeking certification from the registrar?
15 What's that about?
16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] There are three statements of
17 that nature. What is even more important for us are the documents that
18 you cannot decide upon until their translations are completed. Some of
19 the translation has already been done and we forwarded a list of the
20 documents with complete translations, and I believe you are to rule on the
21 use of those documents once you had an opportunity to view them. These
22 documents should have been introduced through Witness T-35.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, I have a recollection of that. And when we
24 have the translation we will issue a ruling.
25 Mr. Docherty, any other matters?
1 MR. DOCHERTY: None, Your Honour. I think that's it.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, I'm to thank all of you for the help that
3 you've given the Chamber in this matter, and we will be looking forward to
4 receiving the closing briefs and, of course, the closing arguments shortly
5 thereafter. Thank you. The hearing is adjourned.
6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.15 p.m.,
7 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 10th day of
8 October, 2007, at 2.15 p.m.