1 Wednesday, 31
2 [Open session]
3 [The witness entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.42 a.m.
5 [The accused entered court]
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good
7 morning, ladies and gentlemen; good morning, technical
8 booth; good morning, interpreters; good morning, legal
9 assistants, court reporters; good morning, Mr. Harmon,
10 Mr. Cayley, Mr. McCloskey; good morning, Mr. Petrusic,
11 Mr. Visnjic.
12 Good morning to the expert. Good morning,
13 Dr. Clark, have you had a good rest?
14 THE WITNESS: Yes. Thank you very much.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well.
16 We're going to resume our hearing. I should like to
17 remind you, Mr. Clark, that you are continuing to
18 testify under oath, and you're going to continue to
19 answer questions put to you by Mr. Cayley.
20 Mr. Cayley, you have the floor.
21 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Mr. President. Good
22 morning, Your Honours; good morning, Defence counsel.
23 WITNESS: JOHN CLARK [Resumed]
24 Examined by Mr. Cayley: [Cont'd]
25 Q. Dr. Clark, just to remind you what I said
1 yesterday, as we speak the same language, if you could
2 try and take a pause between question and answer. I'll
3 do the same, and I'll try to regulate the pace. That
4 will make the interpreters' lives easier.
5 We reached, I think, yesterday, the
6 conclusions that you made in respect of the bodies that
7 were recovered from the Kozluk grave. So now if we
8 could move on to the bodies and body parts that were
9 recovered from Nova Kasaba. Do you have that page of
10 your report in front of you?
11 A. Yes, I do.
12 Q. How many bodies and body parts, Dr. Clark,
13 were found or were recovered and presented to you from
14 that site?
15 A. Fifty-five bodies and two small body parts.
16 Q. Dr. Clark, in life, what kind of people were
18 A. These were people, again, with a wide age
19 range. The estimate ranges potentially as young as 13,
20 potentially as old at 85 or even older. Most of them
21 appeared to be over the age of 25. As far as we could
22 tell, all were male.
23 They appear to be a reasonably fit
24 population. One person had an old fracture of his leg,
25 and somebody -- another one an old injury of his right
1 hand, but these were injuries from years past. We
2 didn't have the same disabilities or deformities as we
3 had in the bodies at Kozluk.
4 Q. What was the cause of death in the majority
5 of the cases from this site?
6 A. Again, the majority of people died from
7 gunshot wounds.
8 Q. Was there any other evidence concerning any
9 other weapons that might have been used?
10 A. There was, interestingly. The bulk of the
11 people who had been shot appeared to have been shot by
12 high-velocity rifles, as in Kozluk, but in one person,
13 the hole -- the wound in the bone appeared -- it
14 suggested to us possibly the use of a handgun, and in
15 five cases there was clear evidence of shotgun pellets
16 in the bodies.
17 Q. If you could place Exhibit 246. This was
18 something of particular interest from this site, and if
19 you could describe to the Judges your findings in
20 respect of this particular body.
21 A. There were two men who had recent injuries to
22 them, and I'm meaning injuries possibly in the few days
23 before the death. These were both men with gunshot
24 injuries to the legs, and we could tell that they
25 hadn't occurred right at the time of death because they
1 had been bandaged up.
2 This example here, you're seeing the lower
3 part of the man's body. This is his left leg here, and
4 clearly it has a splint and bandages around it. So
5 this is clearly an injury that he has -- had suffered,
6 gunshot injury, that has had time to have been bandaged
7 up. And there was a second man with a fairly similar
8 injury to his leg.
9 Q. Thank you, Dr. Clark. If you'd place the
10 next exhibit on the ELMO, which I think is a close-up
11 shot of the same.
12 A. Yes. This is just a close-up shot in amongst
13 the bandages, just to show the gunshot wound in his
14 leg. This body was fairly well preserved. There was
15 skin and some soft tissue, so it was still possible to
16 see a hole in the skin.
17 Q. Now, Dr. Clark, if you could place
18 Exhibit 248. I think the next three photographs
19 demonstrate some of the classical injuries that you
21 A. This is a photograph of the back of a skull
22 with two bullet holes in the back of it.
23 Interestingly, these do not have the typical
24 pattern of high-velocity weapons with the shattering,
25 so this may well have been a handgun injury. The other
1 two photographs I have just to show that there were
2 injuries to parts of the body other than the head.
3 This is a rib. You see a very clear bullet hole going
4 through it. And finally, a typical injury from
5 somebody's leg. This is the thigh bone, and the bone
6 here is shattered and in many pieces, and very typical
7 of a bullet coming from this direction, shattering the
8 bone in that way, a very typical high-velocity injury.
9 MR. CAYLEY: Just for purposes of the record,
10 when Dr. Clark was referring to a bullet injury to a
11 rib, that is Prosecutor's Exhibit 249, and the injury
12 to the thigh bone is Prosecutor's Exhibit 250.
13 Q. Dr. Clark, was there any evidence that
14 suggested that these individuals had suffered injury
15 other than gunshot injury before death?
16 A. Again, as in Kozluk, there were fractures of
17 ribs, which could well have been crushing injuries in
18 the grave with bodies being moved about. There were
19 other fractures of the face and some of the other
20 bones, which could well have been from blows from a
21 weapon or kicking. But as I explained yesterday, it's
22 always difficult to prove these, but that possibility
23 certainly does exist.
24 Q. If you could just place page 16, which is, I
25 think, the summary of your findings, onto the ELMO. If
1 you could just slowly read those into the transcript, I
2 would be grateful, and any other comments you have to
3 add on those findings.
4 A. The screen is not on. My screen is not on,
5 so -- it's just easier to read than stretching over.
6 Q. Of course.
7 A. So this is a summary of the findings from the
8 Nova Kasaba site. The site had four graves, individual
9 graves, containing a total of 55 bodies and body
10 parts. Most of them were in just two graves. The
11 victims were all male, and they ranged in age from 13
12 to 85, or potentially from 13 to 85. There were
13 gunshot injuries in 87 per cent of the bodies, with the
14 average number of shots per person being 2.7. The
15 highest proportion of the shots was to the trunk, with
16 the head and legs next. Two people had bandaged
17 wounds, suggestive of gunshot injuries suffered some
18 time before. And there was evidence of shotgun pellets
19 in five bodies, possibly from a gun discharged into the
20 grave after death.
21 Q. Thank you, Dr. Clark. If you could now turn
22 to page 17 of your report, which concerns the bodies
23 recovered from the sites at Konjevic Polje.
24 How many bodies were presented to you and
25 your colleagues for examination from this site?
1 A. This was a much smaller grave site than the
2 other two. This had only 12 bodies.
3 Q. Dr. Clark, what kind of people were these in
5 A. These -- the age range appeared to be from
6 about 15 to 65, and out of the whole season, we had one
7 female victim here. All the rest appeared to be male,
8 but there's one very definite female victim.
9 Q. Now, one matter of interest, if you could
10 place the next exhibit onto the ELMO. Could you
11 explain to the Judges, sir, what this represents?
12 A. Better that way. This is a makeshift
13 stretcher, one of a number which were found in the
14 grave, and it's just pieces of wood, branches, with
15 blankets tied between them. This very much suggested
16 that it had been used to carry either wounded people or
17 dead bodies and, presumably, had then been put into the
18 grave, tossed into the grave, afterwards.
19 Q. What was the most significant injury amongst
20 all of the bodies that you observed from this site?
21 A. All of these people had been shot, and the
22 commonest site where they were shot was the trunk.
23 Q. What kind of weapon had been used?
24 A. These all appeared to be a high-velocity
25 rifle weapon.
1 Q. Place Exhibit 252 onto the ELMO.
2 A. This is a very typical gunshot injury to the
3 head just above and behind the right ear. So the front
4 of the skull here, and the ear is round about here.
5 And here is a very typical entrance bullet hole, again
6 with the fracturing going all over the skull.
7 Q. Now, you stated a moment ago in your evidence
8 that there was a case of a female, a female body found
9 in this grave. Can you describe to the Judges your
10 findings in respect of that body?
11 A. This was an interesting case in many ways,
12 and it's a good example of the difficulties we had in
13 establishing cause of death in some people.
14 This was a woman who we estimated was aged
15 anywhere between 16 and 30, and she had been shot twice
16 in the left leg. One of these was through the hip.
17 This is the left femur [indicates], this is the part
18 that joins onto the pelvis [indicates], and you can see
19 how the bone here is shattered and a bullet has gone
20 through that. So she had been shot once in the left
21 hip and once just below the knee.
22 We could not prove any other injuries to her
23 body, let alone any other gunshot injuries. There was
24 two fractured ribs, but they didn't appear to be
25 typical of gunshot injuries.
1 And while gunshot injuries to the leg would
2 be very disabling, they would not necessarily be
3 immediately fatal, so this was an example of the
4 situation in which we were uncertain as to -- if that
5 was the exact cause of her death. It may have been
6 that she was disabled, certainly, with these injuries,
7 but died in some other way.
8 Q. Is it possible that she was placed alive and
9 injured into the grave and suffocated?
10 A. That's entirely possible, yes.
11 Q. Thank you, Dr. Clark. If you could place
12 page 19 of your report onto the ELMO, which neatly
13 describes your summary findings.
14 MR. CAYLEY: Just for the purposes of the
15 record, the last exhibit that the witness was referring
16 to is Prosecutor's Exhibit 253.
17 A. This was a small site of two graves some
18 distance apart, between them containing 12 bodies. One
19 person from grave 1 was female, the only one from any
20 of the sites, and that's including Kozluk and the other
21 sites we're discussing. There were gunshots in
22 everyone, with three being the average number of shots
23 to them. Most injuries were to the trunk, followed by
24 the legs and the head.
25 MR. CAYLEY:
1 Q. Thank you, Dr. Clark. If you could move to
2 page 20 of your report, which concerns the bodies
3 recovered from the Glogova site. How many bodies and
4 body parts were presented to you and your colleagues
5 from this site?
6 A. We had 90 bodies and an additional 154 body
7 parts. This was felt by the anthropologists to give a
8 minimum number of individuals of 147, although I'm just
9 taking this initially from the report. They may well
10 have a slightly more accurate figure now; I don't
11 know. But it must be around about that, that number.
12 Q. What kinds of people were they in life?
13 A. These were again apparently a relatively
14 healthy population. Nobody had any disabilities or
15 physical deformities. A wide age range again,
16 potentially from 12 to 71, although one grave in
17 particular, GL-05, had a preponderance of young people,
18 with 46 per cent of the bodies there under the age of
19 24. All were male, as far as we could tell.
20 Q. Now, you state in your report, and indeed the
21 Judges have already heard, that these sites or at least
22 some of them had been extensively robbed?
23 A. Yes, that's right.
24 Q. Did that affect your work at all?
25 A. Yes. It meant that bodies had been disturbed
1 and parts had been disrupted, parts missing almost
3 Q. What was the most preponderant cause of death
4 of the bodies that were examined by you and your
5 colleagues from this site?
6 A. Once again, gunshot injuries was the
7 commonest cause of death.
8 Q. From what type of weapon?
9 A. High-velocity rifles.
10 Q. Where were the majority of these individuals
11 shot, what part of their body?
12 A. Well, it varied. The largest proportion was
13 to the trunk. Over 50 per cent of the victims had
14 gunshot injuries to the trunk. Next commonest was the
15 head, and then the legs and the arms. There was one
16 particular pattern that emerged from the graves, and
17 this again was GL-05. This was the grave with the
18 preponderance of young men in it. There was a very
19 typical pattern of injury in these people of a gunshot
20 injury to the back, to the middle of the spine.
21 Sometimes -- in a lot of cases that have the only
22 injury. In other -- some of the victims there were
23 additional shots perhaps to the head, but this was a
24 very repetitive injury and a constant finding of
25 shattered bones in the middle of the spine.
1 Q. Now, you stated, in respect of GL-05, in your
2 evidence, that this was a younger population. I wonder
3 if you could place Exhibit 254 on the ELMO and explain
4 to the Judges how you concluded this.
5 A. This was very much with the aid of the
6 anthropologists, of course. This is a very good
7 example. This is an upper arm bone. This is the top
8 of the bone which goes into the shoulder. And quite
9 apart from a injury at the lower end, if we ignore
10 that, this is the important part here. It shows that
11 the very top of the bone is not completely joined to
12 the bit just below it. And this is a sign of a young
13 person, probably somebody no older than 17. So the
14 person is still growing. After about this age, these
15 two parts were joined together. So the fact that they
16 are still separate indicates that this is a young
17 person. And this was a common finding in many of these
19 MR. CAYLEY: Just so the record is clear,
20 Dr. Clark was referring to the extreme left-hand side
21 of the photograph and the bone represented on that
22 Exhibit, on Prosecutor's Exhibit 254.
23 Q. You said also in your evidence, Dr. Clark,
24 that a very common injury that you found was a gunshot
25 injury from the back to the spine. I think there are a
1 number of photographs that demonstrate this.
2 A. Yes. The easiest way to show this is
3 probably that way.
4 This is the -- I wonder if the camera would
5 come out, if it panned out a bit.
6 Essentially, what we're showing here is the
7 spine coming down here, and this is the other part
8 here. And in the middle of it here are at least two
9 bones of the spine in small pieces, completely
10 shattered. And the ribs on either side, they're also
11 partly broken as well. So this area here. Imagine
12 this is the spine going down here, and it is shattered
13 in the middle of it.
14 I have -- this is typical of another case,
15 one of the bones in the spine, and this is part of the
16 damage here. The spine is a very sturdy bone so it
17 takes a lot of energy to fracture these bones, but this
18 is part of the disruption here.
19 Q. Dr. Clark, are these photographs and your
20 findings consistent with individuals being shot at from
21 behind at fairly close range?
22 A. Yes, they would be.
23 Q. Now, I think finally in this grave, the
24 bodies that were recovered that you and your colleagues
25 examined, you found evidence of other forms of injury
1 than gunshot injury, and I think there are two
2 photographs that represent this quite well. That's
3 Prosecutor's Exhibit 257 and 258, and if you could
4 place 257 onto the ELMO.
5 A. Yes. Perhaps just before we do that, just to
6 say that there were a number of fractures of the skull
7 and some of the long bones, that's the legs and the arm
8 bones, which suggested perhaps kicking, stamping, or
9 blows from a heavy weapon.
10 In addition to that, there were two cases
11 with very interesting injuries. These were injuries in
12 the skull. You can see the face here, and you have
13 this almost rectangular defect or hole in the side of
14 the skull which is not typical of gunshot injury and is
15 much more suggestive of something with that relative
16 shape penetrating into the skull.
17 An even better example, perhaps, is this case
18 here, which shows a clear defect in the top of the
19 skull. He had another one at the back on the -- I
20 think it was the left side of the skull. So there were
21 two like that. And that suggested very much to me that
22 some pointed object like a very firm blade, perhaps, or
23 an end of a crowbar or something of that shape had been
24 pushed into the skull.
25 In these two -- well, this individual
1 particularly, there were no other injuries to account
2 for his death, no gunshot injuries anywhere, and one
3 has to suggest that this was probably the cause of
4 death, whatever caused these injuries.
5 MR. CAYLEY: And for the sake of the record,
6 Dr. Clark referred, first of all, to Exhibit 258 and
7 then to Exhibit 257.
8 Q. Dr. Clark, if you could just place your
9 summary findings on the bodies and body parts recovered
10 and presented to you from Glogova, and again add any
11 comments that might assist the Judges.
12 A. There was just one other injury type that we
13 haven't really mentioned, and that is that a number of
14 these bodies had clearly been burned. There was
15 burning injury on both the clothing and on the bones
16 themselves. Almost certainly this occurred after
17 death, but it was a clear indication.
18 It was also very -- concentrated very much in
19 GL-05. This is the same grave site as the young men --
20 as the young man who had been shot in the spine. These
21 were the ones showing the burning injuries.
22 This is the summary of the finding from the
23 Glogova site. It was a large complex site comprising a
24 number of separate graves, five of which were exhumed
25 this season, that's 1999. There were a total of 90
1 bodies and 154 body parts. All the victims were male
2 and many of them were young, especially from the GL-05
3 grave. Most had been shot either once or twice, most
4 often in the trunk, and next most commonly in the
6 In GL-05, a distinct pattern of shots to the
7 middle of the back shattering the spine with or without
8 shots elsewhere was found. In one person, this person
9 did not die from a gunshot injury but probably from
10 some pointed object penetrating the skull. And there
11 was evidence of presumed post-mortem burning of many of
12 the bodies in GL-05 and a few in GL-02, mostly the
13 clothing but several cases involving the bones
15 Q. Finally, Dr. Clark, it has been raised by the
16 Defence with a number of other witnesses as to whether
17 or not these individuals were the victims of combat or
18 some other cause such as summary execution, and bearing
19 in mind the limitations that you've already stated
20 about pathology evidence in this kind of case, could
21 you indicate to the Judges those factors which in your
22 viewpoint against these individuals having suffered
23 these injuries as a result of combat?
24 A. There was certainly nothing to suggest that
25 these were combat casualties. It is not something that
1 I could refute entirely, but one -- in accepting that,
2 one would have to bear in mind various observations
3 about these bodies.
4 As has been said repeatedly already, there's
5 the question of the blindfolds and ligatures on these
6 bodies, which would be hardly findings in combat
7 casualties. Just to repeat, in one of the graves,
8 41 per cent had their hands tied behind their back;
9 13 per cent had blindfolds around their heads, and this
10 was also the grave; and at least 5 per cent of these
11 people had significant physical disabilities.
12 I think other observations we could make is
13 that all the injuries on the bodies were bullet
14 injuries, and there was no evidence of injuries from
15 any other type of weapon like shrapnel or any other
16 military weapon.
17 Now, from the literature, it is observed
18 frequently that the commonest type of injury in battle
19 casualties are shrapnel injuries and bombs and other
20 projectiles and bullets are only the second most
21 common. This has been shown repeatedly from various
22 studies. So just to repeat, all these injuries were
23 bullet injuries.
24 Also, the average number of times that these
25 people had been shot was only 2.4, between two and
1 three times. Now, that, I would suggest, is a fairly
2 low average number of injuries for battle casualties,
3 and studies have shown -- a recent study in the Gulf
4 War, in fact, showed that the average number of
5 injuries was nine to any one individual person.
6 Also, in about half the victims, we could say
7 that -- we could determine the direction of the shot,
8 of the direction of fire, and of these, half the cases,
9 77 per cent had been shot in the back of the body or
10 the side of the body and only 23 per cent had shots to
11 the front of the body. Again, I would have thought
12 these strong facts against these being battle
14 Further, in at least -- in no less than ten
15 per cent of cases, the only injury in the body was a
16 single gunshot wound to the head, and usually to the
17 back of the head.
18 I think the final observation to make is that
19 in all studies of recent conflicts, it's very obvious
20 that far more people are wounded in combat situations
21 than are killed, and on average, at least -- there are
22 at least twice as many people wounded rather than
23 killed. And to my knowledge, there's no suggestion of
24 large numbers of wounded casualties from this area.
25 Given the number of bodies that we found in the
1 grave -- well, in the graves, that's almost 500 over
2 this season, we would be expecting reports of a
3 thousand more casualties, which to my knowledge is not
4 the case.
5 So all these factors, I think, go very much
6 against this being -- these being people who were
7 killed in combat.
8 Q. Dr. Clark, one clarification. There's
9 actually a mistake in the transcript. Am I right in
10 saying that in those cases where you could determine
11 the direction of fire, that 77 per cent had been shot
12 in the back or the side of the body?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And 23 per cent had been shot to the front of
15 the body?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Thank you. Sir, do you have anything further
18 to add?
19 A. No.
20 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Dr. Clark.
21 Mr. President, I can now offer the witness
22 for cross-examination.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you
24 very much, Mr. Cayley.
25 Dr. Clark, you are now going to be answering
1 questions put to you by Mr. Visnjic, I think it is.
2 Mr. Visnjic, your witness.
3 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you,
4 Mr. President.
5 Cross-examined by Mr. Visnjic:
6 Q. Good morning, Dr. Clark.
7 Dr. Clark, during your examination-in-chief,
8 you explained to us the process of post-mortem
9 procedure. Could you tell us the dynamics of that
10 procedure; that is to say, how much work your team did
11 in the course of a day, for example? How many
12 post-mortem findings did your team have in the course
13 of a day, for example?
14 A. The average number -- we had at any one time
15 three pathologists in the mortuary. The average number
16 of cases for each pathologist per day was between three
17 and four. So we were seeing perhaps 10 to 12 cases
18 each day.
19 Q. During your testimony yesterday, you said
20 that you took parts of the body for DNA analysis?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Which parts did you usually select for this
23 DNA analysis?
24 A. We usually used, where available, the middle
25 part of the right thigh bone and, if available, a tooth
1 from each individual. These were carefully taken under
2 as clean circumstances as we could.
3 Q. In explaining bone injuries, you said that
4 there were consultations between pathologists and
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Which opinion was the dominant one, which one
9 A. The pathologist. It was his responsibility
10 for the final report, and it was his opinion which
11 prevailed. I have to say there was never usually much
12 conflict between the opinions.
13 Q. Was any member of your team in charge of the
14 further identification of the bodies?
15 A. Only in the sense that we -- our
16 scenes-of-crime officers, they looked in detail at any
17 documents or any other artefacts taken from the body,
18 which may have assisted further with identification.
19 But we, as pathologists, did no more specific than what
20 has already been mentioned.
21 Q. Bearing in mind the overall conditions under
22 which you worked and the level of preservation of the
23 bodies that you did the post-mortems on, were you able
24 to analyse the positions, possible positions, between
25 the victims and their attackers?
1 A. No, other than determining the direction of
2 the wounds in the body, which we've already discussed.
3 That was not possible in every case, obviously, but in
4 a substantial number of cases we could tell these
5 people had been shot from behind, or the front, or the
6 side. We could not tell distance, for instance, how
7 far away the person was when they were shot, but we
8 could tell the direction.
9 Q. In this connection, I think that my learned
10 colleague Mr. Cayley asked you something. He asked you
11 about a conclusion that with individuals in the grave,
12 there were 0,5 -- I don't remember the percentage.
13 About 70 per cent were hit from the back, and I think
14 that the question was whether that was at a close
15 distance or not. Were you able to determine distance
16 in cases of that kind?
17 A. No.
18 Q. In your findings in the report, you say that
19 one of the elements to ascertain the type of injury,
20 that you use logic, common sense. On page 3 of your
21 report, I believe, in paragraph 5, you go on to give us
22 some exceptions. It is the last paragraph with respect
23 to the identification of injuries and wounds, the
24 recognition of the injuries. Can you tell us some of
25 those exceptions?
1 A. Yes. I've covered that in the paragraph 3 on
2 the next page. This was where we found intact bullets
3 in a body, completely undamaged bullets in a body.
4 Now, normally with high-velocity rifle
5 ammunition, it will pass right through the body if it
6 doesn't strike bone. It will just go straight through
7 the soft tissue and out through the other side. So if
8 we found an intact bullet in the body, that indicated
9 that it had obviously entered the body and greatly
10 reduced speed. And possibly the most likely cause of
11 that would be that it had already passed through
12 someone else before striking that person.
13 Q. And in connection with that, could you tell
14 us perhaps -- give us your opinion as to how many
15 individuals could have been hit after being placed in
16 the grave?
17 A. Based on that observation, I would have
18 thought no more than a dozen, because it doesn't need
19 to have been necessarily somebody else that the bullet
20 had gone through to lose its energy. It could have
21 been some other object. But whatever, it had clearly,
22 by the time it entered the victim's body, had lost a
23 lot of energy and didn't have enough energy to get out
24 the other side, if you like.
25 Q. Can one of the conclusions be, for example,
1 that the body was at a greater distance from the bullet
2 and that that might be the reason for losing the high
3 velocity? When I say "at a distance", I'm thinking
4 about, say, several hundred metres.
5 A. It would have to be a long distance, because
6 these bullets have high velocity over a long distance.
7 I don't know the exact figures, but I would have
8 thought certainly more than 300 metres.
9 Q. Thank you. On page 5 of your report -- that
10 is to say, my question is the following: In principle,
11 should you state the causes of death in cases where
12 many parts of the body are missing? What is your
13 opinion on that?
14 A. If there is a part on the body -- even though
15 large parts are missing, if there's an obviously fatal
16 injury in that body, I think it would be quite
17 justified in saying that was the cause of death. For
18 instance, if all we had was the upper half of a body
19 with the skull and the trunk, but both legs were
20 missing, if there's a gunshot wound in the skull,
21 that's necessarily and inevitably fatal. So it doesn't
22 matter that the rest of the body is missing. That is
23 the fatal injury.
24 The reverse does not apply, however. If all
25 we found was a gunshot injury to the leg and the skull
1 was missing, we would not accept that as the cause of
2 death. But bullet wounds to certain parts of the body,
3 I think one can assume that that's going to be a fatal
5 Q. In the part of your report which speaks about
6 post-mortems in Kozluk, you state that the degree of
7 preservation of the body in the grave -- that is to
8 say, that the preservation of the bodies was different,
9 the degree of that and the degree of decomposition, and
10 you mention several reasons for that. Could one of the
11 reasons be the fact that some bodies were exposed for
12 longer periods of time to the elements, in comparison
13 to the other bodies?
14 A. That's possible, yes.
15 Q. Could one of the reasons be the fact that
16 some bodies were buried straight away on the spot,
17 whereas others could have been brought from elsewhere
18 and buried?
19 A. That's a possibility, if we're speaking about
20 a substantial time period, a time period such that the
21 bodies could -- the decomposition process could develop
23 Q. In the section on Kozluk in your report, and
24 with the other graves as well, you make a table giving
25 the numbers of shots per body, per person.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Bearing in mind the state of the bodies
3 during the post-mortems, the number of shots that you
4 mention, is that the least number of possible shots per
6 A. Yes. This is the shots that we were very
7 sure that this was a gunshot injury. There were other
8 injuries on these bodies which could have been gunshot
9 injuries, but we were not 100 per cent convinced they
10 were, so we didn't count these. So, yes, these are
11 minimum numbers.
12 Q. Is it also possible that the projectile
13 passed through the soft tissues without injuring the
14 bone and that is why you did not record that particular
15 injury, because the soft tissues had disintegrated,
16 become decomposed?
17 A. Yes, that's entirely possible.
18 Q. Bearing in mind your experience, how often is
19 the likelihood of this happening?
20 A. Well, there are bones in most parts of the
21 body. The one part of the body which injuries could be
22 reflected without leaving any bony injury would be the
23 abdomen. So we may well have missed some abdominal
25 Q. This possibility exists if the body is not
1 complete, does it not?
2 A. Yes. Yes.
3 Q. In your report, you also state that in
4 certain cases, some pathologists considered the cause
5 of death to be undetermined, whereas others, for the
6 same description, thought that the description was
7 sufficient to determine the cause of death. I suppose
8 that that is due to different standards applied.
9 A. Yes, that's correct.
10 Q. Could you elaborate on that, please.
11 A. This was mostly for people who had been shot
12 perhaps in the legs. Some people felt that a gunshot
13 injury to, say the thigh, would necessarily have caused
14 damage to blood vessels and could well have been
15 fatal. Others were a little more cautious and said,
16 "Well, that's not" -- they weren't entirely happy with
17 that, and we just had to go along with that.
18 I think the numbers we're speaking about here
19 are fairly small in that respect, but I think everyone
20 accepted that a gunshot injury to the head, any sign of
21 a gunshot injury to the chest or the trunk or the
22 pelvis was certainly a potentially fatal injury, and it
23 was only with the limb injuries when we had some debate
24 about that.
25 Q. When determining the cause of death, on
1 page 10 you explained -- this is about Kozluk -- that
2 in 55 cases, it was not possible to establish the cause
3 of death, 55 per cent of the cases, and -- no, 55
4 cases. Sorry.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. The problem was in the translation.
7 Fifty-five cases.
8 And you also included the possibility of
9 other causes as well.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Is it possible, on the basis of traces on the
12 sublingual bone, to establish knife injuries in the
13 area of the neck?
14 A. I'm not familiar with the term "sublingual
15 bone," but I presume you're meaning the bones of the
16 throat, the thyroid cartridge and the hyoid bone
17 probably. Yes, I understand your question.
18 Yes. These are bones which don't -- because
19 these are very fragile bones, these are bones that
20 don't preserve well, and in the majority of people they
21 were no longer present. It is possible, if people had
22 had their throats cut, that you could injure these
23 bones but certainly by no means invariably. So I
24 wouldn't count it as -- the absence or presence of
25 injuries to the bones I wouldn't count as a great
1 indicator of such injuries.
2 Q. My next question is: In view of the global
3 impression that you have about the graves, would you
4 allow for the possibility that some bodies were brought
5 from the outside, from different locations, and buried
6 in individual graves subsequently? In individual
7 cases, could that be a possibility or do you exclude
8 that possibility?
9 A. I don't exclude that, no.
10 Q. Thank you. In your report, you said that you
11 conducted post-mortems on 292 bodies. On the other
12 hand, Professor Wright, in his report on exhumations in
13 Kozluk in 1999, on page 12, says that 291 bodies were
14 exhumed. Is there an explanation for the difference?
15 A. There could be. One possibility is that we,
16 in the mortuary -- because we had 292 bodies and we
17 also had a large number of body parts. Now, sometimes,
18 and this was particularly in some of the later graves,
19 what the anthropologists liked to call a body part, we
20 felt more comfortable, having seen the body laid out
21 and cleaned up, to call it a body because it had all
22 the significant parts present, and I imagine that's
23 what the discrepancy is there. I think you will
24 certainly find that in the Glogova site where we
25 changed from bodies to body parts quite a lot, but that
1 was because, in the mortuary, we felt we had all the
2 evidence there, and it was a judgement whether to call
3 this a full body in the sense that all the major parts
4 were there as opposed to a body part.
5 Q. I should now like to go on to the part of
6 your report dealing with the grave at Nova Kasaba. On
7 page 14 of your report, the section dealing with the
8 distribution of shots and injury patterns, we find that
9 there were 33 shots to the head of the victim. You
10 also state, on the same page, in the section dealing
11 with the direction of shots and distance fired, that it
12 was not possible to determine the direction.
13 In view of the fact that these were injuries
14 to the head, is it possible that if they were inflicted
15 at close range, these injuries, that there would be
16 traces on the bones of explosions, gunpowder
18 A. There may have been minute traces. Most of
19 the evidence on establishing distance of fire requires
20 the skin and soft tissues, because that is where the
21 gunpowder and other deposits and the burning are
22 deposited. There may well be minute traces which get
23 into the bone themselves, but we certainly did not look
24 for them. I think it would be extraordinarily
25 difficult to do that and there was no clear evidence of
2 I feel the absence does not exclude the
3 possibility of close firing. As I say, the bulk of the
4 evidence for that, close firing, is on the skin.
5 Q. In this particular case, that is, the Nova
6 Kasaba grave, are there any traces confirming
7 close-range fire, any evidence of that?
8 A. There's no positive evidence of it and
9 there's no negative evidence. In other words, we
10 cannot tell definitely one way or the other but it's
11 not excluded.
12 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President,
13 in view of the time, I don't know whether it would be
14 convenient to have a break now. Should I continue with
15 my cross?
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] How much
17 time do you need more or less?
18 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Not more than
19 ten minutes, Mr. President.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I think
21 then it is better to have a break now. So we're going
22 to have a 20-minute break.
23 --- Recess taken at 10.42 a.m.
24 --- On resuming at 11.05 a.m.
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We are
1 resuming the hearing.
2 Mr. Visnjic, you may continue.
3 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you,
4 Mr. President.
5 Q. Dr. Clark, in the response you gave regarding
6 the coordination of views among the individual
7 pathologists regarding the cause of death, you said
8 that some discussion occurred defining injuries to the
9 thigh area. Did I understand you correctly?
10 A. Yes. Not just the thigh -- I just used that
11 as an example -- but we discussed the findings between
12 us as would happen in any professional situation.
13 Q. If a person was injured in the thigh with a
14 bullet from a firearm with large destructive power and
15 from a relatively close range of a few metres perhaps,
16 and the nervous sciatic was damaged in the process, in
17 your opinion would that person's life be in danger?
18 Would it be fatal, in other words?
19 A. It would not be necessarily immediately
20 fatal. In fact, it wouldn't be immediately fatal. The
21 person would be disabled. They certainly wouldn't be
22 able to walk. They would start losing blood. But it
23 is a treatable condition if emergency first aid is
24 given to try and bandage these wounds. If the person
25 was left with a large gaping injury to the thigh and
1 given no medical assistance, then eventually, I think,
2 they probably would have died. But we're speaking
3 hours, if not longer.
4 Q. That person, what are the possibilities for
5 that person to move about without assistance?
6 A. Well, one can never underestimate what people
7 can do in situations, and they potentially could crawl
8 or heave themselves around. Yes, that's a possibility.
9 Q. Could that person cover a certain distance, a
10 kilometre, or several hundred metres, or maybe more, if
11 you can give us an answer?
12 A. I think it's almost impossible to answer
13 these questions. I would say nothing is impossible,
14 and a person with the will power and the strength of
15 will to do that could probably do that.
16 Q. Thank you. My next question has to do with
17 the Glogova grave.
18 On page 21, you describe the number of shots
19 on the bodies. In accordance with your previous
20 answer, I assume that in this case too, these are the
21 minimum number of shots per person. Is that correct?
22 A. That's correct, yes.
23 Q. You have seen Exhibits 257, 258, that is, two
24 skulls, Prosecution exhibits, on which injuries are
25 shown inflicted by a blow with a blunt object. Could
1 it be established whether these injuries were inflicted
2 post-mortem or ante-mortem?
3 A. I cannot say for definite this was
4 ante-mortem or post-mortem, just as with the gunshot
5 injuries. All I can say is that these were the only
6 injuries on this person, and that must raise the
7 possibility that these happened in life.
8 Q. But the possibility of them being inflicted
9 post-mortem is not excluded, is it?
10 A. It's not excluded. I'm not sure how it would
11 be inflicted, but I can't exclude that these are
12 post-mortem injuries, no, particularly bearing in mind
13 that there are two of them.
14 Q. In this grave, that is, Glogova, were there
15 several burials, in your opinion?
16 A. Yes, there appeared to be several different
17 graves within the overall grave site.
18 Q. Dr. Clark, in answer to a question by my
19 learned friend Mr. Cayley, you spoke about your overall
20 impression regarding the causes of death in all the
21 grave sites on the basis of your investigations in
22 1999. If we exclude Nova Kasaba grave site, Konjevic
23 Polje, and perhaps a part of the grave site in Glogova,
24 is there a greater probability that the persons buried
25 in those graves did not meet their death as a
1 consequence of mass executions?
2 A. I think that is fair to say, because one of
3 the pointers against all of these people, that is, all
4 the four grave sites being combat casualties was the
5 fact that in Kozluk, at least, so many had blindfolds
6 and ligatures and disabilities. So in that sense, the
7 fact that Konjevic Polje, Nova Kasaba, and Glogova,
8 none of the victims there had blindfolds or ligatures,
9 none of them had any obvious physical disabilities,
10 yes, that does reduce the pointers against, but still
11 doesn't take away from the fact that there were no
12 injuries from other military weapons.
13 And I stress that in combat situations, the
14 commonest type of injury are injuries other than
15 bullets; in other words, fragmenting items such as
16 grenades and shells. And this has been shown
17 repeatedly in many conflicts, not least in Croatia in
18 1992. Also, we still have the evidence that the bulk
19 of people had been shot to the back of the body rather
20 than the front, and the absence of the large numbers of
21 wounded which we would expect in a combat situation.
22 But to return to your overall initial
23 question, yes, excluding Kozluk, the pointers against
24 the other three grave sites being combat casualties are
25 reduced. I would accept that.
1 Q. Dr. Clark, I have no further questions.
2 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] That ends my
3 cross-examination, Mr. President.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you
5 very much, Mr. Visnjic.
6 Mr. Cayley, some additional questions?
7 MR. CAYLEY: I just have a few questions,
8 Your Honour.
9 Re-examined by Mr. Cayley:
10 Q. Dr. Clark, could you find in the pile of
11 photographs Exhibits 248, 252, and 256. Actually, if
12 you could place 252 onto the ELMO first.
13 Dr. Clark, this is a skull that we've already
14 discussed, and it's from the Konjevic Polje site.
15 That's where the body was recovered from. Is that
17 A. Yes, that's right.
18 Q. Would you agree with me that the bullet to
19 the side of the head is a fairly well-aimed shot if one
20 was intending to kill this individual?
21 A. This would be the immediate assumption, yes.
22 Q. If you could then place Exhibit 248 onto the
23 ELMO. This is from another grave. This is Nova
25 Again, considering the shot to the middle of
1 the back of the head, if you were intending to kill
2 this person, would this be a fairly well-aimed shot?
3 A. Yes. And we had a large number of people in
4 which this was a very typical injury, an injury -- a
5 bullet hole to the back either in the midline or just
6 to the side of it. This was a very common finding.
7 Q. If you could finally turn to Exhibit 256,
8 which is from Glogova, and this is, I think, a shot to
9 the middle of the spine from the back, is it not?
10 A. Yes. Better like that. Yes, that's right.
11 Q. Again, stating the obvious, if you were
12 intending to kill somebody, this is a place where you
13 would shoot them?
14 A. Well, not necessarily. I mean, it's a shot
15 to the middle of the back. It's not an area which
16 would be immediately fatal.
17 Q. But it could be fatal?
18 A. It could be fatal, yes, but it's not as
19 immediately fatal as a shot to the back of the head.
20 Q. Now, considering these three photographs, and
21 we spoke about distance, the distance from which
22 somebody could have fired to actually hit these three
23 individuals, I know you've stated that in order to
24 determine distance accurately, you need to be able to
25 inspect soft tissue, but would you agree with me that
1 these three photographs at least provide a factor that
2 would suggest that they were fired at from close range
3 because of the position that these bullets hit these
5 A. Yes, I agree entirely. They are, if you
6 like, targeted areas, and it is easier to target
7 somewhere the closer you are to the person, yes.
8 Q. No further questions, Dr. Clark.
9 MR. CAYLEY: No further questions,
10 Mr. President. Thank you.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you
12 very much, Mr. Cayley.
13 Judge Fouad Riad.
14 Questioned by the Court:
15 JUDGE RIAD: Good morning, Professor Clark.
16 A. Doctor, not professor.
17 JUDGE RIAD: You are a senior lecturer.
18 A. Yes.
19 JUDGE RIAD: In my country they would call
20 you Professor. Now, just one question and then -- two
21 questions perhaps. The first one is a minor one. You
22 might be able to tell me about it. You said that in
23 Glogova site, they each started at 12 and from 12 to
24 71. What was the percentage of the children? Twelve
25 is children, I mean, between 12 and 18, for instance.
1 Could you tell me what was the percentage?
2 A. I don't know that, and I'm going to be a
3 little hesitant of giving ages. This is more the
4 anthropologists who determine this. What I can say is
5 from their reports they gave us ranges, and they ranged
6 from as young as 12. That's not to say that we had a
7 12-year-old, but within the limits of being able to
8 determine these things, it could have been as young as
10 I don't know -- all I do know is that in
11 GL-05, there was a preponderance of young people. I
12 think we're speaking about people in their late teens,
13 early 20s mainly, rather than 12- or 13-year-old
15 JUDGE RIAD: In their teens?
16 A. Yes, late teens.
17 JUDGE RIAD: Late teens would be 16 or 17?
18 A. Yes.
19 JUDGE RIAD: That's a teenager.
20 A. Yes, late teens.
21 JUDGE RIAD: But if they couldn't decide if
22 they were 12 or 13, how could they decide that they had
23 people at the age of 85? Is it easier to --
24 A. No. It's easier to age people the younger
25 they are.
1 JUDGE RIAD: It's easier?
2 A. Yes.
3 JUDGE RIAD: How could they age that people
4 were 85?
5 A. That's a sort of broad range they've given.
6 I mean after the age of about 45 or 50, it's actually
7 very difficult to age them at all, and this was just an
8 upper range they gave. I mean, I suppose they could
9 have said a hundred, but there's no real cutoff point.
10 JUDGE RIAD: But definitely it was old age?
11 A. There were people who could have been older,
12 yes. The trouble is after about the age of 40 or 50,
13 it's almost impossible, just from looking at the bones,
14 to say that that person was 50 or was 60 or was 70.
15 JUDGE RIAD: After the age of 50 or 40?
16 A. Possibly that, yes. Forty, mid-40s to 50, it
17 becomes increasingly difficult to tie down an age even
18 within about 10 or 15 years.
19 JUDGE RIAD: And you mentioned -- just
20 another little question -- most shots or injuries were
21 from gunshots, and you said it was, for instance,
22 87 per cent in Nova Kasaba. What was the source of the
23 other injuries in such cases?
24 A. Well, 87 per cent, I suspect, is an
25 underestimate. That was the number of gunshots which
1 we professionally felt we could definitely prove.
2 There were other injuries on these bodies which could
3 well have been gunshot injuries, but in the limits of
4 our proof, we could not say definitely they were.
5 Other people could have died from blunt-force
6 injuries, kicking injuries, beating injuries; that's a
7 possibility. There were a number of individuals in
8 which we actually found no injuries whatsoever on the
9 body, no fractures, no nothing, and that included some
10 bodies which were well preserved. They could have died
11 in other ways, including natural cause. They may have
12 been elderly people who had travelled some distance,
13 maybe had heart conditions, and who just collapsed in
14 the heat or whatever. I suspect that there will be a
15 few people like that.
16 JUDGE RIAD: Now I come to my main question,
17 and perhaps it's due to a difference between your
18 scientific approach and the social science approach.
19 In the social science approach, there is always room
20 for doubt, but sometimes in the scientific approach you
21 are more categorical. So I would like to understand
22 more your answer concerning the possibility that the
23 injuries resulted from a fight or battle injuries.
24 First, in your answer to the Prosecutor, you
25 said that you cannot refute entirely that these
1 injuries resulted from combat, but you mentioned many
2 reasons, which you repeated to the Defence counsel, and
3 I noted them down, of course, that hand tied; physical
4 disabilities; people were shot in the back; and people
5 were usually wounded in a fight and not only all
6 killed; of course the back shots too; and many, many
7 other reasons which you mentioned, and then still you
8 said that you cannot refute entirely. Is there any
9 reason to doubt that this could result from fight?
10 You said that perhaps concerning Kozluk. You
11 seem to have excluded Kozluk. You said that there are
12 pointers, reduced pointers to the contrary with regard
13 to Kozluk.
14 Speaking of Kozluk, you mentioned that 41 per
15 cent had their hands ligated, that 13 per cent were
16 blindfolded, that some were shot seven times, and most
17 in the head. Now, why did you exclude Kozluk from your
18 general assessment that it was not -- that these
19 injuries could not be battle injuries? Was Kozluk, in
20 your opinion, a fight?
21 A. Well, to be fair, I was asked to exclude
22 Kozluk by the Defence, and that was a rather separate
23 grave because that was the only grave with the people
24 with ligatures and blindfolds. And I would have
25 thought that's a very, very strong pointer against
1 these being combat casualties.
2 JUDGE RIAD: And the others?
3 A. The others are less, because we don't have
4 that factor.
5 I see what -- you're trying to say, "Why is
6 there any doubt?" Well, it depends what you mean by
7 "combat casualties", and it's up to others to put that
9 But we have people who have been shot. Now,
10 this is two groups of men facing each other or fighting
11 each other. It is still possible that in that
12 situation, a number could be shot in the back, if there
13 was surprise from a different direction. If it's a
14 situation that the only weapons being used in that --
15 unusually being used in that situation were guns, then
16 that still leaves a possibility. So it very much
17 depends on what sort of combat is being presented.
18 JUDGE RIAD: So in the other sites, there is
19 a possibility there could have been a combat?
20 A. I can't entirely exclude it, no.
21 JUDGE RIAD: You can't entirely?
22 A. No.
23 JUDGE RIAD: But, for instance, for --
24 A. But I'm saying the findings would be very
25 untypical from all the other findings from other
1 conflicts reported in the literature, and this is in
2 context with the type of injuries which have been
3 inflicted, the lack of wounded individuals and, to some
4 extent, the direction of shots. I think these are very
5 strong pointers.
6 JUDGE RIAD: They are strong pointers?
7 A. Yes.
8 JUDGE RIAD: But only in Kozluk, it was --
9 A. Kozluk is even more strong, because it's
10 inconceivable that you could suggest that people were
11 fighting with their hands tied behind their backs or
12 fighting with blindfolds.
13 JUDGE RIAD: Were there any people with hands
14 tied behind their backs in the other sites?
15 A. No, none at all.
16 JUDGE RIAD: Not at all?
17 A. No.
18 JUDGE RIAD: But the other pointers were
19 there; shots in the back?
20 A. Yes, the other pointers were certainly
22 JUDGE RIAD: Were certainly there?
23 A. Yes.
24 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you very much, Dr. Clark.
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you
1 very much, Judge Riad.
2 Madame Judge Wald.
3 JUDGE WALD: Dr. Clark, I have just one
5 In your summaries of the various sites from
6 which you examined bodies, you pointed out -- in a few
7 cases, you pointed out similarities or what might be
8 systemic patterns in the places where the shots
9 appeared in the bodies, et cetera. You've also pointed
10 out the differences in the ligatures, the presence of
11 ligatures and blindfolds in Kozluk.
12 Would you say, looking at all the sites from
13 which you have examined bodies, and excluding for the
14 moment the possibility of combat, excluding the
15 hypothesis of combat, and accepting the hypothesis
16 which I did take to be the one that you thought more
17 likely, that there had been mass executions of some
18 sort at these various sites, would you say that your
19 observations of the patterns of injury were more
20 consistent with all of those burials being under a
21 unified plan or part of a general motus operandi, or
22 would they be just as consistent with a hypothesis that
23 you could have had four or five spontaneous killings,
24 of executions, unconnected with each other, which
25 resulted in the bodies that went into the different
2 A. There were different patterns between some of
3 the graves, and I would suspect that this was
4 different -- these were different incidents, albeit
5 carried out in the same general intention. But we did
6 have some slightly different patterns. I was
7 mentioning the very distinctive pattern in Glogova, the
8 shots in the back. Some of the grave sites, the
9 average number of shots was higher than others, so that
10 there were subtle differences between some of the grave
11 sites -- between the grave sites, yes.
12 JUDGE WALD: And your general -- just to
13 follow through on that, your general knowledge and
14 observations of mass graves or the results of
15 executions here and in the past would have led you to
16 tilt in which direction; that these grave sites were
17 basically part of a single operation or they just as
18 consistently could have come about from spontaneous
19 reactions in different places?
20 A. I'm not sure that I can distinguish the two,
21 if the two should necessarily be distinguished. If
22 you're saying this is the same person or group of
23 persons going around and killing all of these people --
24 JUDGE WALD: Not the same persons, perhaps,
25 but some general pattern, command operation.
1 A. Well, in the sense that we have what appeared
2 to be deliberately targeted injuries in each of these
3 grave sites, yes, there is an overall pattern of
4 execution-type injuries.
5 JUDGE WALD: Thank you.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you
7 very much, Judge Wald.
8 Dr. Clark, I shall perhaps go a little
9 further but along the same path as my colleagues.
10 Your experience has allowed you to
11 reconstruct the situation that occurred before what you
12 actually observed, and you were asked, when doing these
13 post-mortems, in a sense to reconstruct the situation
14 prior to death. Are you in a position to give us a
15 general idea, after having observed a large number of
16 bodies and body parts, are you in a position to give us
17 a general idea of what you were able to reconstruct,
18 the situation that led up to these consequences that
19 you actually observed? I don't know if I was clear
21 A. Yes, it's a difficult question. Our main --
22 my main expertise was in looking at the bodies. I
23 think you've got to take into consideration the
24 findings at the grave sites and how bodies were placed
25 in the graves, which I don't have any detailed
1 knowledge of. All I would say is that from the
2 findings of the bodies overall, there's every
3 indication that these were people who were executed and
4 placed in the various graves. I don't think I can go
5 much farther than that.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you
7 very much.
8 Mr. Cayley, I think we have some documents to
10 MR. CAYLEY: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President.
11 We do.
12 The first exhibit is Prosecution Exhibit 195,
13 which is a document that shows the sites which
14 Dr. Clark was concerned with; Exhibit 235, which is his
15 curriculum vitae; Exhibit 236, which is his report;
16 236A, which is the B/C/S version of that report; 237,
17 which is the example of the autopsy report, and 238,
18 which is the table of nationalities of his staff. 239
19 to 257 are the photographs. If I could apply for
20 formal admission of those exhibits.
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation]
22 Mr. Visnjic, have you any objections?
23 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] No,
24 Mr. President.
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Then the
1 exhibits are admitted into evidence as a whole.
2 You may be seated, Mr. Cayley.
3 Dr. Clark, you have finished your testimony
4 and your communication with us here. We wish to thank
5 you very much for coming here, and we also thank you
6 for the work you have done.
7 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much.
8 [The witness withdrew]
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes,
10 Mr. Cayley.
11 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, just before the
12 next witness, there's a small housekeeping matter, and
13 it concerns the evidence of Mr. Jean-Rene Ruez.
14 Mr. Ruez testified on the 15th of March of
15 this year in respect of an exhibit, Prosecutor's
16 Exhibit 22/8. This is on page 742 of the transcript.
17 He stated that that photograph was taken in April of
18 1998, and he was mistaken. The Prosecutor's records
19 indicate that that photograph was, in fact, taken on
20 the 21st of April, 1997.
21 My learned friend Mr. Harmon has spoken with
22 the Defence on this matter. They are in agreement to
23 stipulate to that fact in order to correct the
24 transcript, and I bring it to the Court's attention so
25 that it can be placed on the transcript.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation]
2 Mr. Petrusic.
3 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President,
4 we have discussed this matter with representatives of
5 the Prosecution, and after the evidence provided, we
6 agreed that this was indeed an error.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] In that
8 case, Madam Registrar, will you please take note of
9 this and make the correction in the transcript along
10 the lines proposed by Mr. Cayley. Is that all right
12 MR. CAYLEY: Yes, Mr. President.
13 The next witness is going to be taken by the
14 senior trial attorney, so I will retire to the back and
15 allow him to come forward.
16 [The witness entered court]
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good
18 morning, Dr. Lawrence. Can you hear me?
19 THE WITNESS: Mr. President, yes, I can.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please read
21 the solemn declaration that the usher has handed to
23 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will
24 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You may be
3 WITNESS: CHRISTOPHER LAWRENCE
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I think
5 that you are quite familiar with the proceedings in a
6 courtroom, so you will feel quite at ease. Is that
8 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation]
10 Dr. Lawrence, you will first be answering questions put
11 to you by Mr. Harmon.
12 Mr. Harmon, you have the floor.
13 MR. HARMON: Thank you very much,
14 Mr. President. Good morning, Your Honours,
15 Mr. President, counsel.
16 Examined by Mr. Harmon:
17 Q. Good morning, Dr. Lawrence.
18 A. Good morning, Mr. Harmon.
19 Q. Now, because we speak the same language, I'm
20 going to ask you to pause after I finish my question so
21 the interpreters have time to catch up with the final
22 interpretation of the question, and I'll pause after
23 you give an answer so they can do the same.
24 A. Yes, I understand.
25 Q. All right. First of all, Dr. Lawrence, could
1 you state your full name and can you spell your last
2 name for the record?
3 A. Christopher Hamilton Lawrence. Lawrence is
4 spelled L-a-w-r-e-n-c-e.
5 Q. What is your current occupation,
6 Dr. Lawrence?
7 A. I'm a forensic pathologist employed at the
8 New South Wales Institute of Forensic Medicine in
9 Sydney Australia.
10 MR. HARMON: Mr. President, Your Honours and
11 counsel should have a copy of the curriculum vitae of
12 Dr. Lawrence. It's marked as Prosecutor's Exhibit 221.
13 Q. Let me just take you through some of the
14 salient portions of this CV, Dr. Lawrence. First of
15 all, what is your nationality?
16 A. I am Australian.
17 Q. Can you inform the Trial Chamber of your
18 educational background, please?
19 A. I have a medical degree from the University
20 of Sydney, where I graduated in 1983. That is the
21 American equivalent of the MD. I have a science degree
22 in physiology also from the University of Sydney. I am
23 a fellow of the Royal Australasian College of
24 Pathologists, which as a pathologist, it is the
25 American equivalent of the board certification in
2 Q. Now, let me focus on your education. When
3 you received your Bachelor of Medical Science in
4 physiology, did you receive any prizes or medals?
5 A. Yes. I was the winner of the P.O. Bishop
6 Medal and the H.G. Chapman prize for that thesis.
7 Q. And what -- can you explain those prizes and
8 why they were awarded?
9 A. They were awarded to the top Bachelor of
10 Medical Science graduate of the year.
11 Q. Now, let me turn briefly to some other
12 aspects of your career. Between October 1989 and June
13 of 1991 were you appointed as a specialist in forensic
14 medicine in New South Wales, to the Institute of
15 Forensic Medicine in Glebe, Australia?
16 A. Yes, I was.
17 Q. Between June of 1991 and June 1993, were you
18 a Fellow in forensic pathology in the State of New
19 Mexico in the United States at the Office of the
20 Medical Examiner at the University of New Mexico School
21 of Medicine in Albuquerque?
22 A. In the first year, I was a Fellow. In the
23 second year I acted as a staff pathologist at the
24 Office of the Medical Investigator.
25 Q. Now, from August of 1994 until the present
1 time, have you been appointed and do you act as a
2 clinical lecturer at the Department of Pathology at the
3 University of Sydney in Australia?
4 A. I do.
5 Q. Now, in addition to those qualifications,
6 Dr. Lawrence, have you been accepted as an expert in
7 the field of forensic pathology in the courts of your
9 A. Yes, I have.
10 Q. And have you been accepted as an expert in
11 the field of forensic pathology in courts in the United
13 A. Yes, I have been accepted -- sorry. Yes, I
14 have been accepted as an expert witness in the States
15 of New Mexico and Colorado.
16 Q. Now, Dr. Lawrence, we've heard, in the last
17 few days, testimony about the composition of exhumation
18 teams that examined human remains in Bosnia at various
19 times and the interrelationship between anthropologist
20 and pathologist. I don't intend to ask you a great
21 deal about anthropology, but have you had some training
22 in anthropology?
23 A. Yes. Sorry. Yes, I have had training in
24 forensic anthropology.
25 Q. Can you describe just the extent of that
2 A. In addition to practical experience, I have
3 attended a number of courses.
4 Q. Where were those courses?
5 A. I attended courses at the Smithsonian
6 Institute in Washington, the Armed Forces Institute of
7 Pathology course which was run in New Mexico, another
8 forensic anthropology course run in New Mexico, and a
9 course run in the investigation of buried remains in
11 Q. Thank you very much, Dr. Lawrence.
12 Now, what was your role in exhumations
13 conducted by the Office of the Prosecutor in Bosnia in
15 A. I was the -- sorry. I was the chief
16 pathologist in Bosnia for the ICTY in 1998.
17 MR. HARMON: Now, could I have Prosecutor's
18 Exhibit 259 placed on the ELMO, please.
19 Q. Perhaps that is in front of you,
20 Dr. Lawrence. If not, the usher will assist you. It
21 is this exhibit.
22 Now, Dr. Lawrence, how many sites were
23 exhumed in 1998?
24 A. Eight sites.
25 Q. Was it your responsibility to examine the
1 human remains from each of those exhumed sites?
2 A. Yes, it was.
3 Q. Now, does the Prosecutor's exhibit which has
4 been placed on the ELMO identify in orange the sites
5 from which you examined human remains?
6 A. Yes, it does.
7 Q. We've heard testimony earlier in this case,
8 Dr. Lawrence, but for the sake of clarity for the
9 people in the gallery, only one of the sites that you
10 exhumed was a primary grave site?
11 A. Yes. One of the sites was a robbed primary
13 Q. And all of the -- and that is the site that
14 is indicated as the dam; is that correct?
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. The other locations marked on this exhibit in
17 orange were secondary grave sites?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And you examined the human remains from each
20 of those sites; is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. When I say "you," I mean you and members of
23 your staff.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Now, Dr. Lawrence, in respect of each of
1 these sites that are marked in orange, was a report
2 prepared by you in respect of the findings made at each
3 of those sites?
4 A. Yes, it was.
5 Q. Now, in front of you, Dr. Lawrence, are the
6 reports that were prepared by you.
7 MR. HARMON: And for the record, Your
8 Honours, that includes Prosecutor's Exhibit 261, which
9 is the primary site of the dam; 262, which is the
10 secondary site CR-12; a report on autopsies at 263
11 dealing with Cancari Road 3; 264 dealing with autopsies
12 for the Hodzici Road site 3; 265, Hodzici Road site 4;
13 266, which deals with the findings in respect of
14 Hodzici Road 5; 267, which is Zeleni Jadar site 5; and
15 lastly, 268, which is the Liplje site 2.
16 Q. Now, Dr. Clark -- Dr. Lawrence, I'm sorry, in
17 addition to those reports that deal with sites that
18 were exhumed and your analysis of the human remains
19 from those sites, did you also prepare a report in
20 respect of human remains found on the surface at
22 A. Yes. There were two body parts recovered in
23 1998, and those were examined because it was felt
24 incorrect to leave them till the next year.
25 MR. HARMON: And that, for the record, the
1 report prepared by Dr. Lawrence is a one-page report.
2 It's Prosecutor's Exhibit 260.
3 Q. Now, Dr. Lawrence, we've heard about the
4 procedures that were used by Dr. Clark and his team
5 that assisted him in respect of the exhumations in
6 1999. You operated in Bosnia in 1998, and I'd like to
7 focus then on your procedures on what facilities were
8 available to you.
9 Could you, first of all, describe to the
10 Trial Chamber the morgue facility that was available to
12 A. Yes. The morgue facility used was the same
13 one as was used in 1999. It is the Gradska Groblja
14 mortuary facility in Visoko. It had three tables; it
15 had facilities for fluoroscopic equipment, and a secure
16 room where evidence could be locked.
17 During the course of the year, we had more
18 material than we could conveniently handle in that
19 facility, and for the last third of the year, we also
20 used two temporary mortuaries which were also on the
21 site which also had another three or four tables in
22 them in order to facilitate the processing of the
24 Q. Dr. Lawrence, in order to convey succinctly
25 the procedures that you used in 1998 that were followed
1 by members of your staff, I'd like to take you through
2 a case study, if you will, and what I'd like you to do
3 is describe the procedures that were used by you and
4 members of your staff upon receipt of a body bag
5 containing human remains and take us through the
6 procedure to the time the analysis and the examination
7 had been completed, the body bag was sewn up and turned
8 over to the Bosnian authorities.
9 A. Yes. The body bags were received in a
10 locked, refrigerated container. I had one key. The
11 crime-scene officer from the scene had one key.
12 We removed the bodies from the refrigerated
13 container as we were using them and locked it after we
14 had taken the bodies out. The bodies were taken out,
15 and as soon as the body bags were opened, a photograph
16 was taken of the contents of the body bag.
17 The body bag would then be taken by the
18 pathologist who is going to handle the case and X-rayed
19 using a portable X-ray equipment, a fluoroscope.
20 Q. Now, let me stop right there for a moment,
21 Dr. Lawrence, and I'd like you to take a look at
22 Prosecutor's Exhibit 262, which is the report on
23 autopsies of human remains from Cancari Road site 12.
24 There are four photographs following page 5 of your
25 report, and I'd like you to take each of those
1 photographs and inform the Trial Chamber of what the
2 procedure was when you're fluoroscoping these remains.
3 MR. HARMON: For the record, Your Honours, in
4 that report, Dr. Lawrence will be referring to the four
5 photographs immediately after page five of his report.
6 Q. I see you've placed the first photograph on
7 the ELMO. Why don't you describe this particular
9 A. This photograph depicts or shows an image
10 made by the fluoroscope. It depicts the -- a left
11 elbow joint with the joint itself in the centre of the
12 picture. You can see a number of fractures in the bone
13 just above centre here, and you can see a shadow here
14 which represents a metal object which is, in fact, a
16 Now, the pathologist would look on the
17 fluoroscope for fractures and for bullets. If it was
18 convenient at the time, he would recover the bullet and
19 submit it for evidence. If not, he might wait and
20 recover it later. He would also look for any bony
21 abnormalities that could be demonstrated on X-ray.
22 He would then prepare a handwritten report on
23 what he saw, and the body would then be taken from the
24 fluoroscope to the main area where it would be placed
25 on a table.
1 Q. Now, Dr. Lawrence, would you explain the
2 successive three photographs in this particular
3 report. And this, I take it, depicts an injury of some
4 kind. Is that correct?
5 A. Yes. This is from the same case as the
6 fluoroscope. It shows -- sorry. It shows the left
7 forearm [indicates] on the right of the picture. There
8 is a hole in the skin here and a second hole here.
9 These correspond to bullet holes. This tissue
10 [indicates] has been cleaned for the purposes of
12 Q. Would you turn to the next picture, please,
13 Dr. Lawrence. What is that?
14 A. This shows [indicates] the bullet that we
15 could see -- sorry, the bullet is slightly to the left
16 here. This shows the bullet recovered from the soft
17 tissue. You can see it has the same outlines as the
18 X-ray image. This was marked and submitted for
20 Now, finally, to confirm the presence of
21 the gunshot wound, this is the same case again
22 [indicates]. This is the distal or the elbow part of
23 the left upper arm, and you can see the anthropologists
24 have reconstructed the fractured humerus. The white
25 material here is glue, and you can see the path where
1 the bullet has gone through the elbow joint.
2 Q. Thank you, Dr. Lawrence. Why don't you
3 continue with describing the procedure. After the
4 human remains or the body is removed from the
5 fluoroscope room, what happens?
6 A. Once the body is removed from the fluoroscope
7 room, it's put on the main -- on the working table. It
8 is searched, the clothing is removed, and the external
9 surface of the body is examined for evidence of
10 injuries. Now, at this stage the procedure would vary
11 depending on whether there was a large amount of soft
12 tissue or the remains were skeletalised.
13 Q. Now, why don't we start with the procedure
14 with the body that has a large amount of flesh
15 remaining on it. First of all, so we're perfectly
16 clear in what you mean by that, if you would turn to
17 your report, Prosecution Exhibit 263, the image
18 following page 6 of that, would you place that on the
19 ELMO, please. What is that?
20 A. This is a body from Cancari 3, showing a
21 relatively intact body with relatively complete soft
23 What you can see at the top is the head,
24 chest, the arms, pelvis, and the legs [indicates].
25 Relatively speaking for this site, this was a body with
1 a large amount of soft tissue. Probably only around
2 five per cent of the bodies were in as good a
4 Q. Dr. Lawrence, let's proceed with your
5 description of the procedure, with what happens when
6 you have a fleshed body, what you do. We're going to
7 come back later to the procedures when you have just a
8 skeleton or skeletalised body.
9 A. The body would then be searched for items of
10 identification, for personal items, and the clothing
11 would be removed. The body would then be washed, and
12 the pathologist would examine the external surfaces of
13 the body carefully for injuries. At that stage, the
14 clothing would be tagged with the case name and taken
15 off. I'll come back to that in a minute.
16 The pathologist would then carry out --
17 sorry. At this stage, if there were external gunshot
18 wounds, for example, or other external obvious
19 injuries, they would be photographed.
20 The pathologist, assisted by the assistant,
21 would then open the body, open the areas of injury, and
22 attempt to define them further. Where there were still
23 organs present, those would be examined for evidence of
24 significant injury. In the case of bony injury, the
25 bones would be examined. If they were severely broken,
1 they would be removed and reconstructed in order to
2 ascertain, as we saw with the elbow, to confirm the
3 presence of the bullet track.
4 Q. Who would do the reconstruction of the bone?
5 A. The reconstruction of the bone would
6 routinely be done by the anthropologists assigned to
7 the case.
8 Q. Now, in the course of examining the bodies,
9 if you found an abnormal feature, for example, an old
10 injury or something that was unique, would you record
12 A. Yes. We also examined the body for evidence
13 of identifying features. These were old injuries,
14 malformations, deformities, evidence of tooth decay, or
15 anything that might help later on identify the
17 Q. Now, do you have an example that you can
18 illustrate that particular point in the exhibits in
19 front of you? I believe if you refer to Prosecutor's
20 Exhibit 263, there may be one such illustration you
21 could put on the ELMO.
22 A. I have two here.
23 The first of these, what you can see here
24 just to the left of the centre is a grossly-deformed
25 ulna. That is one of the two bones of the forearm.
1 Now, you can see from the scale that it is extremely
2 short. It is also extremely badly malformed. This
3 person would have effectively had an extremely short
4 and strange-looking right forearm. This would be a
5 fairly characteristic sort of deformity and would have
6 caused significant problems with the function of the
7 right arm.
8 Q. Was your purpose in noting these kind of
9 deformities to assist in later identification of
11 A. That was the primary purpose, yes.
12 Q. All right. Do you have another illustration
13 from the same exhibit?
14 A. This is the spine of one of the bodies from
15 CR-3. What you can see is severe -- sorry -- severe
16 sclerosis of the spine. This person effectively had a
17 completely fused spine. This would be fairly
18 characteristic and would have produced a large degree
19 of incapacity.
20 Q. What other kinds of disabilities did you
21 locate in the course of conducting medical examinations
22 in 1998?
23 A. We found people with evidence of old
24 fractures of the hip that had never healed. We found
25 old gunshot wounds with severe persistent damage to the
1 joints. We found a man who had had a tracheostomy;
2 that is, a tube placed in his throat. Presumably, the
3 sort of previous tumour of the larynx, but
4 unfortunately we couldn't tell. The significant thing
5 about this person is that with the tracheostomy, he
6 would be unable to speak.
7 We found people with injuries that had been
9 Q. Now, at some point in the procedure you've
10 been describing, you've done the medical examination of
11 the flesh body, where does the anthropologist fit in?
12 A. The anthropologist, in the fleshed bodies,
13 would come in to do the reconstructions of the bones,
14 as I described. But their other function would be to
15 look at the pubic bones, look at the skull, look at the
16 long bones, to try and ascertain the age and sex and
17 the height of the individual.
18 In addition, they had an important function,
19 in looking at the bony injuries, to consult with the
20 pathologist as to whether these injuries occurred at or
21 around the time of death, i.e., that they are what's
22 called pari-mortem injuries, or whether they were
23 post-mortem injuries. Those are injuries that have
24 occurred after the time of death which may have
25 occurred during the burial, digging up, reburial, or
1 even re-extraction of the body.
2 Q. Now, I take it the pathologist and the
3 anthropologist would consult about their respective
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. What would happen then?
7 A. After the pathologist had consulted with the
8 anthropologist and reviewed the reconstructed bones,
9 the pathologist would then prepare a handwritten
10 report. He would often use diagrams to diagram the
11 areas of injury. He would hand over the pieces of
12 evidence that had been taken from the body to the crime
13 scene officer.
14 In the case of the clothing, the clothing
15 would be taken off and washed. Once it had been washed
16 and dried, it would be examined by one of the crime
17 scene officers for the evidence of injury. The purpose
18 of this was that given that many of our bodies had lost
19 their skin, damage to the clothing was sometimes the
20 only evidence we had that there may have been a bullet
21 injury. The clothing was also examined for evidence of
22 military origin and also for any characteristic
23 identifying features. Now, the crime scene officer
24 would then prepare a report on the clothing, indicating
25 where he found damage.
1 Now, in the event that the pathologist had an
2 injury that he was not certain about, he might actually
3 go early in the piece and examine the clothing directly
4 in order to corroborate his injuries. Obviously, if
5 there is a gunshot wound in the middle of the chest,
6 then there is likely to be -- there is going to be a
7 corresponding defect in the clothing. So the
8 pathologist would cross-index his findings with the
9 clothing. In any event, the pathologist, before he
10 finished the report, would check the clothing to make
11 sure that there were corresponding defects in the
12 clothing to account for the gunshot wounds.
13 Q. Now, would the clothing be tagged with a
14 number similar to the tag number on the body itself?
15 A. As the clothing was removed from the body,
16 the assistant would place a tag on every item, clearly
17 marking the case number of the item.
18 Q. After this report has been prepared by you,
19 in consultation with the anthropologist, and after the
20 clothing has been examined, what's the next step in the
22 A. At that stage, the pathologist would check
23 the report, sign the typewritten -- sorry. A
24 typewritten copy would be made of the handwritten
25 report, which would include the pathologist's opinion
1 as to the cause of death, amongst other things, and he
2 would check that report, check all of the evidence
3 against it, and sign the report.
4 Q. What would happen to the body?
5 A. The body, at the completion of the
6 examination, would be resealed with the case number
7 clearly written on it and would be stored for handing
8 over to the Bosnian authorities.
9 Q. Dr. Lawrence, let's take the other situation
10 that you described, because not all of the bodies that
11 you were examining were fleshed. Is that correct?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. Why don't you describe then, if you will, to
14 the Chamber, the procedure that was used when you had
15 skeletalised remains only.
16 A. If I may show an example.
17 Q. Yes, please, and if you would refer to
18 Prosecutor's Exhibit 261, which is the report on the
19 dam, I believe. I think there are two examples or two
20 photographs that you and I had discussed to show to the
21 Trial Chamber to illustrate this particular point.
22 They are the photographs that follow page 4,
23 Dr. Lawrence.
24 A. This photograph shows the initial step in the
25 process. This is a body bag [indicates] which has been
1 opened as it first comes into the mortuary, showing the
2 remains in the body bag as we first received them.
3 Now, those would then be taken and fluoroscoped. We've
4 discussed that.
5 In the event of skeletal remains, after the
6 clothing had been removed and searched and the physical
7 evidence identified, the bones would then be initially
8 examined before washing in order to examine the colour
9 of the fractures.
10 Now, I think Dr. Clark has alluded to the
11 difficulty in trying to identify the problems between
12 fractures that occurred at the time of death and the
13 fractures that occurred after death. But in a certain
14 number of cases where the fractures are fairly fresh,
15 that is, occurred post-mortem and were reasonably close
16 to the time of examination, examination of the edge of
17 the bones may reveal a very clear pale colour, which
18 may give an indication that that injury has occurred in
19 the post-mortem period.
20 So the bones were examined initially before
21 washing to establish whether they were definite
22 post-mortem injuries. Once they had been examined,
23 they were then washed and they would be aligned in an
24 anatomical position by the anthropologist.
25 Q. Now, you're turning the page and you'll show
1 us the next exhibit in the same document; is that
3 A. That is correct. This is, in fact, the same
4 case, Dam-001, after it had been washed and laid in an
5 anatomical -- roughly anatomical position.
6 You can see at the top the two upper arm
7 bones, the left shoulder blade, the sternum, the
8 thoracic spine, and the ribs.
9 The bones were cleaned up and aligned in this
10 anatomical position in an attempt to assess whether
11 injuries had occurred in the pari-mortem period when
12 all of the bodies were in an anatomical position or
13 whether they could have occurred in the post-mortem
15 Q. What would happen after that examination?
16 A. Again, the pathologist and the anthropologist
17 would both examine these and look for evidence of
18 injury. Some of the injuries, as you can see in this
19 particular one, this fracturing along here is almost
20 certainly a post-mortem injury due to weathering and
21 damage. But the -- again, where there were fractures
22 of bones that were -- where it was difficult to see
23 what the actual centre of the injury looked like, they
24 would be reconstructed. Again, the bodies would be
25 searched for injury, for identifying features. The
1 anthropologist would examine the remains for evidence
2 of sex, age, and stature, and the evidence taken from
3 the body would then be bagged.
4 The pathologist and the anthropologist would
5 usually consult regarding the injuries, because in
6 these particular cases, the anthropologist had a lot of
7 experience at looking at pure bony injury. At the end
8 of that, the pathologist would form an opinion as to
9 the injuries present and complete a report.
10 Q. Now, Dr. Lawrence, you've shown us one
11 example of an elbow being -- elbow bones being
12 reconstructed by the anthropologist. I'd just like to
13 illustrate that point one more time.
14 If you would turn to Prosecutor's
15 Exhibit 263, which is your report from the Report on
16 Autopsies of Human Remains from Cancari Road 3, and if
17 you would put on the ELMO the illustration that follows
18 page 9 of that report. I'd like you to, first of all,
19 identify the exhibit and then explain it.
20 A. This is the photograph referred to. This is
21 a skull from one of the bodies from Cancari Road 3. It
22 has been -- what we can see here is the top of the
23 skullcap, the front of the skull on the left there is a
24 gunshot wound in the centre marked by the arrow, with a
25 series of radiating fractures. The white represents
1 glue used to do the reconstruction. You can also see a
2 degree of deformity, persistent deformity of the skull
3 in addition.
4 You notice the area around the gunshot wound
5 is reasonably underformed. The gunshot wound is a
6 pari-mortem injury, but it appears, in addition, there
7 is some crushing injury which is probably post-mortem.
8 Q. So, Dr. Lawrence, this is an example of a
9 reconstruction of bone, in this case the skull,
10 performed by an anthropologist, that would assist you
11 in your examination and determination of the cause of
13 A. Yes. It would be quite hard to see the
14 bullet hole until the fragments of skull were stuck
15 back together again.
16 Q. All right. Dr. Lawrence, you have prepared
17 eight complete reports of the eight exhumation sites
18 from which human remains were removed in 1998. I do
19 not intend to take you through each of these reports.
20 What I would like you to do is go through one
21 of those reports, because the formatting in each of
22 these reports is the same; is that correct?
23 A. Yes, that's correct.
24 Q. And using the Prosecution Exhibit 263, which
25 is the report on autopsies of human remains from the
1 Cancari Road site 3, I'd like you to take us through
2 the report, and if you would start by putting on the
3 ELMO the page 2, which is your Summary and Conclusions
4 on Autopsies from CR-03. If you would place that on
5 the ELMO, and if you would read your findings into the
6 record in respect of this particular site.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] [No
9 MR. HARMON: Yes.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you
11 very much. We're going to have a 20-minute break now.
12 --- Recess taken at 12.20 p.m.
13 --- On resuming at 12.45 p.m.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Harmon,
15 we're resuming. Please continue.
16 MR. HARMON:
17 Q. Dr. Lawrence, before the break I'd asked you
18 to examine and take your report, which is the report of
19 Autopsies on Human Remains from Cancari Road 3, and
20 we'll go through that.
21 MR. HARMON: But just so the record is
22 perfectly clear, the site indicated as Cancari Road 3,
23 Your Honours, has been linked to the Kozluk primary
24 grave site, as can be seen in Prosecutor's
25 Exhibit 259. Those links were testified to by Dean
1 Manning, and he has identified the various sources of
2 those links that can be seen on Prosecutor's
3 Exhibit 259.
4 Q. Now, please, Dr. Lawrence, would you place on
5 the ELMO the Summary and Conclusions of the Autopsies
6 from Cancari Road 3 site and just read into the record
7 those findings, please.
8 A. Thank you. Summary and Conclusions on
9 Autopsies from CR-03.
10 1. From the anthropological examination, the
11 grave at CR-03 site is estimated to contain at least
12 160 individuals.
13 2. All of the bodies where sex could be
14 determined, that's 126, were male. There was one
15 subadult, a teenager, who wore some female clothing and
16 was of an indeterminate sex by anthropological
18 3. There was one individual between the ages
19 of 8 and 13 years, a child, and at least seven over the
20 age of 65 years.
21 4. None of the bodies were carrying weapons
22 or wearing army or militia uniforms. One of the bodies
23 appeared to be wearing a blue uniform, but this did not
24 appear to be a police uniform or have obvious military
25 insignia. In one of the general body bags, that is, a
1 mixed collection of isolated bones and clothing, there
2 was a Yugoslav National Army jacket.
3 5. There were 37 twine or fabric ligatures,
4 wrist bindings; 25 of those were associated with hands
5 or on arms, 8 were with bodies, and 4 were found loose
6 in the graves. In four cases, the hands appeared to be
7 secured behind the back. The material of the ligatures
8 is similar to that seen in CR-12.
9 Q. Let me just interrupt you there for just a
10 moment. Again referring to Prosecutor's Exhibit 259,
11 CR-12 is linked to Branjevo Military Farm primary
12 execution site.
13 With that clarification, Dr. Lawrence, please
14 continue reading from your conclusions.
15 A. 6. Eight blindfolds were found on or around
16 the bodies at this site. Four of these were around the
18 7. The bodies were decomposed but varied
19 considerably from having recognisable organs to
20 complete skeletonisation with disarticulation, that is,
21 complete loss of soft tissue with separation of the
22 body parts.
23 8. There were 225 definite gunshot wounds,
24 five probable gunshot wounds, and 32 possible gunshot
25 wounds in 148 bodies. The most frequent sites were
1 torso, 112; legs, 91; head and neck, 31; and arm, 27.
2 9. CR-3 shows half the total number of
3 gunshot wounds seen in CR-12, 261 versus 422.
4 10. In the 48 bodies where gunshot wounds
5 were found --
6 Q. Sorry, it says "48". You mean in the 148?
7 A. In the 148 cases where gunshot wounds were
8 found, there were between one gunshot wound, 89 bodies,
9 and eight gunshot wounds, one body. The average number
10 of gunshot wounds in the bodies found with gunshot
11 wounds was 1.5, that is, between one and two.
12 There was no significant trend in the
13 directions of the bullet tracks. That is, I could not
14 tell you whether they had been shot from in front or
16 MR. HARMON: Mr. Usher, if you could show
17 that to the bottom of the page, please.
18 Q. Continue, please.
19 A. 12. There were many post-mortem tampering
20 injuries of the skull, ribs and pelvis, which would
21 tend to obscure pari-mortem, that is, injuries
22 occurring around the time of death, in these regions.
23 13. There were parts of 160 individuals in
24 the grave. Because of the separation of the body
25 parts, these were collected in 383 body bags (see
1 report by Professor Wright). Many of the bodies were
2 incomplete, and it obviously cannot be guaranteed that
3 the body bags are from separate individuals. Because
4 the individual bodies could not be reconstructed, I
5 have given the cause of death for each of the body bags
6 rather than each individual. It is possible that a
7 divided individual, for example, a separated head and
8 torso and legs, might be given more than one cause of
10 In 103 body bags -- sorry. The contents of
11 103 body bags had an injury in a body part sufficient
12 to cause death due to gunshot wounds in the individual
13 from which the body part came. Thirteen of the body
14 bags had an injury in a body part which would probably
15 cause the death of the individual due to gunshot
16 wounds. Fifteen body bags had an injury in a body part
17 which could possibly cause the death of the individual
18 due to gunshot wounds. Two body bags had injuries in
19 the body parts consistent with the cause of death of
20 gunshot wounds in the individual. And 254 body bags
21 had an undetermined cause of death. Many of these were
22 isolated body parts, or commingled body parts, or
23 incomplete body parts in a general body bag.
24 Of the 35 essentially complete bodies, 29 had
25 a cause of death of gunshot wounds, while six remained
1 with an undetermined cause of death. In my opinion,
2 these six cases probably represent perforated gunshot
3 wounds in soft tissue which can no longer be recognised
4 because of the loss of soft tissue and the absence of
5 bony injury.
6 15. Identifying documents were found on or
7 near 12 bodies, either at the site or on searching at
8 the mortuary.
9 That completes the summary.
10 Q. Dr. Lawrence, thank you. Let's continue
11 taking a tour of this particular report, because you
12 said the format is the same.
13 I see, following your summary, there's an
14 introduction. Can you briefly describe what's in the
15 introduction of each of these reports?
16 A. The introduction describes the transfer of
17 the bodies to me and also describes the numbering
18 system used throughout the report.
19 Q. Will you turn to page 4 of your report,
20 because that is a description of the staff members that
21 assisted you in the 1998 autopsies. Would you put that
22 on the ELMO, please.
23 Now, was this a multinational staff that was
24 assisting you, Dr. Lawrence?
25 A. Yes. I had at least 14 different nations
2 Q. If we start with the pathologists, can you
3 identify the nations from which these pathologists
5 A. Dr. Bentley is currently working as a
6 forensic pathologist in North Ireland, Northern
7 Ireland. Dr. Marie Cassidy a very experienced forensic
8 pathologist currently working in Ireland. Andrew
9 Davison is a forensic pathologist working in
10 Edinburgh. I work in Australia. Dr. Walter Marty is a
11 widely-published expert on ballistics who is from
12 Switzerland. Professor Helmut Maxeiner is a professor
13 of forensic medicine at Berlin in Germany. Dr. Yvonne
14 Milewski is the chief medical examiner at the Bronx in
15 New York. Alain Miras is forensic pathologist from
16 France. Fritz Priemer is a forensic pathologist from
17 Germany. Dr. Marcus Rothschild is a forensic
18 pathologist again from Berlin.
19 Q. Dr. Lawrence, you were also assisted by
20 autopsy technicians. First of all, can you define what
21 the role of an autopsy technician was?
22 A. The autopsy technicians basically assisted
23 the forensic pathologist and did a lot of the handling
24 of the bodies from out of and into the morgue. They
25 also processed some of the clothing and generally
1 assisted the pathologist in completing their report.
2 Q. Is this a multinational group of people as
4 A. Yes. In amongst these, Deborah Brown is from
5 Scotland, as is Ishbel Hunter. Carl Lyon is from
6 Ireland. Robert McNeil is from Scotland. Alfie Moss
7 is from England. Geoff Welburn is from Australia.
8 Paul Woods is from England.
9 Q. Let me just turn to the category of
10 radiographers. Tell us about, first of all, what they
11 did and where they are from.
12 A. The radiographers ran the fluoroscope.
13 That's the mobile X-ray machine. They are technical
14 people who are used to performing X-rays and basically
15 ran and maintained the X-ray equipment.
16 Q. Where are they from?
17 A. Again, all of the people shown there are
18 currently working in London. One of them is Irish. I
19 think the rest are all English.
20 Q. And lastly in this group of specialists,
21 there are anthropologists identified in the upper
22 right-hand corner, and we have heard from one of those,
23 Mr. Baraybar, so I don't need you to identify him. But
24 can you identify the others, please, and tell us where
25 they are from?
1 A. Carmen Cardoza is Jose's assistant. She's
2 from Peru. Mercedes Doretti is originally
3 Argentinian. She's one of the heads of the Argentinian
4 Missing People Programme in New York. Shuala Martin is
5 a postgraduate student in the United States who has
6 worked on, I think, three or four missions for the
7 United Nations. Amy Powers -- sorry, Julie Powers and
8 Amy Schilling are postgraduate students from the
9 University of New Mexico. Vincent Stefan is a postgrad
10 student who's just about completed his Ph.D. in
11 forensic anthropologist and does all of the forensic
12 anthropology for the office of the investigator.
13 Q. Without identifying where these people are
14 from, there's a category of people as "Data Entry".
15 What did they do?
16 A. Their main job was to transform the written
17 reports into typed reports, but they also collated the
18 reports, chased up the signatures, and prepared some of
19 the documents for handover of the bodies.
20 Q. And your logistics officer is identified.
21 What was his role?
22 A. His job was to basically provide us with
23 things like scalpels and gloves in a country where it
24 was quite difficult to maintain supplies. Forensic
25 work requires a lot of disposables, and his job was to
1 supply us with gloves and all the other equipment
2 required to do the job.
3 Q. Without going through the remaining people
4 and their identities and their nationalities, I take it
5 they also were multinational.
6 A. Yes. The crime scene officers were
7 principally Dutch, but there were Australians amongst
8 them. My interpreter was Bosnian.
9 Q. The next significant part of your report is a
10 section that deals with the procedures of the autopsy.
11 That starts at page 5 of your report. Since you've
12 testified already about the procedure, I'm not going to
13 ask you to repeat that.
14 So carrying on with your report, then you
15 have a section devoted to the autopsy findings, is that
16 correct, which is the section dealing with the minimum
17 number of individuals, the age of the individuals, the
18 sex of the individuals, and the description of the
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. And is it in that section where you outline
22 your findings in greater detail in respect of the human
23 remains examined from this particular site?
24 A. Yes. I've given -- some of the material is
25 anthropological and is included really to make sense of
1 the results I had. The injuries section basically
2 discusses the problems associated with distinguishing
3 injuries that have occurred before death to those that
4 occur at the time of death from those that occurred
5 after death. It then discusses the gunshot wounds. I
6 have included a number of tables demonstrating what we
7 found. This is on page 9 of the report.
8 What we have here is a description of where
9 we found the gunshot wounds in the 148 bodies. You can
10 see there were 25 definite gunshot wounds in the head
11 and neck, nine in the -- sorry, 93 in the torso, 24 in
12 the arms, and 83 in the legs, with a total of definite
13 gunshot wounds of 255.
14 Q. Two hundred twenty-five?
15 A. Sorry, 225. I can't read.
16 Table 2 on page 9 shows the number of gunshot
17 wounds in each of the bodies. You can see that they
18 range from 1 to 8. We have a lot with just 1, and then
19 a smaller number above that. The average -- if you
20 look at the average of the bodies that actually had
21 gunshot wounds, the average is 1.8.
22 Q. Now, could you turn to your third table under
23 this aspect of your reports found on page 10.
24 A. We attempted to tell the direction from which
25 the people had been shot. Now, given that all but one
1 of these was a secondary site and we were dealing with
2 quite disrupted bodies, this was relatively difficult.
3 We can see, if we look at gunshot wounds from
4 the front to the back, there were 32 that we thought
5 were definitely from front to back; 31 from back to
6 front; but a very large number, 198, where we couldn't
7 tell for certain whether it was from front or back.
8 Similarly, a fairly even distribution between
9 the right-hand and left-hand side of the body, with a
10 moderate number in the midline, and, again, we could
11 not tell direction upwards or downwards in very many of
12 the cases. A vast majority, we couldn't tell.
13 My conclusion from that is that we really --
14 there are so few we can tell that I don't think you can
15 gain any useful information from that data.
16 Q. Now, in all of your reports there appears to
17 be a diagram. You will see it on the next page. Will
18 you tell us what this represents, please.
19 A. Can I --
20 MR. HARMON: Mr. Usher, can you move that
22 A. Thanks. This is a composite picture that I
23 created from looking at the X-rays, the diagrams, and
24 the descriptions of the gunshot wounds, and I have
25 effectively placed all of the gunshot wounds onto one
1 body in an attempt to see whether there is a pattern of
2 distribution of the gunshot wounds, and I cannot see a
3 definite pattern to the gunshot wounds.
4 I should point thought that where we knew the
5 direction was from the back, they have been shown on
6 the posterior diagram. The front diagram shows both
7 those that we know the direction of and those we don't
8 know the direction of just in order to show roughly
9 where they occurred.
10 MR. HARMON:
11 Q. Now, Dr. Lawrence, would you turn to the next
12 page, please, and explain what that table represents.
13 If we could focus down on table 4, please.
14 MR. HARMON: Mr. Usher, perhaps you could
15 assist the witness in focusing down on the --
16 Q. It should be done for you, Dr. Lawrence.
17 A. Just zoom it down on to the diagram. Okay.
18 Basically, this shows the projectiles
19 recovered from this scene. It's again a summary of the
20 total number recovered. We found 88 complete or
21 essentially complete bullets; 155 bullet fragments
22 which weren't further specified; 57 jacket fragments,
23 these were copper jacket fragments; and 35 lead
24 fragments which appeared to come from the core of the
1 Q. Dr. Lawrence, would you turn to page 13 of
2 your report then. This is a chart that continues over
3 to page 14 as well, but this is illustrative of this
4 point that I'd like to make. What is this particular
5 portion of this table?
6 A. This is a summary of all of the ligatures or
7 potential ligatures which were found at the site or in
8 the autopsy suite.
9 What I have described is the number, the body
10 bag number that the material came from; a rough
11 description of the material it was made of; the
12 dimensions in width; the circumference of the loop; the
13 number of loops, and the location.
14 You will note that 25 of these were
15 associated with the hands, 8 were associated with the
16 body but not obviously around the hands, and 4 were
17 found loose in the grave.
18 Q. Dr. Lawrence, turn to page 15 of your report,
19 please. Did you create a similar table for blindfolds
20 that were recovered from the bodies from CR-03?
21 A. Yes. This is the table that I prepared for
22 the potential blindfolds. Again, the body bag number,
23 the material it was made of, the width, the
24 circumference of the loop, and the location.
25 Q. Now, the next section of your report you can
1 see just at the bottom of that ELMO image deals with
2 the cause of death. What is described in that
3 particular section?
4 A. The cause of death section starts with the
5 intrinsic problem in dealing with extensively broken-up
6 skeletal remains; that is, how do you describe the
7 findings in bodies that are not complete?
8 In bodies that are complete, you can assess
9 the whole of the body and reach a conclusion as to
10 whether or not you have a cause of death.
11 If, for example, a body is broken in half, we
12 have the upper half of the body and we have the lower
13 half of the body, and we are unable to relate them
14 together. We've got a very large number of potential
15 victims; they are broken up. We were, in general,
16 fairly unsuccessful in being able to relate one part
17 with another part. We did have occasional successes,
18 mostly related to the identification of clothing on the
19 upper part and lower part, and occasionally where there
20 was a condition present which was identified in both,
21 for example, our gentleman with the very short forearm,
22 we were able to associate with other malformations of
23 the body, but in general, we were not able to match up
24 the top halves and bottom halves.
25 Now, the pathologist would be given a body
1 bag and would attempt to reach a cause of death on that
2 particular body bag. Now, the consequence of this is
3 that you might, for example, in our hypothetical body
4 that's divided in half, have a cause of death in the
5 bottom half and a cause of death in the top half, which
6 would end up with two causes of death in one body.
7 Now, there is really no way -- unless you can
8 relate every body part to every other body part, there
9 is really no way of getting around this problem. The
10 situation is much easier in the intact bodies because
11 you don't have this problem.
12 So I have listed the causes of death in the
13 broken-up body parts in order to describe the injuries
14 present, but it's a kind of difficult figure to
15 understand. So what I've also included is the causes
16 of death in the intact bodies, and I think this is an
17 easier figure to work with because it actually means
19 Q. Dr. Lawrence, thank you. Let's continue the
20 tour of your report then. If you'd turn to page 18.
21 I'd like you to tell the Judges what you also included
22 in your report.
23 A. There's a description of the clothing that
24 was found.
25 Q. Would you put that on the ELMO, Dr. Lawrence,
2 A. We were obviously looking for items of
3 military clothing. In this site, there was one body
4 wearing a Yugoslav National Army jacket and a blue
5 uniform which did not appear to have definite military
6 insignia. We also had one body which was carrying an
7 unfired round or cartridge in the jacket pocket. There
8 were no other -- there was no other evidence of
10 Q. Did you note in your report any identifying
11 documents that you recovered from the bodies?
12 A. Yes. We had a number of documents which
13 would give a provisional identification. Again, you
14 can see here the body bag number; what the item was;
15 the name and family name of the individual; if I could
16 tell the date of birth; and if it was a pass, the
17 numbers on it.
18 Q. Let me turn now to page 19 of your report.
19 There's an extensive table which continues for many,
20 many pages, Dr. Lawrence. I want to ask you some
21 questions about this. First of all, what is this
23 A. This is, if you like, the summary of every
24 body bag that we received. This is -- I've attempted
25 to be as open and transparent as I can in showing what
1 we had to deal with.
2 Now, what I've described is the "Body
3 Number." Now, where the body has multiple gunshot
4 wounds, each one of those is given a separate listing.
5 So, for example, in the top one, B319, there were two
6 gunshot wounds, so we've got 319.1 and 319.2.
7 Now, the "Parts Present." When the
8 exhumation was done, the loose bones, those that could
9 not be associated with any other bones, were collected
10 and placed in what were general body bags; that is,
11 they might contain bones from a number of individuals
12 which could not be obviously related to other body
14 Now, in this particular general body bag
15 there were identifiable gunshot wounds in the head and
16 a possible gunshot wound in the left scapula. Now, in
17 my opinion, the gunshot wound in the head would be a
18 cause of death. So we have given a cause of death in
19 that general body bag because that skull had been
21 Now, if we just go a bit further down, you
22 can see the gap below "General Body Bag" is because
23 319.2 also came from that general body bag. There was
24 no cause of death given on the gunshot wound to the
25 scapula because it was not felt that was a definite
1 cause of death.
2 If we go down now we can see, at 322, this
3 consisted of legs. There were no identifiable gunshot
4 wounds, and the cause of death was undetermined.
5 323 was a head, letter "H"; arms, the letter
6 "A"; and chest. Now, in this there was a gunshot
7 wound in the left thorax and a cause of death was given
8 as gunshot wound to the thorax.
9 Q. Dr. Lawrence, we won't go through all of this
10 report but there are a number of terms I'd like you to
11 define. For example, "not ascertainable," and that
12 appears in the "Cause of Death" column. There's "not
13 ascertainable," "undetermined," "probable gunshot
14 wound," and "possible gunshot wound." Can you explain
15 those terms?
16 A. I was dealing with a number of people from
17 different jurisdictions. A lot of my training is
18 American based, and I tend to use the term
19 "undetermined." A lot of the British pathologists use
20 the term "unascertained," "unascertainable," or "not
21 ascertained." For veracity, I have written down what
22 the pathologist who handled the case called it, not
23 what I would call it.
24 Q. Lastly in your report, Dr. Lawrence, I would
25 like you to refer to page 30 of your report, and I'd
1 like you to put that table on the ELMO, and I'd like
2 you to explain what that table represents.
3 A. This table shows all of the features in all
4 of the bodies that we observed that might assist in
5 identifying the individual if once the process of
6 reconciliation with the information from the living is
7 complete; that is, for example, individual number 319
8 had had a previous shrapnel injury, a healed shrapnel
9 injury in the left hip, so with other information this
10 might lead to identification of this particular
12 Q. So one would find in here the shortened ulna,
13 for example, that you described?
14 A. We would find all of the old injuries
15 described. We would find all the disabilities, the man
16 with the fused spine.
17 Q. I see also there are artefacts such as
18 hearing-aids and --
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. -- tin boxes and the like.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now, I won't go through all of your
23 comprehensive reports, Dr. Lawrence, but what I would
24 like you to do, please, in respect of the eight reports
25 that you did prepare, I'd like you to summarise your
1 findings to the Judges, please.
2 A. To summarise all of the graves that I dealt
3 with in 1998, there was a minimum number of individuals
4 of 883; there were 2.239 body bags; there were 254
5 relatively intact bodies.
6 Q. Now, let me interrupt you right there. Two
7 hundred and fifty-four relatively intact bodies. All
8 but one of the sites that you examined were sites
9 that -- where the bodies had been removed from another
10 location and reburied?
11 A. Yes, that's right.
12 Q. So is a number of intact bodies consistent
13 with the removal bodies from one site to another?
14 A. It's consistent with it.
15 Q. Please continue with your findings.
16 A. Now, based on the anthropological evidence,
17 there were 7 children, that is, people between the ages
18 of 8 and 13; 48 teenagers; 96 young adults. The bulk
19 of the people were over the age of 25, approximately
20 688. At the other end of the range, there were
21 12 between the ages of 55 and 65, and there were at
22 least 9 over the age of 65. Of the 883 individuals,
23 686 were identifiable as male and 197 were not
25 There were 1.307 definite gunshot wounds.
1 There were 6 shotgun wounds, 25 shrapnel wounds. Now,
2 of those 25 shrapnel wounds, 24 of them were in one
3 site; that was Zeleni Jadar number 5. The largest
4 number of gunshot wounds in a body was 11.
5 The cause of death in the essentially intact
6 bodies, the 254 essentially intact bodies, 203 had
7 gunshot wounds, 1 had died of gunshot wounds and
8 shrapnel wounds, and 55 had an undetermined cause of
10 Q. Fifty or 55?
11 A. Sorry, 50 [Realtime transcript read in error
12 "55"] had an undetermined cause of death, and that
13 includes 13 where they were probable or possible
14 gunshot wounds.
15 Ligatures, there were 53 definite ligatures
16 associated with the arms and potentially as many as
17 83. Blindfolds, there were 44 definite blindfolds and
18 potentially as many as 103. And possibly identifying
19 documents were found on 53 bodies, either at the site
20 or at the morgue.
21 Q. Dr. Lawrence, thank you very much.
22 MR. HARMON: Mr. President, I have concluded
23 my examination of Dr. Lawrence.
24 In the transcript there is an error. Sorry,
25 Mr. President. The witness corrected --
1 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
2 MR. HARMON: The transcript is in error on
3 13:26:46. I asked the witness whether it was 50 or
4 55. The witness answered "50" and the transcript still
5 reflects "55." So on the question of -- I can ask the
6 witness one more time.
7 Q. Dr. Lawrence, insofar as the number of
8 individuals who had an undetermined cause of death, how
9 many individuals did that represent?
10 A. There were 50 individuals with an
11 undetermined cause of death.
12 MR. HARMON: Thank you.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you
14 very much, Mr. Harmon.
15 Mr. Visnjic, do you have -- I'm sure you have
16 many questions.
17 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President,
18 not that many.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well.
20 Let us see how we go, and we'll have a break somewhere
21 along the line.
22 Dr. Lawrence, you shall now be answering
23 questions put to you by Defence counsel Visnjic.
24 Cross-examined by Mr. Visnjic:
25 Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Lawrence. Dr. Lawrence,
1 most of my questions will be referring to the autopsies
2 linked to the Zeleni Jadar grave site; that is to say,
3 Zeleni Jadar 05.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. According to the evidence presented by the
6 Prosecution to the Court, this site is termed a
7 secondary grave site in comparison to the primary grave
8 site of Glogova.
9 A. Yes, I believe so.
10 Q. Within the frameworks of your report, you
11 provide a table which represents the number of injuries
12 from firearms and shrapnel on the bodies.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Bearing in mind a statement made by your
15 colleague Dr. Clark, I assume that you are dealing with
16 the minimum number of injuries from a bullet or gun or
17 shrapnel on the bodies.
18 A. In those cases with shrapnel wounds, we've
19 described all of the bodies where we identified actual
20 possible shrapnel wounds. It is, of course, possible,
21 given the decomposition, that some of the injuries and
22 some of the shrapnel had been lost from the body. So,
23 yes, it is probably a minimum.
24 Q. I assume that this same question would be to
25 whether this is the case with the injuries caused by
1 projectiles. Does that apply there too?
2 A. I think I am a little less conservative than
3 Dr. Clark, but, yes, I think there were probably more
4 gunshot wounds than we're reporting.
5 Q. During your examination-in-chief, when you
6 introduced your associates, you said you had a
7 pathologist who had many reports on ballistics
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Bearing in mind the injuries and the wounds
11 caused by the shrapnel and the remnants you found in
12 the bodies of the victims, were you able to ascertain
13 perhaps the type of firearm used, the type of weapon
14 used; not in detail, but generally speaking, the type
15 of weapon?
16 A. In general, the type of injuries were those
17 caused by a medium, high-powered rifle.
18 Q. What about in the case of shrapnel, the
19 shrapnel you found?
20 A. I am a forensic pathologist with some working
21 knowledge of ballistics. I don't have working
22 knowledge of ordnance.
23 Q. Thank you. In your report, in one body you
24 found fragments of some safety glass, and I suppose it
25 was glass from a vehicle, an automobile.
1 A. Yes, that was my opinion.
2 Q. Do you have an explanation for that perhaps?
3 A. Yes, I do have an explanation. I understand
4 that in the Kravica warehouse, there were a number of
5 parts of cars. I assume that the safety glasses
6 probably come from one of those vehicles, although I
7 guess fragments of safety glass might be found
8 incidentally in other places.
9 Q. At what depth was the safety glass found with
10 respect to the surface of the body?
11 A. If I might -- I'm not sure I know that. I
12 didn't do the actual autopsy. If you give me one
13 moment, I will just ...
14 It's described as being found in the pelvis.
15 I'm sorry I can't be more specific than that.
16 Q. In view of the position that the glass was
17 found, the place it was found in the pelvis, as you
18 say, embedded in the pelvis, does that perhaps indicate
19 that the body hit an object which was moving at a high
20 speed, in view of the spot where the glass had become
22 A. Sorry. Could you just repeat the first part
23 of that question?
24 Q. In view of the spot that the glass was found,
25 as far as I was able to see, you found it embedded in
1 bone. Is that correct, glass embedded in bone?
2 A. No. My understanding is it was found in the
3 pelvis in the soft tissue.
4 Q. I see. Thank you. Well, if we take that to
5 be the case, is it possible that the glass got to the
6 place it was found through the impact of the body with
7 an object having the glass, a strong impact?
8 A. I guess it's a possibility. I had always
9 viewed it as being -- the glass being accelerated into
10 the body, the opposite way. But I can't exclude it. I
11 don't remember seeing major tears of the soft tissue
12 over it to suggest that it had struck an object, so my
13 assumption was that it was glass that was accelerated
14 into the body rather than the body accelerated against
15 an object.
16 Q. In your opinion, can a particle of glass
17 penetrate the skin, perforate the skin, if it is, say,
18 on the floor of a room of some kind?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Bearing in mind the number of injuries in
21 this last grave site and the number of shrapnel
22 injuries, in particular, in keeping with that, this
23 Zeleni Jadar 05 grave site, does it differ in any way
24 from the primary and secondary grave sites that you
1 A. Yes, very much so. In this site, we found 24
2 shrapnel wounds. We only found one other shrapnel
3 wound amongst the other seven graves.
4 Q. Dr. Lawrence, in case of conflict, that is to
5 say, combat operations between two sides, the
6 assumption is that if the two sides are facing each
7 other in a sort of front-line position, that most of
8 the injuries would be caused through a projectile
9 entering the body from the front?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. In the case of having a group of people in an
12 encirclement under siege, would this assumption be
13 brought into question? That is to say, if the combat
14 operations were such that the people were coming under
15 crossfire, would, according to your experience, this
16 assumption be seriously jeopardised?
17 A. I'm not sure I can help you on that. I don't
19 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] I apologise,
20 Your Honours. I have just one more question. May I
21 take a minute to confer.
22 Q. And following on from my last question, can
23 you tell us, in a situation that I tried to describe a
24 moment ago, where would most of the injuries be located
25 on the bodies as a consequence of this type of
2 A. An encirclement?
3 Q. Yes.
4 A. I think they could be anywhere around the
6 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 Dr. Lawrence, during your examination-in-chief, you
8 have dealt with most of the things that were not clear
9 in the testimonies of the previous witnesses. This was
10 asked you by the Prosecution. Therefore, the Defence
11 has no further questions of this witness,
12 Mr. President.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you,
14 Mr. Visnjic.
15 Mr. Harmon.
16 MR. HARMON: Dr. Lawrence, I only have one
18 Re-examined by Mr. Harmon:
19 Q. Reference was made to the Zeleni Jadar site,
20 and I was going through this report and I've realised
21 that I failed to ask you one question.
22 In the Cancari road report that you prepared,
23 we put on the ELMO the staff and you identified various
24 members of the staff. In looking at the staff used in
25 the Zeleni Jadar autopsy reports, there appear to be,
1 for example, 11 pathologists as opposed to 10
2 pathologists on the Cancari road autopsies, and some of
3 the names of the pathologists appear to be different.
4 Am I correct in saying that in each report
5 you identify the staff members that participated in the
6 examination of the human remains from the particular
8 A. Yes, yes. The people would come from between
9 two weeks to a month. Each of the sites would usually
10 have different personnel.
11 MR. HARMON: All right. Thank you.
12 I have no additional questions,
13 Mr. President, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you
15 very much, Mr. Harmon.
16 Judge Fouad Riad has the floor.
17 JUDGE RIAD: [Interpretation] Thank you,
18 Mr. President.
19 Questioned by the Court:
20 JUDGE RIAD: [In English] I can still say good
21 morning, Dr. Lawrence.
22 A. Good morning, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE RIAD: You said something which struck
24 me. You said you were less conservative than
25 Dr. Clark. What does that mean in your field?
1 A. What it means was that I included in my
2 reports possible injuries and probable injuries. Now,
3 in part, that was because John was dealing with primary
4 graves and I was dealing almost entirely with secondary
5 graves. So I was dealing with cases that were more
6 broken up and so therefore more difficult to
8 As well, I took the view -- I mean this
9 discussion about gunshot wounds in the thigh came up,
10 the leg. My view was that if left untreated, a gunshot
11 wound that went through the bones of the leg has a
12 relatively high likelihood of killing you if untreated
13 and would give the gunshot wounds in the thigh as a
14 cause of death, given the view that these people were
15 not given transfusions of fluid and were not bandaged
16 and tourniqueted. That's what I mean. I probably
17 listed some injuries that Dr. Clark would probably not
18 have listed as definite gunshot wounds.
19 JUDGE RIAD: I see. For instance, you
20 mention that, just as an example, that 44 were
21 blindfolded and potentially as many as 103. Is that
22 what you call potentially 103?
23 A. Well, the 44 are the number that we found --
24 this is the -- these are the blindfolds, the -- sorry,
25 I'm just -- right.
1 If you're looking at blindfolds, there were
2 44 where there was evidence either at the site or at
3 the morgue that these were around the face. Now, we
4 found identical -- well, identical pieces of cloth next
5 to bodies or in the grave. Now, I suspect that if we
6 had been there at the time, we would have seen a lot
7 more blindfolds than 44, but I'm trying here to give
8 you those that I can say are definitely blindfolds and
9 also an estimate of how many there could have been as
10 well. I want to be fair about this.
11 JUDGE RIAD: Then let us come to the ages you
13 You say there were seven children between 8
14 and 13.
15 A. That's right.
16 JUDGE RIAD: Do you have -- could you
17 determine, with precision, the age of a child? Or
18 let's say not exactly but under 13, over 13?
19 A. That's a question you should probably put to
20 the anthropologists, because they are the ones who
21 formally did the --
22 JUDGE RIAD: They did that?
23 A. They are the ones who did the
24 identification. They did that.
25 JUDGE RIAD: But you seem to be corroborating
2 A. Yes. I believe that they are around that
3 age, yes.
4 JUDGE RIAD: And also the people over 65, you
5 can say that a person is over 60 or under 60?
6 A. Age estimation over the age of 50, using the
7 current techniques, is quite difficult. Sometimes you
8 get a better impression from just looking at the
9 development of osteoarthritis and those sorts of
10 things, the loss of bone and so forth. That is, again,
11 an estimate, but I think that you will find that there
12 were -- given the other evidence, the hearing aids and
13 so forth, I think there probably were a number over
14 that age. But, again, this question, the expert on
15 this is the anthropologist, not me.
16 JUDGE RIAD: Now, in an exchange of, let's
17 say, of ideas with Defence counsel, you mentioned that
18 you could not answer his question when he told you what
19 would happen if people are encircled and how they would
20 be wounded and so on. Could you continue this debate?
21 A. Yes. I do not claim to be a military
22 expert. I have some understanding of what might
24 JUDGE RIAD: In the light of the wounds that
25 we have at the deaths, could it have happened to people
1 encircled or between -- could it be possible that
2 people between two groups received such wounds?
3 A. I think it's possible. Whether it did occur,
4 I don't know.
5 JUDGE RIAD: I mean in light of your
6 experience in this case.
7 A. Again, I was not as successful as Dr. Clark
8 in determining the direction of all of -- from which
9 these all came, so I don't think I can make a strong
10 conclusion as to the direction, and hence I can't tell
11 which -- can't really answer that question from a
12 pathological point of view.
13 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you very much,
14 Dr. Lawrence.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you
16 very much, Judge Fouad Riad.
17 Judge Wald has the floor.
18 JUDGE WALD: Dr. Lawrence, in your Cancari
19 number 3 report, in table 7 on page 18, this was the
20 provisional identification by documents. Do you have
22 A. Yes, I do.
23 JUDGE WALD: Okay. I just wondered if you
24 could explain to me two items in there. One, several
25 times it says "pathology report." That doesn't mean
1 they were carrying a pathology report around, or does
3 A. Yes, yes, there was one --
4 JUDGE WALD: It does. What would be an
5 example of that?
6 A. I think one of them had a blood count or
7 something. Yeah, it was a report from a --
8 JUDGE WALD: It's the same thing, basically.
9 It's like a medical letter.
10 A. Yeah, medical letter.
11 JUDGE WALD: Okay. The second item in the
12 same column is "Red Cross Letters". Do you happen to
13 know what just the gist of a Red Cross letter would be
14 that several people had, apparently?
15 A. Yeah, I mean probably somebody else can
16 explain it better, but these were messages that
17 appeared to be transmitted to and from people, to
18 refugees. They had gone through the Red Cross. Now,
19 obviously they had letters from people and to people,
20 so it was sometimes difficult to tell necessarily who
21 was the recipient, and sometimes they might carry
22 letters from more than one individual. But these were
23 the letters that were transferred through the Red Cross
24 to these people.
25 JUDGE WALD: Thank you.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation]
2 Dr. Lawrence, I would like to go back to the situation
3 when we spoke about the encirclement. I'm going ahead
4 a bit.
5 Would it be possible to have a situation of
6 gunfire, that people would mutually kill each other
7 under conditions of an encirclement?
8 A. I'm not familiar with the customs in this
9 court, but I think in Australian courts I would tell
10 you when I think I'm being dragged out of my area of
11 expertise, and I think I'm being dragged out of my area
12 of expertise here.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. I
14 asked this question because you said that in that kind
15 of situation, the people in the centre could -- that
16 the gunshots were coming from several directions. But
17 if you shoot from this direction, for the person in the
18 middle the gunshot could go ahead of the person in the
20 I asked you this question because you did
21 give your opinions, but of course I won't insist and I
22 understand your answer fully, Dr. Lawrence, and accept
24 Mr. Harmon, have we got any documents to
1 MR. HARMON: Mr. President, I have a number
2 of documents in respect of Dr. Lawrence's testimony and
3 one document in respect of Dr. Clark's testimony that
4 was omitted.
5 In respect of the exhibits introduced through
6 Dr. Lawrence, that would be Prosecutor's Exhibit 260
7 through 268, and there are B/C/S and French versions as
8 well. The B/C/S versions are marked with the letter
9 "A". The French versions are marked with the letter
10 "B" in respect of those exhibits. I'm informed there
11 are no French translations, however, for 263 and for
12 266. In addition, we have Dr. Lawrence's CV, which is
13 Prosecutor's Exhibit 221, and a diagram that was marked
14 as Prosecutor's Exhibit 259.
15 So there are those exhibits in respect of
16 Dr. Lawrence's testimony.
17 And in respect of Dr. Clark's testimony, if I
18 could, it's with respect to Exhibit 258, which is a
19 photograph of a defect in the back of a skull.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation]
21 Mr. Visnjic, have you any objections?
22 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President,
23 no objections.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Madam
25 Registrar, would you take note of the different
1 versions of the documents, and the documents have been
2 accepted into evidence.
3 Dr. Lawrence, that completes your testimony
4 in this International Tribunal. We extend our
5 gratitude to you for having come and for your
6 cooperation with international justice. We wish you
7 every success in your future work.
8 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes,
10 Mr. Visnjic, I see that you're on your feet.
11 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President,
12 I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to
13 request that our expert, Mr. Stankovic, also be allowed
14 to leave the courtroom.
15 [The witness withdrew]
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, and we
17 should like to thank him as well.
18 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Harmon,
21 normally this is the time for our 20-minute break,
22 which means that we would have 10 minutes after the
23 break. The question now is the following: Are we
24 going to take a break now, and do you have something
25 for the other ten minutes left, or are we going to
1 complete our work for today? What do you think,
2 Mr. Harmon?
3 MR. HARMON: I think it would be appropriate
4 to complete our work today if all I have left is ten
5 minutes. So thank you very much, Mr. President, Your
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Do you
8 agree, Mr. Visnjic?
9 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] I do indeed,
10 Your Honour.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well.
12 We're not going to have a break and come back into the
13 courtroom, but we'll go on and tomorrow at 9.30 we will
15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned
16 at 1.55 p.m., to be reconvened on
17 Thursday, the 1st day of June, 2000,
18 at 9.30 a.m.