1 Thursday, 15 March 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.22 p.m.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: So good afternoon, Madam Registrar, and good
7 afternoon, everybody. Could you call the case, please.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case number
9 IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Somebody must have run away with the
11 idea that I am French speaking because each day I find number 5 switched
12 on. I know it pleases you, Madam Fauveau.
13 So all the accused are here. I notice that Mr. Bourgon and
14 Mr. Ostojic and Mr. Stojanovic are absent. I suppose they are working on
15 the case at their offices. Correct me if I'm wrong. It seems I am not
16 wrong. Prosecution, I notice Mr. McCloskey, and that's just him.
17 Dr. Haglund is present. Good afternoon to you.
18 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: And I know you're familiar with the Tribunal, so I
20 welcome you back to the Tribunal. Could you kindly proceed with the
21 solemn declaration and then we can move straight to your testimony.
22 THE WITNESS: I do solemnly declare that I will speak the truth,
23 the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
24 WITNESS: WILLIAM HAGLUND
25 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Dr. Haglund. You know what the
1 procedure is. Mr. McCloskey will go first, and he will then follow -- be
2 followed by various Defence teams on cross-examination.
3 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon,
5 Examination by Mr. McCloskey:
6 Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Haglund. Could you first just tell us your --
7 your name and title for the record?
8 A. William D. Haglund. I'm currently the forensic -- senior forensic
9 consultant for the Physicians for Human Rights.
10 Q. All right. And do you hold a doctorate?
11 A. Yes, I do.
12 Q. In what?
13 A. It's in physical anthropology.
14 Q. Okay. Can you -- and as I've -- as you know, I've explained to
15 you, this will be an abbreviated direct examination because of the law in
16 place now and because of your prior testimony. But I think we'll still
17 spend a little time putting everything in context. Can you just give us a
18 brief outline of your educational background?
19 A. My bachelors is in biology, from University of California,
20 Irvine. My Masters and Ph.D. are from the University of Washington, in
21 Seattle, Washington. The degrees were both in physical anthropology with
22 a focus on forensic pathology.
23 Q. And can you do the same for your work experience?
24 A. My first forensic job was at the King County medical examiner's
25 office in Seattle, Washington. An office that has jurisdiction over all
1 sudden unexplained deaths, accidents, aside homicide, and natural deaths
2 without medical attendance. We did from 17 to 1500 cases a year, with
3 100.000 autopsies. I was the chief medical investigator supervising 12 to
4 13 individuals who went to the scenes and did the investigations at scenes
5 or in the case of homicides and other certain suspicious deaths working in
6 cooperation with the police to do investigations.
7 I also, for part times, supervised the autopsy staff, so I
8 reviewed cases and I dealt with the media. And on cases that involved
9 outdoor scenes that would involve skeletal remains or buried remains and I
10 was the person who went to the scenes for those remains.
11 Q. Now your international work.
12 A. International work. My first entree into the international
13 environment was in 1992 or 1993 when I went to the United Nations Security
14 Council commission for the -- on war crimes in Croatia.
15 Q. Let me interrupt you briefly. I notice you are just look at
16 some --
17 A. I'm just looking at my resume to remember where I was at certain
19 Q. You've got your other reports from this case in front of you as
21 A. That's correct, yes. And then I will skip 1996 because that's
22 what we're here for. 1997, for the High Commissioner for human rights, I
23 did an assessment, some training, and exhumations in Somaliland, and again
24 in 1999 I was with the commission of inquiry for East Timor and set the
25 stage for forensic investigations there.
1 In the year 2000 for the UN presence in Afghanistan as well as for
2 the High Commissioner for human rights I did assessments and some
3 exhumations in Afghanistan. For the years 2003 through 2004 and 2005 I
4 did assessments in Iraqi Kurdistan, and Iraq and also worked with ICRC and
5 the UN presence in determining how to set up a workable exhumation
6 strategy for Iraq and identification of the victims in Iraq.
7 From 1999 to the present I have an ongoing project in Cyprus
8 identifying the dead from the 1974 conflict in Cyprus.
9 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, let's to your experience at ICTR, ICTY,
10 back in the days when they were under one Prosecutor. Can he tell us what
11 your first job was in ICTR. I don't want to give it short shrift but we
12 need to go through it briefly, and we'll get to Bosnia.
13 A. My first trip to -- of several weeks it was Rwanda at the request
14 of the international Tribunal for Rwanda and the request came through
15 Physicians for Human Rights. I did an assessment to determine what it
16 would take to do forensic work in Rwanda. I did assessments of graves and
17 found out what the conditions of remains were around Rwanda, and
18 determined the equipment, et cetera, what we would need to do forensic
20 Q. During this --
21 MR. MEEK: Excuse me. It's not objection, but I don't know if
22 it's something wrong with the transcript. Did he say what year that was
23 in line 12? I don't know if they picked up or he didn't say it.
24 THE WITNESS: It's 1995. Thank you.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Meek.
1 MR. McCLOSKEY:
2 Q. Now, during this assessment period, who were you employed by?
3 A. I was -- I think I was paid by the United Nations. I went on
4 behalf of Physicians for Human Rights but they didn't pay. I was paid by
5 the United Nations, actually. As often you do when you go with the High
6 Commissioner for human rights, you're paid by them.
7 Q. Okay. Well then keep explaining that outline, how that work --
8 A. In --
9 Q. -- progressed?
10 A. In January 1995 I was appointed the senior forensic consultant as
11 an employee of the Tribunal in Rwanda.
12 Q. And so what work did you do then as the senior person?
13 A. I did -- brought in the teams. The teams through 1996 were
14 provided by Physicians for Human Rights. I, as an employee of the United
15 Nations, coordinated those teams and directed their work and determined
16 the resources they had to work with, logistics, local arrangements,
17 arrangements with the government, UN entities regarding security, et
18 cetera, was responsible for reviewing previous forensic reports that had
19 been done in Rwanda, responsible for writing the complete report at the
20 end of the exhumations, was responsible for interacting with the media in
21 regard to the forensic work. Reporting to and the advisor to the
22 investigators at the Tribunal. That was among some of my duties.
23 Q. Okay. Have you -- can you -- before that, can you just tell us a
24 bit about PHR, what are they? We know about MSF, but what's PHR?
25 A. Okay. The Physicians for Human Rights, it's a Boston-based NGO
1 human rights organisation and they have a forensic history of doing human
2 rights throughout the world, and shared a Nobel prize in 1997 for their
3 work with the torture protocols and -- and land -- excuse me, for work on
4 landmine issues, but they do other aids in Africa, other human rights work
5 as well as forensics.
6 Q. And getting back briefly to your work at the ICTR, did you
8 A. Yes, I did. I testified twice.
9 Q. For the Prosecution?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. In what cases?
12 A. In the Kibuye Rwanda case, a grave of -- that involved 493
13 individuals. And in the Amgar garage case.
14 Q. Okay. And we'll get a bit into the Amgar garage case, which is
15 known as the Prosecutor versus Georges Rutaganda, is that right?
16 A. Yes, yes.
17 Q. All right.
18 A. The first case was versus Clement Kayishema.
19 Q. Okay. And how did that work in ICTR move towards the former
20 Yugoslavia and when?
21 A. Well, my 1995 visit from Rwanda ended with a -- asking me to come
22 to The Hague to look into forensics for the Yugoslav Tribunal. And
23 following the first exhumation in February, late February of 1996, then I
24 came to The Hague and I went with investigators to look at mass graves and
25 to assess the conditions of the graves and how we might approach
1 exhumations and examinations here.
2 Q. Which cases was that for?
3 A. Most of those in -- involved cases that were alleged to be linked
4 with the Srebrenica massacre.
5 Q. Okay. So tell us your work for the ICTY, when it actually -- when
6 the actual exhumation work began, and -- but -- and what your position
8 A. Well, the work began before -- just getting the equipment and all
9 the stuff together and the logistics and arranging for staffing and who
10 was going to come. The actual in-the-field work began July 7th, 1996, at
11 the Cerska grave.
12 Q. Okay. And you've I believe, described yourself as a forensic
13 pathologist. Do you have any other specialties or experience in related
15 A. As I mentioned, and the medical examiner's officer I was totally
16 familiar with the autopsy procedures with dealing with the media, with
17 identification. I specialised in identification of unidentified remains
18 and in dealing with families and death notifications, and -- et cetera.
19 Q. How about archaeology?
20 A. Most forensic anthropologists, there's -- the difference between
21 archaeology and anthropology, in a -- across the world changes, it's
22 difficult to pin down; in Latin American archaeologists are really
23 anthropologist. In the United States we have two separate divisions. We
24 have archaeologists, but many anthropologist do have some training and
25 experience in forensic -- or anthropology -- archaeology as well as their
1 specialty of forensic anthropology, and I do.
2 Q. Okay. Now, aside from what you've described briefly as helping
3 set up the logistics for the former Yugoslavia, can you tell us what your
4 job was in relation to the exhumations and the -- the morgue work? What
5 was your position there?
6 A. Well, I was the senior person as far as forensics at the Tribunal
7 was concerned, and was responsible for setting up the morgue facilities,
8 arranging for the logistics, the equipment and resourcing of the teams,
9 dealing with NATO in the regards to their security. Dealing -- and I was
10 the media representative for -- on the field. I dealt with the local
11 communities and the government in regard to dealing with remains. And in
12 the field at the actual exhumations, I directed those exhumations and then
13 as -- as far as the autopsies were concerned, made sure that the staff was
14 present enough to do the work, brought in the pathologists and the autopsy
15 assistants and radiologists and evidence technicians, et cetera.
16 Q. Your work in the summer of 1996 for the Srebrenica case, where did
17 you -- can you give us an idea of where you spent your time? I mean not
18 in particular, but just the exhumation site, the morgue, other places?
19 A. My major -- my major place was at the exhumation sites, but I also
20 had to deal with -- with the setting up the facilities, both in -- in
21 Bosnia and in Croatia, as well at the end of the year dealing with the
22 Ovcara exhumation.
23 Q. Can you tell us just a bit, you mention Croatia and Ovcara. Is
24 the Ovcara exhumation related to the Vukovar case --
25 A. That's correct.
1 Q. -- in Croatia?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. Could you just briefly tell us your involvement in that?
4 A. My first involvement was in the early 1990s when I went with the
5 commission and inquiry in war crimes. And that continued and then in 1996
6 I began makes visits to the equipment we'd left behind earlier and -- in
7 the past years, and then doing a local arrangements and how we would
8 actually deal with the facility in Zagreb and the exhumations in -- in --
9 in Vukovar at Ovcara.
10 Q. Did you actually oversee the exhumations in Ovcara or were you
11 involved in it?
12 A. Yes, I was involved in it. I had a senior forensic archaeologist
13 who started the work and --
14 Q. Who was that?
15 A. That was Dr. Douglas Scott. And then subsequently Melissa Connor
16 did some of the -- did the ending archaeology.
17 Q. Okay. Well, let's get back to Bosnia. And you had mentioned you
18 spent most of your time at the exhumation sites. Did you have people that
19 had more experience in archaeology there helping you with those
21 A. Absolutely. We find that the south -- the Latin American -- the
22 South Americans have much more experience than any Ph.D. anthropologist in
23 the United States.
24 Q. All right. And, now, most of the -- well, the reports and the
25 record of testimony in detail is part of this record, so I don't want to
1 go through that, but I do -- would like just for you to hit the high
2 points, if you could, on a few of these graves. Let's start with the
3 grave at -- at Pilica. Can you tell us just a bit about that, how big was
4 it, how many bodies, but just in a very brief -- and I hate to say it, but
5 we need to do -- somewhat cursory at this point.
6 A. It was a two and a half to three metre deep grave that ex ended by
7 six by 28 metres. That's the grave space. It -- we ended up with 132
8 individuals, that's the minimal number of individuals, about 260-some
9 individual units that we picked up, some of these are body parts, some of
10 them were nearly complete individuals, some were complete individuals, et
12 Q. Can you tell us where you found the most concentration of complete
14 A. They were in one clustered assemblage at far end of the grave, at
15 one end of the grave.
16 Q. Was that the deepest end of the grave?
17 A. That's -- that's hard to say. It was the deepest end of the
18 grave, yes.
19 Q. Okay. And were you able to determine whether this grave had --
20 had been disturbed in some way?
21 A. Not definitively, in my opinion.
22 Q. And what does that mean?
23 A. Well, I -- I wouldn't -- I wasn't going to be able to commit
24 myself definitely if it had been disturbed.
25 Q. Okay. Had -- and why -- why was that? If you know?
1 A. Well, our previous experience with the Lazete grave, which was
2 absolutely obvious, and this grave it was not so -- so obvious. Much of
3 the soil in the grave that -- the part that we had above the bodies was
4 just like the soil outside of the rest of the -- of the surrounding area.
5 The body parts, the minimal number was difficult to show that we had more
6 parts that might -- than might be belong to the bodies that we had other
7 parts for. They weren't commingled but they were scattered often
8 throughout some of the fill. That's the soil above and around bodies.
9 Q. You had no knowledge of any secondary graves or anything like that
10 at this point in 1996, did you?
11 A. No.
12 Q. And did you have access to aerial image of September, October,
13 those periods after the July period?
14 A. Yes, we did. That was -- one of the ways we located the graves in
15 1996 was some initial aerial imagery.
16 Q. Did you see any aerial imagery of Pilica that indicated
17 disturbance or no disturbance. Did you remember getting any aerial
18 imagery on that particular subject?
19 A. I saw one image taken after the August release to the media of --
20 of -- that said that -- portrayed trucks or machinery back at the grave at
21 that time.
22 Q. Okay. Did you take any of that into account in your original
23 report in your -- in your conclusions related to it?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Okay. All right. Well, let's -- let me ask you about Cerska.
1 Again, briefly describe that, how many bodies?
2 A. Cerska was a primary, undisturbed grave. There were 150
3 individuals in that grave; 147 of them died of gun-shot wounds. The 40 --
4 40 some individuals that were randomly distributed amongst the other
5 individuals had ligatures either associated with or hands wired behind
6 their backs.
7 Q. Okay. Your conclusion that they died of gun-shot wounds, is that
8 a conclusion you would make as -- in your position or is that something
9 you are relying on from someone else?
10 A. No, I think one of the interesting parts of these exhumations is
11 that for the most part they were not skeletal remains, they were fleshed
12 remains for the most part. And the examination is done by the path -- the
13 forensic pathologist and the anthropologist contributes to the ant --
14 pathologist's findings.
15 Q. But whose job is it to determine cause of -- and manner of
17 A. That's a medical opinion because it goes on -- the death
18 certificate was a quasi-legal document, and proof of death.
19 Q. All right. Now, let's -- briefly Nova Kasaba, the grave you dug
21 A. Nova Kasaba had four graves with respectively seven, 19, six, and
22 one individual. They were shallow graves. 27 of the individuals had
23 bindings around their arms behind their back. And the -- they all died of
24 gun-shot wounds.
25 Q. Did you get any indications where those victims died? Any of
1 those victims or could you make any --
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. -- conclusion at that point?
4 A. Definitely in Nova Kasaba grave number 2, the individuals had been
5 killed in the grave.
6 Q. How do you know?
7 A. They were in kneeling positions with their torsos bent forward,
8 their heads forward. Many of them were still in that position, some had
9 fallen over sideways in that position. And the majority of those
10 individuals, the -- had -- 95 per cent of them received gun-shots to the
12 Q. Okay. Now, Lazete 2. Can you tell us a bit about Lazete 2?
13 A. Lazete 2 actually involved two separate assemblages of remains or
14 graves. Lazete 2A was an undisturbed primarily grave that held 112
15 individuals. In the -- the number at hand, I would have to look it up,
16 died of gun-shot wounds.
17 Of the Lazete grave, 2B grave, was a primary disturbed grave that
18 had 52 individuals in it. There was one other skeletal remains that we
19 had recovered during the early assessments in April that we had also
20 recovered, but that was a skeletal remains on the surface and not part of
21 these graves.
22 There were, I think, a total of 106 blindfolds with these
24 Q. And did you finish the exhumation at Lazete 2?
25 A. Well, we concluded our exhumation, but we left -- the grave Lazete
1 2B, we had had torrential rains and the ground was becoming unstable that
2 the and the grave was a deep grave of two and a half to three metres, and
3 the walls began caving in. I knew that there was at least one individual
4 in that grave, but I closed down the grave because of -- of security
5 reasons, and that's in my report.
6 Q. All right. And let me ask you a bit about the security. In --
7 you're doing this the summer of 1996. Just really a few months after the
8 war had ended. Can you describe what the security situation was like,
9 what sort of measures you were up against in 1996?
10 A. It was a tender post-conflict situation. NATO troops were
11 negotiating to keep the peace, and major -- their major priorities were
12 doing that. We, according to the date, the Dayton agreement, the NATO
13 troops could, would, or may guard experts while they worked at the grave.
14 The most we could get was periodic surveillance of graves before we had
15 come to the -- been able to start working at the graves. We stayed on
16 military bases, we had to travel in convoys with 50 calibre machine-guns
17 and automatic weapons, soldiers guarding us at all times. Harrier jets
18 flew over the sites while we were there. We didn't know if this
19 arrangement with NATO would last because of their other priorities. We
20 didn't know from one day to the other whether we could turn back to those
21 graves, the next grave. That was a very tentative situation in 1996.
22 Q. Were you under any pressure to get the work done and bring back
24 A. That was our goal for being there. So we had to maximise our time
25 while we were there.
1 Q. Okay. And on -- on that point I would like to ask you, from 1996
2 were there some complaints from some of your professional colleagues
3 against you and against the chief pathologist, Dr. Kirschner?
4 A. Absolutely.
5 Q. Okay. And was -- did the UN take up a study and empanel an expert
6 panel to review those complaints?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. And can you tell us the people on the panel, I'll briefly refer
9 their names. Walter Birkby from Arizona; Vincent De Majo [phoen] from San
10 Antonio, Texas; Richard Prouty [phoen] from Tucson, Arizona; Elis Curly
11 [phoen] from California and Jerry Melby [phoen] From Mississauga, Ontario,
12 Canada. Are these people of high esteem and reputation?
13 A. Yes, they certainly are. De Majo is probably the expert in the
14 world in gun-shot wounds. I must say that in picking out this panel, they
15 had a difficult time in not picking out a lot of people that I knew very
16 well. So they tried to go for people that didn't know me, but they did
17 pick out an excellent panel.
18 Q. First of all, the -- let me go to the pathologist, Dr. Kirschner,
19 who is now deceased. Was there a complaint that Dr. Kirschner had changed
20 the cause of death on some of the autopsy reports without consulting the
21 pathologists involved?
22 A. Yes, there was.
23 Q. And was that confirmed by the panel, as to have happened?
24 A. Yes, it was.
25 Q. And did they find that to be improper?
1 A. They found that to be improper, yes, they did.
2 Q. All right.
3 A. However, they did find that the -- the Office of the Prosecutor
4 had adequately went back and taken all of the reports back to the original
5 pathologist to ensure that their findings and their final opinions
6 reflected what their findings and final opinions were. And the -- this
7 commission of inquiry then felt that they had adequately taken care of the
8 problem. But still the issue with Dr. Kirschner, they thought was wrong,
10 Q. All right. And the allegations against you, were they -- did --
11 were they upheld in any way?
12 A. No.
13 Q. So you were cleared?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. All right. I want to -- I want to go over just briefly some of
16 those allegations. By my count there were 17 professionals interviewed by
17 the panel. 13 of those were favourable to you, and four were critical.
18 Let me start with the first criticism, and that is from Clyde Snow, who
19 this Trial Chamber has heard a lot about. Can you tell us a bit about
20 your knowledge of Clyde Snow, his reputation and your connection to him?
21 A. Yes, I began working with Clyde Snow in the mid-1980s when we had
22 a serial murder case in our jurisdiction, and I called on him to give us
23 some consultation. And then subsequently did other forensic work with
24 him. He actually was a mentor for me in many ways and he was very
25 supportive at beginning of all the international work.
1 Q. Is he one of the top people in this field?
2 A. Well, he certainly is the pioneer in international human rights
3 forensic work and the application of forensic anthropology and
4 archaeology, especially in the Latin American countries.
5 Q. Did you have any contact with him regarding the Ovcara grave in
7 A. Yes, he invited me to be on that original inquiry in the early
8 1990s, and basically suggested I -- I -- I think had much to do with me
9 being involved in the subsequent assessments of that grave.
10 Q. Was he actually present when you were overseeing the exhumation of
11 the grave?
12 A. Dr. Snow was consulting in regard to the ante-mortem database,
13 which had been worked on by the Croatians for three years. And so he
14 visited the grave of for a half a day at the time we were doing some of
15 the cleaning of -- some of the original -- starting of the grave. I don't
16 know if we had actually started removing remains at that time. But his --
17 his position as far as human rights was concerned, to give me information
18 and we talk about the identifications and it was up to me whether I
19 accepted them or not, and then what we would do with those
21 Q. Let me read to you the panel's synopsis of -- of Dr. Snow's
22 comments about you, and I believe he's referring to the Ovcara
23 grave. "Clyde Snow, Ph.D., states 'obviously sloppy work was done. He
24 felt at times it was Dr. Haglund versus the UNTAES and mentioned the many
25 bodies removed on one day. Dr. Snow stated in his opinion no more than 20
1 bodies have you had have been exhumed in a single day. He felt
2 Dr. Haglund showed very poor judgement and it was lucky nothing had blown
3 up as a result of the procedures used."'
4 First, can you tell us what UNTAES was?
5 A. UNTAES, that was the transitional UN authority that was present in
6 eastern Slovenia at the time. And they provided wonderful logistics to us
7 while we were there, and actually enabled us by the tent they put over --
8 warehouse tent they put over to complete the grave in bad rain season.
9 Q. How do you respond to Dr. Snow's criticism that you were removing
10 bodies too fast and that no more than 20 bodies should be removed at any
12 A. Well, I've never seen a proclamation like that before; it's
13 certainly not in the literature. And these were fleshed remains. I have
14 to say that the -- the rate at which you can remove bodies or human
15 remains, skeletal remains or bodies from a grave is dependent upon many
16 factors. First of all, it's is the condition of the remains. It makes a
17 big difference if you're dealing with fresh remains and you pick them up
18 in one piece. But when you're picking them up as skeletons you're picking
19 them up in about 150 pieces. That makes a difference. It makes a
20 difference how the bodies are distributed. Are they in one pile? Are
21 they distributed over a large area? With partially skeletonised remains,
22 like the Surstika [phoen] grave, was convenient because they were -- they
23 were over an area stretching on for 30 metres. And you could deploy many
24 people in exhuming many parts of the grave. Once you take a grave like
25 Lazete 2A, once you have removed the dirt from around these graves, these
1 bodies, they are just bodies that are stacked against each other, and it's
2 just a matter of peeling them away from each other. The limiting factor
3 is the documentation of the remains in the grave before you do that. And
4 it's photography and the mapping, and if you have very good mappers, you
5 can do that very fast, probably in less than five minutes a mapper could
6 outline the bodies in a grave.
7 So it depends on how you can deploy your staff, the number of
8 staff you have, the condition of the bodies, the circumstances of the
9 grave. To make the point of how many -- how -- how the bodies are
10 deployed, if the bodies are all in one -- one latrine or in one well, then
11 you can only get one worker down there at a time. But if you can get 10
12 workers out in a grave at a time, it makes a difference how much work you
13 can get done in a day.
14 I look at this from the assessment point I have to look at how
15 long it might take to dig a grave, I look at the average amount of remains
16 that are removed from the time you start because it depends upon when the
17 bodies are cleaned and exposed that you can remove them.
18 Q. All right. Do you know if the criticism from Dr. Snow is based on
19 his own personal observation of you removing bodies or that of others?
20 A. No, he was only at the grave at one time. Half a day or just for
21 a visit in the afternoon.
22 Q. All right. Now, the next criticism is from Dorothy Gallagher, an
24 A. Mm-hmm.
25 Q. And she says, "Saw problems in the field and in the lab stated
1 Dr. Kirschner changed autopsy reports and instructed her to do so while
2 processing the reports. In the field Dr. Haglund directed --" excuse
3 me "-- dictated too much speed in exhumation. The result was commingling
4 and failure to associate body parts."
5 I think you've -- now this is -- Gallagher is from the Bosnia
6 exhumations, Dr. Snow was from the Croatia Ovcara exhumations.
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. So we again see the same criticism. Do you have anything to add
9 to the speed criticism or response?
10 A. Well, I -- when you're working with so many people from so many
11 different backgrounds, anthropologists, archaeologists, especially from
12 other countries, are not accustomed to working in a medical-legal system
13 with a forensic pathologist at all and they're not accustomed to working
14 in an office where you have a certain -- you have an uncertain workload
15 every day and you have to be efficient and you have to get on with
16 business. And -- and I think that was part of a perceptional thing and I
17 can understand, because when you -- you have days or so to do work or
18 months to do work, that's one thing. This was not the situation.
19 Q. All right. Did commingling result as -- because of the way you
20 removed these bodies?
21 A. Commingling results from one of three major sources, either bodies
22 are commingled when they're put in the grave, bodies -- skeletons -- as
23 bodies skeletonise, remains are especially stacked one on top another,
24 they can become commingling through the natural processes of the
25 decomposition, or they can become commingled as they are removed from the
1 grave. In the Cerska grave -- I think in Nova Kasaba there was no
2 commingling, there was basically none in the Pilica grave, Lazete grave,
3 I -- there may -- I'm not sure. There were 12 incidences of commingling
4 in -- in the Cerska grave.
5 Q. But did this happen as a result of you exhuming bodies?
6 A. No, and what we did to try -- the best place at times -- you do
7 good documentation where you get remains from, the best place to resolve
8 some of these commingling problems is in the laboratory where you can
9 clean the bones and you can look at them. And what we did is, made sure
10 that we knew exactly what areas and what bodies were in association with
11 these remains and then we had the pathologist who did the bodies from that
12 group, those same pathologists do all the bodies from that group so there
13 would be a historical memory, what was missing and what was there. And
14 that helped on -- with the commingling problem.
15 Q. All right. Let me go on to the last of that group. David del
16 Pino, a Chilean anthropologist, he notes that, "Operations were halted
17 when Dr. Haglund was away. Clothing was discarded at Haglund's command,
18 even though some contained identification."
19 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters ask counsel to slow down,
21 MR. McCLOSKEY:
22 Q. That, "clothing was discarded at Haglund's command, even though it
23 contained identification," is that true?
24 A. Well, part of this would be true. Yes. The clothing issue. On
25 associated clothing in graves of -- in the Cerska grave we had
1 unassociated clothing. We took them back to the lab, they had no
2 connection to any bodies, and if they have no documentation in them, then
3 when you turn the bodies over to the Bosnians, they don't even want it.
4 What do you do with it? That was our first experience with it. By the
5 time we got to the Pilica grave, and this is the grave that I think
6 Mr. del Pino is referring to, we had some unassociated clothing. As I
7 mentioned in the Pilica report at page 20, I had to search for documents,
8 there were none, and it was my decision to leave those unassociated
9 clothing in the grave.
10 Q. All right. Rest of those comments were more to do with
11 management. It says forms were not always used. And there was no
12 delegation of authority. I might as well say it all. What do you say
13 about that?
14 A. Well, delegation of authority, when I -- when I was not present,
15 the other UN expert at the site would be Jose Pablo Baraybar, who I think
16 has testified in this trial. He was in charge when I was gone. I think
17 the perception that I slow down the process is that while I was gone I
18 learned from the first grave that it was necessary for one person to
19 have -- be the conduit between the laboratory facility and the exhumations
20 and the grave, and that person was me because I was able to travel back
21 and forth but these other people weren't. So I insisted that before
22 remains were removed that I be there and that I transcribe a short
23 description of the bodies so they could be matched with the clothing and
24 the description of the body once they got back in the grave and that is
25 what he's referring to.
1 Q. All right.
2 A. But it did not slow down the work. I guarantee you.
3 Q. Okay. I want to read to you the brief finding of the report
4 relating to you and get your reaction, if any, to it. Under the list of
5 findings, it says, "The responses of the witnesses did not indicate any
6 actual wrongdoing on the part of Dr. Haglund, nor anything regarding the
7 exhumations that jeopardised their scientific validity. The pathologists
8 who were working in the morgue made no complaints about the exhumation of
9 the bodies or the conduct of the anthropologists who were working in the
10 morgue or at the grave sites. Rather, it became apparent that the main
11 problem with the exhumations were administrative and logistic; whether
12 real or imagined, there were concerns regarding international politics
13 imposing a great deal of pressure on the teams to complete the exhumations
14 quite rapidly. Even so, there was little or no evidence that the pace of
15 the examinations adversely affected the overall scientific quality. Along
16 with the pathologists the most experienced archaeologist stated the
17 recovery of bodies had been done adequately under difficult
19 Do you have any disagreement with those conclusions?
20 A. I agree with it fully.
21 Q. All right. One last matter before turn you over to -- for
22 cross-examination, and that's a serious matter that I think you informed
23 us about a few weeks ago, I believe now, that something you had just
24 learned. And that is a judgement in a Rwanda case that basically set
25 aside your scientific method, and that would be the case of the Prosecutor
1 versus Georges Rutaganda, case number ICTR 96-3-T, that judgement was in
2 the 6th of December, 1999. And that judgement was affirmed by the Court
3 of Appeals on 26 May, 2003.
4 MR. McCLOSKEY: Now, I don't intend to retry a Rwanda case, but I
5 think, Your Honours, and if I could ask the witness a few questions about
6 this, I think it would -- may save time. And if I could start by --
7 there's a short section in the indictment in that case which lays out the
8 factual basis by which his testimony was predicated and I think is a very
9 useful way to make sense out of the criticisms and the Court's brief
10 judgement on the point.
11 So I will quote from the section of the indictment that's
12 applicable to the exhumation. "In April 1994 on a date unknown, Tutsis,
13 who had been separated at a roadblock in front of the Amgar garage, were
14 taken to Georges Rutaganda and questioned by him. He thereafter directed
15 that these Tutsis be detained with others at a nearby building. Later
16 Georges Rutaganda directed men under his control to take 10 Tutsi
17 detainees to a deep, open hole near the Amgar garage. On Georges
18 Rutaganda's orders, his men killed the 10 Tutsis with machetes and threw
19 their bodies into the hole."
20 Now, I want to go to page -- or paragraph 256 of the Trial
21 Chamber's judgement. "The Chamber notes furthermore that Witness Q
22 identified the hole where the 10 persons were killed and where their
23 bodies were thrown on the slide tendered by the Prosecutor as Exhibit
24 168. The Chamber observes that the said slide shows the site identified
25 as RUG 1 by Professor William Haglund, a forensic anthropologist, who
1 appeared as an expert witness for the Prosecution. According to
2 Professor Haglund, who exhumed several sites near Amgar garage, three
3 bodies were exhumed from the hole identified as site RUG 1. Dr. Nizam
4 Peerwani, a pathologist who had worked jointly with Professor Haglund and
5 who had also appeared as an expert witness for the Prosecutor, submitted
6 the following findings on the three exhumed bodies. The first body was
7 that of a managed between 35 and 45 at the time of death, the probable
8 cause of which was homicide.
9 "The second body was that of a woman aged between 30 and 39 at the
10 time of death, the probable cause of which was homicide.
11 "And the third body was that of a managed between 35 and 45 at the
12 time of death, the probable cause of which was blunt force trauma."
13 Now, the next paragraph, paragraph 257 comments: "Firstly, the
14 Chamber, on the basis of the testimony by Dr. Kathleen Reich, a forensic
15 pathologist called by the Defence as an expert witness, is not satisfied
16 that the scientific method used by Professor Haglund is such as to allow
17 the Chamber to rely on his findings in the determination of the case."
18 Next paragraph: "Secondly, and above all, the Chamber notes that
19 the Prosecutor failed to show a direct link between the findings of
20 Professor Haglund and Dr. Peerwani and the specific allegations in the
21 indictment. Consequently, the Chamber holds that the findings of said
22 expert witnesses should not be admitted in the incident case."
23 All right. So paragraph 258 is the Prosecutor didn't meet their
24 burden. But paragraph 257 says they are not satisfied with the scientific
25 method used by you. Now, I want to go to the paragraph preceding that,
1 where they're talking about things that include scientific method and see
2 if we can identify who did what.
3 Now, the first part that I see as a potential scientific method
4 would be the first body was that of a managed between 35 and 45 at the
5 time of death. Was determining the age range at the time of death your
7 A. That was a contribution of the anthropologist, yes.
8 Q. And that -- was your scientific method involved in that?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay. "The probable cause of which was homicide." Did you make
11 that determination yourself?
12 A. No, that's a determination made by a -- a medical doctor,
13 Dr. Peerwani.
14 Q. Was that in part based upon your -- your findings or assistance in
15 the review of the bones?
16 A. Of course, yes.
17 Q. Okay. And let's go to the next one. "The second body, woman aged
18 between 30 and 39." Again, that age determination was your scientific
19 method, was it not?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And the probable cause was homicide. So that is Dr. Peerwani's?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. The third body was that of a man aged between 35 and 45 at the
24 time of death. That again is your work?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Probable cause was blunt force trauma, that's Dr. Peerwani's?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. Okay. Now, there is no other mention that I could find about what
4 particular scientific method the -- of yours the Court set aside, but in
5 re -- have you had a chance to review the testimony of Kathleen Reich
7 A. Yes, I have.
8 Q. Did you find her criticising your method used to put an age range
9 for the remains?
10 A. No.
11 Q. All right.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Mr. McCloskey. Can we know which method
13 she criticised then or what she criticised to be precise.
14 MR. McCLOSKEY: As I think the question indicated, they were --
15 there was -- Dr. Haglund nor myself have been able to find any criticism
16 of the -- in the -- in her testimony or the report of his method of aging.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: What did she criticise.
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: We are on our way, and I -- it's not -- it's not
19 clear in the judgement, but we do -- I will ask him some questions where
20 that should become clear.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
22 MR. McCLOSKEY:
23 Q. In fact, that's my next question. What scientific method did she
24 criticise, and I -- let me ask you the -- about the -- the -- there was a
25 lot of time spent on cross-examination about -- in fact, let me go right
1 to a ...
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Meek.
3 MR. MEEK: Mr. President, Your Honours, I believe in this Tribunal
4 y'all can take judicial notice of a trial judgement, an appeal judgement
5 from the ICTR. Now, Mr. McCloskey says he doesn't want to retry the whole
6 Rwanda case but apparently that's what he's going do.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: He won't get a chance to.
8 MR. MEEK: Pardon me?
9 JUDGE AGIUS: He won't get a chance to do that. Neither he nor
10 the witness. But if the judgement refers to the testimony of this person
11 as criticising the methodology of -- supposedly because it's not even
12 clear whether it's just his or also the other experts. And he has said
13 that in her testimony she doesn't criticise his methodology in trying to
14 reach the age of -- of the persons exhumed, then in order to be able to
15 understand what we're talking about, we need to know whether she at
16 least criticised anything. I mean, not bringing into question the --
17 the judgement either of the Trial Chamber or of the Appeals Chamber. I
18 mean, far from it, I wouldn't dream of doing that or allowing anyone to do
20 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Your Honour. I will briefly outline
21 those to give you a picture so that this makes more sense as we continue
22 into cross-examination.
23 Q. I want to go to -- it's page 38 of the testimony of expert Reich
24 and there is a question by Defence counsel, it says, "Right. And do you
25 recall, if in Dr. Haglund's report there was a conclusion as to cause of
1 death for this site?
2 "A. Well, I had difficulty with this as well. He concluded, I
3 believe, that the cause of death, the manner of death was homicide. And
4 that was based on trauma patterns in the skull and the fact that I believe
5 there were nine individuals represented but only five skulls. The manner
6 of death is homicide, was based on the fact that there was trauma in those
7 skulls, that and the ages of the individuals was young."
8 Now, just to reiterate, in your report did -- were the conclusions
9 as to cause and manner of the death your conclusions or those conclusions
10 of Dr. Peerwani?
11 A. As inflected -- reflected in his autopsy reports, they are his
12 conclusions. I only summarised those for the overview of the report. And
13 I might say she's only referring to a -- a group of -- of bones, I think,
14 referred to as RUG 4. There were nine minimal number of nine individuals
15 of bones that were -- had been picked up by locals and put in a pile.
16 Q. Okay. And to -- just -- this won't take too long, to just get
17 this in further context so you see the picture, and -- one more issue of
18 criticism: "And do you recall from looking over Dr. Haglund's report what
19 age estimates were actually given to those remains??
20 "A. I would have to go back to that, but I believe that there
21 were some at least as old as 45 or so up into their 40s. The other
22 problem is he states in the report that information regarding the
23 specific -- the collection of these bones and their original resting place
24 was completely lacking. This was a surface collection, there was no
25 information whatsoever about where these bones had come from, where they
1 had originally been, if they had buried or if they had not been buried.
2 And he also concluded they were consistent with individuals who had died
3 in 1994 without knowing their original context into what they had been
4 subjected. It's impossible to make a statement like that."
5 I want to direction your attention now to: Did you, in fact, say
6 that in reviewing these bones that it was consistent with individuals that
7 you had reviewed in 1994?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Did you conclude, based on that consistency, that that was a firm
10 date for their date of their death?
11 A. No it's consistent, it could be at other times, you just could not
12 rule it out.
13 Q. Do you agree with her statement that it's impossible to make a
14 statement like "consistent with"?
15 A. No, we do that quite frequently. But I -- okay.
16 Q. I don't want to turn this into --
17 A. I don't --
18 Q. -- an argument, but -- so. But if you want to explain anything,
19 feel free.
20 A. Okay.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.
22 MR. McCLOSKEY: Okay.
23 Q. Now, can you tell us briefly what other criticisms she made of you
24 and respond to that, briefly?
25 A. Yes. There was a criticism that -- that insect information was
1 not used to determine a closer approximation of the time of death. There
2 was a criticism that analysis of fabric and clothing was not used as an
3 indication of time of death.
4 Q. Were both those things true? Did you not do that?
5 A. Those are not routine analyses that are done in Canada or the
6 United States, and I could go into it further, if you wished. But they're
7 not applicable. If they even were routine, they were not applicable to
8 Rwanda, there are no standards for estimating, using insects to estimate
9 time of death in Rwanda, there are no standards anywhere yet in the world
10 for estimating time of death from fabric. Another one was the not taking
11 skull -- casts of the skulls. That is not a new -- a routine thing that
12 we would do in the United States or Canada. The usefulness of that would
13 be to put clay on the skull and try to see if somebody recognised it as an
14 individual and that's an impossibility in a population where there are
15 800.000 missing and dead individuals.
16 I believe also the stature, it mentions stature. We used formulas
17 that are population based to estimate stature. There are no standards for
18 stature, so it really wouldn't matter what stature estimate that one would
19 use because you couldn't even confirm it. There's no documentation of
20 stature either in the former Yugoslavia cases that we worked on, nor in
22 Q. Okay. Did -- were you asked to comment on her testimony after it
23 occurred or any evidence put on in the rebuttal case?
24 A. Yes, I believe I did do a recross. Not after her testimony, no.
25 I don't believe -- maybe I did.
1 Q. Okay. Well --
2 A. I don't remember. I'm sorry.
3 Q. -- it was a long time ago.
4 MR. McCLOSKEY: I don't have any further questions, Mr. President.
5 THE WITNESS: I believe I did in regards to the report. I did
6 answer questions addressed in this report in my testimony.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you so much, Mr. McCloskey.
8 Who's going first from the Defence teams? Mr. Meek.
9 MR. MEEK: Mr. President, Your Honours, I apologise for taking so
10 much time to get set up here, but I wanted to get this extension for my
12 Cross-examination by Mr. Meek:
13 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Haglund, how are you?
14 A. Fine.
15 Q. And it's not working. Okay. There it is.
16 Very briefly, we have about 15 minutes before the break. If I can
17 just ask you a few quick questions on your direct, extensive direct
18 testimony today being a 94 witness and not a live witness. From what I
19 take it, all of the people, and we'll get into this a little more detail
20 later, all the people who made allegations against you in San Antonio in
21 1997 were wrong?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Which ones were right?
24 A. Well, I think there's mis -- misperceptions on the part of, for
25 instance, the clothing issue, but I ...
1 Q. Again, I'll ask you the question. During your direct testimony
2 you more or less indicated that the individuals who had made allegations
3 against your sloppy work, your ineffectiveness in the field, your being in
4 front of the cameras all the time, your slowing up the process, I think
5 you have indicated to the Prosecutor that those allegations were not true.
6 Now, did I misunderstand your testimony, sir?
7 A. I don't think I portrayed my response to Dr. Snow's criticism of
8 the 20 bodies. I just explained what -- what the variables are in
9 removing bodies. And it's grave-dependent. Maybe he's thinking of
10 another grave, I have no idea.
11 Q. How about -- we'll get back to Dr. Snow later. How about
12 Dr. Gallagher's accusations. You're saying she's wrong, correct?
13 A. That's not Dr. Gallagher, please.
14 Q. I'm sorry. How about Gallagher's accusations?
15 A. That was her perception; it was not mine.
16 Q. Okay. So again those accusations were incorrect or wrong?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Okay. And how about del Pino, Dr. del Pino?
19 A. He's not a doctor either.
20 Q. Okay.
21 A. Okay.
22 Q. He's a an archaeologist, isn't he, sir?
23 A. That's right.
24 Q. Yeah. And where's he from, sir?
25 A. He's from Chile.
1 Q. And didn't you testify on direct that the South Americans
2 archaeologists are much, much higher skilled in this field than the
3 American archaeologists, sir?
4 A. Absolutely.
5 Q. Are you saying that del Pino, the allegations and accusations he
6 made in San Antonio were also false?
7 A. What does his exhumation expertise have to do with discarding
8 clothing with -- and he did not know that we searched it for documents.
9 Q. Okay. And then we go -- are those the only three he asked you
10 about? Do you recall, sir?
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection. Quizzing the witness on how many
12 people I asked him about.
13 MR. MEEK: I don't have the luxury of having -- I will just
14 disregard that, Judge. I will strike the question.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's proceed.
16 MR. MEEK: Okay.
17 Q. Well, let me ask you this: In the Krstic testimony which you
18 gave, I believe, May 29th, 2000 in this very building; is that correct?
19 Am I correct on that?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Now, it's been indicated to this Trial Chamber that this was new
22 information, serious, a very serious matter and new information which you
23 brought to the attention of Mr. McCloskey or the OTP here.
24 A. Could you be more specific about the information. I don't know
25 what you are addressing.
1 Q. Hang on. I'll certainly do that. If you can go to page 23, line
3 A. That's the wrong testimony. And that would be in book number 1?
4 Q. Hang on, not in your file, sir. Let me just tell you, Mr.
5 McCloskey asked you a question on line 13, page 23 today, he says, "All
6 right. One last matter before I turn you over to -- for
7 cross-examination. And that's a serious matter that I think you informed
8 us about a few weeks ago, I believe. Now, that has something you had just
9 learned and that is a judgement in a Rwanda case that basically sets aside
10 your scientific findings or method."
11 Do you remember that question?
12 A. No, I don't recall the question, but if you say I did, I did.
13 This has slipped my mind. This isn't the Krstic trial.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: No, this was a few minutes ago --
15 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. I'm getting confused of what he's
16 referring to.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: This is the prelude by -- from Mr. McCloskey before
18 he asked you questions on your Rwanda decision or judgement.
19 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
20 MR. MEEK:
21 Q. Mr. Haglund, I'm talking about your testimony today. Did you, in
22 fact, just learn of this judgement?
23 A. Yes, that's true. I learned it -- of -- in February of this
25 Q. February of this year?
1 A. Excuse me, January of this year, to my knowledge. That's my best
3 Q. How did you learn about it, sir?
4 A. It was passed to me by an e-mail.
5 Q. Who sent you the e-mail, if you recall?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Who sent you the e-mail, if you recall?
8 A. Yes, I do recall. It was a -- another anthropologist.
9 Q. And could you please state the name for the record, please?
10 A. Stefan Schmidt [phoen].
11 Q. Okay. And according to the record, this judgement was actually
12 entered the 6th of December, 1999?
13 A. That's my understanding, yes.
14 Q. Well before you testified in the Krstic trial, correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And when you were proofed, prior to your testimony in Krstic, who
17 did the proofing? Was it Mr. McCloskey?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Did he and you -- did you and he discuss the Rwanda judgement
21 A. Not to my knowledge.
22 Q. Okay. Did you ever learn of the Appeals Chamber judgement in that
23 Rwanda case?
24 A. That's what I think we're talking about now. Is that correct?
25 Q. No, sir, I'm still talking about the Trial Chamber judgement that
1 found your scientific unreliable and basically wouldn't accept your
2 evidence. That was in 1999. December 6th.
3 A. No. That was not -- no.
4 Q. No, what?
5 A. Wasn't brought to my attention. I didn't know that.
6 Q. Okay. And you said you found out about it a few weeks ago by an
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. My question is when, if at all did you learn about the Appeals
10 Chamber judgement in the Rwanda case which upheld the Trial Chamber's
11 finding that your methodology didn't float or wouldn't fly?
12 A. That's when I found out about it; this year. I found out about it
13 this year.
14 Q. Okay. Going back to your Krstic testimony, I want to ask you
15 first, you were very well aware on May 29th of 2000 of the San Antonio
16 investigation, were you not, sir?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Okay. In fact, you were there and you testified, correct?
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. And I believe you answered to a question that the Prosecutor put
21 to you that this was a United Nations -- the United Nations had put this
22 together, this oversight committee, correct?
23 A. Well, the Office of the Prosecutor did, yes.
24 Q. The Office of the Prosecutor did, correct?
25 A. Yes, that's part of the United Nations.
1 Q. Okay. And did they pay for this? Do you know?
2 A. I have no idea.
3 Q. Okay. Do you recall being asked at page 3716 on May 29th of 2000
4 in the Krstic case, question by Mr. McCloskey, and -- "also at the end of
5 this very long summer did one or two of your young colleagues have some
6 criticism regarding your supervision of the archaeological work." Your
7 answer was, "Absolutely, yes."
8 Do you recall that?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay. "What was that about?", he asked next. Your answer, "Well,
11 there was some criticism raised regarding the procedure, rate and quality
12 of the work. Basically that was the crux of it."
13 Do you recall that answer?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay. Now, the very next page, 3761, you're asked by
16 Mr. McCloskey in Krstic, a question on line 10:
17 "Q. And more significantly, were there -- well, did anyone --
18 were there any complaints regarding your work at the morgue and your
19 anthropology work?"
20 Your answer: "Not that I'm aware of, but there was a complaint
21 raised regarding the supervising pathologist and the autopsy report."
22 Do you recall that answer, sir?
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. Now, is it your testimony today that no one raised any complaints
25 regarding your work, your anthropology work? Prior to your testimony in
1 Krstic, and I'm specifically talking about what led up to this San Antonio
2 oversight committee and people who testified there and gave evidence.
3 A. Not to my knowledge --
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey. Wait a moment.
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: The statement was "your anthropology work at the
6 morgue," I believe, was the statement that he's quoting and now he's gone
7 to anthropology work, which could lead --
8 MR. MEEK: Let me clear it up.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, please do, Mr. Meek.
10 MR. MEEK:
11 Q. Question, page 3761, by Mr. McCloskey to you in the Krstic case,
12 May 29th, 2000:
13 "And more significantly, were there -- well, did anyone -- were
14 there any complaints regarding your work at the morgue and your
15 anthropology work?"
16 A. No.
17 Q. Now, that question wasn't "your anthropology work at the morgue,"
18 was it?
19 A. Yes, I would -- that's what I took it to mean.
20 Q. That's what you took it to mean?
21 A. Yeah.
22 Q. But you knew, didn't you, and you answered, not that you were
23 aware of, correct?
24 A. At the morgue, yes.
25 Q. Okay. But, seriously, you knew, you knew, did you not, that there
1 were other complaints about your work as an anthropology -- or your
2 anthropology work, didn't you?
3 A. I was answering it in context of this commission's report and the
4 complaints that I was addressing there.
5 Q. Well, to go back again, you've already testified in Krstic under
6 oath that only one or two young colleagues made criticisms regarding your
7 supervision of the archaeological -- archaeology work, didn't you, sir,
8 under oath?
9 A. That's correct, yes.
10 Q. And you know, you've seen this report on the oversight committee
11 and you've read it --
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. -- haven't you?
14 A. Yes.
15 MR. MEEK: I would like to put on e-court, if possible, D270
16 [sic], which is the report of the oversight committee, and specifically,
17 for e-court purposes, I would like to show page 0004 to 0005. If we could
18 have them side by side. All right. Let's just scroll up a little bit.
19 Down -- that way. There we go.
20 Q. Under Roman numeral VI, the comments by colleagues, do you see
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Number V, Clyde Snow. Are you saying Clyde Snow was not making
24 any comments regarding your activities in 1996 in the Srebrenica area and
25 only in the Croatian -- at the Croatian site, sir?
1 A. That's what this was in reference to.
2 Q. Well, it doesn't say that.
3 A. Yeah, well, it could mean sloppy science. Maybe that is a
4 criticism of me any my anthropology. It's a sloppy science. It's very
5 general. You could construe that as being that, yes.
6 Q. I am getting the feeling that you could construe things a lot of
7 ways. But anyway, I want to ask you, sir. My question was just this: Is
8 it your understanding or testimony that Clyde Snow's observations or
9 comments only went to your actions or activities or work at the Croatian
11 A. That was the only place he was, at the morgue in Croatia.
12 Q. Okay. We have to go to the next page, real quick. You see number
13 11, Patrick Myers, archaeologist?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. He thought your behaviour was reprehensible?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. He also stated your integrity at the site was compromised by your
18 own self-promotion. Do you see that, sir?
19 A. Yes, I see that.
20 Q. And of course you deny that, right?
21 A. I don't deny his perception of it. In his mind, yes, it was.
22 Those are his words.
23 Q. But you're saying it wasn't true, it was just his perception,
25 A. How am I supposed to say that I -- how can I evaluate -- let's
1 see, how can I evaluate my reprehensible behaviour. You're asking me to
2 do that?
3 Q. Well, was it reprehensible?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Then you're saying he's wrong.
6 A. People can have different perceptions. They can be right ...
7 Q. Okay. Thank you. Let me ask you this question: How about
8 Gallagher, Dorothy Gallagher?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. She thought you dictated too much speed, causing commingling,
11 failure to associate body parts, correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. David del Pino, number 14, a Chilean anthropologist, he said that
14 you halted operations while you were away; clothing was discarded at your
15 command even though some contained identification; forms were not always
16 used; there was no delegation of authority. Correct?
17 A. These issues are all covered in my reports.
18 Q. Well, they weren't covered in your testimony in Krstic, were they,
20 A. I believe many of these were addressed, yes.
21 Q. Oh, they were?
22 A. I thought --
23 Q. In Krstic?
24 A. Yeah.
25 Q. John Gerns, the administrator, found you to be aggressive and have
1 a condescending attitude which had an adverse effect on the mission. And
2 again, that was his perception, correct?
3 A. That's personality, not science.
4 Q. All right. Now, getting back to your testimony in Krstic, are all
5 those people I just named, Clyde Snow, Patrick Meyers, Dorothy Gallagher,
6 David del Pino, John Gerns, were they -- were they the one or two young
7 colleagues that had some criticism of your supervision at the site when
8 you said yes to that question in the Krstic case, page 370 -- 3760?
9 A. They are certainly the ones that are portrayed in the -- in the
10 oversight committee's report.
11 Q. Would you agree with me, sir, that there were a lot more
12 colleagues than one or two young colleagues who criticised your
13 supervision of the archaeological work of the Srebrenica area, yes or no?
14 A. Yes, and I think that's always to be expected.
15 Q. All right. Then why did you -- can you tell the Trial Chamber -
16 and they have access to this record; it's in evidence - can you tell them
17 why you didn't explain, Well, wait a minute, there were a lot more
18 criticisms about me? Why did you hold that back, sir?
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection. That assumes a fact that's not in
20 evidence. We can argue all day who are his colleagues, who was at the
21 site. John Gerns is not his colleague. Dr. Snow was not at the site. I
22 think that makes three and not two. We can argue over that all day long,
23 but that was the question by the Prosecutor, whoever he was.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm sure that if we have a break now, Mr. Meek will
25 rephrase his question.
1 MR. MEEK: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: A break of 25 minutes.
3 --- Recess taken at 3.47 p.m.
4 --- On resuming at 4.16 p.m.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Meek.
6 MR. MEEK: Mr. President, Your Honours, and especially to the
7 court reporter and to the interpreters, I apologise. I will try to not
8 speak so fast, and my colleague, Mr. Lazarevic, has promised to hit me if
9 I do.
10 Q. And, doctor --
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Promises are short-lived, Mr. Meek. We'll see.
12 MR. MEEK: Maybe you're right about that.
13 Q. Mr. Haglund, we do speak the same language, so -- do you have a
14 transcript on either one of those screens?
15 A. Yes, here there is part of the transcript from the committee
17 Q. What I'm talking about a LiveNote, do you have --
18 A. Yes. The transcription? Yes.
19 Q. Okay.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. What I'm going to try to do is wait until the cursor stops before
22 I ask you another question?
23 A. Okay.
24 Q. And if you would try to do the same thing, maybe we'll make the
25 lives of the court reporters and the interpreters and maybe everybody else
1 a little bit easier.
2 Okay. I know you're not a lawyer, and therefore I'm going to go
3 back to your testimony in the Krstic case which was May 29th of 2000.
4 Now, you do recall testifying in this building in that case, do you not?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Now, before you testified you were proofed, were you not?
7 A. Proofed?
8 Q. Well, did you have a session with a prosecuting attorney to go
9 over what your testimony would be? That's what we call proofing.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And you had a proofing session before your testimony in this case
12 today also, did you not?
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. And it's true that the prosecuting attorney for the OTP was
15 Mr. Peter McCloskey in both those cases, isn't it?
16 A. That's true.
17 Q. And is it your testimony then that when he asked you Krstic at
18 page 3760 that at the end of that very long summer did one or two young
19 colleagues have some criticism regarding your supervision of the
20 archaeological sub-work, you said, "Absolutely, yes."
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. Okay. Is it your testimony today that had Mr. McCloskey asked
23 you, well -- a question to the effect of, Well, wasn't it more than just
24 one or two colleagues, didn't, in fact, some very senior people in the
25 field have some criticisms about your work, that you would have then
1 answered "yes"?
2 A. Yes, I said one, yeah.
3 Q. And which one was that?
4 A. Clyde Snow.
5 Q. Okay. And so you don't -- you don't believe then that Patrick
6 Meyers, an archaeologist, I mean was he a young colleague?
7 A. He was a -- a -- yeah, he was a young colleague, certainly.
8 Q. What --
9 A. He was actually doing our mapping.
10 Q. What do you mean by young, age wise or --
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection. This is gone over. It is more to do
12 with the Prosecutor's question than it is the witness's answers too. So
13 its relevancy is slim to none.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Meek.
15 MR. MEEK: Well, Your Honour, it's not. I'm just going about this
16 a different way, and I'm trying to rephrase the questions because
17 obviously, in my opinion, a lot more than one or two young colleagues that
18 made criticisms about his work.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, but let's try to be specific rather than
20 going -- your cross-examination, you've got much more licence than the
21 other side on direct. So go ahead.
22 MR. MEEK:
23 Q. David del Pino, the archaeologist from Chile, do you also consider
24 him to be a young colleague?
25 A. At my age, yes.
1 Q. Okay. When you say at your age, and trust me, I won't ask you
2 that, was everybody mentioned in this report, besides Clyde Snow, younger
3 than you?
4 A. I really -- I really don't know, some of them were probably the
5 same age. I can't answer that question, I don't know. I don't know
6 everybody's ages.
7 Q. Okay. Now, also in that report -- and by the way, you were
8 interviewed, were you not, along with Kirschner?
9 A. I believe he -- he also appeared before this committee also,
11 Q. And can you tell the Trial Chamber -- well, wouldn't Peter
12 McCloskey, a prosecuting attorney from the OTP, and Jan Kruszewski also
13 present in San Antonio?
14 A. I believe they were.
15 Q. Okay. Now, you in your job, you were the senior person, forensic
16 pathologist on those exhumations, were you not?
17 A. I was the senior forensic consultant, yes.
18 Q. Okay. And you were in charge of all the people working,
20 A. Essentially, yes.
21 Q. Okay. There were some findings by that panel in San Antonio, were
22 there not, that dealt with you?
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. Okay. And one of them, they state, and again I'm going to ask to
25 have put up on the e-court, which would be page 007 of 2D70. And
1 Mr. Haglund, just tell me when you see that.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay. You were in charge of administration and logistics; you
4 already testified to that, correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And in the findings there you see that about halfway down in the
7 fourth, fifth line, it says, "Rather it became apparent that the main
8 problems with the exhumations were administrative and logistic."
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. They also say under paragraph 1 on that page, do you see it? On
12 the screen.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. It says, "There were no systematic briefings at the sites upon
15 arrival. No one seems to have been given any standard plan of operation.
16 There was apparent disagreement as to the primary purpose of the
17 mission." And it finishes with, "There was no clear concept of the chain
18 of responsibility."
19 Do you see that, sir?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Do you agree with that?
22 A. Well, I can't agree with what some thought, but of -- of -- in
23 part, yes, that's -- that's certainly true.
24 Q. Well -- and Mr. Haglund, I'm not agreeing -- I'm not asking you to
25 agree with what some thought, because I'm asking you to agree with the
1 findings of this committee that was paid for and put together by the OTP.
2 And do you agree with those findings under paragraph 1?
3 A. If that was their findings, yes. Yes, if -- if they -- if they
4 interviewed these people and that was their findings, yes, of course.
5 Q. Do you agree with the findings --
6 A. Of ...
7 Q. -- Contained in paragraph 1, and not just because they found it,
8 I'm asking you personally, sir, do you agree with this?
9 A. Not in total. The initial people who entered the field got a
10 briefing on what the project was about. We're dealing with people that
11 came for two weeks, they were -- came over a period of several months,
12 they would stay for indeterminate times, they would come in at irregular
14 Q. Okay. I don't want to cut you off, but I don't want to keep you
15 here until next week either.
16 A. Yeah.
17 Q. Just tell me briefly, then, you don't agree with the first
18 sentence, that there was no systematic briefings at the sites upon
19 arrival ?
20 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection. He was answering that in a reasonable
21 manner and should be allowed to finish.
22 MR. MEEK: Your Honour, I don't believe he was.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Let us decide that.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Haglund, would you agree with Mr. McCloskey that
1 you had not finished your statement?
2 THE WITNESS: Yes, I was trying --
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Please bring it to an end and then Mr. Meek
4 with proceed with his next question.
5 THE WITNESS: Essentially there was systematic briefings for the
6 majority of people at the beginning of the project, but as the project
7 went on it became impossible to indoctrinate everybody about the project
8 as they came in, because they come in at different times, different places
9 et cetera. And again, the initial individuals, the initial individuals
10 which were the bulk of them, did get a standard plan of operation where
11 they were going to be. I don't know what that really refers to, but where
12 they were going to be, what work was expected of them, and how we were
13 going to go about it. Yes, and I do agree about the -- the difference of
14 the purpose, because many people were from human rights backgrounds and
15 thought we were there basically to identify people, and that was not our
16 purpose or our mandate.
17 And that all again falls under the personal identification. We
18 passed on the personal identification to other organisations; that was not
19 something in our mandate. Only if we had leads to specific
20 identifications, we followed those up.
21 And the chain of responsibility, as far as the field was myself
22 and Jose Pablo, who was with the UN, and in my absence he was in charge.
23 In the -- in the laboratory, as far as the forensic pathology was
24 concerned, ostensibly Dr. Kirschner was in charge of the operation of
25 the -- of the morgue, once it was set up.
1 MR. MEEK:
2 Q. Yes. And frankly, I appreciate that answer, and I'm really not
3 interested in Dr. Kirschner and what he may -- may have done or may not
4 have. Thank you for your answer.
5 So you agree there was no clear concept of the chain of the
6 responsibility. Now, was that your fault or Mr. Jose Baraybar's fault,
8 A. No, I think -- I think you need to look further in this report,
9 because this committee severely criticises administrative and logistical
10 support that we had in the field.
11 Q. Well, we'll get to those points, but my question was, and I'll
12 just reread it to you. "So do you agree there was no clear concept of
13 the chain of responsibility" you did agree with that. And my question
14 was, "Was that your fault or Mr. Jose Baraybar's fault?"
15 A. Well, the people didn't understand who was in charge, I guess it
16 might be my fault.
17 Q. Might be?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Okay. Now, you, as the overall team leader, had the
20 responsibility to make sure people knew what the chain of responsibility
21 was --
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. -- and to do delegation. Isn't that true, sir?
24 A. And I thought I did that.
25 Q. Okay. Now, apparently the committee didn't, though, correct?
1 A. [No audible response]
2 Q. Thank you. Let's go down to paragraph 3 on that same page, sir.
3 The finding of this committee was that "having two sites open at the same
4 time caused severe logistic problems in transportation and equipment." It
5 says, "Dr. Haglund often spent hours driving between the sites. That
6 impeded his ability to routinely supervise the work being done."
7 Do you agree with those findings, sir?
8 A. I spent hours usually driving between sites at night. But, yes,
9 there was -- there were problems when two sites were open.
10 Q. Okay. And --
11 A. However --
12 Q. Tell the Chamber, real quickly, which two sites were open at the
13 same time?
14 A. Ovcara and Pilica, and in my absences in Ovcara there was somebody
15 in charge, and that was Dr. Scott.
16 Q. Okay.
17 A. And it was only when I switched over to go to that, that I
18 became --
19 Q. Didn't you actually, sir, during this time give orders that bodies
20 should not be exhumated in your absence?
21 A. I did not give orders that bodies should not be exhumed. I
22 gave -- I gave order that they should not be removed, but there were
23 plenty of work to do cleaning them off. And I explained this already it
24 was because we needed to have a -- a link between the lab and a link
25 between the field in regards to these remains.
1 Q. And, sir, when you were gone, and in your absence, couldn't Jose
2 Baraybar have taken care of that?
3 A. In some instances he did.
4 Q. Why not in all instances, sir?
5 A. Because he wasn't there all the time. I mean --
6 Q. So --
7 A. It's not -- in some instances he did. In some instances I still
8 felt Jose Pablo was not travelling between the morgue and the field, and
9 I'm talking about a link between the morgue and the field.
10 Q. Well, aren't you, in fact, talking chain of custody of the
11 evidence, even the bodies and other evidence?
12 A. Yes. Yes, of course. Of course, yes.
13 Q. Okay.
14 A. And it was much more efficient to -- to do a -- a tape recording
15 of this and get it put it on a record so that the pathologist could --
16 that was my impression, anyway, that was my decision, so that the
17 pathologist could open up a body bag and say, yes, that is the body bag
18 that is numbered and that is the body bag that is described as being
19 numbered such and such.
20 Q. And if I understand you correctly then, only you or Baraybar
21 should be doing that and there were times when Baraybar would do it in
22 your absence, correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And there were times when you were both absent?
25 A. No, no, no, no; one of us was always there.
1 Q. Okay. Then I have to ask you, why was it that you stated you
2 would not allow the bodies to be removed without you being present?
3 A. At the Cerska grave I was present all the time. At the Nova
4 Kasaba grave, Jose Pablo removed bodies in my absence and I was there
5 sometimes and dictated removal. At the Pilica grave he was there for a
6 lot of the time and he did all of that. At the Lazete grave, for the most
7 part, I was there absent maybe for a day or so and, in my absence, I would
8 ask that the bodies would be removed or returned. It did not retard the
10 Q. Let's just break this down. At the Cerska grave you were present
11 all the time, correct?
12 A. I was present all the time during -- yes, during -- basically
13 during the body-removal time, yes.
14 Q. And at Nova Kasaba grave, Jose Pablo removed bodies while you were
15 gone doing other things, correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. At the Pilica grave Jose was there a lot of the time --
18 A. He was there continuously.
19 Q. Okay. And then at the Lazete grave for the most part you were
20 there and maybe absent for a few days, correct?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. So is it your testimony then it's the Lazete grave that this
23 report is probably speaking to about slowing up or not going quickly
24 enough and halting the work --
25 A. I believe it would be Lazete grave -- at Lazete grave 2A, yes.
1 Q. Okay. 2A, 2B?
2 A. 2A, I believe.
3 Q. There was a 2B also, correct?
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. And later on did you also discover there was actually a 2C, Lazete
6 2C, that you missed?
7 A. I know -- I don't know what you're speaking of, if you're speaking
8 of other remains from the Lazete 2 area.
9 Q. Yeah, they called -- yeah, Lazete 2C?
10 A. Yeah, I am aware of that, those are the bodies I left behind and
11 are reflected in my report.
12 Q. Bodies you knew about?
13 A. Absolutely. One -- I knew there was one protruding from the bank,
14 but when the bank is caving in, you have to get out of the grave.
15 Q. The committee again -- I'm going to ask you to go to the next
16 page, please, for the e-court. Okay. You see under,
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. Okay. Under number 2 that there should be a transmittal of
20 knowledge, both up and down the chain of command frequently?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now, that apparently wasn't happening when you were in charge, or
23 they wouldn't have recommended that. Is that a fair statement?
24 A. It did happen some of the times.
25 Q. Pardon me?
1 A. It didn't happen some of the times.
2 Q. It just happened a few times?
3 A. I'm saying it was not a constant. I say that yes, that at some
4 times those things broke down, of course.
5 Q. Also the recommendation to listen to suggestions carefully?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Do you agree with that recommendation?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And was it you who wasn't listening to suggestions carefully,
10 since you were the head man there?
11 A. I don't know who they were referring to.
12 Q. Number 3, open only one grave site at a time to prevent excessive
13 driving, animal scavenging and supply problems?
14 A. I would have suggested that myself. That was my original
15 intention, yes.
16 Q. But you were the one who had two grave sites open at once, weren't
17 you, sir?
18 A. That was not my choice.
19 Q. Whose choice was it?
20 A. That was the Office of the Prosecutor.
21 Q. So the Office of the Prosecutor's fault that you had to go to two
22 grave sites at once?
23 A. The -- I'm not saying it's their fault. I'm saying that this
24 happened to be the circumstances we happened to have had, the open
25 grave -- two graves at once. Now, the work -- the work was paced so that
1 it made the least impairment on the activities of either site. And -- and
2 that's -- and that is -- and then the end point of it, that's why Jose
3 Pablo finished the Pilica grave and I continued on to Ovcara.
4 Q. Okay. Well, I think you have agreed that it is a problem to have
5 two grave sites at one time open, correct?
6 A. Well, it depends on the staffing but --
7 Q. In this instance --
8 A. But in this instance, yes, the logistics were horrible and that
9 had to do with getting across to Brcko bridge, it had to do with people's
10 airplane flights, all kinds of things beyond our control.
11 Q. You knew at the time, why didn't you -- my question, sir, is why
12 didn't you tell whoever was directing you from the Office of the
13 Prosecutor, this isn't correct, I cannot do this, get someone else to
14 finish one of the other sites so I only have one site open at a time?
15 A. We had somebody else working at the other sites.
16 Q. Yet they needed you there?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Then why did you go?
19 A. Because I had somebody adequate to do another one while I was
21 Q. So -- so that I understand your testimony, even though they
22 recommended only having one grave site at a time open, you don't think
23 that's a valid recommendation?
24 A. I did not say that.
25 Q. Okay. I guess we're talking at cross purposes. Could you not, or
1 did you ever request and couldn't you have requested that someone else be
2 put in charge of, say, the Croatian grave site so you don't have to make
3 those drives?
4 A. The beginning recommendation before we went into the field that
5 only one site should be done at a time. That was my beginning
7 Q. And -- and the Office of the Prosecutor didn't go along with
8 that. Is that what you're saying?
9 A. The Office of the Prosecutor thought that was a good idea.
10 Q. But they didn't acknowledge it and they didn't abide by it,
12 A. Due to a three-week delay in the field we had to start another
13 grave before we were done with all the graves. That was something we just
14 had to do and we did it.
15 Q. And again that wasn't your fault, was it, sir?
16 A. I don't this there is a -- no, no.
17 Q. Can we move forward in this document three more pages. Yeah,
18 that's -- that's good.
19 Now, this committee in San Antonio also were in mutual agreement
20 on management problems on the part of the supervisors, were they not?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And you were not only one of the supervisors, you were the main
23 supervisor, correct?
24 A. In respect of the exhumations, yes.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 A. Setting up -- yes.
2 Q. We already discussed number one, lack of knowledge regarding the
3 chain of command. Have we not? Do you agree with that, that there was a
4 lack of knowledge?
5 A. I wasn't aware that there was, but that's what this says, yes.
6 Q. In your opinion there wasn't?
7 A. I -- yes.
8 Q. Yes, what?
9 A. I think there was -- there was a basic knowledge of chain of
11 Q. Okay.
12 A. I had no question about that.
13 Q. All right. So the committee is wrong about that mutual agreement
14 that they made, there was a lack of knowledge regarding the chain of
15 command by the supervisors.
16 We'll go to number 2. That committee was in mutual agreement --
17 I'm not going to read it, you can read it. Lack of stating who the
18 volunteer was specifically working for, and the little -- and little
19 thought as to positioning less experienced personnel with more experienced
20 anthropologists and pathologists. Do you agree or disagree with that
21 finding, sir, or that ...
22 A. These are recommendations of -- and I think they're all good
24 Q. Well, sir, if I would just -- I agree with you that they're good
1 A. Yeah.
2 Q. And frankly, after this committee meeting and -- in San Antonio in
3 1997, you were -- you didn't do any more work for the Tribunal after that,
4 did you?
5 A. Yes, I did.
6 Q. Oh, really? Where?
7 A. I spent a year and a half doing 1200 body -- reports on 1200
8 exhumations from 1996. I worked for the Tribunal until mid-1998.
9 Q. Let me re -- let me rephrase my question. You didn't do any field
10 work for them any longer, did you, sir?
11 A. One has to write the report at some time.
12 Q. Since you finished the reports in 1998 that went back to 1996, you
13 have not been re-employed by the -- this Tribunal, have you?
14 A. I chose not to be, because I took another job.
15 Q. Okay. Now, to go back to it, this page you're looking at, sir,
16 those aren't recommendations, we've already gone through some
17 recommendations. We're going to get to more recommendations. These were
18 the committee's mutual agreement on management problems on the part of
19 supervisors. Do you see that?
20 A. What page are you on here?
21 Q. It's on e-court.
22 A. Yeah, okay.
23 Q. "There was mutual agreement," it starts out, on management
24 problems on the part of the supervisors:" Do you see it, sir?
25 A. Yes, much of this is a repetition of the previous.
1 Q. And it's 1 through 14. I know on the screen you can only see 12,
2 but we'll get to them. Do you agree with number 3, that the committee --
3 that the management problems of the supervisors was lack of communication
4 with a criminal investigation, with all its legal ramifications and trial
5 preparation, and not simply an exercise in demonstrating violations of
6 human rights. Do you agree with that, sir, or not?
7 A. It's difficult for me -- anybody who is working for an
8 International Criminal Tribunal knows it's going to go to court. That's
9 what we're there for, so ...
10 Q. So you disagree with that.
11 A. It's hard me to conceive that those people were there and didn't
12 know they were working for a criminal court. That's what I said.
13 Q. Okay. Could it have been --
14 A. They were also given briefing statements by PHR before they left
15 of what they were going to do.
16 Q. Well, couldn't it have been, sir, that the reason some of those
17 people weren't aware that -- the investigation was a criminal
18 investigation is because you, as a main supervisor, never fully informed
19 them? Is that what happened?
20 A. It could be, yes.
21 Q. Thank you. Number 4. The supervisors, they agreed had a total
22 lack of communication between supervisors and between supervisors and
23 volunteer personnel. Do you agree with that?
24 A. If it was a total lack, we wouldn't have been able get any work
1 Q. So you disagree with that. Well, let's go to 5. Dismissal of
2 all non-substantive minor allegations of recklessness in vehicular
4 A. They dismissed it, yes. Why?
5 Q. What's that mean? Does that mean that the supervisor is just
6 dismissing all minor allegations about people that other people were
7 recklessly driving vehicles?
8 A. No, no. That was -- that was an allegation that I drove fast.
9 Q. Did you?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Apparently it bothered some of the people there, correct?
12 A. Apparently, yes. Yeah.
13 Q. Now, on number 7 regarding the management problems of the
14 supervisor, they say there was little need of rapidity of some grave site
15 exhumations and only one exhumation should have been performed at one
17 A. We've just addressed that.
18 Q. All right. I think you don't really agree with that, correct?
19 A. No, I told you that it is -- it is desirable to do one site at a
21 Q. How about rapidity?
22 A. I think they also said that they didn't feel -- well -- rapidity,
23 not knowing that you're not going to be there the next day, yes, I think
24 there was -- you needed to be efficient. And if the efficiency is -- is
25 translated into rapidity, then I think it's needed.
1 Q. Okay. So then again, I take it you don't agree with number 7, the
2 first part of it anyway, correct?
3 A. Not in this context, no.
4 Q. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Let's go to 8. That panel mutually
5 agreed that there was some validity to the charge of shifting and
6 non-protection of the bones. Do you agree with that or not, sir?
7 A. I don't know -- I don't know what that is referring to, so I can't
8 address that.
9 Q. You were the main forensic pathologist in charge of the bones,
10 weren't you?
11 A. I just don't know what that refers to. I don't know the context
12 and what that refers to.
13 Q. Okay. Number 9. The panel mutually agreed there was too much
14 subjectivity and not enough objectivity in the performance of the
15 exhumations and post-mortem exams. And I'm not even considering the
16 post-mortem exams because you didn't -- weren't involved in that part of
18 A. I just don't know what -- what some of these are referring to.
19 But that's -- that's certainly their -- what is the heading of this, by
20 chance? I didn't see the heading.
21 Q. The heading of whole document?
22 A. No, no, no. The heading of the --
23 Q. There was mutual agreement on management problems on the part of
24 the supervisors.
25 A. Okay.
1 Q. Okay?
2 A. Yes, these are very experience people. I think that --
3 Q. You were the main supervisor and you don't know what they were
4 talking about in number 8?
5 A. You asked about bones, I just don't know -- I don't know with --
6 what context they're talking about. Which bones? I have no idea.
7 Q. Number --
8 JUDGE AGIUS: The thing is that, as I told you, promises sometimes
9 are short lived and there has been some overlapping and the interpreters
10 have missed some of the statements made.
11 MR. HAYNES: I can't reach him from here.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: It's -- if you look at the current page on the
13 transcript, you should know exactly what I'm referring to.
14 MR. HAYNES: I thought he said something about very strange
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I heard him say that, Mr. Haynes.
17 MR. MEEK:
18 Q. Sir, do you recall that we were talking about -- there was a
19 mutual agreement on the management problems on the part of the
20 supervisors, and you said okay, and then I must have said okay, and then
21 you said something about very strange people. What was your answer?
22 A. I didn't say anything about very strange people.
23 JUDGE PROST: Mr. Meek, what I heard was, these were very
24 experienced people, is what I heard.
25 MR. MEEK: Okay.
1 Q. And are we talking very experienced people, the members of the
2 panel who made -- that were all in mutual agreement --
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. -- on the supervisors -- [Realtime transcript read error, "Someone
6 A. They have resourced very high-tech facilities in the United
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Again, please, Witness, Dr. Haglund and Mr. Meek, if
9 you have a look at the screen, you will see the problems that the
10 interpreters are encountering. So if you could kindly slow down.
11 MR. MEEK: I will try to, judge, but seriously the last time he
12 started to answer my question before I even finished it.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm not criticising you, Mr. Meek. I'm appealing to
14 both of you to slow down and not to overlap. So if you could kindly
15 repeat your question, please, Mr. Meek. Last we heard from the witness
16 was they have resourced, very high technical facilities in the United
17 States. And that supposedly was in reply to a question of yours which
18 laconically shows up in the transcript as "Someone tw?" This is what I
19 mean. If you slow down, it helps everyone to be able to follow better.
20 MR. MEEK: Thank you, Judge.
21 Q. I think the question was the very experienced people you were
22 discussing earlier, I asked you, do you mean the members who comprised the
23 committee who did this report?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Again, they were all in mutual agreement that one of the
1 management problems on the part of the supervisors under number 9 was that
2 there was too much subjectivity and not enough objectivity in the
3 performance of the exhumations. Do you agree with that or not, sir?
4 A. I would agree with it. I'm not really sure in what -- what
5 they're referring to. These are -- you know, these are big statements.
6 And -- in some respects, probably, yes. And in some respects probably no,
7 I just don't know.
8 Q. Under number 10 ...
9 JUDGE AGIUS: We have a query here we just want to make sure. The
10 answer on line 7, page 66 and my apologies to you, Mr. Meek, for
11 interrupting you like this. The answer -- first part of the witness's
12 answer is" I would agree with it."
13 Did you say I would agree with it or I wouldn't agree with it?
14 THE WITNESS: I would.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: You would.
16 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.
18 MR. MEEK:
19 Q. Sir, under number 10, they stated and were in mutual agreement
20 that there was no attempt to schedule or coordinate anthropological and
21 pathological investigations. Do you agree with the panel's finding on
22 that, sir?
23 A. If they -- they meant that there was no attempt to join the field
24 process of the exhumations which was in the very high security area, with
25 the goings on in the laboratory, which was in a low security area and
1 there was no travel very much between, that's -- that's correct. If they
2 mean that there was -- that -- but there was the -- there was a
3 coordination, but there wasn't a coordination between the staff of both
4 because of logistical problems, security concerns, et cetera.
5 Q. Under number 11 there was mutual agreement by the committee
6 members that there was too much concern with regard to media involvement.
7 Do you agree with that, sir?
8 A. Yes. And in -- in the United States we were very, very concerned
9 about media and very controlling of media.
10 Q. Okay. Now --
11 A. But we were not in the United States, and I was asked to give
12 press briefings regularly by the Office of the Prosecutor and I did so,
13 and related procedurally what we did. Not any information about the
14 actual evidence, but I did that on a regular basis.
15 Q. And in -- and, in fact --
16 A. And -- excuse me, in contrast to the United States or Canada or
17 most of our home countries, we would not do that in a criminal
19 Q. And do you recall the colleague who made that complaint
20 specifically to this committee that you were always in front of the camera
21 and spending too much time in front of the camera? Do you remember who
22 that was?
23 A. Well, I did sleep sometimes. Yes, I was the only person that did
24 the media at the request of the Tribunal. And many people felt that --
25 that I must have been you know, wanted media attention. I don't want
1 media attention, but I was filling the wishes of the Tribunal.
2 Q. Could that have been Patrick Meyers when he stated he thought the
3 integrity of the sites was compromised by your self-promotion?
4 A. I have no idea of what his thoughts were. At no time -- the media
5 was kept at a perimeter, they were outside like we would have in a normal
6 crime scene. We spoke with them away -- away from the site.
7 Q. Okay.
8 A. With one exception. At the request of the Prosecutor, I -- the --
9 at the Cerska grave they wished to have -- to allow the media to
10 photograph wires on the bound wrists of -- of a -- of a remains. And we
11 draped off the grave and escorted the media in there to take a picture and
12 escorted them out.
13 Q. And while that was being done all the work had to stop, I
15 A. Had to stop while people were having their lunch.
16 Q. Are you saying that you agree with that procedure, this -- what
17 you just testified to?
18 A. It's -- it's not something we would normally do. We're not in the
19 United States and Canada, we're in a -- a very high internationally
20 high-profile case, and it was something that the Prosecutor's office felt
21 should be made public. And these graves, and that's what they wanted to
22 do and that's what I did.
23 Q. I guess my question is simply, did you agree with it, yes or no?
24 A. That particular -- that particular? No, I didn't.
25 Q. Okay. Thank you. Did you tell the Office of the Prosecutor, I'm
1 the supervising forensic pathologist and I don't believe it's proper and
2 I'm not going to do it. It may affect the integrity of the site. Sir,
3 did you tell anybody that?
4 A. I am not the supervising pathologist.
5 Q. I'm sorry.
6 A. And I did not feel it affected the integrity of the site. It's
7 just something one would not normally do at a crime scene.
8 Q. Now, they made recommendations on the next page, if we could see
9 it on e-court. And while you're looking for it, sir --
10 A. No, I think they're wonderful recommendations.
11 Q. And you have a copy of that --
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. -- in front of you?
14 A. Yes, I do.
15 Q. You've read it before you came to court?
16 A. Yeah.
17 Q. And you read it after it came out?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Let me ask this question for clarification's sake. I understand
20 that the procedure was the witnesses were not tape-recorded and they
21 weren't given any -- they weren't to give any written statements. Is that
23 A. That's what I read in the report, yes.
24 Q. Okay. And that's what happened with you, right?
25 A. That's correct.
1 Q. Okay. After it was over do you recall when the recommendations
2 came out? Was it fairly immediate?
3 A. I don't recall. They don't have a release date on here.
4 Q. All right. February 12th of 1998, the last page, you can look at
5 it, you have it yourself in there.
6 A. Okay.
7 Q. Is it your testimony that after February 12th you didn't discuss
8 these findings, recommendations, with either Walter Birkby, Vincent de
9 Majo, Richard Frody [phoen], Elis Curly, or, frankly, all of the people on
10 the -- any or all of the people on the committee?
11 A. No, I didn't.
12 Q. Did you discuss the findings with Peter McCloskey can I or any of
13 the people at the Office of the Prosecutor, the OTP here?
14 A. I discussed these when I testified in the proofing for the
16 Q. In Krstic and for this case?
17 A. Yes, we didn't discuss it, we just went over that this was going
18 brought up, basically.
19 Q. That's what I get back to, sir, you recall earlier you said -- I
20 asked you about the proofing session you had before Krstic and you -- I
21 think you more or less indicated that you didn't really discuss the
22 people, all the people who had made complaints against you just one or two
23 young colleagues. And now I'm understanding you to say that you discussed
24 this --
25 A. No, I said -- we discussed that we would be dealing with this
1 report, and I should be aware that we're dealing with the report. As far
2 as specifics, no, we didn't discuss it.
3 Q. But you read it beforehand, didn't you?
4 A. Yes, yes.
5 Q. Okay. And would you agree with me that all the committee
6 recommendations under Roman numeral VIII, 1 through 18, were not only good
7 recommendations but came out of -- flowed from all the chaos that happened
8 during your time in Bosnia, sir? And again the Judges are going to get
9 mad at one of us, so while I'm asking a question, you should really listen
10 until I finish and I will try to listen to your answers, okay?
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection. It's argumentative. And that's the --
12 creating the problem here.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Mr. Meek. Do you wish to respond to
15 MR. MEEK: I don't think it's argumentative. I'm just --
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: I would like to respond to that, if I could.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: The work that Dr. Haglund has done his whole
19 career, the work he did there, to be described to him after the summer he
20 put in as "chaos" is an insult and is argumentative.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: But let him respond to it. I mean, he can agree or
22 disagree with that. Basically that's what he is here for, to answer the
24 Let me consult with my colleagues.
25 [Trial Chamber confers].
1 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in agreement here that the question in
2 itself, as put, is flawed, especially because it is attributing to the
3 witness all the chaos that you allege to have happened or which you
4 believe to have happened during his time in Bosnia. So we don't think
5 that it was a proper way to -- proper question to put to the witness.
6 However, it has been put, and I think at this point in time we should give
7 the opportunity to the witness to answer that question, if he can answer,
8 or if he wishes to answer that question.
9 THE WITNESS: It was not chaos. We had many problems beyond our
10 control in situations and circumstances beyond our control and, as this
11 committee says, they felt that the work done, under the conditions it was
12 done, was the best work that could have been done under the
14 MR. MEEK:
15 Q. Thank you, sir. Could we have on e-court Exhibit 2D73? It would
16 be -- first page of that I'd like shown to the witness would be 0036 on
17 the e-court number, I believe. There we go.
18 Mr. Haglund, do you recall being in a seminar --
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Crimes of war project?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Do you remember that?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Okay. I'd like the witness to be shown page 0039 from that
25 exhibit, please. There we go.
1 Third paragraph -- the second full paragraph down, this is your
2 statement, is it not, sir? "I slow plate this one and that's one of the
3 reasons -- I had a four-ring circus going on. I was going absolutely
4 crazy here. But sometimes you're lucky and you have had the resources to
5 cover the grave and sometimes you're not." Is that your statement, sir?
6 A. Absolutely.
7 Q. And that was your statement in regard to these digs in 1996 in
8 Srebrenica, correct?
9 A. That was a characterisation of how, in a post-conflict
10 environment, when you're doing these things, that's how you feel. Yes.
11 And you have to regulate the pace of -- of the work. And sometimes you,
12 umm ...
13 Q. Are you finished with your answer, sir?
14 A. Of the "slow plate", umm, this -- yeah. Yeah, but yes, things get
15 crazy in these situations, they do.
16 Q. But you just testified under oath here that there was no chaos
18 A. I don't equate things getting crazy with chaos.
19 Q. Okay.
20 A. Okay.
21 Q. Now, we're both Americans, so we're pretty much -- we know what a
22 three-ring circus or that term means, correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Would you agree with me that three-ring circus is defined in
25 Merriam-Webster dictionary as something wild, confusing, engrossing or
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
4 MR. McCLOSKEY: I think this is not relevant or probative.
5 MR. MEEK: Well, Your Honour, may I respond to that?
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, go ahead.
7 MR. MEEK: I have a witness here under oath telling me it wasn't
8 chaotic at the time. I have him giving the statement that it was a
9 four-ring circus and that -- these are absolutely two different positions.
10 And he doesn't want any question about this -- I have a view the
11 Prosecutor doesn't want me to because they're inconsistent statements.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Mr. Meek.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment.
15 It's a question of style, Mr. Meek. And I suggest that you
16 rephrase your question and you can ask the witness to explain what he
17 meant by a "four-ring circus," without necessarily referring to the
18 Webster, which is not necessarily the dictionary we consult on this side
19 of the pond.
20 MR. MEEK: Well that's true, and actually, Your Honours, while you
21 were deliberating, some of my colleagues said they never heard of a
22 three-ring circus. Americans, we have.
23 Q. Tell the -- the Court what a three-ring circus is, first, sir?
24 A. It's when you have a circus with three events or activities going
25 on at the same time. And this was four events going on at the same time.
1 We all juggle many events at the same time.
2 Q. And, again, you would agree with me that a three-ring circus is
3 what you just said, a circus with simultaneous performances in three rings
4 or the at one time, right?
5 A. Yes, and it doesn't necessarily mean it's chaotic. It just means
6 that things are going on. They can be going on very regular.
7 Q. Would you agree with me though that another connotation from the
8 slang three-ring circus is that something is wild or confusing?
9 A. If that's the way a person uses it, yes.
10 Q. Okay. And would you agree with me that the synonym of confusing
11 is befuddled, bemused --
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Meek. Mr. Meek, you've both made your point
13 here. Let's move to something different.
14 MR. MEEK:
15 Q. Frankly, while it wasn't chaotic, it was worse than a three-ring
16 circus. Is that what you're saying, sir?
17 A. Well, three-ring circuses are very entertaining and very good.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Take my advice, Mr. Meek, and let's move to your
19 next topic.
20 MR. MEEK:
21 Q. You will agree with me, will you not, sir, that at the time this
22 investigation and panel was empaneled in San Antonio to look into these
23 allegations of malfeasance, so to speak, this was a million-dollar baby
24 for the Tribunal, money invested in the case?
25 A. Of course.
1 Q. Okay. I think you would agree with me that you also stated at
2 that same symposium that since 1996 the international forensic
3 investigations up on the front stage now are giant missions, they're
4 complicated logistically, they're expensive, in the million-dollar range,
6 A. That's correct, yes.
7 Q. And this was one of them, right?
8 A. That's the first time ever.
9 Q. Right. And if you know, can you tell me why it was that the
10 Office of the Prosecutor wanted to get all these professionals together
11 down in San Antonio to go over this, all these reports, on these four
12 grave sites, at that time?
13 A. Well, it's obvious.
14 Q. Tell us.
15 A. They wanted to make sure that these -- that -- that these
16 allegations were -- were taken an independent look at them by independent
17 experts to see what they thought they could be evaluated.
18 Q. Okay. And do you have any idea who picked these "independent
20 A. I have no idea.
21 Q. Well, I put it to you that the Office of the Prosecutor put
22 together the panel of the independent experts to whitewash the shoddy job
23 and sloppy science that was done by you and others at Srebrenica?
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Don't answer that question. Move to your next
25 question, Mr. Meek.
1 MR. MEEK: We will, Your Honour, for the record, I don't know
2 why. I think we're supposed to put the case to the witness sometimes.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: The witness doesn't answer for the Prosecution.
4 MR. MEEK: Your Honour, excuse me, Mr. President. I get confused
5 sometimes in the afternoon and morning like we all do.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: The break will be at quarter to 6.00.
7 MR. MEEK: Quarter to 6.00. I wasn't sure.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: And you have got two, at least two Defence teams
9 that would like to cross-examine this witness. One of which is the
10 Pandurevic team; that requires 30 minutes.
11 Madam Fauveau, you asked for 10 minutes, yeah.
12 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. But in fact I
13 won't have any questions for this witness.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. And you, Mr. Haynes.
15 MR. HAYNES: My approach will be entirely flexibility. I have no
16 wish to bring this witness back next week. If there is time at the end of
17 the day, I will take it, if not, I won't.
18 MR. MEEK: I will try to speed this up, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. We will have a break at quarter to 6.00
21 MR. MEEK:
22 Q. Let's just talk about your qualifications. You are a mortician,
23 first, correct?
24 A. Yes embalmer.
25 Q. An embalmer. You have a mortician's licence, correct?
1 A. I don't keep it up anymore.
2 Q. I know that. Back when you became the medical examiner in King
3 County Washington that's what you were doing, correct?
4 A. I was not a medical examiner, I was a chief medical investigator.
5 The medical examiner has to be a forensic pathologist.
6 Q. Isn't it a fair statement that to be a chief medical investigator,
7 you really have to have no prior skills that can be done by a mortician or
8 embalmer, a -- is that true or not?
9 A. In my case it wasn't. Yes, the qualification to be a medical
10 investigator in the United States are very -- on equal, in fact. I was
11 co-author of the volume that established the criteria for certifying
12 medical investigators.
13 Q. Thank you. But back when you became -- into that position, you
14 could have -- an EMT or a police officer, any layperson could have gotten
15 that position, correct?
16 A. The -- the preference of -- of choice was either persons with
17 police investigative background, individuals with anatomical, medical
18 background, or people from the funeral industry.
19 Q. Okay.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Those were preferences?
22 A. Those were preferences, yes.
23 Q. My question was, you didn't have any of those to become what -- to
24 get that job. Yes or no?
25 A. I had to have qualifications to -- to -- to take this job, and I
1 can tell you what they based my qualifications on, but I ...
2 Q. Well, let's just go into your duties. Wouldn't it be a fair
3 statement that you -- when you were working this job as an investigator
4 for the King County, Washington medical examiner's office, your basic
5 duties were to go to a crime scene, make sure the body was put into the
6 bag, escort it to the morgue, make sure it arrived at the morgue where the
7 pathologist took over?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Okay. In your career can you tell the Tribunal approximately how
10 many times that you've testified in criminal proceedings?
11 A. In an international context this is my fifth.
12 Q. And in the domestic setting in the United States?
13 A. Four maybe.
14 Q. Really?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. I think you testified earlier today that during this time you had
17 over 2.000 cases. You worked on 2.000 cases?
18 A. The office took jurisdiction over 17 to 1500 cases a year.
19 Q. Okay.
20 A. The -- the operating procedure in our office, because of court
21 time spent, time away from staff spent by investigators, was that the
22 forensic pathologist would accompany us to homicide cases, because they
23 were the most likely to appear in court, and that the forensic
24 pathologist -- that -- the forensic pathologist would then have an
25 oversight over the complete case from the scene through the autopsy,
1 and they would be the only person that would testify in court. As -- yes.
2 Q. And of all these times that you have testified have you ever
3 testified on the behalf of a person accused of a crime or only on -- for
4 the prosecution?
5 A. I've only testified on behalf of the prosecution.
6 Q. Thank you. Now, earlier in the day you were asked a question by
7 my learned colleague, Mr. McCloskey, and I'll say it's on page 16, line 8
8 on regarding Clyde Snow. He said, Mr. McCloskey, "Can you tell us a bit
9 about your knowledge of Clyde Snow, his reputation and your connection to
10 him?" You answered that question, and the next question at line 19
11 was, "Is he one of the top people in this field?"
12 I'm going to ask you that same -- I don't think you answered.
13 Your answer was, "Well, he certainly is a pioneer in international human
14 rights forensic work and the application of forensic anthropology and
15 archaeology, especially in Latin American countries." But I would like to
16 ask you, as Mr. McCloskey did, is he one of the top people in this field,
17 if not the top person in this field in the world?
18 A. He's one of the top yes.
19 Q. Who, in your mind, is higher than him, sir? You?
20 A. It depends on what context you're asking this question. If you're
21 asking it in terms of people with -- in forensic anthropology who have
22 other -- other interests and fields that they go into, there are other
23 people that are more expert than him.
24 Q. Just name one.
25 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection, Your Honour. We would like rate people
1 in the U.S. but I don't see why it's necessary here.
2 MR. MEEK: Fine, I withdraw the question. I withdraw the
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Meek.
5 MR. MEEK:
6 Q. Now, you will agree, doctor -- or Mr. Haglund, I'm sorry, I would
7 like to get this done with so I'm trying -- going to try to ask you yes or
8 no questions, the best I can. Will you agree with me that it was Clyde
9 Snow who established your work in the human rights, humanitarian rights,
10 forensic anthropology area?
11 A. It wasn't just Clyde Snow, it was also Eric Stover, who was the
12 director of the Physicians for Human Rights.
13 Q. Do you remember giving an article saying that you had pestered
14 Clyde Snow -- had pestered after meeting him when he was a professor at
16 A. He was not a professor at Washington state.
17 Q. He came and talked there, lectured there, didn't he?
18 A. I have know idea whether he came and lectured there. He came to
19 work on a case with us.
20 Q. Do you recall making that statement ever that you had pestered
21 Clyde Snow to get you into it -- help you get into this?
22 A. All of the forensic anthropologist pestered Clyde to go on an
23 international mission.
24 Q. Well, I'm specifically speaking about an interview you gave as
25 part of the institute -- I think it's the institute of human rights,
1 conversations with history. It was a series on uses of Internet
2 technology with the public -- Berkeley's distinction. Do you remember
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Okay. And, in fact, Harry Chrysler, is that his name?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Interviewed you, right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And that's when actually you told Harry that you weren't a
10 vicarious [sic] reader, you'd actually flunked the second grade the first
11 time you took it. Is that a fact?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And then you told him, did you not, that, "I had known Clyde Snow
14 for meetings and he had done some consulting in the Green river case so I
15 pursued my degree and I kept pestering Snow about going on an
16 international mission." Do you recall that, sir?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. You didn't mention anybody else that you pestered besides Clyde
19 Snow, though, right?
20 A. That's right.
21 Q. Okay. Now, are you a member of the American Board of Forensic
23 A. No.
24 Q. Have you ever been?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Okay. And are you aware then, do you have any knowledge of that
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. And Dr. Kathy Reich, who was the expert witness for the
5 Defence in the Rwanda case, is a diplomat with that group?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. You will agree that is the highest statue [sic] you can
8 attain in a group, do you not?
9 A. I'm not familiar with the inner administrational positions of the
10 group, no.
11 Q. Have you ever applied to get into it?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Did they reject you?
14 A. No, I'm board eligible. They accepted my case work, they accepted
15 my professional standing, they accepted my experience, and they accepted
16 my training. I just did not take the test, as has 25 per cent of the
17 people who are members have not done.
18 Q. Okay. Do you believe that in the field that you work in it's
19 important to maintain your objectivity and the perception of that?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And you have also made statements that you don't believe that
22 organisations should take money from the governments because there is a
23 perception that you either lose your objectivity --
24 A. Non-governmental human rights organisations --
25 Q. Right.
1 A. -- don't necessarily take money from governments. However, the
2 size of projects like this, if -- if they are going to even do these
3 projects, they do accept money from certain parts of the governments, like
4 the diplomatic parts, not the Department of Defence or things like that.
5 Q. I think what you actually said, and this was an article in the
6 Science of Human Rights, careers in forensic science, maybe June 21st of
7 2002 in Austin. Do you recall that? Or Jim Austin wrote it, I'm sorry.
8 Do you recall, sir?
9 A. No, I don't offhand, no.
10 Q. All right. Let me show it to you?
11 A. Is it something I'm supposed to have written though?
12 Q. No.
13 A. Okay.
14 Q. No, you're quoted in it.
15 A. Okay.
16 MR. MEEK: 2D75, please. And show on the e-court, please, the
17 front page.
18 THE WITNESS: Never seen this before, I don't think.
19 MR. MEEK: Maybe scroll down a little more. There.
20 THE WITNESS: What did you want --
21 MR. MEEK:
22 Q. Do you want to look at it and see whether you've seen it or not?
23 A. I've already said I haven't seen it before.
24 Q. Okay. You see on down right after -- right before where it
25 says, "International exhumation," the paragraph above it says, "'By
1 studying the site of a mass grave,' Haglund said in a recent telephone
2 interview, 'we can tell how it was dug,'" et cetera, et cetera.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Did that refresh your recollection at all?
5 A. No, but I -- I agree with the statement.
6 Q. Okay. In that, if you will go, please, to 0047, page 0047. And
7 while that's coming up, sir, you have given telephone interviews and TV
8 interviews and things like that, correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And do you seriously have no recollection of talking with Jim
12 A. No, I -- I really -- don't really read these things that much.
13 Q. Okay. The question wasn't whether you had read it. Do you recall
14 speaking with Jim Austin over the telephone about your --
15 A. Not -- I -- I spoke to him, I don't recall it. You know, yeah, I
16 spoke to him. I don't really recall the conversation.
17 MR. MEEK: Could we scroll a little bit up? Yeah. Keep going.
19 Q. On the screen studying -- making a living study the dead. Do you
20 see that?
21 A. Mm-hmm.
22 Q. All right. Down on the fifth line, after the parentheses, it
23 says, "Accepting support directly from national governments would
24 compromise the perception of independence and, consequently, their
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Okay.
3 A. It could, yes.
4 Q. It could.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. So my question to you is, if accepting money from a national
7 government would compromise the perception of the independence and
9 A. Mm-hmm.
10 Q. Don't you think that accepting money from the Office of the
11 Prosecutor on a criminal case does the same -- has the same effect?
12 A. I don't know if the Physicians for Human Rights got any money from
13 the Office of the Prosecutor.
14 Q. No, but you did, didn't you?
15 A. Yes. Yes, I was employed by them.
16 Q. Right.
17 A. We're talking here about NGOs accepting money, not -- not forensic
18 experts being paid for a job.
19 Q. Okay.
20 A. We're not paid for our opinion. We're paid for our time.
21 Q. Okay.
22 A. Okay.
23 Q. To get back really quickly, you know a Chester Moore, a Ph.D., a
24 forensic anthropologist?
25 A. Yes, I do.
1 Q. I worked with you on some of these digs?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. Do you recall specifically the time-frame in 1996 in what
5 A. If I consult my reports, I can tell you exactly.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Meek, we are going to have the break now.
7 MR. MEEK: Okay.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: 25 minutes. Thank you.
9 --- Recess taken at 5.38 p.m.
10 --- On resuming at 6.08 p.m.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, before we proceed, we are, for this last
12 session of today's sitting, sitting pursuant to Rule 15 bis, because
13 Judge Kwon had to leave. So let's proceed.
14 MR. MEEK: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. Briefly, before the break, I asked you about Chester Moore,
16 Ph.D., a forensic anthropologist that worked under you at these sites,
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Now, would you agree with me that it's a fact that Chester Moore
20 left basically in disgust because of the way things were being run on
21 these digs?
22 A. I have no idea of that, no.
23 Q. Okay. Thank you. Could we have on e-court 2D78. Which, while
24 that's coming up, it is an article entitled, "All that remains:
25 Identifying the victims of the Srebrenica massacre." From the human
1 rights centre and human rights -- DNA and human rights. Could you please
2 show the witness page 0059 of that document? And scroll down, please.
3 All right. Thank you.
4 Now, the very last paragraph, sir, and I believe Mr. Haglund, that
5 they're quoting you.
6 A. This is beginning 1998 or the PHR Srebrenica.
7 Q. "By 1998, many of the Srebrenica survivors began to acknowledge,"
8 okay. On down it says, the sentence, "The survivors wanted the world to
9 acknowledge that they had been victims of genocide, and the remains
10 provided their proof. But the ICTY's timetable for exhuming the
11 Srebrenica graves held the unearthed remains essentially hostage to
12 prosecutorial priorities and The Hague's logistical capacity al
14 A. Who authored this.
15 Q. If we go back to the first page, Laurie Vollen?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Do you know Laurie Vollen?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Okay. I will ask you, sir, was that true?
20 A. That's what I asked you who authored this, because I didn't write
21 this article.
22 Q. No, you didn't?
23 A. Let me read it -- let me read it again.
24 Q. Okay. We'll have to go back to 0059, I'm sorry. And scroll down
25 to the bottom.
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: I think there's more to this article.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. --
3 MR. MEEK: Yeah, there is.
4 MR. McCLOSKEY: If he could comment on something, it's
5 mid-sentence, I believe.
6 MR. MEEK: I'm just asking the witness, Your Honour to read the
7 last paragraph, if he will. And again --
8 Q. And sir, as soon as you've finished that page, we can flip this?
9 A. Let me -- this is somebody else's words, and -- and -- and I -- I
10 don't know why she would say some of these things. I can understand, but
11 I don't -- I don't think it's good for me to speculate why somebody else
12 says something.
13 Q. I'm not going ask you to do that, sir. Just read it and tell me
14 when you've finished with it and then I'll ask you a question.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: And if we could see the next paragraph too.
16 Which other part, Mr. McCloskey, were you referring to?
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: I just wanted to get that last sentence so we have
18 the whole paragraph.
19 MR. MEEK: Exactly. And I agree. I showed it to him before.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
21 THE WITNESS: If you could scroll up again.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Up again means to the previous page.
23 THE WITNESS: Excuse me, yes, page 3.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Bottom of the page, yeah.
25 THE WITNESS: And you want me to look at the last sentence of
2 MR. MEEK:
3 Q. The paragraph, sir.
4 A. Okay.
5 Q. And then it goes on from there, "The Hague logistical," tell me
6 when you're finished reading that paragraph, sir?
7 MR. McCLOSKEY: I think you're just asking him to read that last
8 sentence, right, not the next paragraph.
9 MR. MEEK: No, not next paragraph, just finish that sentence
10 ending up with investigations period finishing up with.
11 Q. You know Laurie Vollen?
12 A. No, I've never given interviewed with her, but she was a -- an
13 employee of PHR and we insisted that there be somewhere for the remains to
14 go to be identified and they started that project and we handed off the
15 remains to her.
16 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, my question to you, since you were the
17 supervisor in this -- on these digs and exhumations, if you know, and I
18 think you know you've been brought here as an expert, what -- what does
19 she mean that, "But the ICT's [sic] timetable for exhuming the Srebrenica
20 graves held the inert remains essentially hostage to prosecutorial
21 priorities and The Hague's logistical capacity." What did she mean, if
22 you know?
23 A. Umm, the --
24 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'm going to object to that, given the time-frame
25 that this is talking about, 1998; he ended in 1996. It really gets
1 speculative when we're going there.
2 MR. MEEK: He already testified he was still writing reports in
3 1998, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Writing reports in 1998 is one thing and answering
5 for -- trying to explain the terms used by someone else in the context of
6 1998 is another.
7 MR. MEEK: Okay.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: So let's move to the next question.
9 MR. MEEK: All right.
10 Q. Briefly, before you went into the field, were you briefed by any
11 investigators from the Office of the Prosecutor?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Who?
14 A. Jean-Rene's a team six investigator.
15 Q. Jean-Rene's what?
16 A. Team six. I think he's already testified, yeah.
17 Q. Is he the only one?
18 A. Well, I accompanied the team into the field to do assessments,
19 so ...
20 Q. Okay. And what was it that he told you as to what you were
21 looking for and what you were supposed to do?
22 A. What I was looking for was to make sure that there were graves
23 there, assess tat they were graves, and assess the graves.
24 Q. Didn't -- did at any time Mr. Jean-Rene Ruez tell you that the OTP
25 believed there to be X amount of bodies buried?
1 A. No.
2 Q. So --
3 A. The only estimate I ever heard, and I don't know who I heard it
4 from, was 1200 remains, maybe, at the Branjevo Farm Pilica grave site.
5 That doesn't mean anything to me; it's how many bodies are in the grave
6 that concerns me.
7 Q. I understand that. But do you recall ever being -- giving an
8 interview to a newspaper where you quoted the figure of 7.000 dead or
9 missing and presumed dead, Bosnians Muslims?
10 A. Yes, that came from the International Committee of the Red Cross
11 as public information, yes.
12 Q. And no one from the OTP ever told you that?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Okay. Now, in regards to your testimony in Krstic, sir, did you,
15 in your capacity as the forensic anthropologist on these four digs, what
16 weight, if anything, did you give to the fact that many of the bodies you
17 exhumed had civilian clothing and the -- no ID cards?
18 A. It was a fact that I -- I reported in a report. I had no opinions
19 on it. It's just a fact that I reported.
20 Q. Okay. So therefore you didn't make assumptions that all the
21 bodies found were civilians, if they had civilian clothing?
22 A. All I could -- all I could report was my observation that they had
23 civilian clothing.
24 Q. And to you, and I'm asking you today --
25 A. They had civilian clothing.
1 Q. And you made no assumptions or conclusions that they were, in
2 fact, civilians and not soldiers?
3 A. There was no way I could make a -- a -- a opinion on whether
4 they were soldiers or whether they were civilians. They had civilian
6 Q. Okay. Are you aware, sir, that in this case there's been quite a
7 few witnesses testify, Bosnian Muslim witnesses, that they were, in fact,
8 in the army and on the 11th of July when they headed to Susnjari in the
9 column, they took off their military clothes and put on their civilian
11 A. No, I'm not aware of that, but it has nothing to do with the
12 graves, in my mind.
13 Q. Okay. I want to just touch briefly on -- I want to ask you first,
14 do you know Elizabeth Neuffer, a journalist from Boston?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And tell me when did you meet her?
17 A. I met her in 1996, probably July.
18 Q. Okay. And, in fact, she spent time with you and your team on the
20 A. She spent time with the media outside the perimeter of the digs,
21 not with our team.
22 Q. Okay. Did you talk with her?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And have you read her book, "The Key to My Neighbour's House"?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. I'm going to ask you, for e-court purposes, could you please put
2 up 2D80? Okay. That -- for the record, that is the front of the book,
3 correct? To the best of your knowledge, sir?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Okay. Now, can we flip to the very next page, which would be
6 0076. And -- right there, that's fine.
7 Now, this is -- you've read the book, you've told us, correct?
8 A. Yes, and I don't recall when it was published.
9 Q. Sometime after 1996, I presume?
10 A. It makes a difference when it was published.
11 Q. What difference does it make, sir?
12 A. I just want to know, if I could.
13 Q. I don't have the exact date of it.
14 A. Okay.
15 Q. This is chapter 9 entitled, "Bring me his body."
16 A. Okay.
17 Q. Now, that chapter essentially deals with the summer of 1996, or
18 July of 1996, in and around Srebrenica and the exhumations and excavations
19 that you were doing. Would you agree with that, sir?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. Did Elizabeth Neuffer in chapter 9 of that book
22 accurately portray what was going on with the -- your team that you were
24 A. I would have to reread it to -- to recall actually, I read this
25 book several years ago.
1 Q. Okay.
2 A. To give -- give a correct answer.
3 Q. All right. If we go to 0089, please. Could you scoot it over a
4 little bit, perhaps. The other way. No, scoot it over so we can -- there
5 we go. And take it up. There.
6 About the fourth line down she says, "Not everybody liked working
7 for Kirschner, who could be brusque and over critical." We've got to
8 scroll back down. All right. There it is. Do you see that, sir?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Then it goes on to say, "Not everybody liked working for Haglund,
11 who drove everybody as hard as he drove himself."
12 And then in the book it says, "'I need someone to be the social
13 chairman on the love boat,' he would complain, when staff wanted time
15 A. I don't ever remember saying that --
16 Q. That's fine.
17 A. But it's ...
18 Q. You've read this book, right?
19 A. Yes, but I -- when you give an interview or when you -- when
20 somebody else says something, that's doesn't mean that's what you did or
22 Q. Scroll down a little bit so we can see that bottom paragraph. See
23 where it starts, "Haglund had instructed the teams at both sites to expose
24 bodies but not to remove them until he arrived."
25 A. Yes, we've already talked -- spoken about that.
1 Q. Right. And, "It was an approach that annoyed many of the
2 anthropologists on the dig, used to developing their own relationship with
3 the grave."
4 You agree with that, don't you sir?
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. So basically since you've read this book and this chapter which
7 deals with you, do you recall anything at all in there that was untrue?
8 A. There are things I disagree with, yes. I think -- again, this
9 person is not in my mind, and didn't follow me around, but this is her
10 perception of what she saw.
11 Q. Okay. Could we go, please, to -- scroll up a little bit for me,
12 if you will. Keep going. It would be two more pages. Scroll back so I
13 can see what page that is. 0090. Sorry. There we go. I'm looking on
14 the right side. Scroll on down. There we go.
15 See, Mr. Haglund, where it starts, the paragraph starts, "Some of
16 Haglund's team members accused him of being high-handed." Do you see
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. We've already spoken about that, correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And on down a little bit, "Others found him dictatorial for their
22 tastes -- too dictatorial for their tastes"? Correct?
23 A. Yes. I see that, yes.
24 Q. You agree with that?
25 A. Yes, some may have, yeah.
1 Q. Thank you. Then she goes on to say, "Haglund, exhausted, worried,
2 frantic, obsessed with getting things done, had lost the art of polite
3 conversation." Do you agree with that, sir?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Okay. Now, just one more page, it would be 0091, I think. On the
6 left side, that's fine. You see where it says, "I never thought." Do you
7 see that, sir?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. It says," -- this is quoting you, "'I never thought I would have
10 to do more than one site at a time,' he said some years later reflecting
11 on that summer of 1996. 'I knew it would be horrible and it was
12 horrible. The whole summer was beyond The Hague's vision. They didn't
13 realise how much time it would take, there was no clear direction, and we
14 didn't have a good sense of what we were getting into.'" Do you agree
15 with that, sir?
16 A. I think you have to take that in the context it was said.
17 Q. Do you agree with it?
18 A. I think you have to take it in the context in which it was said.
19 Q. And it was said -- it was said in the context --
20 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection, Your Honour. We are going around this.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, we are going around and around and around and
22 around. But basically he's given you his answer. There is no reference
23 that I can see in this -- in this text to which we could refer to
24 establish the context one -- supposedly the witness is reported to have
25 made this statement. So let's move, Mr. Meek.
1 MR. MEEK: Thanks, Judge.
2 Q. The context, is it true the context was taken from that summer?
3 A. The context of this, it's years afterwards, she's saying.
4 Q. Right. In looking back, correct?
5 A. That's what she says, yeah.
6 Q. No, she quotes you. Did you say that or did you not?
7 A. I don't know how many times you have been quoted inaccurately,
8 but -- yes, I mean, I've said. It's true, yeah.
9 Q. Can you scoot it over to the right so we can look at the next page
10 real quickly. You see the paragraph starts, "On another level, the
11 Srebrenica investigation hit a major snag," and then on down sir it
12 says, "Fearful that Defence attorneys on the case might have been handed a
13 powerful weapon, the Tribunal and its lawyers launched an internal
14 inquiry." The next paragraph says, "Haglund had no sooner returned to his
15 home in Seattle for his first vacation in more than a year when he got the
16 news he was suspended and his work was under review."
17 Sir, I'm asking you, is it true that you had no sooner returned
18 home from your first vacation in more than a year that you got the news
19 that you were suspended and your work was under review?
20 A. No, it's not true.
21 Q. All right. Being an American and as litigious we are, you've
22 never sued this woman for liable or slander or any false statements, have
24 A. She died in Iraq.
25 Q. Okay. Have you sued her estate?
1 A. No, wouldn't think of doing that.
2 Q. Okay. Is that because she didn't make any false statement?
3 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection, Your Honour. This is sickening.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Objection sustained. Mr. Meek, please.
5 MR. MEEK: All right.
6 Q. Mr. Haglund, in your entire career, starting with the medical
7 examiner's office in Seattle, Washington, through to working in
8 international war crimes, the Tribunals, with Tribunals and on digs for
9 humanitarian reasons, and being on a team with forensic pathologists, have
10 you ever been involved in such a case where the Prosecutor facilitated,
11 authorised, assisted, or otherwise influenced the ultimate report which
12 reflected the cause and manner of death?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Have you ever been on such a case where the Prosecutor would edit
15 or had the right to edit, amend, or alter final autopsy reports, sir?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Okay. If we could look at -- it's already been admitted into
18 evidence, it's the exhumation volume I, it would be the Lazete 2 grave
19 site. P616 is the Prosecution number on that. I think the witness has it
20 in front of him. Correct me if I'm wrong.
21 A. Excuse me.
22 Q. I tried to get it, I'm sorry.
23 A. These desks are small.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't anyone to get hurt. Eva. Please, can we --
25 leave everything. If you stay away from it, no one will get hurt. But
1 for the time being I would suggest that no one touches the mess that we
2 have here now for the time being.
3 MR. MEEK:
4 Q. It's on the screen now, doctor.
5 A. Yes, thank you very much.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Which page, Mr. Meek.
7 MR. MEEK: We're going to go to page -- it will be page --
8 ERN 1641. Or page 71. No, actually, I want -- the ERN number is
10 Q. And frankly, if we can back one page, Mr. Haglund, this is under
11 Haglund can see. Scroll down.
12 Now, do you recall this report?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now, can we go to the next page, please. See five lines down from
15 the top?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. You write, "Finalisation of cause and manner of death, as well as
18 editing of final autopsy reports was facilitated by ICTY legal advisor,
19 Peter McCloskey." Correct?
20 A. That's correct. As it's stated in the oversight report, they
21 had --
22 Q. What oversight report, first?
23 A. The ...
24 Q. Talking about the San Antonio report?
25 A. That's correct, yes.
1 Q. We'll get to that in a minute. On page 71 of that same document,
2 if we can go to that. Which is ERN last -- ending 1713. No. It's
3 0149-1713. That's page 58, we need page 71. There we go.
4 Again, under your acknowledgements, you acknowledge that the
5 finalisation of cause and manner of death, as well as editing and final
6 autopsy -- editing of final autopsy reports occurred under the direction
7 of ICTY legal advisor, Peter McCloskey, correct?
8 A. Yes, he facilitated by carting these things around the world to
9 pathologists to look at their opinions.
10 Q. All right. I want you to look at this page 71, they can blow it
11 up so you can see it better. "Finalisation of cause and manner of death,
12 as well as editing of the final autopsy reports occurred under the
13 direction of ICTY legal advisor --"
14 A. Direction is not a proper term. I should not use "direction." He
15 facilitated this. He facilitated the report. He didn't -- he didn't
16 change things or anything like that. It's absurd.
17 Q. Well, you use "direction" there, sir?
18 A. Well the direction to get the reports delivered to the
19 pathologists so they could look at them, yes, so they could make sure that
20 their opinion was the original opinion on the report. He directed that
21 effort. He facilitated that effort.
22 Q. Well, you agree with me that in each -- each of the four reports
23 that you drafted from this --
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. -- these excavations, you acknowledge and thank Mr. McCloskey, who
1 you say is a legal advisor for the ICTY for finalisation of cause and
2 manner of death as well as editing of final autopsy reports, either under
3 his direction or being facilitated --
4 A. "He facilitated that and he directed the logistics in getting the
5 reports to the pathologists who confirmed their own manner and cause of
7 Q. Well, we know from your prior testimony that Dr. Kirschner was
8 changing results of autopsies without telling people, correct?
9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. Okay. And let me ask you this: Were you with Peter McCloskey all
11 the time when he was -- what you say, facilitating --
12 A. No.
13 Q. -- finalisation of these things?
14 A. No, I was not.
15 Q. So you weren't with Peter McCloskey when he was talking to the
16 pathologists --
17 A. No I was not.
18 Q. -- the manner and cause of death?
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Please don't overlap.
20 THE WITNESS: No, I was not, sorry.
21 MR. MEEK:
22 Q. Okay. And if you want me, I will show you this, but this will be
23 on the final report dated June 15th, 1998, for Pilica, Branjevo Farm grave
24 site? Under acknowledgements, once again, you state, "Finalisation of the
25 cause and manner of death, as well as editing of final autopsy reports
1 occurred under the direction of ICTY legal advisor, Peter McCloskey."
2 A. Yes. The effort to see that they were properly -- cause and
3 manner of death done by the pathologists who originally did the autopsies,
4 he directed and facilitated that effort, yes.
5 Q. He directed them. Now, you say, in an effort to see that they
6 were properly, the manner and cause of death was proper. What expertise
7 does a lawyer like Peter McCloskey have in directing and editing these
8 kind of medical documents, sir?
9 A. He sought the opinion --
10 Q. Go ahead, you can answer.
11 A. He sought the opinion of the pathologists who did the actual
12 reports to see if they were properly done to their original opinion.
13 Q. And were you with him when he did this?
14 A. No, I was not.
15 Q. Okay. And this is what you are assuming, correct?
16 A. I believe it's true.
17 Q. But you are assuming it's true, correct?
18 A. Yes, I guess it's an assumption.
19 Q. Okay. Thank you.
20 MR. MEEK: Judge, I have no further questions for this witness.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Meek.
22 Mr. Haynes.
23 Cross-examination by Mr. Haynes:
24 Q. Dr. Haglund, I'm an English speaker too, so if we can try and
25 observe the courtesy of waiting for the running transcript to stop, we
1 should get done in the allotted time.
2 Now, I've had the pleasure of reading all your reports and the
3 annexes to them. And I've listened to the criticisms that have been made
4 of you at San Antonio, but I don't suppose one of them was a criticism of
5 your record-keeping. Your reports are very considerable documents indeed,
6 aren't they?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. If we leave aside the narrative parts of them, they include the
9 pathology reports in relation to every body or body part examined?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Complete photographic documentation, a bibliography of reference
12 material, a complete listing of all those who worked on the sites and in
13 the mortuary and their qualifications, and evidence logged in relation to
14 the recovery of exhibits from the sites. That's right, isn't it?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Now, I'm going to characterise this quite quickly, but in the body
17 of the report you explain the task you had, the work you did, your
18 methodology, and you summarise all, as it were, the supporting material?
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. And yet you still thought it was necessary to annex to the report
21 all of the supporting material as well?
22 A. Absolutely, yes.
23 Q. And I'm not criticising you, I'm suggesting that is good practice,
24 because that enables everybody to look at the body of the report, go to
25 the supporting material, and see and check whether what you say in the
1 body of the report is right. Is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Now, in the body of the report also you set out a lot of the
4 factual information in spread sheets. And I want you to consider this:
5 Would you consider it only professional to record in those spread sheets
6 all relevant information that was in your possession as an
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And as the first supervising anthropologist in relation to this
10 investigation, would you have expected that these good practices of
11 retaining and producing all the supporting material and recording in the
12 relevant spread sheets all the relevant figures and material to continue
13 throughout the investigation?
14 A. Continue through what investigation?
15 Q. Investigation --
16 A. The 1996 investigation?
17 Q. Well, I dare say in 1996 you didn't foresee the events which
18 Mr. Meek has asked you quite a lot of questions about. But would you have
19 expected every pathologist working under you and anybody who followed you
20 to carry on the good practices that I suggest to you your report
22 A. I was really not -- I did not supervise the pathologists.
23 Q. Did I use the word pathologists? If I did --
24 A. Yes, you did.
25 Q. -- I'm very sorry, that's the confusion. I meant
1 anthropologists. And I wonder whether you could quickly consider the
2 question in the light of that correction, please.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Is that the answer, you would have expected them to carry on doing
5 what you did?
6 A. No, no, not necessarily. This is the first time it was -- this is
7 the first effort report, and nobody had ever put together a report on
8 multiple remains like this ever before in history, except maybe the --
9 the -- I don't think it may have been done, if at all, especially on these
10 kinds of graves with this kind of endeavour, and the magnitude of this
11 endeavour. So I would consider people look at these reports and do what
12 they thought best with -- from their judgement. We have different ways to
13 do reports, you can get the same information in different ways. Does that
14 respond to your question?
15 Q. No. It might help, actually, if I just showed you something, and
16 maybe then we can -- I can get a couple comments from you. It's P0622.
17 And I'd like to look at page 59, please. And that is the right page. And
18 could we blow it up so Mr. Haglund could see it.
19 I mean this is the sort of thing I've got in mind. This is just a
20 sheet from -- I think your Cerska report.
21 A. Yes. I --
22 Q. What I'm suggesting to you is that it is nothing less than good
23 practice to, as it were, fill in on a spread sheet all the information
24 that you have that underlies it?
25 A. What's missing from the spread sheet is the actual measurement of
1 the particular bone from which a stature is adapted, and those are
2 available from the raw notes of the anthropologist. This was information
3 that was recorded and incorporated into the pathologist's final report.
4 Q. Fine. But, really, the point is where you have made an age
5 determination that is always recorded, isn't it?
6 A. Yes. But we have to say that these ages are not these -- it's --
7 there exists no standard of equations for establishing answer in this
8 population. They're just starting now to get some. We just used the best
9 we could. So ...
10 Q. Well, Mr. Haglund, you're cutting short this cross-examination
11 with every answer, that's something else I don't have to deal with with
13 Just one or two bodies there, or body parts, if we look at for
14 example PLC-117BP and follow it across?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. BP presumably indicates it's a body part rather than a body?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And as we go across there, under the estimate, as to stature, it's
19 got ND, I assume that stands for not done?
20 A. Let's see. This is what -- what number again, please?
21 Q. 117BP?
22 A. 117BP. Yes, that's correct.
23 Q. And the two dashes alongside that would indicate that, as it were,
24 there was no information to insert into those particular brackets in the
1 A. It might indicate that that particular body part did not give a
2 stature -- a bone that would relate to stature.
3 Q. It might indicate that?
4 A. It does indicate -- it does indicate that the bone -- it does not
5 relate to stature. If you have just a head, you can't get stature out of
6 that, you know, to have a limb bone.
7 Q. And keeping it simple, there is nothing to put in there, in that
8 case, is there?
9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. If we go to the far right-hand side of this particular table we'll
11 see -- we'll need to go up to see the significance of it. You've
12 investigated the question of whether there were -- what you believe to be
13 ligatures there?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And does X indicate that -- that there was something and a gap
16 indicates there was not, so again --
17 A. I would need to look at legend here.
18 Q. Okay. Well, I don't think we've got time for you to do that, so
19 I'm going to move on.
20 I just want to look again please at one more of the entries on
21 that, and it's PLC-13 -- bear with me.
22 A. Yeah.
23 Q. PLC-125BP, we'll have.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. [Microphone not activated]
1 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
2 MR. HAYNES:
3 Q. 124BP. And there we see an age range of 15 to 19, and accepting
4 all the difficulties you acknowledge, that's a typical sort of age range
5 that -- that you might have picked, isn't it?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. I want to move on, now, please, to, briefly, the question
8 of age determination. I'd like you to be shown on e-court, please, P0611
9 at page 51. Thank you very much.
10 Just read that over to yourself, and I just want you to clarify
11 one thing for me?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. When you have, tell me when you have read it.
14 A. I've read it.
15 Q. Thank you. In the table we just saw there were age ranges given
16 in relation to each of the items examined. Given the restrictions of
17 time, I have to ask you this: You will agree, won't you, that elsewhere
18 in this report you gave age ranges of 11 to 15, 16 to 25, 26 to 35, et
19 cetera, to assess, as it were the occurrence of the ages of the
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now, where you say there that the minimum and maximum age are
23 equal to minus one and plus one standard error respectively, is that the
24 minimum and maximum age of the individual age range expressed, or the
25 collective age range expressed elsewhere in the report?
1 A. It's the individual age range -- it's a -- goes for all of the --
2 all of the estimates, it's plus one minus one deviation, standard
4 Q. Would that not also mean that the groupings are subject to a
5 similar deviation, if every individual estimate is subject to such a
7 A. That's what I'm saying, that the calculations are for each
8 individual are subject to that. That's a -- that's a -- it's a normal
9 way to report. There is an error measurement and, actually, I go on to
10 say that the error measurement in this population is probably could be
11 outside of this range because we do not really have standards for this
13 Q. Well, thank you. We now from Mr. Baraybar who gave evidence
14 yesterday that at this stage we're using the Suchey Brooks technique to
15 age these -- these body parts, which was dependent upon a North American
16 standard, wasn't it?
17 A. Well, it depends on what part of -- yes, but it depends on what
18 part we had to do the age. If all we had was just a shoulder, we would
19 use the distal clavicle. So it's not all Suchey Brooks, no.
20 Q. So I want you, lastly, in the few minutes we have available, to
21 look at one further document and I'd like you to answer two questions for
22 me in relation to that. And it's P02477 at page 8.
23 Now, I know this isn't your document and you may not have seen
24 it. This is a summary of all the sites exhumed as part of this
25 investigation prepared by Mr. Baraybar, but really just a couple of
1 questions about that. Would you expect that each of the age groupings set
2 out at the top there ought to be expressed as having a plus or minus one
3 error factor?
4 A. Not necessarily. He's not putting in individual ages, he's just
5 putting age ranges for a whole group.
6 Q. And lastly this: In, as it were, good practice record keeping and
7 spread sheet entry, where you see nothing written there, you don't --
8 you would expect that to reflect the fact that simply no information to
10 A. That's what I would assume, yes.
11 Q. Thank you very much.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Is Mr. Re-examination, Mr. McCloskey?
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: No, Mr. President.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
15 Dr. Haglund, your testimony finishes here. I wish to thank you on
16 behalf of the Tribunal for having come over to give testimony and I wish
17 you a safe journey back home.
18 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: We stand adjourned. And have a nice weekend.
20 I don't think we have time for the documents. I think we have to
21 leave it until the next day. Also because I have a meeting. We have a
22 meeting now. So let's leave everything until Tuesday. Thank you.
23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.59 p.m.,
24 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 20th day of March,
25 2007, at 9.00 a.m.