1 Tuesday, 12 October 2004
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 9.12 a.m.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: My apologies for starting a bit late. It's my
6 [The accused entered court]
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Registrar, could you call the case,
9 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Case Number
10 IT-03-68-T, the Prosecutor versus Naser Oric.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, sir, and good morning to you.
12 Mr. Oric, can you follow the proceedings in a language you can
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I can follow the
15 proceedings. Thank you.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. If at any moment there are problems
17 with interpretation, draw my attention immediately, please.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I understand and there
19 will be no problems. Thank you.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
21 Appearances for the Prosecution.
22 MR. WUBBEN: Good morning, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning to you.
24 MR. WUBBEN: My name is Jan Wubben, senior trial attorney for the
25 Prosecution team, together with Ms. Patricia Sellers and Donnica
1 Henry-Frijlink as our case manager.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you and good morning to you and your team.
3 Appearances for the Defence.
4 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour. I am
5 Vasvija Vidovic, together with Mr. John Jones. I appear for Mr. Naser
6 Oric. Together with us is our legal assistant, Ms. Jasmina Cosic, and
7 our case manager Mr. Geoff Roberts.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you and good morning to you and your team.
9 Let's go into private session for a few -- a couple of minutes.
10 [Private session]
4 [Open session]
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are in open session.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Was that you?
7 Let's deal with -- very briefly with developments since
8 yesterday. I take it you have prepared for today a new list of
10 MR. WUBBEN: Yes. Yes, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: I take it that the understanding is the following,
12 and I just want to make sure, Madam Vidovic, that you have been kept
13 informed, as you should, by the Prosecution, not that I doubt it. But
14 for the record, since we are in a public hearing I want to address this.
15 I was informed yesterday that Mr. Gow has recovered -- Professor Gow has
16 recovered from his illness, that however he could travel here and be here
17 with us on Wednesday but definitely has to be back in New York on
18 Thursday. Of course I asked the situation what was the situation before,
19 because is this something that happened after that he was informed that
20 he was no longer going to be a witness or was it something he had to
21 attend to in New York even beforehand. But that matter solved, my
22 instructions to my legal officer was to show my preference. I did not at
23 the time consult the other two Judges, but I was pretty sure this is not
24 something they would disagree. My impression was it would be much better
25 to have Professor Gow, Mr. Gow, to start and finish his evidence rather
1 than to have him here one day, go back to New York, and then continue
2 another day. So I told my legal officer to contact you back, to contact
3 the Defence, to see what the position is on the part of the Defence. If
4 that is going to be the case, in other words that Professor Gow is going
5 to come later, how are we going to make good use of the rest of the week.
6 I was informed that there was agreement between you that
7 Professor Gow will testify after -- it has to be after November 20th.
8 The reason is I will be returning from New York to here just before then.
9 So that will be Professor Gow and you can fix the dates among yourselves.
10 Make sure you know beforehand how long you require him in the courtroom,
11 both of you.
12 And secondly, I was informed that you have agreed to bring
13 forward two witnesses - I won't mention the names but I don't think they
14 are protected witnesses. The first two you have on the updated list, and
15 that will be after Professor Koeijer or Dr. Koeijer with Madam Manas
16 standing by in case she is needed to fill in blanks. If I have said
17 something which does not tell you with what I have been told is the
18 agreement between you, let me know, please.
19 MR. WUBBEN: Your Honour, as we confirmed by the letter and also
20 our latest overview, without naming of course the witnesses --
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, okay.
22 MR. WUBBEN: -- Wednesday should be filled up the Doctorandus
23 Koeijer and the order of the crime-base witnesses as projected, with the
24 possibility that Ms. Racine Manas might be slotted in on Friday or on a
25 Monday, whenever there is a gap identified and of course whenever we have
1 a declaration, an additional declaration, prepared for -- to inform and
2 update Defence counsel in due time.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Well, I thank you.
4 Yes, Madam Vidovic.
5 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I can confirm that we
6 have agreed with the Prosecutor to have Dr. James Gow heard after the
7 20th of November, as you've said, because we don't think it would be
8 right for us to start the cross-examination at one point and then to
9 continue it only a month later. I also wish to confirm that we are
10 prepared to cross-examine these witnesses as proposed. Thank you.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you.
12 The other thing I wanted to inform you about is that you will
13 recall that during the -- I think the first or the second day of the
14 trial, I referred to the expert Prosecution motion on delayed discovery
15 that you are aware of and that you had made submissions on. We have --
16 the three of us, we have been informed that the information that we were
17 expecting has arrived. It was filed yesterday on an ex parte basis by
18 the appropriate unit of this Tribunal, which is not the Prosecution by
19 the way. We are going to inform the Prosecution of the result of the
20 investigation that was carried out and we should be in a position to
21 decide this matter within -- by Friday at the latest, by Friday at the
22 latest. That's number one.
23 Number two is we are in the process of elaborating the decision
24 on the protective measures relative to Witness C001 and of course with
25 regard to the other witness as well.
1 And third, but not least, is that we have drafted already the
2 decision on the Prosecution motion to add exhibits -- to file more
3 exhibits. I still have to consult with the other two Judges on whether
4 there is complete agreement or not on this motion. We will be seeing it
5 during the break and hopefully we would be in a position to decide it
7 Having finished these preliminary matters, if there is nothing
8 else you would like to raise at this point, Madam Usher will escort the
9 witness into the courtroom.
10 [The witness entered court]
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning to you, Mr. Fagel.
12 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: And again my apologies for starting with you 25
14 minutes late, but again we had some business to deal with. Welcome back.
15 May I just remind you in a courteous manner that you are testifying under
16 solemn declaration which you don't need to repeat today. Please take a
17 chair and your co-national, Mr. Wubben, will continue with his
18 examination-in-chief. Thank you.
19 WITNESS: WILHELMUS PETRUS FRANCISCUS FAGEL [resumed]
20 Examined by Mr. Wubben: [Continued]
21 MR. WUBBEN: Good morning.
22 Your Honour, I will take up from yesterday the additional report.
23 I will begin with this additional report of the 19th of July, 2004, and
24 I'll ask Madam Usher to hand over P265.
25 Q. My first question is, Doctorandus Fagel: Do you recognise this
2 A. I recognise this report as the combined report I wrote with my
3 colleague Jan Koeijer on which I wrote parts on the handwriting
5 Q. Who signed for this report?
6 A. The handwriting examination part I did sign.
7 Q. Why is this report signed by two examiners?
8 A. Because it involves two different kinds of examination,
9 comparative handwriting examination and the document examination.
10 Q. When did you receive the request for handwriting and document
12 A. The request was received on June the 18th, 2004.
13 Q. What is your comment on the date on page 2, if any? If you can
14 also observe that the date of the report is the 19th of July, and I
15 notice that the date received -- well, you can comment on that.
16 A. I have to apologise for that. This is a typing error. The 24th
17 of July should be 24th of June, 2004. My apologies again.
18 Q. And that date, 24th of -- well, now June, that's referring to
19 what date?
20 A. The date when I received the exhibits from Mr. Nasir.
21 Q. How did you receive these documents?
22 A. They were handed over to me by Mr. Nasir one by one, and I had to
23 sign for the receipt of these exhibits.
24 Q. And did you work on those documents subsequently?
25 A. I did.
1 Q. Did you start the examinations?
2 A. I started the first examination -- first inspection the same day
3 but a more extensive examination might have been a few days later. I
4 don't exactly remember.
5 Q. But you prepared the report following?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And signed for it?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And when did you send this report, to what institute?
10 A. The report was sent on July the 19th, 2004.
11 Q. Is this report the same report that you sent to the OTP?
12 A. Yes, it is.
13 MR. WUBBEN: Now, Your Honour, I have a general remark on the
14 division of appendices between the report, because it was a little bit
15 confusing for me the first time when I read this copy. I informed this
16 morning also Defence counsel of it. Please notice that after Appendix 4,
17 1, 2, 3, 5, 4, there should be Appendix 5. But between Appendix 4 and
18 Appendix 5, there is a reiterance, there is a copy, of Appendix 2 and
19 Appendix 3.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: So far you haven't helped much to clear the
21 confusion. I think you have made it more confounded.
22 MR. WUBBEN: Again please.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's start. Appendix 5 I have found. Appendix 5
24 is on ER -- sorry. It's on page which is -- which has an ERN number
1 MR. WUBBEN: Yes.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Now we should file Appendix 4 presumably, now.
3 Appendix 4, as I have it, is on the previous page and it is stamped
4 Impressions on documents. Then before that on the previous page there is
5 appendix 3 which is the featured in the stamp impression on documents.
6 And then the previous page, what I have, is appendix 2, the last page,
7 page 3 of 3 of appendix 2. That's what I have --
8 MR. WUBBEN: And before, Your Honour, before that appendix 2,
9 isn't that starting again with appendix 4?
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, it starts with appendix 4 --
11 MR. WUBBEN: That's what I have.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: -- then you have appendix 3 again, then appendix 2,
13 one page only of -- sorry. The three pages of appendix 2. And then I
14 have the write-up of the institute and then appendix 1.
15 So basically it's very easy. You start on appendix 1 where it
16 is. You go right through appendix 4. Then you -- we take out what
17 follows until appendix 5 and we should have it clear. Because the rest
18 is repetition. So if you take --
19 MR. WUBBEN: One --
20 JUDGE AGIUS: If we take it out --
21 MR. WUBBEN: Well, it has --
22 JUDGE AGIUS: You start from appendix 1 and you keep flipping the
23 pages up to where you come to appendix 4.
24 MR. WUBBEN: Because, Your Honour, may I suggest not to take
25 those out because these are all subsequently ERN numbers. So that's why
1 my suggestion is to the Court is to decide --
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Oh, I see, I see, I see. I see. All right.
3 MR. WUBBEN: Yeah.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: But you've made a point. The documents -- the
5 appendices are replicated.
6 MR. WUBBEN: I want to clarify in advance. Whenever there is a
7 confusion what ERN number, that might be caused by this.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: You got me with you. Is the same thing carrying in
9 the B/C/S version or not. Do you know?
10 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we shall simply follow
11 the number of appendices, the page number, and the exhibit that is
12 marked. That is how we are going to do it.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I thank you.
14 I think we can move --
15 MR. WUBBEN: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Can move.
17 MR. WUBBEN: I will go now to the report P265, the page 5 out of
18 10 and page 1 first.
19 Q. You gave a general explanation, a general introduction, of the
20 handwriting analysis yesterday during this trial, Doctorandus Fagel, as
21 an expert; the same introduction applies to this additional examination.
22 Is that correct?
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. Did you make use of the same 35 reference signatures, the
25 well-known K signatures, as referred to in your report from February
2 A. Yes, I did.
3 Q. Including the recognition yesterday of those reference documents?
4 A. Yes, indeed.
5 Q. And did you use the same reference numbers as such and the linked
6 ERN numbers?
7 A. That's right.
8 MR. WUBBEN: Well, Your Honours, since we have already mentioned
9 these documents in detail yesterday, I would like to move to the
10 questioned documents.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
12 MR. WUBBEN: Thank you.
13 Q. Doctorandus Fagel, I subsequently would like to show you the
14 questioned documents, starting now with questioned 21. I will show them
15 to you one by one and request your comment in order to confirm the
16 recognition of each of them on behalf of your examination done as an
17 additional examination.
18 MR. WUBBEN: Please, Madam Usher, show the witness Exhibit P75.
19 My case manager informed me that it should be on the monitor.
20 THE WITNESS: Yes.
21 MR. WUBBEN:
22 Q. Doctorandus Fagel, is this document --
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, please proceed, Mr. Wubben.
25 MR. WUBBEN: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Q. Doctorandus Fagel, this document Q21, exhibit number P75, is this
2 a document that you examined and that you referred to in the additional
3 report as Q21? Please confirm, if so, with the ERN number.
4 A. It's hard to tell from this copy, but yes indeed, it is the
5 document number 02075810. And I examined the signature at the right-hand
7 Q. Thank you.
8 A. I had the original document for this examination.
9 Q. So subsequently the next document. I ask Madam Usher to show
10 Exhibit P107, as it is Q22.
11 Doctorandus Fagel, is this the document that you examined and
12 that you referred to in the report as Q22? Please confirm with the ERN.
13 A. Yes. Again, I'm looking at a copy of the original document which
14 I examined with ERN number 01787786. There's only one signature, so
15 that's the signature I examined.
16 Q. The subsequent exhibit number P120 to be shown to Doctorandus
17 Fagel related to Q23.
18 A. This is again a copy of the original document I examined with ERN
19 number 01787832. And I examined the signature at the right-hand side
20 below the letter.
21 Q. Thank you. Next document, Exhibit number P158 referred to as
23 A. This also is the copy of the original document I examined, ERN
24 number 01239545. And I examined the signature below as Q24.
25 Q. Followed by document exhibit number P263, document Q25. ERN
2 So, Doctorandus Fagel, may I ask you: Is this the document that
3 you examined and that you referred to in the report as Q25? And also
4 notice the ERN number.
5 A. Yes, this is a document or a copy of it which I also examined as
6 a copy of -- it has ERN number 03557343. I examined the signature on it
7 as signature Q25.
8 Q. Followed by document Exhibit number P177, questioned document
9 number Q26.
10 A. Yes, this is also a copy of a document which I also had available
11 as a copy. It has ERN number 03720934. And I examined the lower
12 signature as Q26. Yes.
13 Q. Thank you. Followed by Exhibit number P179, questioned document
14 Q27. Is this a document that you examined and that you referred to in
15 your report as Q27? Will you please confirm the ERN number.
16 A. This is a copy of a document I examined and also had only a copy
17 available of it. It has ERN number 03720936. And I examined the
18 signature on it as Q27.
19 Q. Followed by document exhibit number P198, questioned document
20 Q28. Doctorandus Fagel, is this the document that you examined as an
21 expert and that you referred to in the report as Q28? Can you confirm
22 the ERN number, please.
23 A. Yes, this is a document or a copy of it of the document which I
24 also had available as a copy. It has ERN number 03721234. And I
25 examined the signature on it as Q28.
1 Q. The next document number P200, P-2-0-0 related to questioned
2 document Q29. Is this the document, Doctorandus Fagel, that you examined
3 as an expert and that you referred to in the report as Q29? Include the
4 ERN number, please.
5 A. Yes, this is a copy -- a document or a copy of the it the
6 document I examined. It has ERN number 03721253. And I examined the
7 signature on it as signature Q29.
8 Q. Followed by Exhibit number P210 related questioned document Q30.
9 A. Yes, this is also a copy of the original document -- no, I think
10 it's a copy of the documents I examined which has ERN number 03721400.
11 And I examined the signature on it as signature -- let's check, Q30.
12 Q. Thank you. Q31 as related to exhibit number P219, please.
13 2-1-9. Doctorandus Fagel, is this the document that you examined as an
14 expert and that you referred to in your report as Q31?
15 A. This is the document or a copy of it of the document numbered
16 03721482. And the signature on it I examined as signature Q31.
17 Q. And you examined the original?
18 A. No. I examined a copy of this.
19 Q. Thank you for this confirmation.
20 Followed by exhibit number 220 related to the questioned document
22 A. Again, this is a document or a copy of it the exhibit I examined.
23 It is 03721483. I examined a copy of the signature as signature Q32.
24 Q. Thank you. Doctorandus Fagel, let me turn now to your analysis
25 procedure and methods you used. What procedure did you use to examine
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 these questioned documents as related to you and observed by you prior in
2 this testimony?
3 A. Actually, it's the same as yesterday but I analysed the features
4 of the signatures, the line quality, the pressure variation, and the
5 proportions and the shapes of the -- elements that can be distinguished
6 within the signature and I compared them to the same features which can
7 -- could be analysed in the reference signatures.
8 Q. Did you also enlarge signatures on behalf of your examination,
9 Doctorandus Fagel? To what extent? And why did you do so?
10 A. Yes. When necessary I looked at certain details of the
11 signatures under stereomicroscope.
12 Q. And that's how you could show also in your report the enlarged
14 A. That's not the main reason, but I think it's for a better view of
15 the features in the signature for you.
16 Q. Had there been, in general, traces of forgery, copying, or
17 tracing found with the signatures in general?
18 A. I did not find any traces of copying or tracing, certainly not in
19 the original signatures. But of course in the copied signatures I
20 couldn't see all the details well enough to exclude this.
21 Q. Does a signature change by passage of age or time? In general; I
22 already referred to --
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Wubben, you asked him that question yesterday
24 and he gave us a very good answer to that and he explained all the
1 MR. WUBBEN: I will skip that as well as the factors in general
2 that influence the signatures, Your Honour.
3 Q. Let me address directly, then, Appendix 2 for the evaluation of
4 the questioned documents as related in the report P265. So now we'll be
5 shown the groups of signatures one by one, starting with Appendix number
6 2. And I refer you, Doctorandus Fagel, to Appendix number 2, meaning for
7 ERN number of my observation 03594732.
8 Doctorandus Fagel, while giving your professional opinion --
9 MR. WUBBEN: Can the video screen be turned on everywhere.
10 Please, Your Honour, can you confirm that the video screen is turned on.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, yes.
12 MR. WUBBEN: Thank you very much.
13 THE WITNESS: Excuse me, could you please repeat the ERN number
14 because I'm not sure whether we are talking about the same.
15 MR. WUBBEN:
16 Q. Appendix number 2 of your --
17 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: If you are referring him to Appendix 2, he may be
19 getting confused in that the ERN number that you are referring to is of
20 that particular page --
21 THE WITNESS: Oh, I see, yes.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: -- and not of the ERN number which you used for
23 comparative purposes. That's why he is getting --
24 THE WITNESS: Thanks for your explanation.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: I think you have understand me. You can proceed,
1 Mr. Wubben.
2 MR. WUBBEN: We are showing page 1 of 3 out of Appendix 2, the
3 questioned signatures and I referred Doctorandus Fagel to this group of
5 Q. While giving your professional opinion, Doctorandus Fagel,
6 regarding evaluation of the questioned signatures, will you please refer
7 to this appendix and tell me how did you evaluate the signature on
8 questioned document Q21, as indicated there, and please confirm also the
9 ERN number. What characteristics did you identify in this document for
10 comparison with the reference documents or signatures?
11 A. Well, the signature was available in the original, and judging
12 from the good line quality and the natural writing pressure variation
13 this signature was written fluently and didn't find any indications of
14 copying or tracing within the signature.
15 Q. And may I have your same observation and comment on signature
17 A. That's the same as for signature Q21.
18 Q. And the ERN number, please.
19 A. It's 01787786.
20 Q. And may I have your observation and comment on signature Q23,
21 including ERN.
22 A. I have the same comments as for the previous two signatures and
23 the ERN number is 01787832.
24 Q. And the signature Q24, Doctorandus Fagel, including the ERN
25 number. Your comment, please, in your professional opinion.
1 A. Yes, also for this signature which I also had in original,
2 judging from the good line quality and natural writing pressure variation
3 it was written fluently. I didn't find any signs of copying or tracing
4 within the signature. The ERN number is 01239545.
5 Q. I will turn now to page 2 out of 3 of your Appendix number 2 in
6 your additional report. May I have the same observations and comments,
7 please, starting with Q25.
8 A. I only had a copy available of this signature and the copy was
9 too poor to allow detailed examinations in the writing course and
11 Q. ERN number, please.
12 A. It's 03557343.
13 Q. Q26 is the next signature. Same observations.
14 A. It's the same observation as for Q25. ERN number 03720934.
15 Q. Signature Q27. May I have your comment and observation, please,
16 and the ERN number.
17 A. These are the same as for Q25. 0372096 -- sorry. 0936.
18 Q. And subsequent Q28 signature including the ERN, your comments and
20 A. ERN number is 03721234 and my observations are the same as for
22 Q. And can you, for the record, please repeat that observation.
23 A. That the quality of this copy is too poor to allow detailed
24 examination of the writing course and line quality.
25 Q. Now we turn to page 3, Doctorandus Fagel, page 3 out of 3 of
1 Appendix 2 and we can start with the signature Q29.
2 A. The signature on ERN number 03721253 is also -- I only had a copy
3 available of this and the quality was too poor to allow detailed
4 examination of the writing course and line quality.
5 Q. Q30 signature.
6 A. This signature on ERN number 03721400. I also only had a copy
7 available of it and also in this case the quality was too poor to allow
8 detailed examination of the writing course and line quality.
9 Q. Q31.
10 A. ERN number 03721482, which I only had a copy again. And again
11 the quality of this copy was too poor to allow detailed examination of
12 the writing course and line quality.
13 Q. And finally Q32.
14 A. ERN number 03721483. And again I only had a copy of this
15 signature and, again, it was too poor to allow detailed examination of
16 the writing course and line quality.
17 Q. So as for this part subsequent I will turn to the final results
18 per document.
19 Doctorandus Fagel, what can you clarify in your professional
20 opinion about the results of the handwriting examination of all the
21 questioned documents?
22 A. All the documents?
23 Q. Yes.
24 A. Well, the design and general appearance of each of the four
25 original questioned signatures, that's Q21 and including Q24 is
1 consistent with that of the known signatures. This --
2 Q. Excuse me. Known signatures. You are then referring to
3 reference documents and signatures?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And you mentioned and confirmed the K documents?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. Thank you. Please proceed.
8 A. So that might mean that the questioned signatures are either
9 authentic signatures written by the writing of the reference signatures
10 himself or they could be imitations of the signature. But when I
11 compared the construction and proportions of the various graphic elements
12 with the corresponds element in the reference signatures, I didn't find
13 differences that might not be accounted for by the natural variation
14 normally present in anyone's signatures. And besides, I note that before
15 no indications of copying or tracing were found in these questioned
16 signatures. Now, the --
17 Q. I have a question in that respect. How easy is it to find
18 forgery indications? It's more a question in general.
19 A. Of course it depends on the skill of the forger. The better the
20 forger is, the less easy it is to find traces of forgery. But in most
21 cases, especially when the signature is complex enough, is not too
22 simple, there will be traces of forgery.
23 Q. And that's -- you mean by traces, indications?
24 A. Indications, yes.
25 Q. So first you would trace the indication, more or less, and then
1 you conclude on forgery or not?
2 A. Well, there are several kinds of forgeries possible. Someone can
3 try to imitate the form of the signature as exactly as possible from a
4 model. In this case, often the writing movement will slow down and this
5 can be seen in the line quality. It will be more -- there will be less
6 variation in the writing pressure and there will be more tremorous lines
7 and there will be pen lifts in places normally where they are not in the
8 authentic signatures.
9 Another kind of forgery is when a person doesn't mind too much
10 about the exact form of the signature but tries to make more fluent one,
11 fluent imitation, freehand imitation. In that case, there will be more
12 deviations in the exact moving course of the writing line. So the
13 differences will be of another kind of character.
14 Q. And will be shown under the microscope or whatever examination
15 method you adopt?
16 A. Yes. We compare the -- as I said, the -- in most cases you can
17 see them by the bare eye. But because we compare the shapes and the
18 proportions of the elements within the signatures, and there will be the
19 most important differences which can be seen which we will point out on
20 our observation forms.
21 Q. And now turning to the copies available, and you already
22 confirmed several questioned documents as being a copy available to you.
23 Can you tell something from the results point of view in regard to this
24 quality of the copies.
25 A. Yes, the quality of -- you mean the qualities of the signatures
1 Q25 up to Q32?
2 Q. Yes.
3 A. Well, these copies were, as I said, too poor to allow examination
4 of the writing course and line quality in sufficient detail. And all I
5 can say is as far as can be seen from the copies, the overall design of
6 these signatures is consistent with that of the reference signatures.
7 Q. Thank you. Now, I will turn to the final conclusions for the
8 questioned documents Q21 up to Q25 referring to page 5 out of 8 of your
9 additional report P265. Please give me your professional opinion about
10 document Q21 also known as P75 as exhibit.
11 A. Based on the results I got when examining and comparing the
12 signature to the reference samples, I concluded that it's highly probable
13 that this questioned signature was written by the author of the reference
15 Q. And again please, highly probable, what do you mean by this
17 A. It's the second-highest conclusion we give. The highest one is
18 with probability reaching on certainty --
19 JUDGE AGIUS: I think he explained the differences between the
20 various categories yesterday. I don't think we need to go through this
21 again. If he just confirms that his assessment is highly probable, we
22 know exactly what he means by that because he told us yesterday. I don't
23 think it changes from one report to the other. So -- and to be honest
24 with you, again I would suggest that you pool together these first five
25 documents, 21 to 24 or 25 -- 21 to 24, and you can ask one question in
1 relation to the four of them. That would be the rest.
2 MR. WUBBEN:
3 Q. Mr. Doctorandus Fagel, can you give me your professional opinion
4 about the final conclusions you made on questioned document Q21, Q22,
5 Q23, and Q24 as examined by you.
6 A. For all these signatures I concluded based on the results I got
7 that it's highly probable that these questioned signatures were written
8 by the author of the reference signatures.
9 Q. The reference signatures what numbers?
10 A. K1 up to K35.
11 Q. And please, your same conclusion, professional conclusion, on the
12 signatures Q25 up to Q32.
13 A. Based on the results I got when comparing these signatures with
14 the reference signatures, I can only conclude that it's possible that
15 these questioned signatures Q25 up to Q32 were written by the author of
16 the reference signatures K1 up to K35.
17 Q. Well, Doctorandus Fagel, this completes my questions so far.
18 Finally, do you have as an expert, Doctorandus Fagel, anything to add
19 that you would like to tell the Trial Chamber to your testimony this
20 morning regarding the additional report?
21 A. Maybe -- it's also the same as I said yesterday: that once you
22 note opinions concerning non-original signatures are expressed on the
23 assumption that the non-originals examined are true and accurate
24 representations of the original documents, and that furthermore if the
25 original documents were available for examination, this might result for
1 stronger opinions for the signatures involved.
2 MR. WUBBEN: I've finished, Your Honour, thank you.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Wubben.
4 Mr. Fagel, Doctor Fagel, you are now going to be cross-examined
5 by Mr. Jones who is appearing for the accused together with Madam
7 MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
9 Cross-examined by Mr. Jones:
10 Q. Dr. Fagel, I would like to start by asking you a couple of
11 questions about the Netherlands Forensic Institute. We've all seen your
12 reports. Let's get them in front of us. If we look on the first page --
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Which report? The first one or the second one,
14 Mr. Jones?
15 MR. JONES: Both. The first page of both reports.
16 Q. This is just by way of clarification we see at the top right-hand
17 corner Ministry of Justice. Do you have your report?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. We see Ministry of Justice. That's the Dutch Ministry of
21 A. Yes, that's right.
22 Q. And the top left, that's the logo of the Dutch Ministry of
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. The Netherlands Forensic Institute is part of the Dutch Ministry
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 of Justice?
2 A. Yes. It's a relatively autonomous service.
3 Q. Just so we're clear, it would not be correct then to say, would
4 it, that the Dutch Forensic Institute is not a laboratory that is within
5 a government ministry in the Netherlands. That would be incorrect?
6 A. That the Dutch --
7 Q. Yes, if someone were to say that the Dutch institute is not a
8 laboratory that is within a government ministry in the Netherlands, that
9 would not be a correct statement?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Is the institute funded by the Dutch government?
12 A. Yes, it is.
13 Q. You've told us that it is relatively autonomous. It is not
14 independent, is it?
15 A. It depends what you call independent --
16 Q. It's your choice of words. You didn't say "independent," you
17 said "autonomous."
18 A. But we consider ourselves to be independent and not to be
19 influenced by the government in our opinions we give on -- based on our
20 examinations, if that's what you mean.
21 Q. But the institute is part of the Dutch Ministry of Justice, just
22 to clarify?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. I want to ask you a couple of questions now about the Netherlands
25 Institute for War Documentation, also known as NIOD.
1 A. I've heard of it, yes.
2 Q. Can you help us about the state of that institute? Is it
3 autonomous, independent, or part of the Dutch government?
4 MR. WUBBEN: Your Honour, I protest. This is an expert on
5 handwriting. He can hardly be asked an opinion about the qualification
6 of an institute like that.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's see what this other institute is all about
8 and then we'll see what the next question will be. If it is relevant I
9 will allow it. If it is not relevant, we will not allow it. I know that
10 the gentleman is not an expert on other institutes, but we don't know
11 which institute Mr. Jones is referring.
12 MR. JONES: By way of explanation, Your Honour, it's a source of
13 one of the documents as we saw with Ms. Manas. NIOD has actually
14 supplied a document to be used in the Prosecution against Naser Oric.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's see what this institute is all about and if
16 the witness is in a position to answer it and it is relevant we will
17 allow the question.
18 MR. JONES:
19 Q. I wonder if you could help us with that.
20 A. First of all, I am not aware of the source of these documents at
21 all. And about the organisational aspects of the NIOD, they are a
22 governmental organisation but I cannot -- I'm not sure about it.
23 Q. Does your institute do work for NIOD examining documents?
24 A. I know in the past there have been some examinations for the
25 NIOD, among other things the diaries of Anne Frank.
1 Q. In relation to Srebrenica?
2 A. In Srebrenica for the NIOD? I think you are referring -- there
3 has been some examination. I was not involved with it, with a photo -- a
5 Q. If you weren't involved, that's fine. We won't pursue that as
7 Now, a couple of methodological questions. There may be amateur
8 forgers, but there are professional forgers as well.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. The fact is if someone who wants to get away with forging a
11 signature, someone who has the time, motivation, and expertise can do it,
12 forge a signature and escape detection. That's a basic fact, isn't it?
13 A. Yes. The more time someone has and the more skilled someone is,
14 the better forgery he will produce, I expect.
15 Q. Yes. But you've --
16 JUDGE AGIUS: But the question was double-edged. The end part of
17 it is -- it was suggested to you that with all these -- the combination
18 of time and skill, then one can escape detection. So please address that
19 aspect as well. Thank you.
20 THE WITNESS: Well, I don't think it's very probable that this
21 can happen, but I cannot guarantee that it will never happen. But that's
22 also why we don't give 100 per cent opinions, qualified opinions, like
23 highly probable, and this probability bordering on certainty. It's also
24 related to the complexity of the signature.
25 MR. JONES:
1 Q. Thank you.
2 You've referred today to copying and tracing marks. Those are,
3 are they not, fairly amateurish signs that someone is literally trying to
4 trace a signature. The more professional way, surely, is to practice the
5 signature until it has slightly the same appearance as the one which is
6 being copied.
7 A. I think that will be the more professional way, yes; but until it
8 has exactly the same time appearance, of course two signatures of the
9 same person are never exactly the same. Tracing would be rather
10 amateuristic indeed.
11 Q. If I speak slowly it's because I'm waiting for the
13 A. Okay.
14 Q. The reason why you won't find those marks with a seasoned forger
15 is because it's become the movement of the forger, hasn't it? It's
16 become virtually his signature when he copies a signature repeatedly and
17 perfects his skill.
18 A. Do you mean the tracing marks --
19 Q. When someone isn't tracing and not copying, they've practiced the
20 signature enough that they can do it, it becomes a habitual movement of
21 theirs and therefore easy to redo.
22 A. Well, one would expect -- attempts we have seen by forgers trying
23 to imitate a signature fluently, especially as the signature becomes more
24 complex, is that even if they are fluent there will always be deviations
25 in the exact -- in the proportions and/or in the shapes of several
1 elements within the signature.
2 Q. You say "always," but at the same time you've told us you can't
3 always be sure that a signature is not forged.
4 A. I cannot guarantee 100 per cent that the signature is not forged.
5 But that is also why we don't give certainty opinions.
6 Q. And if - just staying on this issue of someone who is repeatedly
7 copying the signature - there would be fluency in that movement and
8 therefore good line quality and natural pressure variation. Is that
10 A. Yes, but again then I would expect more differences of another
11 nature in the signature.
12 Q. I'm just staying with this a bit longer. Expertise and time and
13 motivation, let's start with expertise. You've trained as a forensic
14 document examiner for a number of years. You know what to look out for,
15 tracing, copying marks. Presumably, someone could do the same course as
16 you and know what to look out for.
17 A. Yes. But another thing is also to perform it because I may be a
18 good handwriting examiner but I am a bad forger I found out.
19 Q. Certainly for government intelligence agencies, let's say, or
20 counter-intelligence agencies, especially in the enmity of war, it would
21 be well within their capabilities, surely, to have someone trained to do
22 that. If that is within your competence --
23 JUDGE AGIUS: If you don't thing you are in a position to answer
24 that question, please ask us to exempt you from answering. Because I
25 wouldn't know, for example.
1 THE WITNESS: I wouldn't know.
2 MR. JONES:
3 Q. Feel free for any question to say it's not within your knowledge.
4 A. This.
5 Q. Now, in terms of motivation. You mention expertise. Motivation,
6 in a way that speaks for itself. But that is that surely a factor
7 whether a forgery would be successful, for example, if someone was trying
8 to forge a million dollars, they would probably practise a bit more.
9 They would be better at it, wouldn't they?
10 A. Practice can always help to make it better, yes.
11 Q. Or if some more important issue is at stake.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Now, I'd like to refer to page 2 of your forensic handwriting
14 analysis synopsis, which is in both reports. Probably -- well, either
15 will do, but I'm looking at the February report and the page number is
16 ERN number 03523863. Do you have that in front of you. There it's just
17 a -- I'll wait until you --
18 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
19 THE WITNESS: Yes.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I'm sorry, Mr. Jones. Please.
21 MR. JONES: No, not at all, Your Honour.
22 Q. This is really to summarise in effect what you've been saying.
23 I'll read the passage.
24 "The more successful a forger is in reproducing the precise
25 writing movements of a real signature, the will less his own
1 characteristics will be present in the final result and more difficult it
2 will be to determine who produced the forgery."
3 That's correct, isn't it?
4 A. Yes. But then here still going to be traces or indications of
5 forgery. Because I mean if someone is tracing a signature exactly, then
6 there are no characteristic, no features of his own handwriting anymore
7 in the signature. But because this remark has to do with the fact
8 sometimes you get forged signatures of which it is almost sure it can be
9 a real one. But then the question is: Has this signature been forged by
10 that person. So we have to compare his handwriting characteristics. So
11 this remark is to explain sometimes you cannot do this because if it is
12 tracing, for example, there are no indications, no features of his own
13 handwriting anymore left.
14 Q. Here you only have signatures to go on, don't you? You're not
15 comparing signatures with other writing.
16 A. No, nor with writing of other persons.
17 Q. Which limits the conclusions you can reach on that point you just
19 A. No, because the question was: Have these signatures been made by
20 the owner, by the person whose name is with the signature. That's
21 another question then, that have these signatures been forged by this
22 other person.
23 Q. If there are stamps involved, as we've seen in this case, surely
24 a good technique of a forger would be to attempt to cover the signature
25 or as much as possible stamp, in order to conceal. Is that something you
1 come across?
2 MR. WUBBEN: I protest, Your Honour. Stamps is another
3 investigation and we will question Mr. Koeijer. As confirmed by
4 Doctorandus Fagel yesterday, there are two examiners.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: No, but Mr. Wubben, if I understood Mr. Jones
6 correctly, and I think I have, what he is suggesting to the witness as a
7 question is whether if one wants to make it more difficult to establish
8 the authenticity of a signature, whether it would help by way of making
9 it more difficult to impose, superimpose this stamp on the signature
10 itself so the comparative analysis, the comparative examination becomes
11 more difficult. This is the point that is being made.
12 MR. JONES: That's the question.
13 MR. WUBBEN: You're right, Your Honour. I apologise for my
15 JUDGE AGIUS: That's okay.
16 THE WITNESS: Well, I can say two things about this. In the
17 first place, for the original signatures we could under the microscope
18 still follow the writing course of the lines in spite of the stamps which
19 are on it. Of course for the copies, this was not possible.
20 Secondly, if there are any traces of forgery in a signature, it
21 will be very hard to put the stamps in such a way. First you have to
22 detect where these deviations are and secondly you have to place the
23 parts of the stamp exactly on this place in the questioned signatures,
24 especially if there is more than one deviation which normally is there.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: If I might add something. If it is just a
1 photocopy you wouldn't be in a position to know which came first, whether
2 it was the signature and then the stamps or the superimposed or whether
3 it was the stamp first and then the signature on it. Because a photocopy
4 wouldn't tell you, whereas an original would.
5 THE WITNESS: Yes.
6 MR. JONES:
7 Q. But on the originals the ink can run together presumably if they
8 are stamped and signed.
9 A. The ink can run together. I think if the stamp was put down
10 first and then immediately after when the stamp is still wet, there can
11 be some -- I don't know the English word for it, but there can be some
12 mixture, yes.
13 Q. Now, just a couple more questions about methodology and the
14 exactness of your results or otherwise. When we speak about DNA testing
15 you can get numerical probabilistic results, one in a million chance, one
16 in a thousand. That's not possible in your field, is it?
17 A. No. Like in many other forensic fields it's not possible in my
19 Q. It's not as exact as DNA testing.
20 A. That's right.
21 Q. That's why you have six categories on your probability scale.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. You use, starting from, and we can look at that. For example, in
24 the February report I have ERN number 03523865. You start with "a
25 probability bordering on certainty."
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And just pausing there: You haven't found that with regard to
3 any of the samples which were to be examined?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Including those where you had the originals and you had the best
6 specimen to work from?
7 A. Yes, that's right.
8 Q. Then you have highly probable, probably, et cetera. Just a
9 question: Is it right that with your scale, you could in effect divide
10 it down the middle, the top three of where it's more probable than not,
11 the bottom three where it's more probable -- sorry, more probably not
12 than it is specimen; and the bottom half where it is more probably not
13 than it isn't. Is that right? The top three would be more than 50 per
14 cent and the bottom less than.
15 A. Certainly more than 50 per cent but there are a large area around
16 50 per cent which is inconsistent, in my opinion, something like that.
17 Q. Perhaps I phrased it badly. I'll put it this way: the top three
18 you have a positive batch and the bottom negative. So that in fact
19 highly probably is in the middle of your positive matches.
20 A. I think all probable, highly probably, and with probability on
21 certainty are all rather high on the scale because these steps are not
22 spread evenly along the continuum.
23 Q. We'll come back to that. Now, the numbers of samples you used
24 and the quality, if I can ask you about that. You used 33 reference
25 signatures which were taken in a few days in May 2001.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 A. That's right.
2 Q. And two on the 11th of April, 2003.
3 A. I have to check this. Yes.
4 Q. And you're comparing those signatures taken on the same few days
5 in 2001 and 2003 with signatures from 10 or 11 years before.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. First if I can ask you about spread of specimen signatures. I'm
8 not sure if you use that term in your field. But surely for the specimen
9 samples, ideally you would have a spread from 1993, 1995, 2000 to
10 compare, not just two time periods. Is that right? It would be better.
11 A. It would be better to optimise results, but it's not really
12 necessary. If you find differences, it would be a good thing to try to
13 get signatures from the same period. If you don't find significant
14 differences, you might ask whether it's really necessary.
15 Q. It's a question of necessity, isn't it? Are you actually able to
16 provide a comprehensive analysis of that difference, or would your
17 conclusions only be preliminary as an expert?
18 A. I don't quite understand this question. Can you rephrase it.
19 Q. In your profession where you have a spread like that, samples
20 from 10 or 11 years ago and then 10 or 11 years later, two time periods,
21 in your field wouldn't most experts say: "My conclusion can only be
22 preliminary. I cannot give a definitive definite conclusion."
23 A. No, not that I'm aware of.
24 Q. Now, if you say that a document is probably not of the author, a
25 questioned handwriting is probably not produced by a certain person,
1 that's what we would call a forgery, isn't it?
2 A. Well, you are talking about handwriting in general?
3 Q. Yes, on your scale and let me give an example. If someone signs
4 Dr. Fagel on a cheque and you didn't sign it, that's what we would call a
5 forgery, isn't it?
6 A. Yes, if this person has the intention to imitate my signature, it
7 would be.
8 Q. If we were to compare your signature on a signature on a cheque
9 that you hadn't written, you would find it's not your signature, you
10 would be veering towards finding that's not a forgery, wouldn't you?
11 A. I'm trying to read this. Could you repeat it.
12 Q. I can explain it more simply. It's understanding what your scale
13 means because your job is to find out if signatures are forged. If you
14 do a report and you say this is probably not the signature of an author,
15 isn't that what we would call a forgery?
16 A. Not in all cases.
17 Q. You're free to explain.
18 A. It depends on -- someone may -- for example, there might be
19 another person having the same name as I have and signed with the same
20 name in good faith and someone else might say this is your signature and
21 I say, that is not my signature. So this person didn't have the
22 intention to imitate my signature so it's not a forgery.
23 Q. So it's a question of intent.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And now leaving the time spread to one side, I can probably deal
1 with this issue before the break.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. If you want to lead with it. How long is it
3 going to take you?
4 MR. JONES: Five minutes maximum.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: No. Then I think we take the break now.
6 JUDGE ESER: I would just have a question to the expert with
7 regard to your scaling. In your conclusions you distinguish between
8 highly probable, probable, and possible. But if I go to this general
9 outline, Forensic Handwriting Analysis, you will distinguish between with
10 a probability bordering on certainty, highly probable, highly probably,
11 and probably. But there you do not have the category of possible. What
12 is -- how would you -- where would you fit in, so to say, possible?
13 THE WITNESS: In this list which I showed, it only showed only
14 the so-called probability conclusions. But below there is another
15 explanation where I explained when we use possibly or no opinion. And
16 possibly would be between probably and probably not.
17 JUDGE ESER: Okay. Thank you.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: So we'll have a 25-minute break if that's all right
19 with you, reconvening at five to 11.00. Thank you.
20 --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.
21 --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I recognise Mr. Wubben.
23 MR. WUBBEN: Thank you, Your Honour. May I raise the issue of
24 the order of witnesses. Dr. Koeijer is stand-by available, as he told me
25 yesterday, but he's waiting for a kind of confirmation that he should be
1 available at 1.00.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Well, I very much depend on Mr. Jones,
4 MR. JONES: Well, I think I'll be finished by 12.30 at the
6 JUDGE AGIUS: So I suppose 12.30 we come to the break.
7 MR. WUBBEN: Or the re-direct, and that might take about a
8 quarter, I don't know. That depends.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I would say -- I would suggest that you
10 call the other expert Koeijer, Dr. Koeijer, be here at 1.00. Because
11 we'll certainly at least deal with the initial part of his testimony of
12 his witness. I mean, we were discussing outside possible questions from
13 the Bench but I don't expect too much or many questions from the Bench.
14 MR. WUBBEN: We will confirm to him that he should be available
15 at 1.00.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Thanks.
17 Mr. Jones.
18 MR. JONES: Thank you.
19 Q. Dr. Fagel, before the break we were about to pass on to the
20 subject of the time difference between the specimen signatures and the
21 questioned signatures. In that regard, I'd like to first start with your
22 Forensic Handwriting Analysis synopsis at page 2 which I've got at ERN
23 03523863. And I'll just read what you say there and you can tell me if
24 you agree.
25 "The writing movement can be regarded as an interplay of
1 submovements, each brought about by the muscles and joints participating
2 in the writing movement."
3 Is it right -- I take it from that that handwriting is a subtle
4 interplay between minute musculature and psychology, affected by the
5 mental state of the writer.
6 A. Of course the musculature is driven, so to speak, by the brains
7 and there can be influence by drugs and alcohol and even by severe
9 Q. By severe emotions. I was going to give some examples so you can
10 see -- tell me if you agree. If you're under stress, the signature might
11 be shakier?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. If you're physically weak, the signature may be weaker, fainter?
14 A. I know of examples -- people who are of old age which are -- have
15 deteriorated motoric ability where the signature may look worse; let's
16 state it that way.
17 Q. You told us yesterday that even cold hands can affect a
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now, you proceed from the assumption, I take it, that the
21 signature of someone doesn't change much after adolescence. That's what
22 you told us yesterday.
23 A. Signatures made under normal circumstances, yes.
24 Q. Normal circumstances. Now, would that assumption be correct in
25 the following set of circumstances, and I'll put those circumstances to
1 you: If when the signatures were taken the person was 25 years old,
2 under siege, under savage pressure, and fighting a war, first of all, 10
3 years ago; and then now, different circumstances all together, different
4 diet, different build, 37 years old. I'm not talking about a one- or
5 two-year time difference, we're talking about more than a decade. Is
6 that assumption still a safe one in your expert opinion?
7 A. I don't think -- it depends on how the person feels under the
8 circumstances rather than the circumstances themselves I think. So he
9 feels comfortable --
10 Q. There's post-traumatic stress syndrome, for example. That would
11 surely affect it.
12 A. I'm not sure whether this will influence the motoric musculature
13 or motoric ability. I'm not sure.
14 Q. For you it's a perfectly safe assumption that a person 25 years
15 old, under siege in a war is going to have more or less the same
16 signature 10 or 11 years later in a totally different set of
18 A. Yes, it could be.
19 Q. You're happy with that assumption?
20 A. There might be influences, but it's also possible that there are
21 no influences at all.
22 Q. A final question on methodology before we come to the questioned
23 documents. The reference signatures are a yardstick, aren't they? They
24 are what you can use to measure the questioned signatures against. You
25 have those in this case because Naser Oric provided them willingly and
1 that's why you can use them.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Just so there's no dispute, the case signatures are those of
4 Naser Oric, he's not hiding that fact.
5 A. That's what they told me.
6 Q. Otherwise you would be making comparisons in a vacuum.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And your task is to see if the author of the K signatures could
9 be the author of the Q signatures.
10 A. That's right.
11 Q. So let's turn to your report. Now, the February report, first of
12 all. You got 20 questioned documents, 14 available in the originals. I
13 don't know if I need to say the numbers. I think we know what they are.
14 Six available in copies, six in the copies are Q4, Q6, Q7, Q10, Q11, Q16.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Now, with those ones, the copies, you can't look at the strike
17 indent, can you?
18 A. The what?
19 Q. The strike indent?
20 A. No.
21 Q. You can't look for copying or trace marks.
22 A. No a certain extent.
23 Q. A limited extent?
24 A. Yes, depending on the quality of the copy.
25 Q. You can't analyse the ink of the signature or of the stamp. In
1 fact, many important analytical features are lost.
2 A. Again, depending on the quality of the copy -- the number of
3 features that are lost can be more or less large.
4 Q. It's a fact, isn't it, that there's a lot more scope for
5 manipulation of a copy, especially in this day and age with scanners and
6 the like.
7 A. That's why I made my reservation on the end of the report.
8 Q. That's right. Even an amateur can cut off the bottom of one
9 page, Tip-Ex out the line, and copy it.
10 A. Yes, but sometimes we can see it's done this way because when you
11 do it this way there may be shadow lines when you make a copy.
12 Q. And sometimes --
13 A. And there may be some other indications of manipulation, but not
15 Q. That's right, isn't it? Because of all these problems with
16 copies many people in your profession would insist on examining
17 originals, wouldn't they?
18 A. Yes. We normally also ask for the originals if you get copies
19 but sometimes they are not available. Then we make our opinion, the best
20 opinion you can, with all the reservations we have to make and usually an
21 opinion with lower strength than normal.
22 Q. Did you ask for the originals in this case?
23 A. It was clear to me from the beginning that they were not
25 Q. So you worked with copies?
1 A. Yes, as I stated in my report.
2 Q. You were happy to express conclusions about copies?
3 A. The conclusions that I made, I'm happy with, yes.
4 Q. Let's turn to your conclusions in your February report. I'm
5 looking at page -- sorry I'll have to use the ERN page because it's all
6 -- it's really exact. 03523856. Do you have that?
7 A. 856, yes.
8 Q. So let's start with the originals. You've told us the originals
9 are the very best documents to work from. You can do all the tests you
10 need with originals. And with none of the 14 originals do you conclude
11 with probability bordering on certainty that they are the same author as
12 the reference signatures.
13 A. That's right.
14 Q. Let's see what you do say. Again on the same page you say:
15 "The design and general appearances of each of the 14 original
16 questioned signatures," I won't read out all the Qs, "are consistent be
17 that of the known signatures of N. Oric. This means that the questioned
18 signatures are either authentic signatures written by N. Oric himself or
19 imitations of his signature."
20 A. That's right.
21 Q. Imitations of his signature.
22 A. At this phase -- this is my conclusion at this phase and then I
23 continue to the other examinations.
24 Q. We'll come to that. You told us yesterday, didn't you, that an
25 imitation is mala fides? It's a forgery, as we call it.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. So in fact your results are consistent with all the signatures on
3 the originals being forgeries.
4 A. My first results, first preliminary conclusion is that because of
5 the similarity in the general overall design, it must be based on the
6 signature of Mr. Oric or a model of it. So it could be his own signature
7 or someone else trying to forge his signature.
8 Q. Exactly. We've got two possibilities.
9 A. Right.
10 Q. It's either by Oric or it's imitation.
11 A. That's right.
12 Q. In your conclusion you then decide that it's highly probable that
13 it's by Oric.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. How did you exclude the imitation possibility?
16 A. By the examinations following this preliminary conclusion where I
17 compared the construction and proportions of the various elements in
18 these signatures with the corresponding elements in the reference
19 signatures, and I found no differences that might not be accounted for by
20 the natural variation present in anyone's signatures, especially in the
21 signatures I had, the reference signatures I had.
22 Q. You're referring to the rest of that paragraph?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. So you say: "No differences have been observed which may not be
25 accounted for by natural variation, et cetera." So you found
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
2 A. Just normal variations. Not significant differences.
3 Q. How do you judge normality?
4 A. It's based on when you have a number of reference signatures,
5 compare them, and then you can see where the variations are and you
6 can -- by this way you can gain an impression of the width of the
7 variations in the several elements. That's how we compare it. We look
8 at the variations that might be in the questioned signatures fall within
9 the range of the variations which are in the reference samples.
10 Q. That is a non-probabilistic range, isn't it? Because as you've
11 explained, it's purely approximate in an event.
12 A. We cannot quantify the variations, if that is what you mean.
13 Q. Let's turn to the next page where you have your conclusions. You
14 conclude: "Highly probable that certain of those signatures were written
15 by the author of the reference signature." You've excluded imitations
16 based on what you've just said. It's not the top level, it's level two.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And as we established it's the middle level, effectively, of your
19 positive --
20 JUDGE AGIUS: He did not agree with that statement, Mr. Jones.
21 He told you that the first two are definitely very high up. He never
22 conceded that or to accept the use of the word middle.
23 MR. JONES:
24 Q. Perhaps you can clarify that for us. Very high up, what does
25 that mean?
1 A. I think that all conclusions with -- positive conclusions,
2 probably, highly probably, and probability bordering on certainty are all
3 -- I can't say with an exact percentage were all above 90 per cent.
4 Q. That's not what highly probable means in layman's terms, is it?
5 A. Well, I mean if 10 per cent -- there would be a 10 per cent
6 chance that someone else wrote the signature. There would be 10 out of
7 100 persons done it and I think this is -- quite a lot of people, still,
8 that might have written the signature. I mean, 10 per cent is still
9 quite a high error rate.
10 Q. You told us at the outset that yours is a nonquantitifiable
11 subject, so is it right for you to be using percentages? It's not right.
12 A. I shouldn't attach exactly a number to these conclusions but I
13 just want to say that it must be above 90 per cent, to get an impression
14 of the strength of the conclusions.
15 Q. In any event for all of those documents you had a reason for not
16 putting them in the top category, didn't you?
17 A. Right.
18 Q. You haven't set out those reasons in your report, have you?
19 A. Well, in the first place I think this --
20 Q. Sorry, the question is: Are they -- is it in your report? Have
21 you stated the reasons why you haven't put those in the top category?
22 A. I don't think explicitly, no.
23 Q. What about implicitly?
24 A. I think in the annex to the report the strength of the
25 conclusion, that depends on a number of factors.
1 Q. Why didn't you state your reasons implicitly, the reasons set
3 A. As I said in the annex to the report I explained the difference
4 between the probabilities and what the factors are which are influence on
5 this strength.
6 Q. Wouldn't it have been good practice in your report to state My
7 doubts are based on the following, and to set those out?
8 A. Maybe. I'm not sure.
9 Q. All right. Let's look at Q11 --
10 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Mr. Jones. Perhaps the witness can
11 tell us in his career how many times or the percentage of times that he's
12 come to the conclusion that a signature is authentic, the highest rate,
13 the highly probable bordering on certainty. How often do you --
14 THE WITNESS: I don't keep records of this, but I estimate that
15 all the cases with signatures around maybe 40 per cent. But it's an
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
18 MR. JONES:
19 Q. So it's quite common for you to find --
20 A. If we have good quality material and the signature is long enough
21 and complex enough, we might get to this conclusion, yes.
22 Q. The quality, for example, originals, which you had in this case?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Let's look at Q11. There you say only probable that it's the
25 same author. So now you're even less sure?
1 A. That's true. Because this was a copy but it was a better copy
2 than all the other copies I got of the signatures.
3 Q. Q11 -- a little more doubt and you would be down to probably no
4 not, wouldn't you?
5 A. Sorry. How's that again?
6 Q. It doesn't matter. It says possible that Q11 is not Oric's or is
7 not the signature of the purposed author. That has to be right, doesn't
9 A. In every case -- and we never give conclusions with certainty.
10 So that means it's always possible that the signature has been made by a
11 person. But the probability that it has been done is very low.
12 Q. We'll see that. In the next category you say that it's
13 possible --
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. -- that Q4, Q7, Q10, and Q16 are by the same author. Now,
16 possible doesn't even appear on your scale normally, doesn't it, on the
17 usual scale that you use?
18 A. On the probability scale, no. It's a separate conclusion we use
19 when you cannot use the probability wordings, as explained in the annex
20 to the report.
21 Q. You explained that the copies, maybe if the original was
22 available it would strengthen your conclusion. It could also weaken your
23 conclusion to see the original.
24 A. Theoretically it could, yes.
25 Q. And you say, just looking at -- it's the same page: "The quality
1 of the copies available of the remaining five questioned signatures," and
2 these are the ones we were just looking at, Q4, Q6, Q10, and Q16, "is too
3 poor to allow examination of the writing course and line quality in
4 sufficient detail."
5 In those circumstances wouldn't it be more prudent, more
6 accurate, more scientific, and more professional not to express an
7 opinion at all in that case? Anything is always possible.
8 A. What I could observe is that the signatures have the same design
9 and as far as I -- in whatever I could see on this copy there were no
10 signs of -- there were no deviations or signs, as far as I could judge,
11 of forgery. But that's why I came to no stronger conclusion than
13 Q. In that case, it's also possible that it's not the signature?
14 A. It sure is.
15 Q. You didn't say that in your report.
16 A. Well, it's by implication if it's possible that he wrote the
17 signature, then it's also possible that he didn't write it.
18 Q. It's your report, Dr. Fagel. You chose not to say that these
19 documents might possibly be not be Oric's.
20 A. No, because I didn't find any indications for forgery in what I
21 could see.
22 Q. When you prepared this report were you being objective or were
23 you simply trying for each specimen to find some way of saying they were
24 that of Oric?
25 A. In every examination I do I always try to look at all
1 possibilities and I take all these possibilities into account when making
2 my observations and making my conclusions.
3 Q. In fact you found that every specimen was possibly Oric's.
4 That's what you found?
5 A. You mean this copied one?
6 Q. You found that in every single specimen at least that it was
7 possibly that of --
8 A. Except in one where I had no opinion, Q6.
9 Q. We'll come to Q6. Let's come to Q6.
10 MR. JONES: I wonder if we can actually put Q6 on the monitor.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Certainly. Q6 is P74 --
12 MR. JONES: It's P269.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: No, it's P74 -- they are both, actually, because I
14 remember yesterday we found out -- when we gave them the number we found
15 out that we also had the same number before. So it's either P74 or 269.
16 MR. JONES: Right. Yes, I'm obliged, Your Honour. So we can
17 have either of the Ps on the monitor.
18 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
19 MR. JONES: Yes, it's page 2 of the document where the signature
20 appears. Could we zoom in and enlarge that signature, please. A bit
21 more, maybe. Right. Maybe back a bit. That's good.
22 Q. Now, we can all see that signature. We can see the O, two short
23 lines inside it. That's right, isn't it?
24 A. Two short lines in the O?
25 Q. Yes, in the O you can see at the top two lines at the top.
1 A. You mean the starting and the ending point of the O?
2 Q. Yes. There is an O to the left and there are two lines.
3 A. I don't think these are separate lines, but they are the start
4 and ending point of the O. If you are looking at the same signature --
5 but it should be.
6 Q. We may need to look at the K specimens, but -- could we look at
7 -- if I could refer you to your February report, page 2623, or indeed any
8 page, you'll see that the signature characteristically has two lines in
9 the O and then a long horizontal line going through it.
10 A. That's for all the other signatures except for this one.
11 Q. I'm coming to that. That's why I was drawing your attention to
12 the two points in there, the two lines. That's the same, isn't it, as
13 the two lines we see in all the other signatures?
14 A. No, I don't think so.
15 Q. Well, let's approach it step by step. Let's start with the
16 horizontal line which we see in the K specimens. Now, you've identified
17 that horizontal line as a distinctive feature of the signature, haven't
18 you? It's what's called an element of the signature. I can refer you to
19 your July report page -- the ERN number is 03594722. There you say:
20 "The design of all questioned signatures is similar, the part that can be
21 interpreted as Oric in Cyrillic script, two slash strokes and a long
22 horizontal stroke through these slashes and the rest of the signature."
23 We can see this in all the other signatures -- all the other K
24 signatures. If you give me a moment I'll refer you to the precise page
25 in your February report, for example -- page 03523873. I don't know if
1 everyone has some specimens you can see that long horizontal line. It
2 goes along quite a bit beyond the signature itself. Can you see that if
3 you look at some specimens. Perhaps you could put one on the ELMO.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Put one on the ELMO. We see it, don't we? A distinctive
6 feature, a big long horizontal line.
7 A. It varies, the length of it.
8 Q. The length varies, but it's always there. That's pretty
9 important, isn't it? It's an important feature. We'll take it step by
10 step. That's an element.
11 A. I don't think this is one of the most important features.
12 Q. Well, let's go back to your July report.
13 A. It's one of the features, yes.
14 Q. It's your report and you've picked up on it as one of the most --
15 one of the distinctive features. "A long horizontal stroke through these
16 slashes"; those are your words.
17 A. That's one of the features, yes, but not one of the most
18 important features.
19 Q. Anyway, Doctor, you say: "The design of all questioned
20 signatures is similar."
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And then you refer to a part that can be interpreted to as Oric.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. You refer to two slash strokes and then you refer to that line.
25 That's one of the three features that you picked up on yourself.
1 A. That's part of the general design, yes.
2 Q. It's precisely the sort of thing you're supposed to be looking
3 for, isn't it?
4 A. No. I think the features in the lines which were -- which are
5 curved are more important than straight lines because there's -- these
6 are more difficult to copy.
7 Q. If you take the reference signatures, do you see a single one
8 where that horizontal line doesn't appear in any of the 35?
9 A. No, but they all have the same design as the questioned
10 signatures except for Q6 and I gave an explanation why I think this might
11 be different.
12 Q. We'll come to that in a second. It's a question whether it's an
13 important feature or not.
14 Surely, surely, Doctor, if every time I write the name Oric I do
15 a big horizontal line, every single time, and then one time I don't,
16 isn't that the sort of thing you should be looking out for and should
18 A. Yes, that's what I looked for and that's why I tried to give an
19 explanation in my report.
20 Q. Yes. We'll come to your explanation. Your explanation, correct
21 if I'm wrong, is that because the name Oric appeared afterwards, it
22 wasn't necessary to put this feature in the O which you saw as being an
23 abbreviation. That's right, isn't it? That's your explanation.
24 A. Yes, I thought one of the explanations could be in one of the
25 other signatures the name Naser which was written in full in Q6 has been
1 written in short as kind of H which -- represented as the letter N in
2 Cyrillic script --
3 Q. If we could have Q6 back on the monitor. You're saying that
4 because Naser was written afterwards, that might be the explanation?
5 A. Yes. I don't know if you can see it, but there are -- the first
6 letter of the name Naser here. Also it seems to have two vertical lines
7 and a horizontal stroke. So it could be -- it's one explanation but I'm
8 not sure -- that this part has been written in the other signatures
9 through the O and the rest of the signature.
10 Q. That's the explanation you've come up with.
11 A. Yes. The one that -- a possible explanation.
12 Q. Isn't that itself a curious feature, that if someone always signs
13 their name with just the surname they had their surname, that's a
15 A. I see that people use different versions of their signature, a
16 shorter one and a longer one.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: And he is not suggesting, if I read him well, that
18 he's not agreeing with your proposition that your client only signed his
19 surname. His suggestion is that he signed his surname and over and above
20 and across the two lines plus the line across representing Naser. I
21 mean, that's how I understood him.
22 MR. JONES: Yes, I understand that.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: So it's a combination of both.
24 MR. JONES: I understand that, Your Honour. Two questions
25 arising from that.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.
2 MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Q. Are there any other signatures that you've seen where the first
4 name also appears in this form?
5 A. Not in reference to signatures I had -- I didn't find any
6 signatures and that's why I gave no opinion on this signature because I
7 cannot exclude it on this basis as either.
8 Q. Isn't it in your experience odd if I sign my name Jones the whole
9 time and then all of a sudden I'm signing John as well, isn't that
10 feature which you would pick up on and would raise doubt in your mind?
11 A. I take it into account of course but I say more often in my
12 practice the people use two different signatures, shorter one, sometimes
13 only initials, and a longer one.
14 Q. Do we have two different types of signatures now.
15 A. Yes, but they partly overlap.
16 Q. Isn't your theory based on you concluding that those two lines
17 that appear there are the start and the finish of the O?
18 A. If you mean --
19 Q. Yes, those two lines.
20 A. These lines?
21 Q. Yes.
22 A. Yes, I think it starts like this and then goes around and then
23 comes back here.
24 Q. Let's take the one on the right, the small one. That's a very
25 deliberate downward slope, isn't it? It's not just someone ending a
2 A. This one.
3 Q. Yes?
4 A. It could be.
5 Q. It fits in with all the other signatures.
6 A. I couldn't tell from this copy but it could be a normal line
7 going down from the end.
8 Q. I'm not going to belabour the point, Doctor, but surely those two
9 strokes are the slash strokes in the O which you refer to in your report?
10 A. I don't think so, but I would need the original to be sure of
12 Q. Even with all those differences, the second type of signature
13 which you hadn't seen before and an O which doesn't have a line through
14 it, even in that case you're not prepared to say that that might not be
15 Oric's signature.
16 A. No, because on this base I couldn't say so.
17 Q. Why not conclude that it possibly might not be his, if you're
18 being objective?
19 A. If I could say I can give no opinion, this is one of the
20 possibilities left.
21 Q. You said yesterday the only reason why you couldn't reach an
22 opinion is because it's a poor copy.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. We see it on the ELMO. It looks pretty clear, doesn't it?
25 A. Sorry?
1 Q. What we see on the ELMO is fairly clear, isn't it?
2 A. Well, not clear enough for me to come to an opinion on it.
3 Q. Isn't it precisely these anomalies that you're supposed to be
4 looking for? These missing lines and --
5 A. Yeah, but that's also why I look at different possibilities which
6 might explain this, and I gave one of the possibilities in my report. So
7 I couldn't exclude this signature. I mean, I couldn't say that it's
8 probably a forgery or something like that.
9 Q. You weren't prepared to say that that possibly might not be his
11 A. As I said, I can give no opinion on it.
12 Q. That's okay. I won't pursue it.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: If you're not going to pursue it, I won't say
14 anything on it. The paragraph in the report 03523865, that explains the
15 difference between possible, possibly, and no opinion. It explains
16 exactly what the position is.
17 MR. JONES: -- the points which I put to the witness stand.
18 Q. I'll pass quickly to your July report because -- the same points
19 really, again, you worked from copies and expressed opinions about
21 A. Not for all signatures but for some of them.
22 Q. But at the same time you said they were too poor to allow
23 examination of the writing course and line quality. I won't put the same
24 point again, but my point is shouldn't you have expressed no opinion?
25 A. As I said before, I concluded that I couldn't -- as far as I
1 could examine this signature I couldn't find any indications of forgery,
2 but I couldn't see enough detail to come to a positive conclusion. So
3 all I can say is that they are possibly written by the same person who
4 wrote the reference signature.
5 Q. Except that it might possibly not have been.
6 A. That it was implied by implication that it might not have been
7 written by him.
8 Q. Let's look at a couple of the signatures, and I refer you to --
9 it's in your report where you set out the signatures. I think it's
10 03523687 --
11 JUDGE AGIUS: 3867. The previous report.
12 MR. JONES: My apologies. I'm going back to the report to move
13 on to a different point.
14 THE WITNESS: Could you repeat the number.
15 MR. JONES:
16 Q. Yes, your July report, Appendix 2, page 03523867. If we could
17 have that on the ELMO, that would be very helpful. Can we start near the
18 top Q2. The top part. If we can zoom in on Q2. I want to direct your
19 attention, Dr. Fagel, to the dot you see there. Do you see it?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Can you point to it on the ELMO.
22 A. [Witness complies]
23 Q. Can we see Q3, that's down and to the left. Again, do you see
24 the dot there at the end?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Go down to Q5, please, the dot again do you see it and can you
2 point to it on the ELMO.
3 A. [Witness complies]
4 Q. Q8, again, dot. Clear?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And Q20 as well -- sorry, that's two pages over. There it is
7 again, the dot.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. You've examined the specimen documents, the K documents, and feel
10 free to look at them again. But do any of them have that feature, that
12 A. I don't think so. I see in some copies or -- these are not
13 copies, but some dots. But they may be not part of the signature.
14 Q. Yes. I'm talking about the K documents, the specimens.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. If you see that distinctive dot on any of them, please draw it to
17 my attention.
18 A. I don't think so.
19 Q. Exactly. It doesn't appear in any of them, does it?
20 A. Not in these ones, no.
21 Q. Did you notice that when you did your report?
22 A. That's one of the things we look at but it's not that important
23 especially we observe often that people sometimes use a dot and sometimes
24 not when they're making signatures.
25 Q. The difference is this, isn't it, Doctor: When there is a dot
1 the person is finishing with a dot, whereas otherwise they're not.
2 That's the difference, isn't it?
3 A. People sometimes do finish with the dot and sometimes they don't.
4 For some people -- some people are very consistent in doing so and some
5 people are not. Some of the questioned signatures also don't have a dot.
6 Q. Someone who signs 35 specimen signatures and doesn't include a
7 single dot is pretty consistent, aren't they?
8 A. Yes, but they are all made within a short time period, I think.
9 Q. Again, Doctor, are you trying to find that these signatures are
10 all Oric's or are you considering the possibility that some of these Q6,
11 the ones with the dots, might not be?
12 A. I look at the overall results and the missing of dots is one of
13 the results I found, but it's not --
14 Q. You didn't mention it in your report even.
15 A. No. We don't explain all similarities and differences in our
16 reports, normally.
17 Q. Well, one final question or perhaps series of questions. Looking
18 at your reports you have a reference point. You have: "Suspect: Naser
19 Oric." That's on the Ministry of Justice stationery. I take it he's not
20 a suspect in the Dutch Ministry of Justice.
21 A. No, that's where we put the name of the suspect according to the
23 Q. It provides you a reference point.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Now, in this case, the case of this suspect, have you examined
1 other signatures and other documents in relation to this case?
2 A. In relation to the case Oric?
3 Q. Yes.
4 A. Yes, I -- another examination -- I did another examination with
5 signatures in the name of another person. I don't --
6 Q. Do you have those names with you?
7 A. That --
8 Q. If not, you can provide it on another occasion.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: This calls for an explanation, at least some kind
10 of explanation now, so at least we know exactly --
11 MR. JONES: I can explain, Your Honour.
12 THE WITNESS: I'm trying to remember the name, something like
13 Dzananovic or something.
14 MR. JONES: Your Honour, during the break yesterday at 12.30 p.m.
15 we received from the Prosecution an expert report prepared by this very
16 expert in this very case in which he examined documents in relation to
17 this case and made a finding of probably not the signatures of the
18 purported authors. We're in Rule 68 territory again, as per our motion,
19 as per our request to be informed promptly of this material. This
20 confirmed our suspicion that there are documents in use in this
21 case -- and we're talking about Prosecution exhibits -- which are not
22 authentic. And we wonder how much more of this material is out there and
23 that is why I ask this witness that question.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Go ahead, Mr. Jones --
25 MR. WUBBEN: Your Honour --
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Wubben, certainly.
2 MR. WUBBEN: May I comment, please? Let me first --
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Let me just state just for the record that none of
4 us are or were aware of these further examinations and that we are not
5 privy to the documents that you have received, Mr. Jones.
6 Yes, Mr. Wubben.
7 MR. WUBBEN: Let me at least clarify that in my opinion we handed
8 over, and lead counsel can confirm, not during the break but before the
9 start of the testimony of Doctorandus Fagel such report, if he
11 MR. JONES: Your Honour, I'm afraid that's not true. I made a
12 note of the time. It was 12.30 p.m., during the break, and Mr. Di Fazio
13 can confirm that. We have the report here.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: That's not important and the important thing is
15 there's proper disclosure as far as I am concerned and the relevance and
16 importance of the matter you've just --
17 MR. JONES: We simply want to know if there are other --
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead. It's a legitimate question.
19 MR. JONES: Apart from Dzananovic are there any other?
20 A. No.
21 MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honour. That's all I have.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
23 Mr. Wubben, we are finished well before the 12.30 deadline that
24 Mr. Jones indicated. Do you have any re-examination?
25 MR. WUBBEN: Yes.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead, please.
2 MR. WUBBEN: Before I start, we have copies available of the
3 copies we handed over yesterday to Defence counsel. So if you as the
4 Bench want to be provided with those copies, these are available for you.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 MR. WUBBEN: Please, the usher, Madam Usher.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. I think that unless they are going to
8 be tendered in evidence, we don't need them.
9 MR. JONES: We're not proposing to make this report an exhibit
10 yet. We're proposing to do that during the course of the trial.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Later on, if we need to see these documents, we'll
12 ask to see them. But for the time being we don't need to bother
13 ourselves with them.
14 Yes, Ms. Sellers, do you need time to consult.
15 MS. SELLERS: Yes, Your Honour. May we have a few minutes to
16 consult among ourselves?
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I realise that you needed to consult.
18 [Prosecution counsel confer]
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 MR. WUBBEN: Your Honour, thank you. We might get back -- Ms.
21 Patricia Sellers might get back to the documents just referred to later
22 on in re-direct. But I would like first to start to raise some questions
23 with a view to the questions on cross raised and the answering by the
25 Re-examined by Mr. Wubben:
1 Q. Doctorandus Fagel, when it comes to the independency of your
2 institute, is it true that on behalf of that independency you're
3 dependant from any instructions or so on from the Dutch government or
4 that Ministry of Justice --
5 MR. JONES: That's a rather leading question. I wonder if he
6 could be asked to clarify the state of the institute or something of that
8 MR. WUBBEN: That's fine with me, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, it's a problem of language more than anything
10 else. I'll put the question myself.
11 You describe your institute as enjoying a measure of autonomy,
12 even though it is a part of the Ministry of Justice, a notion with which
13 I am familiar when it comes to the forensic institute in my country as
14 well, and I know exactly why. Could you explain what this autonomy is in
15 the case of your institute and why it is important for the purposes of
16 the work that you conduct.
17 THE WITNESS: Well, there is no pressures whatsoever on -- to --
18 any case on the conclusions we have to make. We are free to come to our
19 own conclusion, of course, based on the information that we find in our
20 -- on the exhibits. And of course we only are -- we are, like most
21 government people, subject to the rules of integrity, et cetera. So --
22 MR. WUBBEN:
23 Q. May I ask: In addition, with a view to these examinations, the
24 first report, the second report, apart from the instructions you
25 confirmed and clarified yesterday and today, did you receive any
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 additional instructions from the Dutch government or the Ministry of
3 A. About this case?
4 Q. Yes.
5 A. No.
6 Q. And when it comes to foreign countries, we have now the Dutch
7 government, but did you receive any instructions or influence, can you
8 comment on that, if so from Republika Srpska, Bosnia-Herzegovina?
9 A. No, I didn't have any contact with people from these countries
10 about this case.
11 Q. Did you do or were you linked or if so can you comment on any
12 involvement or additional instructions from intelligence agencies during
14 A. I had no instructions whatsoever from other agencies.
15 Q. In total and in sum, these were the instruction and you felt
16 independent from your professional opinion to judge?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: I suppose we also at this point need to make aware
20 -- be aware on what were the specific instructions given to him by your
21 office and whether he knew that the instructions were being given not by
22 the Tribunal as such but by the Office of the Prosecutor of the Tribunal.
23 MR. WUBBEN: Perhaps Doctorandus Fagel --
24 THE WITNESS: I'm aware that the instructions came from the
25 Office of the Prosecutor, but I don't know whether it was -- whether the
1 Tribunal itself is aware of this at that moment. I don't know about how
2 you are organised in this way.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: What I want to make sure is that you at no time
4 were you given the impression that you were being nominated, appointed,
5 by the Trial Chamber or by the Tribunal itself, that the instructions
6 came and the request came specifically from one branch of this Tribunal,
7 which is, precisely, the Office of the Prosecutor.
8 THE WITNESS: Well, again, I knew they -- the instructions came
9 directly from the Office of the Prosecutor, but at that moment -- I don't
10 know whether at that moment also there is some backing from the Tribunal.
11 Because -- actually it doesn't matter too much from my opinion.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Would it have made a difference.
13 THE WITNESS: No, not at all. This is the whole point.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Wubben.
15 MR. WUBBEN: Last question --
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Sorry for having interrupted you, but again, but I
17 think this was important to clear.
18 MR. WUBBEN: This is all about fact-finding. In addition the
19 last question, Your Honour.
20 Q. When it comes to the redaction of the report and Mr. Jones
21 referred to this first page and the name of the accused, Naser Oric, and
22 prior to that a "suspect." This word "suspect," do you use that
23 sometimes, always? Can you comment on that. Is this standard or?
24 A. It's kind of standard in the Dutch version of our report. This
25 page is modelled to the way we write our Dutch reports and we mention the
1 name of the suspect or victim or whatever the applicant gives us for
2 names, just for reference to be able to recognise what's this case about
3 more easy. We put down these names.
4 Q. Whenever it's victim or suspect, does that influence your --
5 A. It can be both. The case is brought to us and then there are
6 some administrative data like the numbers, case number, et cetera. We
7 put all these things. If they mention the name of victim, we write down
8 victim such-and-so. If they give us the name of the suspect, we write
9 down the name of the suspect. That's how it works.
10 Q. In your professional opinion and practice, there is no influence
11 at all?
12 A. Whether it is a suspect or victim, it doesn't matter to me.
13 MR. WUBBEN: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
15 So no further questions from the Prosecution.
16 Judge Brydensholt.
17 Questioned by the Court:
18 JUDGE BRYDENSHOLT: Yes. Could the expert witness tell me
19 whether in your experience it has happened to in a case where you have
20 used the criterion "highly probable" or "probable." That it's later
21 shown up that it wasn't true, that there was a falsification? Has that
22 ever happened?
23 A. To my knowledge, it has never happened.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: I did have some questions for you, but when I heard
25 you say that with regard to those categories you were basically finding
1 yourself in the region of about 90 per cent probability, I am opting not
2 to put the questions; which basically means that we have come to the end
3 of your testimony here, sir. I wish to thank you for the two reports you
4 prepared and the analysis that you carried out. I wish to thank you also
5 for the evidence that you gave in this trial and the way you gave
6 evidence which helped us see through quite a lot of confusion at some
7 time. So I thank you.
8 You will be escorted now out of the courtroom by Madam Usher.
9 And should we encounter any difficulties or you need any assistance on
10 the part of the Tribunal, please draw my attention to it.
11 THE WITNESS: May I make one remark, please.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
13 THE WITNESS: Someone told me yesterday when I asked for my age I
14 said 45. I don't know if that's true, but it should have been 54.
15 Probably wishful thinking. My apologies. So it's 54.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Dr. Fagel.
17 [The witness withdrew]
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Wubben, you direct me. What time are you
19 expecting that Dr. Koeijer...
20 MR. WUBBEN: He should be here -- sorry. He should be available
21 at 1.00, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: 1.00.
23 MR. WUBBEN: He might be some prior arriving.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: So could I ask you -- we'll have to break now
25 unless there is any business, other business, that you would like to
1 discuss. But I don't think there is. So we will have a break now.
2 And as soon as we are in a position to resume, possibly before
3 1.00, will you let us know, someone let us know? Who will be made aware
4 first of the witness's arrival in the Tribunal? Would it be you or the
6 MR. WUBBEN: One moment, please.
7 It will be the court manager and/or our case manager.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So the moment -- Mr. Siller, the moment
9 we are more or less -- we know what time we can resume --
10 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
11 JUDGE AGIUS: As soon as we can resume, we'll resume. I mean --
12 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
13 JUDGE AGIUS: We'll have a break of 30 minutes in any case.
14 Instead of resuming at 1.00 we can resume at 12.30 or quarter to 1.00, it
15 gives us more time to --
16 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
17 JUDGE AGIUS: So we will resume when the witness available which
18 should be not later than 1.00. Thank you.
19 --- Recess taken at 12.03 p.m.
20 --- On resuming at 12.39 p.m.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Can we bring in the witness. Yes, Usher,
23 [The witness entered court]
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon, Dr. De Koeijer.
25 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: And welcome to this Tribunal.
2 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: You are about to start giving evidence in this case
4 instituted by the Prosecutor against Naser Oric, with which you are
5 familiar already. The practice and the procedure of this Tribunal is
6 that before you start giving evidence you make a solemn declaration
7 equivalent to an oath that in the course of your testimony you will be
8 speaking the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The text
9 of the solemn declaration is being handed to you now by Madam Usher.
10 Please read it out aloud and that will be your solemn undertaking with
12 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
13 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
14 WITNESS: JAN ADRIAAN de KOEIJER
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, sir. You may sit down.
16 I will explain briefly what the procedure is. I assume you are
17 familiar with courtrooms. Our procedure is similar. You are first going
18 to be asked a series of questions by the lead counsel for the
19 Prosecution, in this case Mr. Wubben, a co-national of yours. And he
20 will be followed by Madam Vidovic who is lead counsel for the accused in
21 this case.
22 Yes, Mr. Wubben.
23 MR. WUBBEN: Thank you, Your Honour.
24 Examined by Mr. Wubben:
25 Q. Good afternoon, Dr. De Koeijer. To start with can I have your
1 full name, please.
2 A. It's Jan Adrian de Koeijer.
3 Q. Your age?
4 A. I'm 41.
5 Q. Your occupation?
6 A. I am a document expert working for the Netherlands Forensic
8 Q. What Forensic Institute is this?
9 A. The Netherlands Forensic Institute is an institute under the
10 Ministry of Justice and they do work for the police, the prosecuting
11 office, and all other officers which have -- which send in cases. It
12 could be social -- excuse me. It could be financial officers or
13 different types of officers.
14 Q. Including -- sorry.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Perhaps you can ask him if they do work directly
16 for the judicial system, the court system, the courts here in the
18 MR. WUBBEN:
19 Q. Please go into the matter as referred to.
20 A. Yes. We also do work directly for the court system. If the
21 Judge asks us a question we will try to answer that in case work or also
22 if the district attorney or the prosecutor asks us a question we will
23 also try to answer that. We do not work for the other attorneys.
24 Q. And does that work also include, Dr. De Koeijer, an investigative
1 A. It can also be for an investigative Judge. That's right.
2 Q. So in sum, for the whole judiciary, whenever there is a criminal
3 proceeding in the Netherlands. Is that correct?
4 A. That is correct, yes.
5 Q. How long are you employed?
6 A. I have been applied by the NFI from 1992.
7 Q. And what are your present duties?
8 A. My present duties is that I am team leader of the documents
9 section. That means I'm responsible for the scientific content of the
10 document section and also for the quality of the case work.
11 Q. Does that mean that you supervise other examiners?
12 A. There are three more other examiners in the document section and
13 I more or less supervise them.
14 Q. What does supervising mean? Is that only dividing the work or
15 also quality?
16 A. It's quality, R&D, dividing work, but not so much personnel
17 supervision. I don't have any authority over them.
18 Q. So you're a supervisor over other document examiners.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. For how long?
21 A. I've been that for -- since 19 -- well, 1996, roughly, I think,
22 since the time that I became a certified document examiner myself.
23 Q. And tell me about the formal education. What education as a
24 background do you have?
25 A. By background is in chemistry. I did the university degree in
1 chemistry, a Master's degree at the University of Utrecht.
2 Q. Sorry the Master's degree, that's referring to the title of
4 A. Doctorandus, yes. It's similar to a Master's. That was
5 analytical chemistry that I studied. Then I had other employment and
6 then I came to the NFI. And then I was trained on the job as a document
8 Q. Can you explain more about this other training?
9 A. The training on the job means that I have a mentor and he trains
10 me in the business of documents while doing case work. This training
11 went on for a period of four years where I learned to do case work. I
12 also did some other courses like a printing course at a printing school.
13 I've done also some internal courses on reporting on law and some --
14 well, some others I think.
15 Q. Please tell me: How many cases do you examine on -- in a given
17 A. Per year, our document section does roughly between 150 and 200
18 cases at the moment.
19 Q. Which you supervise?
20 A. Which I supervise. I check every case before it goes out of the
21 laboratory. I do not do all these cases myself. I -- on average, the
22 last few years I would probably do about 15 cases a year.
23 Q. And these analysis, these document examinations, these form --
24 and the supervising -- form the regular part of your duty?
25 A. That's right.
1 Q. Can you give us some background about memberships of colleagues,
2 fellows national or international, if applicable of course.
3 A. I am at the moment the chairman of the European Documents Working
4 Group. That is a group of document experts of which 35 or 40 countries
5 are now a member within Europe. I am chairman of the steering committee
6 of that group. I have been a member of this committee for almost a bit
7 more than six years now and previously been chairman also for two years
8 before that. I am a member of the America Academy of Forensic Science
9 and the America Society of Questioned Document Examiners. And I am also
10 a member of the steering committee of the Netherlands Quality Circle for
11 Documents and Currency. That's an internal group within the Netherlands
12 where all document experts will meet on a regular basis and I am a member
13 of that steering committee after being chairman of that steering
14 committee for four years.
15 Q. When it comes to a quality circle like that, is it only national
16 or does your laboratory also maintain international --
17 A. This quality circle is national, but the European Document
18 Experts Working Group is international, it's European. And we also have
19 some liaison with some similar group in the United States and in
21 Q. Does that mean you update each other through e-mail of the latest
22 findings or is it something like to --
23 A. We have meetings. Once every two years there is a European
24 conference which we organise and twice every year the steering committee
25 will meet and discuss matters concerning document examination like
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 harmonisation of methods and procedures within the document world,
2 training, quality-assurance issues. Those kind of things we discuss
3 within the steering committee and we also try to implement them
5 Q. Now, I move to the issues of --
6 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please pause between
7 question and answer. Thank you very much.
8 MR. WUBBEN: I'll try to.
9 Q. I will move now to the issue of publications from your hand. Can
10 you confirm, clarify, your publications on forensic documents from the
11 past years, from what time on.
12 A. I have co-authored a number of different publications on the
13 analysis of inks on documents. I have also done a number of lectures at
14 conferences on ink analysis and other -- some technical aspects of
15 document examination. These papers have also then been written down in
16 the proceedings of these conferences. I'm not sure how much more -- you
17 want me to state each paper separately?
18 Q. Not each paper separately, but what is important on what variety
19 of specialism as far as applicable to the report you made.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. Mr. Jones and Madam Vidovic, do you
21 have any problems with the qualifications of this witness?
22 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. No.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: So I suggest to you that you move to more
24 substantive matters. Thank you.
25 MR. WUBBEN: First -- thank you, Your Honour.
1 Q. The next issue will be -- my question, if you can give to the
2 Judges as a general introduction what kind of method your laboratory,
3 your institute, uses for document examination and then focus on stamp
4 impressions and document tampering.
5 A. We have a number of different methods which we generally apply to
6 these kind of questions. If I first start with examination of stamps.
7 Mainly this is done -- if it is a stamp comparison, we will usually
8 overlay two different stamps. That can be done either digitally by
9 scanning them in and using image analysis packages or manually by copying
10 them on a transfer sheet. In this case, we did it digitally. Also, we
11 will do microscopical examinations of the stamps to look for small detail
12 in the stamp which is repetitive in the stamps. We will look often, if
13 asked, at the ink of the stamps to see if the ink is the same of the
14 different stamps; we did not do this in this case. Furthermore,
15 we -- for stamp examination, we will first of all of course see if it is
16 a real stamp or not. If the impression is made by a rubber stamp or if
17 it is, for example, a printed forgery. That is of course one of the
18 first examinations that takes place.
19 For looking for tampering on documents, we will use different
20 methods. One is looking for mechanical erasures. We can do this using
21 electrostatic devices, which we use for impression work. We can do this
22 from transparent lighting, lighting coming from beneath the document, or
23 by using side lighting which shows more relief in the document. We will
24 use different luminescent techniques, techniques like ultraviolet or
25 infrared luminescence, to detect possible latent pieces of ink which are
1 not visible to the naked eye but which may be visible under luminescent
2 light. This may also show us if the document has been stained chemically
3 by, for example, inks fading into the document using chemicals. We will
4 often also -- of course microscopical is also part of that tampering
5 examination, seeing if the document is made up of an authentic signature
6 -- I mean a signature written with a pen and not printed by an ink-jet
7 printer or a laser printer or possibly a stamp signature. So we will
8 look for those kinds of things on the document.
9 Q. Thank you. There might be some further questions on the
10 examination method, but I will get back to that when it comes to specific
11 parts of your report. When it comes to the report, Your Honour, I would
12 like to show -- ask the usher to show the witness the first report of
13 February 2004, that is P264.
14 Doctorandus de Koeijer, you have now been given this report and I
15 have some questions related to this report. The first question is: Do
16 you recognise this report?
17 A. Yes, I recognise it.
18 Q. Who signed for this report? Did you sign?
19 A. I signed for this report, yes.
20 Q. And did another person also sign for it?
21 A. My colleague, Wil Fagel, also signed for the handwriting parts of
22 this report.
23 Q. Who is Wil Fagel you referred to?
24 A. Wil Fagel is a handwriting specialist in our chemistry department
25 and he works specifically in the handwriting area, while I do technical
1 document examination. So we are colleagues but we do not do the same
3 Q. Why is this report made up by two examiners?
4 A. Because I am not an expert in handwriting and Wil Fagel is not an
5 expert in document examination. So because the questions refer to both
6 disciplines, there are two people who signed specific areas of the
8 Q. And who gave you, or how did you receive this request for
9 document examination?
10 A. The request I believe was -- Wil Fagel, he received the request
11 and after that it went to my colleague, Wendy Glas and after she has done
12 the research, I received her results and the report and I went through
13 her results and checked all the findings she had and I wrote and signed
14 the report.
15 Q. What did the request for examination of the documents include?
16 A. It included the examination of stamps to see if stamps on a
17 number of documents were -- came -- had the same origin. It also
18 included examination of tampering of different documents and also
19 examination into the state of the document, if it was original or a
20 photocopy or anything else. And to determine possibly if there are any
21 features which could determine its authenticity.
22 Q. The next question: Were the documents referred to in -- as to be
23 examined received by you?
24 A. I have received these documents from my colleague Wendy Glas
25 after she had finished doing the work, yes.
1 Q. After the work you prepared the report?
2 A. Yes. The report -- after going through her results, the report
3 was prepared.
4 Q. And then subsequent you signed for it?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. What happened to the report after you signed it?
7 A. After I signed it, the report was sent to the International
8 Criminal Tribunal.
9 MR. WUBBEN: I will -- Your Honour, going to show -- intend to
10 show all the documents that the witness might have received for preparing
11 his report. And that means also that I will refer to exhibit numbers,
12 starting with the questioned document, questioned document 1, P72. I ask
13 Madam Usher to show that to the witness.
14 Q. My first question is: Please take a look at this document. Is
15 this the document, Doctorandus de Koeijer, that you indeed examined and
16 that you referred to in your report as Q1?
17 A. Yes, that is correct.
18 MR. WUBBEN: May I have Madam Usher then, please, the following
19 exhibit number: P74.
20 Q. Doctorandus de Koeijer, please take a look at this document. Is
21 this the document that you examined -- that you referred to in your
22 report as Q2?
23 A. That is correct.
24 Q. May I have P73, please. Doctorandus de Koeijer, is this the
25 document that you examined and that you referred to in the report as Q3?
1 A. That is correct.
2 Q. P99, please. Doctorandus de Koeijer, is this a document that you
3 examined and referred to in your report as Q4?
4 A. That is correct.
5 Q. P4, please. Doctorandus de Koeijer, is this the document that
6 you examined and you referred to in your report as Q5?
7 A. Yes, that is correct.
8 Q. Next will be P269. Doctorandus de Koeijer, will you look at this
9 document. Is this a document that you examined and that you referred to
10 in your report as Q6?
11 A. Yes, that is correct.
12 Q. The next one is P109. Doctorandus de Koeijer, is this the
13 document that you examined and you referred to in your report as Q7?
14 A. Yes, that is correct.
15 Q. P6, please. Doctorandus de Koeijer, please take a look at this
16 document. Is this the document that you examined and that you referred
17 to in your report as Q8?
18 A. Yes, that is correct.
19 Q. P9, please. Doctorandus de Koeijer, is this the document that
20 you examined and that you referred to in your report as Q9?
21 A. Yes, that is correct.
22 Q. P3, please.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: One -- this document consists of two pages --
24 THE WITNESS: Two pages, yeah.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I just wanted to make sure of that.
1 MR. WUBBEN:
2 Q. Doctorandus de Koeijer, the document shown to you, is this a
3 document that you examined and you referred to in the report as Q10?
4 A. Yes, that is correct.
5 Q. P10, please. Doctorandus de Koeijer, is this the document that
6 you examined and that you referred to in your report as Q11?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. P5, please. Doctorandus de Koeijer, is this the document that
9 you examined and that you referred to in your report as Q12?
10 A. Yes, that is correct.
11 Q. P7, please. Is this the document, Doctorandus de Koeijer, that
12 you examined and that you referred to in your report as Q13?
13 A. Yes, that's correct.
14 Q. P39. Doctorandus de Koeijer, please take a look at this
15 document. Can you confirm that this is the document you examined and
16 referred to in your report as Q14.
17 A. Yes, that is correct.
18 Q. P40, please. Doctorandus de Koeijer, is this the document that
19 you examined and that you referred to in the report as Q15?
20 A. No.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: It should be, according to my records, you should
22 be handing the witness P13.
23 MR. WUBBEN: According to me that's questioned document 15.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, and that's questioned document 15, yes. And
25 the ERN number is 01239528.
1 MR. WUBBEN:
2 Q. Can you confirm, witness --
3 A. I confirm what the Judge is saying, yes.
4 Q. That it is --
5 A. But it was a different document than was shown me.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I think you are -- 13. It was -- I understand
7 what happened. It was -- you could have misunderstood P30 instead of --
8 it's the Dutch pronunciation of English on the part of Mr. Wubben that
9 caused all this.
10 MR. WUBBEN: It will be over after a lot of months of trial.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I hope you will not be speaking Maltese at
12 the end.
13 MR. WUBBEN:
14 Q. Will you please confirm that this is document Q15.
15 A. Yes, that is correct.
16 Q. P2, please. Doctorandus de Koeijer, is this a document that you
17 examined and that you referred to in the report as Q16?
18 A. Yes, that is correct.
19 Q. P37. Doctorandus de Koeijer, is this the document that you
20 examined and that you referred to in your report as Q17?
21 A. Yes, that is correct.
22 Q. P14, please. Doctorandus de Koeijer, is this the document that
23 you examined and that you referred to in the report as Q18?
24 A. Yes, that is correct.
25 Q. P20, please. Doctorandus de Koeijer, is this the document that
1 you examined and that you referred to in your report as Q19?
2 A. Yes, that is correct.
3 Q. P36, please. Doctorandus de Koeijer, is this the document you
4 examined and that you referred to in your report as Q20?
5 A. Yes, I believe -- just wait for a moment. I have a couple of
6 more documents attached to that which are also referred to as Q20, I
7 believe, with number 01838180-A, these I do see as Q20. I have a couple
8 of more. I think they were a long green sheet.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I think the witness is right because the report
10 itself describes this document as a fanfold form, three sheets, bearing a
11 questioned signature on page numbered 8180. The description, then, is
12 01838178 to 01838180, so that's three documents, three sheets, in
13 themselves. But then I see that it should be 8180A, B, and C.
14 THE WITNESS: That's right. There were no signatures on these
16 JUDGE AGIUS: The way I read it, at least. Whether I am right or
17 not I don't know because I haven't seen this document.
18 MR. WUBBEN:
19 Q. Can you confirm --
20 A. That is correct, yes.
21 Q. Thank you. The last is P84, the document described as memo pad
22 or war diary. Doctorandus de Koeijer, is this the document that you
23 examined and you referred to in the report as a war diary?
24 A. Yes, that is correct.
25 MR. WUBBEN: Your Honour, I will now proceed with the following
1 issue of the document examination itself.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead, Mr. Wubben, and thank you.
3 MR. WUBBEN: Thank you.
4 Q. Doctorandus de Koeijer, what procedure as an expert did you adopt
5 to examine these documents other than the so-called war diary?
6 A. The procedure was as follows: We only used nondestructive
7 examination techniques to examine these documents.
8 First of all, the documents are usually examined for indented
9 writing impressions using the electrostatic detection device. Afterwards
10 we examined the documents microscopically to see if there are any
11 specific areas which we need to address further using other techniques.
12 We scanned in the documents, specifically the stamp area, and isolated
13 the stamps and afterwards superimposed the stamps one on top of each on
14 the screen to see if they match, the image matches.
15 Furthermore, we examined the stamps microscopically to see if the
16 minute -- well, we call them damages to the rim of the stamp, were
17 consistent in the different stamps we examined. We also determined
18 microscopically if we were dealing with an original document or with a
19 photocopied document. And we examined them using fluorescence to see if
20 any chemical erasure had taken place or any latent ink was present that
21 couldn't be seen with the naked eye.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Before you proceed I have a very simple query.
23 This isolation of the stamp to then enable you to superimpose one over
24 the other, can you do that also in the case of photocopies or is that
25 capability only restricted to originals?
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 THE WITNESS: No. They can be done with photocopies, only with
2 photocopies you must keep in mind that a photocopy might slightly differ
3 in size from an original stamp. So it can be that there can be some
4 stretching to be done of the image to superimpose it properly.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.
6 MR. WUBBEN:
7 Q. Doctorandus de Koeijer, what do you mean in your report when
8 you -- if so, by microscopic examination of suspect places in the
9 document. How does that --
10 A. Yes. Well, if you're looking for tampering, then there are a
11 number of places which are usually addressed first, and that is for
12 example the signature. If the signature is a genuine signature; that
13 means if it's not a printed signature by ink-jet printer or laser
14 printer, or if it's not been traced, if there are no lines from tracing
15 visible. Other areas are, for example, the stamp just to see if it's an
16 original stamp or not. Also, the whole document in general is examined
17 for erasure, mechanical erasure or chemical erasure. Because we do not
18 understand the language of these documents, it was difficult to identify
19 specific areas on the basis of content which we should address for
20 thoroughly for this work, so we took the document as a whole and examined
21 it as a whole.
22 Q. What does an "examination for indented writing" include?
23 A. Examination for indented writing is done by an instrument called
24 the electrostatic detection apparatus. It is an instrument where the
25 document is placed on a vacuum board and hence -- after that a piece of
1 plastic foil is pulled over the document. It is then electrostatically
2 charged, the combination of document and foil. After the charge has
3 settled we apply toner and this toner will build up in the areas where
4 there are indentations on the document. So if there are indentations
5 from previous writing on the document, then there the toner will build up
6 and give us like almost a photocopy image of the indentations of the --
7 which are present on the document. But it will also give us an image of
8 any other disturbance of the paper fibres on the surface. So it will
9 show if there has been any mechanical erasure on this document because
10 then you will have paper fibre disturbances, which will be clearly
11 visible on the sheet.
12 Q. Can you also clarify this so-called infrared luminescence
14 A. Infrared luminescence is a very frequently used technique in
15 document examination. What happens is we have a document, we shine a
16 very bright light on to it, that could be light of different colours,
17 blue to red. What happens then is the ink will absorb this light and
18 send out light of a different wavelength. We call this luminescence or
19 fluorescence. This light will be captured by a camera and we can see the
20 ink light up under this light. Because different inks behave in
21 different ways under this luminescence work, we can see, for example, if
22 there are different inks on this one document. Sometimes it is so that
23 if an ink is erased from a document or entry, that still there are
24 components remaining in the paper which will show this fluorescence but
25 it will not be visible to the naked eye.
1 Q. Clarifying the methods you used for this examination of the
2 documents, what procedures did you adopt in addition or the same for the
3 so-called war diary, the latest document?
4 A. We adopted the same procedures as for the other documents, that
5 is, the indented writing impressions, the luminescence and also
6 microscopical examination.
7 Q. Is there also an examination included for quire?
8 A. Yes. What we did is we examined the number of pages in the
9 document and the war diary is built up of a number of different sections
10 which are bound in, sewn into the back. We call these a quire . The war
11 diary consisted of a total of five quires. What we saw is the number of
12 pages per quire, they differed quite amazingly.
13 Q. I apologise. Now you are going into the examination itself.
14 It's just an introduction for the Judges to know what we are speaking
15 about and this quire is referred also to with a view to the thickness,
16 size, and spacing within the paper features or is that another --
17 A. No. That is another examination. The quire is just simply the
18 amount of pages in the document and we also examined the thickness of the
19 different pages and the luminescence -- the UV luminescence of these
20 pages. Furthermore we examined the grids on the pages. The pages were
21 on grid paper, square grids of half a centimetre square. We examined --
22 we measured these grid lines to see if, for example, another page with
23 possibly different grid measurements had been inserted into the document.
24 It's the same with the paper thickness, to check if there has possibly
25 been an insertion by another type of paper into the document.
1 Q. I will now turn to the results indeed examination of the stamp
2 impression of the questioned documents, including the so-called war
3 diary. Let us turn to Appendix number 4 of your report P264, that
4 appendix called Features in the Stamp Impression on Documents, 02075808.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: To be precise, I don't know if you have located the
6 page already, Dr. De Koeijer.
7 THE WITNESS: Yes.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: We are referring to a page which at the top
9 right-hand corner has the following number: 03523875. Okay?
10 THE WITNESS: Yes.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Thanks.
12 Yes, Dr. Wubben.
13 MR. WUBBEN: Thank you.
14 Q. We see this -- we notice this number on the page 02075808. Does
15 that number refer to the overview in your report of reference and
16 questioned material submitted to you?
17 A. Yes, that does. That's correct.
18 Q. How can the Judges know what reference of what questioned
19 material this number is referring to?
20 A. If you look in the table, you will see that this number referred
21 to the same item as labelled Q3.
22 Q. Now you're referring --
23 A. Referred to the table on page 2 of the report.
24 MR. WUBBEN: Your Honours, that's --
25 JUDGE AGIUS: It's P73.
1 MR. WUBBEN: It's page 2 out of 10 and I notice that it is the
2 ERN number 03523853.
3 THE WITNESS: That's correct.
4 MR. WUBBEN:
5 Q. Does this method also apply in the stamp impressions on the
6 questioned document as referred to Appendix 5A, 5B, and 5C, as appendices
7 of this report?
8 A. Yes, that is correct.
9 Q. Did you apply the same -- referring to numbers in your
10 description of the questioned documents table 1, that means page 8 of
11 your report?
12 A. Yes, that is correct.
13 MR. WUBBEN: Page 8, Your Honour, that's -- in my report,
14 03523859. That's table 1.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: That's correct.
16 MR. WUBBEN:
17 Q. I will go now to appendices 5A, the stamp impressions on the
18 questioned document. 5A, ERN number 03523876.
19 To be clear and to confirm, are these numbers seen left above
20 each of these stamp pictures referring to the related questioned
21 documents, examined by you?
22 A. That is correct.
23 Q. And how did you compare in general the round stamp impressions on
24 questioned documents for your examination?
25 A. We took one stamp of reasonably good quality and we superimposed
1 all the other stamps to this one stamp to see if they exactly fit each
2 other. Furthermore, we examined them microscopically to examine for a
3 number of specific small features. And when examining stamps, it is
4 often good to look for features in the rim of the stamp. The outer rim
5 of the stamp usually has the largest amount of features due to damage of
6 the stamp. We found a number of features in this outer rim which could
7 be caused by damage of the stamp. And we highlighted these features on
8 Appendix 4.
9 Q. Please refer to Appendix 4, the features in the stamp impression
10 on document 02075808 again. That's ERN number 03523875. What do you, in
11 your professional opinion, confirm or clarify or comment regarding the
12 details of stamp impression enlarged like this? Can you please clarify
13 to the Judges, in your professional opinion. What does it show?
14 A. The details which we have labelled here 1, 2, 3, and 4, are small
15 irregularities in the outer rim of the stamp impression, probably caused
16 by damage. And these irregularities we found in quite a few of the other
17 stamp impressions, that they all had these irregularities in common in --
18 some more, some less. We used these irregularities together with the
19 superimposition of the stamps on top of each other to assess the
20 similarity between the stamps.
21 Q. So if I understand it correctly, you're focusing on parts that
22 are -- features that are very specific?
23 A. Yes. We thought are very specific, yes. Because we don't have
24 the original stamp which made these impressions, we cannot truly address
25 the fact if they are damages. They could also be just a bad original
1 being made, but this is less likely as it is quite an official stamp, I
2 believe. So we would expect that the rim would be complete if it was a
3 new stamp. And due to where, we would usually see that this rim is
4 getting -- becomes damaged and you find these holes or dents in the rim.
5 Q. So when I see the special features, you're referring with these
6 numbers to these specific parts.
7 A. Yes, that's right.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Perhaps at this stage he can explain one or two
10 Do I take it that this is the stamp that you selected from all
11 the rest which you would then use for purposes of comparison?
12 THE WITNESS: I just need to check that. Yes, we used this stamp
13 for the comparison with the others.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: What were the reasons for your choosing this
15 particular stamp and not another one?
16 THE WITNESS: It's more or less a random decision based on that
17 it was a stamp of reasonable quality which had the four features which we
18 had found during a microscopical examination. It could also be one of
19 the other stamps of reasonable quality. So it's a random choice.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: But you chose this one.
21 You may continue.
22 MR. WUBBEN: Thank you, Your Honour.
23 I will turn to an overview description of the questioned
24 documents that's in page 8 of your report. It's under table 1, table 1
25 on top, ERN number 03523859.
1 Q. I will ask you: Will you please explain and clarify on behalf of
2 the Judges to inform them of the various aspects of these columns, how
3 you address this when it comes to item, type, quality, stamp, features,
4 and similarities with a view to what you prior explained as being
6 A. Okay. The first column, the item number is of course the number
7 of the questioned document on which the stamp is residing. The second
8 column, type, we there mention if it is a typewritten document, a
9 photocopied document, or a thermal fax. So it's the type of document if
10 we had it as an original or a photocopy. The second -- or the third
11 column, stamp quality, refers to the general perception of image quality
12 of the stamp. So we are used to looking at stamps and -- well, we
13 thought most of these stamps were of reasonable to poor quality,
14 imagewise, that this -- how good you can view the details of the stamp.
15 Q. We will refer later to the outcome.
16 A. Okay. The features in the fourth column, refer to the presence
17 of the features we just examined in appendix number 4. And the last
18 column, similarity, is a measure of similarity based on stamp quality and
19 the presence of the mentioned features. And a similarity of index 0
20 means we cannot -- we didn't find any real similarity. A similarity
21 measure of 1, you have a limited number of features. And a similarity
22 index of 2, you have a reasonable amount of features present.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, one moment. Sorry again to interrupt you, but
24 I think we need to clear this. You said: Similarity of index 0 means we
25 cannot find any real similarity.
1 THE WITNESS: Yes, that is not --
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Actually in the explanation that you have on the --
3 in your report, 0 does not mean that you haven't been able to find any
4 real similarity but it says: "No conclusion possible due to insufficient
5 quality of the stamp impression."
6 I think the two explanations are not the same, so perhaps you
7 can --
8 THE WITNESS: That is right. The latter is correct. What is
9 underneath the table is the correct explanation. 0 means the stamp
10 quality is so poor that even though we find similarities, it's not
11 possible to draw a conclusion on them.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
13 MR. WUBBEN:
14 Q. And 1, to confirm.
15 A. 1 is we have a limited number of features visible and often in
16 combination with the poor quality of the stamp.
17 Q. And 2?
18 A. 2 is a reasonable amount of features and usually also a
19 reasonable stamp quality.
20 Q. So now I turn again to Appendix 4 of your report called Features
21 in Stamp Impression on that specific document, and we already addressed
22 that one. And you as an expert gave your opinion on this stamp. Now
23 when we know what's in the table, table 1 -- you earlier described in the
24 various columns -- how does table 1 apply to this stamp impression on
25 document 02075808?
1 A. From table 1 we can see that it was an original typewritten
2 document. This is also an original stamp impression. It is of
3 reasonable quality and we see four of these highlighted features present.
4 The combination of reasonable quality and four highlighted features gives
5 us a similarity index of two, which is a measure for the conclusion we
6 will be drawing later on.
7 Q. And 2 is, I take it, is that a top score or a middle score?
8 A. That is for us the top score. If the quality was -- had been so
9 good that you could see all the details in the stamp, there may have been
10 higher numbers. But in this case with this quality of stamps, this is
11 the highest we have.
12 MR. WUBBEN: Now, Your Honour, as a subsequent --
13 JUDGE AGIUS: You've got three more minutes. So.
14 MR. WUBBEN: My subsequent issue will take more than four
16 JUDGE AGIUS: So I think we can stop here.
17 Dr. De Koeijer, I suppose it has been explained to you already
18 that you will need to return tomorrow to continue and finish with your
19 testimony. So please God we will adjourn. We will meet tomorrow morning
20 in the same courtroom at 9.00. I thank you so much.
21 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.43 p.m.,
22 to be reconvened on Wednesday the 13th day of
23 October, 2004, at 9.00 a.m.