1 Tuesday, 20 March 2012
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.18 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone in and around this
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours.
9 This is case IT-03-69-T, the Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic
10 and Franko Simatovic.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
12 I received no information about preliminaries to deal with first.
13 Therefore, is the Stanisic Defence ready to call its expert witness,
14 Mr. Browne?
15 MR. JORDASH: We are, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Then could Mr. Browne be escorted into the
18 Mr. Jordash, needless to say, that you asked for two hours of
19 examination-in-chief, that the Chamber has read the report for
20 Mr. Browne; it had ample opportunity to do so over the many, many weeks.
21 There's no need to repeat anything in there. And I hope Mr. Browne is
22 aware that he's not appearing before a jury but before a professional
23 Bench which has read in detail the report he prepared.
24 MR. JORDASH: I think that's clear to him.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then I don't have to remind him, most likely.
1 [The witness entered court]
2 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Mr. Browne.
3 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Before you give evidence in this Court, the Rules
5 require that you make a solemn declaration. The text has been handed out
6 to you. May I invite you to make that solemn declaration.
7 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. I solemnly declare that I will speak the
8 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
9 WITNESS: DAVID BROWNE
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Browne. Please be seated.
11 Mr. Browne, for your information, the Chamber has read your
12 report very carefully, so there's no need to repeat whatever is in the
14 You'll first be examined by Mr. Jordash. Mr. Jordash is counsel
15 for Mr. Stanisic.
16 Please proceed, Mr. Jordash.
17 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Examination by Mr. Jordash:
19 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Browne. Could you give your full name and
20 date of birth for the record, please.
21 A. Your Honour, yes. I am David Richard Browne, and my date of
22 birth is 24/2/49.
23 MR. JORDASH: Could we have on the screen, please, 1D05300, which
24 is a copy of your report which His Honour has just referred to.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Could the counsel please repeat the number; it
1 was not shown on the transcript.
2 MR. JORDASH: Sorry. 1D05300.
3 Q. Whilst the report is coming onto the screen, let's deal, if I
4 can -- oh, there it is. Let's deal very quickly with your
5 qualifications. Between 1974 and 1983 you were employed as a forgery
6 officer in the -- in Her Majesty's immigration service in the UK. What
7 did that, in very brief, involve?
8 A. I examined -- I was based at ports, airports, by and large, and
9 it was my job to examine passports that were encountered, either carried
10 by passengers, used by passengers, or in bags, and other documents as
11 well. And I had to examine for evidence of fraud and report my findings.
12 Q. And were you using equipment or just your naked eye?
13 A. Oh, no, we had specialist equipment at port level. Later on,
14 more advanced equipment was made available.
15 Q. In 1983 you were appointed the senior document examiner in the
16 national forgery intelligence section of the immigration service. What
17 did that involve?
18 A. Well, it was -- I was one of the two main expert witnesses for
19 the immigration service at that time to give evidence in courts. We had,
20 in the national forgery intelligence section, a great deal more -- more
21 advanced equipment, and we used that to decide whether documents were
22 forged. We worked not only for immigration officers at the ports, but we
23 worked for immigration officers all over the country, and we also worked
24 for the police and patrons customs and excise and inland revenue and
25 other government agencies. And then it was my -- one of my main tasks
1 was to go to court and give evidence.
2 Q. What kind of documents were you looking at?
3 A. Passports, driving licences, study documents, certificates of
4 education, and things of that nature. In the case of when we're dealing
5 with police forces and so on and so forth, we had to examine
6 believed-to-be counterfeit documents and then assist the police with
7 raids on print shops and forgery factories to see if those forged
8 documents had come from those forgery factories. And we had to basically
9 examine every document that was brought in, and it could be visas, it
10 could be passports, it could be diaries.
11 Q. And what kind of skills or equipment were employed?
12 A. Well, basically, it's true to say, the most important equipment
13 are the eyes. We have to examine a document for any evidence that we can
14 find, and the first examination is always of a straight forward visual
15 one. We use microscopes, low-powered microscopy, by and large. And then
16 we have to go into further detail. We have to look in the infrared and
17 ultraviolet to see if there's any evidence of forgery or fraud. Infrared
18 light enables us to separate one ink from another because of the chemical
19 compensation of the inks. Ultraviolet light enables us to identify areas
20 of a particular page that may have been altered by chemical means. And
21 also, because of security printing, most of which is
22 ultraviolet-sensitive, if any of the printing has been removed by
23 mechanical means, then the ultraviolet light will show that.
24 The other useful aspect of ultraviolet light is it enables us to
25 separate one type of paper from another because of the -- ordinary paper,
1 that is, because of the way paper is made, the chemical compensation
2 changes from making to making.
3 Q. And then you left the immigration service in 1994 to join network
4 forensic services as the resident document examiner?
5 A. In ninety -- in early 1994, yes. I came out into, as it were,
6 private practice.
7 Q. And what kind of work were you doing there precisely?
8 A. Well, the same, except the shift -- there was a shift in the
9 emphasis of our work; whereas before, in government service, 99 per cent
10 of my work was for prosecution services. After I left, then, there was a
11 shift in the emphasis; some of it was for prosecution, some of it was for
12 defence. And also civil cases. It didn't make any difference to me who
13 instruct me. The report still has to be the same.
14 Q. And what kind of documents were you examining?
15 A. Then I was examining a wider range of documents. I was examining
16 contracts of employment. I was examining wills and things of that nature
17 which I wouldn't normally have seen when I was in government service.
18 Q. And then in December 1997 you left network to found the
19 independent company Berkley Security Bureau Forensic Limited?
20 A. Yes. And since then, we've now been taken over by a company
21 called Diligence. So it's Diligence BSB.
22 Q. And what kind I've work have you been doing with this company?
23 A. All the same. I'm employed as an expert in document examination
24 and reporting, so it's the same work. And I still examine passports and
25 driving licences and documents of identity, and I still examine contracts
1 and other documents.
2 Q. And do you present that evidence in reports or court? How --
3 A. Report first. And if required, then court. Everything we have
4 to do, we have to do with the possibility that we may be called to court
5 to explain what we have examined and what we have written about.
6 MR. JORDASH: Could I just have a moment, please. Thank you.
7 Q. And when you were asked, as we can see, if we move up the page on
8 the screen to your instructions, you were instructed by myself of the
9 Stanisic Defence team to examine these notebooks/diaries. Was this a
10 request which was consistent with the type of work you'd been doing, or
11 different, or how would you categorise it?
12 A. I have done examinations of this nature before. Until we see the
13 book, we don't know if there's anything wrong. We don't know if pages
14 have been changed, but I have seen books in the past where pages have
15 been taken out and new ones put in. It's a very common way of forging
16 passports, substituting pages. There's no difference whether it's a
17 security document, as a passport, or whether it's an ordinary handwritten
18 notebook or diary. In big corporate cases, even in this electronic age,
19 a lot of people write things down. And later sometimes even lawyers have
20 been moved to alter the records in their case files to avoid censure and
21 criticism. And I have been involved in examining such case files in the
22 past. I mean, there's no real difference between this and other cases.
23 Q. What were your precise instructions here, please?
24 A. I was to examine the books, the way the books have been put
25 together. I wasn't instructed to take any -- to undertake any
1 examination of the handwriting. I couldn't, anyway. I don't speak
2 Serbian, and I have no knowledge of handwritten Cyrillic script. That
3 matter, as I understand it, as part of my instructions, has already been
4 dealt with by another expert who does do all of that. I was examined --
5 expected to examine the -- the books and to see if there's any evidence
6 that there may have been any tampering of the books. I was to look for
7 anomalies, basically, and then to report the findings.
8 Q. Now, you were given - I don't think there's any dispute here -
9 you were given and shown a number of documents, including the notebooks
10 themselves; is that correct?
11 A. I was first shown print-outs -- sorry, scanned copies of pages of
12 the notebooks. I was allowed to examine a number of notebooks in a
13 preliminary case viewing, as it were. And in November last year I was
14 allowed access to all of the notebooks under certain preconditions, which
15 was fair enough. And, yes, I was given access to all of the books.
16 MR. JORDASH: Could we have on the screen, please, 1D05472, which
17 is the examination protocol that was agreed between the Prosecution and
19 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, Mr. Jordash. Your previous
20 question seems to distinguish between the books and other documents. You
21 said: "You were given and shown a number of documents, including the
22 notebooks themselves." Which remains another category on which the
23 witness has not said anything. And although we find references in his
24 report now and then to documents unknown to this Chamber -- often unknown
25 to this Chamber and not further specified in the report, I wonder whether
1 we should not know in more detail what documentary material, apart from
2 the notebooks, has been made available to the expert.
3 MR. JORDASH: Certainly. I was going to return to that issue,
4 but I'll deal with it straight away.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MR. JORDASH:
7 Q. We --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it would have been preferable to have in the
9 report, but you'll understand that it's easier to prepare if you have
10 that information readily available.
11 Please proceed.
12 MR. JORDASH: Could we have on the screen, please, 1D03490.
13 Q. Were you shown a number of documents which recorded in one form
14 or another the way in which the search and seizure of these documents had
15 taken place?
16 A. Yes, I was. Sorry. I -- I -- the reason, Your Honour, for
17 the -- my confusing answer - I beg your pardon - I was served with a
18 great many documents, copied into a great many documents, which were copy
19 documents. I wasn't required to examine them per se. They were just
20 provided for background information. I apologise for not making that
21 clearer in my reply earlier. I was provided with copies of a large
22 number of documents, some of it in what I presume to be Serbian, and
23 others in English. And there were photographs and lists of exhibits, but
24 I didn't have to examine those. If you see what I mean.
25 JUDGE ORIE: No, but if I -- if you allow me to interrupt you.
1 THE WITNESS: Of course.
2 JUDGE ORIE: A, I would say methodological requirement is that if
3 someone has to read a report, irrespective of whether you examined those
4 other reports, they may have had an influence on your conclusions. And
5 then, of course, it's of primary importance that the reader of the
6 reporter knows exactly what the content of that material is, whether you
7 examined it or not, and that is the reason why I raised it, this matter.
8 That for full transparency and for a full opportunity to follow your line
9 of reasoning, it's essential to know exactly what was available to you at
10 that time. Including the content of that material. And that does not
11 appear in the report apart from some references here and there.
12 Please proceed, Mr. Jordash. I would not have addressed the
13 expert, but since he started explaining on the basis of a matter I raised
14 with you, I thought it would be appropriate to briefly respond to that.
15 Please proceed.
16 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 Q. Let me try to do this shortly, because I don't think there's
18 going to be any dispute on these issues.
19 This is the front sheet of a particular document which I think
20 you've seen, is that right, in preparation for your report?
21 A. Yes.
22 MR. JORDASH: And if we move to page 17 in e-court to a statement
23 by the head of the service, Police Advisor Dejan Marinkovic.
24 Q. Were you shown this letter?
25 A. Yes, I was.
1 Q. A letter by a police officer from the Serbian Ministry of
2 Interior detailing the way in which the document - the particular
3 notebooks which were recovered in 2010 - how they were, in fact, found;
4 is that right?
5 A. That is what the document seems to say, yes.
6 MR. JORDASH: If we go to page 18. This perhaps is the critical
7 aspect for the moment.
8 Q. Were you informed through this document where the notebooks were
9 allegedly found during the Serbian Ministry of Interior's search? And
10 particularly, looking at paragraph 3, where it notes:
11 "The notebooks purportedly belonging to Ratko Mladic were also
12 found at two locations: Some of them in Bosiljka Mladic's bedroom, in
13 the space between two sections of the wardrobe placed on the other side
14 of the bed opposite the chest of drawers where audiotapes were found; the
15 others were found in the attack, which is accessed through opening in the
16 bathroom ceiling."
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Was this the sum-total of what you were told in relation or what
19 the documents said in relation to the precise location where these
20 notebooks were allegedly found?
21 A. Well, this is the writing. There are, I believe, a number of
22 photographs referred to. And I had access to copies of those
24 Q. Let's go to the photographs, then, now, please.
25 A. Pardon, excuse me.
1 MR. JORDASH: Perhaps the best way to do this. Perhaps could I
2 have moment, please. Okay. Let's do it this way. Please could we have
3 on the screen 1D03486.1. 1D03486.1, page 4.
4 Q. Was this one of the photographs you were shown of a cabinet?
5 A. Is this the picture? All right. Yes, I've seen this photograph
7 MR. JORDASH: If we can go to page 5, please.
8 THE WITNESS: Yes, I've seen that before.
9 MR. JORDASH: Page 6.
10 THE WITNESS: Yes.
11 MR. JORDASH: Page 47.
12 THE WITNESS: Yes.
13 MR. JORDASH: Forty-eight.
14 THE WITNESS: Yes.
15 MR. JORDASH: Forty-nine.
16 THE WITNESS: Yes.
17 MR. JORDASH: Fifty-one.
18 Q. Now --
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. -- these are a selection of some of the notebooks; correct?
21 A. I believe so.
22 Q. And 53.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Am I correct that you haven't seen and, as far as we're aware,
25 there are no photographs of the books where they were allegedly found in
1 the attic?
2 A. There are no photographs as far as I can make out. I haven't
3 seen any photographs of the books in situ.
4 MR. JORDASH: And for Your Honours' information: None, as far as
5 we're aware, exist.
6 Q. And the same goes for the place between the two sections of the
7 wardrobe where the books were allegedly found; is that correct?
8 A. Not in situ or of any two wardrobes.
9 Q. Going back to page 51, the small selection of the notebooks which
10 were photographed on the floor somewhere. Did you make any observations
11 containing those books during your preparation of the report?
12 A. The books are very clean. They are in an area which I can't
13 identify where it is, what it is. They're on the floor. There's a great
14 deal of dust and dirt around that area. There doesn't seem to be any
15 dust and dirt on the books themselves.
16 MR. JORDASH: Perhaps we can also now turn to 1D03488.
17 Q. Whilst that's coming onto screen: Did you read anything in the
18 documentation provided by the Serbian Ministry of Interior or the
19 Prosecution at the ICTY which stated or described who found the documents
20 in the attic or who found the documents between the wardrobe? Were you
21 assisted with that type of information?
22 And if -- if -- well, would you answer that first. Were you
23 assisted by that information?
24 A. No. That information was not forthcoming. I didn't read any
25 witness statement, as I would understand it, involving the recovery of
1 the books.
2 Q. When you say as you would understand it, what do you mean by
4 A. A witness statement, as I would understand it, is a statement
5 made by an officer involved in any raid or of that nature. It basically
6 says, I -- I was at a certain place, I did certain things, I found
7 certain things, I took possession of those things, I was with this
8 officer and that officer. I have not read any witness statement that
9 says, I turned up at the door of that flat and I went inside and I found
10 behind a panel, in a panel, upsidedown, between two wardrobes, I saw a
11 pile of books. I have not read a statement from anybody who took the
12 photographs. Neither have I seen a statement that introduces those
13 photographs, the photographs I have seen, in evidence. So I have no
14 idea, really, where they came from.
15 Q. Were you shown this declaration by Tom Blaszczyk in the -- for
16 the preparation of your report?
17 A. Yes, I'm sure I've seen that one before. It's a declaration.
18 I'm not sure when it was dated.
19 MR. JORDASH: If we can -- well, I can deal with this shortly.
20 Q. It's dead the 30th of July, 2010.
21 MR. JORDASH: We're going to ask for these statements to be
22 tendered, Your Honour, in due course.
23 Q. Were you told, therefore --
24 MR. JORDASH: If we can go up in the two paragraphs so we can see
25 paragraph 3 onwards.
1 Q. Were you told, therefore, that the apartment where these
2 notebooks were allegedly found had been searched previously in 2008?
3 A. Yes. I seem to remember mention that the apartment had been
4 searched a number of times. But I don't know where I got that
5 information from, to be fair.
6 Q. But you had that information --
7 A. Yeah.
8 Q. -- true?
9 A. Yes. At some stage. I mean, it had no impact on my examination,
10 of course, but it pans into place in due course. And I was aware that
11 books had been seized in 2008.
12 Q. But you were not provided with any information concerning how
13 those early searches or search had managed to miss these -- [overlapping
14 speakers] ...
15 A. Not by -- not by whom, how they were found, where they were
16 precisely found, the December 2008 books, I mean. I -- and of course I
17 can't answer anything about why other books weren't found.
18 Q. And perhaps it's obvious, but it's right, isn't it, you were not
19 given, because as far as we're aware none exist, any photographs or
20 records and the like relating to who precisely and where the 2008 books
21 were found, the books that were recovered in 2008?
22 A. I was not provided with any such material.
23 Q. The type of statement that you've referred to a moment ago in
24 relation to the --
25 A. Exactly.
1 Q. -- 2010.
2 In relation to other items that were found during the search,
3 were you shown a list of items besides these notebooks which were also
4 allegedly found during that search?
5 A. Yes.
6 MR. JORDASH: If we could turn, please, to 1D03463.
7 Q. Is this a document which you were shown during the preparation of
8 your report, dealing with the -- some of the further details of the
9 search, including the timing of the search there, at 7.49, completed at
10 2.00. Were you shown this statement?
11 A. Yes, I believe I've seen that before.
12 Q. And if we go over the page there, were you shown this aspect of
13 the statement where, three quarters of the way down the page, the
14 Serbian Ministry of Interior purportedly checking a computer at the site
15 and sim cards and concluding at that time that they were of no relevance
16 to their investigation?
17 A. Yes, I've seen that report before.
18 Q. Let's return to the report itself. I think that deals with the
19 background. Well, last thing in relation to that: Were you shown also a
20 photograph of a satellite phone found at the premises?
21 A. I think there are two photographs covering that particular item.
22 One is the -- the outer casing of the phone, and the other is with the
23 phone opened, or placing opened.
24 Q. We'll return to that in a minute. Let's return to your report,
1 You've referred a number of times to -- throughout the report, to
2 ESDA, an electrostatic method of detecting indented impressions.
3 A. Yes, Your Honour.
4 Q. Could you just briefly describe what that was, or is.
5 A. Your Honour -- excuse me. Your Honour, ESDA is the electrostatic
6 detection apparatus. It is a piece of technical equipment used in
7 document laboratories all over the world, and it is a means of, without
8 damaging a page, detecting any indented writing from documents that were
9 above the page at the time they were written. And it enables us to make
10 a permanent record of what those indentations are and what they look like
11 for future use. But, as I say, the document itself, the page itself
12 we're examining, is not damaged in the proceedings. And that was the
13 whole idea of the equipment.
14 It was designed in the 1970s, and essentially it hasn't changed
15 in method or, indeed, success. It's a very useful tool. It enables us
16 to establish on any piece of paper if anybody has been writing on top.
17 There are certain technical occasions why such indentations may not show;
18 for instance, pencil is not -- it just doesn't render itself terribly
19 well to ESDA. It's all about pen pressure, and therefore fountain pens
20 also tend not to leave many indentations, because obviously a fountain
21 pen you don't need to press very hard to make a mark. But ball-point
22 pens, fibre-point pens, and the like, the writing will come through on
23 the page beneath.
24 I've used it several times -- well, thousands of times, frankly,
25 to see if the page I'm looking at has been under another page while it
1 has been written.
2 Q. Would it have been useful in relation to this report?
3 A. Almost certainly. But the examination of books - to be fair,
4 bound books - in using ESDA is not as simple as the majority of ESDA
5 work. We have to separate one page from the book. We don't have to take
6 it out, but we do have to manipulate the book in such a way so that we
7 can place that page, and only that page, on the ESDA machine. And
8 thereafter we can go through the normal ESDA procedure. For instance, I
9 mean, I've examined pages in passports exactly like that. And it just
10 requires more care and it requires a great deal of -- well, frankly,
11 practice, but also we just -- we just have to be careful. And normally
12 two people have to be involved to make sure that the book is not harmed
13 in any way and everything is left intact at the end of the examination.
14 The ESDA lift, which is the end result, is the permanent record
15 of the indentations. But they're not -- they don't damage the document
16 itself, and the document can then go back to doing whatever it was doing
18 Q. And you didn't use ESDA for these -- or for this examination?
19 A. No.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, that seems to be pretty clear from the
21 report, isn't it? I mean, I find on over -- almost every page "no ESDA,"
22 "no ESDA," "no ESDA." So therefore, I would be surprised by any other
23 answer than, of course, ESDA was not available to examine these
25 MR. JORDASH: Well, I was about to lead into the next part, which
1 was why was that. It was just an introduction to ... but I'll put it
2 more shortly.
3 Q. You didn't use ESDA because you were not permitted to; is that
5 A. Yes. ESDA was strictly forbidden under the terms of the
6 examination protocol.
7 Q. Would ESDA in your view have destroyed the books or damaged the
9 A. Used with care, I wouldn't have expected it to do so. But
10 that's -- it's a dead issue, frankly, now. It would have helped.
11 Q. Let's move swiftly through your report, because it's quite
13 MR. JORDASH: Paragraph -- sorry, paragraph 30, please, on
14 page 6.
15 Q. You make the point here that - at page -- paragraph 30 - that
16 there is some evidence of indentations on page 3564, but it is not
17 possible to establish without ESDA.
18 In relation to paragraphs 22 and 24 --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash -- yes, now I've found it. Thank you.
20 Please proceed.
21 MR. JORDASH:
22 Q. Twenty-two and 24, you would - again, I'm just picking out
23 paragraphs to contrast with paragraph 30 - you talk about missing pages,
24 but make no mention of indentations. How confident are you that you
25 picked up indentations without the use of ESDA?
1 A. Well, as I think the protocol lays out, Your Honour, the
2 equipment that the National Forensic Institute provided was
3 state-of-the-art, very high quality equipment in the terms of the VSC
4 that they made available to me throughout my examination. And that had
5 the capability of directing light obliquely across a page to see -- which
6 enables us to a certain extent to show up any indentations. The problem
7 is, of course, that the pages are in the middle of a book and all --
8 there is writing all around that page, and those pages. So, whereas we
9 can pick up indentations, matching the indentations to the pages before
10 or after is because it is not as precise as ESDA, which gives you an
11 absolute shot at the indented impressions. Matching them with the
12 writing on the other side is less simple. In some cases we were able to
13 prove the point that the indentations we think we can see seem to come
14 from the writing on a page that's already still in the book, but in other
15 cases we can -- we could not be a hundred per cent satisfied that we had
16 actually picked up all indentation or been able to separate one
17 indentation from the writing on either side.
18 What ESDA does is show all the indentations, and we can then
19 place that lift over pages that are still in the book and see if they
20 match. And if they match, then that's the question answered. If they do
21 not match, then there are indentations that have come -- that have gone
22 missing from somewhere.
23 So ESDA would have helped, but we cannot - and I'm sure the NFI
24 scientists' exactly the same - we would not be able to say confidently
25 that we'd picked up all the indentations using the oblique light.
1 Q. Thank you. Now if we move to paragraph 54 of your report. And I
2 think it's fair to say that this aspect of the report concerns a book
3 where you found the most anomalies --
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. -- or problems.
6 A. Indeed.
7 Q. And you say, at 55, a major difference lies in the state of the
8 book. There are 28 pages that are loose. In fact, they are barely
9 attached at all. And so on.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And at paragraph 56 you talk about inks that have been used then
12 abandoned then picked up again.
13 MR. JORDASH: Perhaps if I can hand out at this stage copies of
14 part of that book so that this can be properly explained to the Chamber.
15 Just one of the books.
16 MR. GROOME: Just one.
17 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Could I meanwhile, when this material is
19 distributed, ask one additional question.
20 I think you earlier said that if you can pick up indentation that
21 you sometimes were but sometimes were not able to match those
22 indentations with text written on one of the other pages, if I understood
23 you well. Could you indicate where in the report we find such, if I
24 could say, positive matches, where you said -- well, often the report
25 says, Without ESDA we couldn't establish anything at all - where you
1 found indentations which you could match to the text written on the
2 adjacent, may I take it, the page which was above, the page on which you
3 found the indentations?
4 THE WITNESS: Yes. I will try and do that, Your Honour.
5 Your Honour, if I can draw your attention to paragraph 35, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thirty-five.
7 THE WITNESS: I don't know if that answers -- [Overlapping
8 speakers] ...
9 JUDGE ORIE: And, well, that's -- that's --
10 THE WITNESS: -- one point.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Well, to some extent. To some extent also not.
12 Because you say oblique light shows indentations that may have come
13 from --
14 THE WITNESS: Yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: -- 2236. It doesn't say that you found positive
16 indications. And I'm now going back to your testimony that sometimes you
17 were able to match, sometimes you're not able to match. It doesn't
18 explain why, where you say it may have come from, whether there was any
19 positive --
20 THE WITNESS: The --
21 JUDGE ORIE: -- indication established, because the report
22 doesn't say so.
23 THE WITNESS: It wasn't possible to make an absolute -- enable us
24 to make an absolute statement as to the origins of indentations. At
25 page 31 -- at paragraph 31 - I beg your pardon, Your Honour - immediately
1 above that, I cannot exclude the possibility that the missing page was
2 torn out before the writing was made, but I'm unable to establish this
3 one way or the other. If you like -- I mean, it is worthy because we're
4 looking for anomalies. I'm looking for anomalies as per my instructions.
5 And if I have found indications of the origin of the indentations within
6 the book, then it ceases to be an anomaly. I can't make it certain -- we
7 can't make it certain in those circumstances.
8 So, yeah, it may have come from there, therefore that's -- it has
9 to be good enough for me. I can't establish it without using ESDA, and
10 therefore that's as good as it's going to get, Your Honour. But it
11 doesn't become an issue for me once I think I've found an indication. I
12 have to put it away.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I'm especially focussing on your testimony
14 where you said that in some cases -- the transcript is not very precise.
15 I think, Mr. Jordash, I'm referring to page 18, line 19:
16 "In some cases ... to come from the writing on the page that's
17 already still in the book, but in other cases we can -- we could not be a
18 hundred per cent satisfied that we had actually picked up all indentation
19 or been able to separate one indentation from the writing on the
20 other [sic] side."
21 So it looks as if a distinction is made between positive matches
22 you could establish and other situations where you were, as you said, at
23 least not for a hundred per cent sure. And I'm looking now for the
24 positive matches described in your report, and the examples you've given
25 are mainly in the category of, it may have been without a clear positive
1 match being established.
2 THE WITNESS: That, I'm afraid, Your Honour, is as good as it's
3 going to get throughout because I would consider only ESDA is going to be
4 absolutely positive. If we're looking at the --
5 JUDGE ORIE: No --
6 THE WITNESS: -- infrared oblique light, I'm not going to be able
7 to say that.
8 JUDGE ORIE: No. I'm fully happy with -- that's what I thought
9 from the report. Therefore, I was a bit surprised by the testimony I
10 just referred to a second ago.
11 THE WITNESS: Oh, may I -- is it the word "positive" that you --
12 that hits you?
13 JUDGE ORIE: No, it's about matching the indentations to the
14 pages before or after it.
15 THE WITNESS: Yes.
16 JUDGE ORIE: At -- and, Mr. Jordash, please assist me - where I
17 read "at -- in case seem to come from the writing on the page that's
18 already still in the book," which seems to -- a kind of positive match
19 that you had reasons to believe that the indentations came from other
20 writing in the book. And, as you said, "but in other cases we could not
21 be a hundred per cent satisfied that we had actually picked up all the
22 indentation or been able to separate one indentation from the writing on
23 the other [sic] side." So there are apparently uncertain. And I do
24 understand that the uncertainty goes, as a matter of fact, for all of the
1 THE WITNESS: It does go in all of the indented impression
2 business it is not certain. But if we found something that was a
3 positive match -- not a precise match, but gives us indication that
4 that's where it comes from, I've put that aspect to bed, as it were. It
5 can't be raised any more, because we've got something that indicates that
6 it may not be anomalous, the missing page. It's really not what's in the
7 book at the moment; it's the missing page. Was the page torn out with
8 writing on it? In which case I would expect to see indentations on
9 either side. Or was the page -- the missing page taken out before there
10 was any writing in existence? And that's as far as I can go. That's why
11 I'm looking for the indentations on either side of the torn out page, to
12 see if there's anything there that can't be linked to the pages on either
13 side, existing writing in the book. But I can't be certain. When I'm
14 saying "positive," I mean it sort of -- there are matches. That's not
15 exactly a positive opinion or a certain opinion.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
17 Please proceed, Mr. Jordash.
18 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
19 Q. We are about to look at these -- I don't know if you've been
20 given a copy of that, of a colour copy of book 16.
21 MR. JORDASH: And for Your Honours' information: This book
22 contains P2531, pages 19 to 29; P2532, page 33 to 62; P2533, 76 to 81;
23 and P2534, 115 to 116.
24 Q. Would you, perhaps, find the page where -- which illustrates
25 paragraph 56 of your report. Inks that had been used briefly, then
1 abandoned, then picked up again later.
2 A. Bottom of page 4223. I'm using the J-0 number at the top, the
3 red number. If we go down to page 7 in one ink, and indeed that has come
4 from the page before as well, that ink, and then paragraph 8 and 9 are
5 written in a different ink. And over the page we come to paragraph 10,
6 which is written in the ink that was there --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash --
8 THE WITNESS: -- before.
9 JUDGE ORIE: -- if I am -- for the record: What are we looking
10 at exact -- I found it in my hard copy, so there's no problem with that,
11 but for those who have to reconstruct later what we looked at, what the
12 witness now explains is found in any document which is in evidence or is
13 not in evidence?
14 MR. JORDASH: This isn't in evidence -- [overlapping
15 speakers] ...
16 JUDGE ORIE: Isn't it in evidence. So you're going to tender
17 the --
18 MR. JORDASH: This -- this document.
19 JUDGE ORIE: -- this document at a later stage.
20 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Wouldn't it be wise to already assign a number, to
22 save those, while reading the transcript at a later stage, to not know
23 for pages and pages in what document they are.
24 MR. JORDASH: Certainly. This is not the totality of book 16, I
25 should say.
1 JUDGE ORIE: No, but this is an -- this is a copied excerpt of
2 certain pages of book 16.
3 MR. JORDASH: Yes. They are 4209 -- this is what Mr. Browne
4 included in his report, 42 -- well, slightly -- no.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Is it numbered throughout? Because then we find, in
6 red, J00004209 [sic] on that cover page, which bears a large number 44.
7 And is it then subsequently numbered until the last page, which is
9 MR. JORDASH: It is. And I spoke out of turn. This is, in fact,
10 the full book --
11 JUDGE ORIE: It is the full book.
12 MR. JORDASH: At paragraph 54, Mr. Browne talks of an excerpt of
13 the book. But this is the full book, which we would like to tender.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. You would like to --
15 THE WITNESS: No, it's not.
16 JUDGE ORIE: -- tender that.
17 Mr. Groome, any objections against -- because I'm afraid that
18 those reading the transcript at later stages are lost without a clear
19 reference to what we are looking at at this moment.
20 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I -- Mr. Browne has just said earlier,
21 or caught it, but he said, No, it's not. This is not the entire book.
22 MR. JORDASH: Mr. Browne --
23 MR. GROOME: That's -- agrees with my understanding of what we
24 have before it us. Perhaps we could clarify that. And if we're going to
25 tender the whole book, perhaps we can -- make sure that we in fact do
1 have the entire book.
2 MR. JORDASH: No, I think that I spoke correctly the first time
3 and I think we're all in agreement this is not the full book.
4 JUDGE ORIE: And is it excerpts? Because I see that handwritten
5 numbering at the top of the page starts at 1 and goes until 52. Does
6 that mean that there are other pages which will follow, or is there an
7 interruption halfway? I have not checked that.
8 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, if I might assist the Chamber. The
9 entire book is uploaded in e-court under 65 ter 5892. Perhaps that's the
10 copy that we could tender, and consider that the printed copy we have
11 before us is a facsimile of what's in e-court. Yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: And that contains similar red numbers as we find it
13 in the hard copy before us?
14 MR. GROOME: I haven't verified it right now, Your Honour, but my
15 understanding is, my recollection is, that it in fact does. These are
16 colour scans of the -- high-resolution colour scans of the material.
17 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Jordash, what are your plans? To tender
19 this as a separate document or to rely on book 16 as -- in its entirety?
20 MR. JORDASH: I'm happy to tender it in its entirety.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, any objections?
22 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Simatovic Defence?
24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please.
1 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, I think you made reference to
3 65 ter 5892 which, as Madam Registrar informs me, is P2532. But she has
4 a slight suspicion that you may have wanted to refer to another document
5 which is uploaded as 65 ter -- and, Madam Registrar, perhaps you could
6 express your mind on it.
7 MR. GROOME: 5606?
8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, 5606 bears document ID J004209,
9 which you referred to.
10 MR. JORDASH: 65 ter 5606 is our information.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is that the book in its entirety?
12 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 You tender it. Mr. Groome has no objection. Mr. -- the
15 Simatovic Defence has no objection either. One second, please.
16 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
17 JUDGE ORIE: We deal with it now, Mr. Jordash. If it is part of
18 your bar table motion, I take it that you'll strike it from that at a
19 later stage, if it is. If it is.
20 MR. JORDASH: Yes. Although we want the Cyrillic in evidence but
21 for the point of showing Your Honours the difference in use of ink, so it
22 should be a separate document.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. But we are aware that it may play a role in
24 your bar table motion as well.
25 MR. JORDASH: It certainly does.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 Madam Registrar, the number of this document, perhaps you
3 identify it very clearly for the record.
4 THE REGISTRAR: The number for document 5606 will be 3109,
5 Your Honours.
6 MR. JORDASH: Were there other --
7 JUDGE ORIE: This is the -- let me see. Is this P or D? It's
8 tendered by Mr. Jordash, now.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, it's P3109.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Any problem with having it as a P document --
11 MR. JORDASH: No --
12 JUDGE ORIE: -- in evidence? P --
13 THE REGISTRAR: No --
14 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I think, after all, it's more appropriate to
16 make it -- Mr. Jordash, you're tendering it, therefore, I would prefer to
17 assign a D number to it rather than a P number.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Then document 5606, instead of 3109, will receive
19 number D767, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: D767 is admitted into evidence, and P3109 is
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. JORDASH:
24 Q. Just going back to your report. Unless you wanted to say
25 something more about the ink, Mr. Browne.
1 A. No, not particularly. That does it.
2 Q. At paragraph 55 of your report you comment about the loose pages
3 totalling 28 and the fact that very little glue seems to have been used
4 to hold that together, contrasted with the spine which showed a
5 significant amount of glue was used in the book's manufacture.
6 A. That is correct.
7 Q. Were you able to say anything about the glue itself? Were there
8 any other indications which could assist the Court?
9 A. No, not particularly. The -- this book is one of the few books
10 in this whole set of books that has not been bound with sewing. And it's
11 been -- it's basically perfect binding which is basically single pages
12 blocked together. A layer of glue is run down one part of the spine, or
13 the head - it depends what sort of book it is. And a cover around the
14 whole of that is then glued to hold the pages together. The spine is
15 actually -- the cover has come off of this book completely, the outer
16 cover. It's an unusual type of diary anyway. It's the -- it has a nice
17 fine leather outside cover. And inside, it's very like the sort of gifts
18 that people can buy to hold people's passports. The leather covering is
19 slipped the back cover of the passport in one, and you slip the front
20 cover, and you open it up and you've got the passport contained in a
21 leather folder. This is exactly the same.
22 You've got the leather cover with slots to take in the outer card
23 cover, and it is the outer card cover that is the real cover of the book,
24 which is glue -- has all the pages glued into it. The problem I had -
25 and it is a -- it is -- it is an anomaly that I have been unable to
1 reconcile - is that the pages that are coming loose have very little glue
2 holding them together at all, and yet there's plenty of glue still in
3 the -- the actual cover. And that glue will have gone in in liquid form
4 so that if the cover has come apart, it should actually have come apart
5 with the glue in the cover cracked, because that is the way these --
6 these books are just -- transpire when they -- when do fall apart, and I
7 would have expected to find more glue on the pages.
8 We haven't got much glue. It is an anomaly. I have not been
9 able to reconcile that anomaly.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you one question in that respect.
11 If a certain number of pages are glued together and thus form a
12 kind of a book, if you separate one or two or five or ten or 20 pages of
13 that, is there a possibility that part of the glue which was attached to
14 the separate pages leaves those individuals pages? And perhaps that on
15 one page you might find, if I could say, a stretch of glue which would
16 have attached to some of the other pages which are now loose, and that,
17 therefore, the picture of the intensity of the glue on the loose pages
18 might be different depending on whether I am dealing with page 1 or 3 or
19 20 or 25 which has been taken out? You understand what I mean? That if
20 the pages are still all together, then the glue will cover those pages;
21 whereas, if you take them apart, it could be that the glue is unevenly
22 distributed among the pages which are taken out. Is there any
23 possibility that this could have happened?
24 THE WITNESS: I think not, Your Honour, purely and simply because
25 the whole of the cover has come off. So all the pages are -- are loose
1 from the cover, and certainly they've been separated from their glue
2 base, if you like. If, of course, that glue base is the glue base from
3 which they are examined.
4 If I can demonstrate, and it is really an off-the-cuff
5 demonstration. This is a standard pad. It's perfect bound. The pages
6 running right, just single pages, they're blocked together, and they're
7 glued up at the top. They've got a bit of tape around. And that is the
8 spine. These are very common. And if I want to remove a page, or in
9 this case two. I've removed two pages. And I've left a gap in here.
10 And you can still see the glue. By and large, they -- but because this
11 is this sort of pad, it's not perforated but it has torn the paper.
12 There is glue left here.
13 If I were to remove the whole of the spine, tape, and break the
14 spine from the book, I would then have all the pages more or less glued
15 together. In this case what I have is, the spine has been removed, and I
16 have very little glue left at all, and that is less usual because the
17 cover is going to separate -- it should separate from the glue more
18 quickly than the actual page book. I'm sorry if that doesn't answer the
19 question, but that was by way of a sort of demonstration, but it may not
20 have demonstrated properly. I apologise.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Not entirely. Is there any way to compare the
22 composition of the glue, the little glue left on some of the pages, and
23 the glue left on the intact part?
24 THE WITNESS: That would be beyond my competence, but the NFI,
25 I'm sure, would be able to do that.
1 JUDGE ORIE: So there are perhaps possibilities to see whether --
2 THE WITNESS: Possibilities. We're looking at very minute
3 amounts of glue.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 THE WITNESS: And it -- to be fair, it's almost certainly an
6 industry standard type of glue that was used at whatever time that that
7 particular book was used. They're not exactly top-of-the-range books.
8 So it would be a standard type of glue readily available to the industry.
9 Not necessarily to the public.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but this is all speculation on the type --
11 THE WITNESS: Yes, of course.
12 JUDGE ORIE: -- of glue that's used.
13 THE WITNESS: The type of glue. Yes, indeed. But I'm sure the
14 experimentation could be done.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
16 Please proceed, Mr. Jordash.
17 MR. JORDASH:
18 Q. You say in paragraph 55 pages are missing throughout the book.
19 Are you able to say anything about the way in which they - above and
20 beyond what you've already said - the way in which they came out of the
22 A. I really can't tell how they came out of the book. I have little
23 information as to what has happened to these books before they were
24 recovered and seized, after they were recovered and seized, before they
25 came to this court, after they came to this court. There's very little
1 information about them at all, so I have no idea. It -- I think it's
2 less likely that the damage caused to this book is just normal wear and
3 tear and handling and so on, and I think I'm -- and where that is to a
4 certain extent speculation, it is, however, covered by my examination in
5 page forty -- paragraph 45 of book 12.
6 MR. JORDASH: If we can go to that on the screen, please. 45.
7 Paragraph 45.
8 THE WITNESS: This book, Your Honour, is exactly the same format
9 as the book which is book 16. And I've described it again. It has a
10 pocket front and back, and so on and so forth. A separate book. Has a
11 card cover. And the front end paper and the spine have become detached
12 from the block. Now, there's no evidence that any pages are missing and
13 there are no anomalies. And apart from a partial separation of the
14 cover, I can find no other significant anomalies. This book is by and
15 large intact. There are slight damage to the spine, as I have mentioned,
16 but nothing like what we're looking at in page 16, and yet this book is
17 meant to have gone through the same rigors. It's covering a period a
18 little bit before book 16 but it's -- and therefore it's a little bit
19 older than book 16 in terms of chronology of entries, and yet the damage
20 is minimal. And easily explained and, to me, not a problem and no
21 anomalies. So what's -- what's surprising me about book 16 is its
22 complete disintegration, if you like. And I can find no reason for it.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you, then, one question in relation
24 comparing book 12 to book 16. Apparently book 12 is covering a period of
25 less than a month, whereas the other book has been -- is covering a
1 period of two and a half month. So if you say it went through the same -
2 what did you exactly say? - the same rigors, then, at least in time, that
3 is not accurate, as far as the production time is concerned.
4 THE WITNESS: Yes, indeed. But I'm assuming. And, again, I
5 don't know how this book was -- yes, I do. Book 16 was found inside its
6 leather cover, I believe. It was recovered inside its leather cover.
7 And by that I mean the carpral [phoen] cover had been inserted into the
8 slot at the back. So it was recovered in the way it was meant to be used
9 and the way it has been designed. And the cover, of course, of a book is
10 designed to protect the book. So while it's had another five weeks'
11 writing in it, it -- it -- it's still been used as it was designed.
12 The -- I mean, I'm assuming these original books - and this is an
13 assumption - were designed to be diaries. Therefore, they're meant to
14 last 12 months. In this case, obviously, they lasted two and a bit.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Isn't this --
16 THE WITNESS: Well, a little bit.
17 JUDGE ORIE: -- a bit of chicken egg question. The book is
18 damaged so much because it lost its protective covers and that explains
19 why. Or it's the other way around. Where you say it's -- I can't
20 explain how it was so heavily damaged, although you do not know whether
21 it was protected all of the time.
22 THE WITNESS: Well as I -- sorry.
23 JUDGE ORIE: I mean, isn't there -- not to say that there may be
24 all kind of explanations, but that there is quite a bit of speculation in
25 whether the damage is the result of a treatment which was different or
1 whether you say, I -- there must be something else, because under similar
2 circumstances you wouldn't accept such large damage. And you said it
3 went through the same rigors. I don't know whether you have any specific
4 knowledge about the rigors 12 and 16 went through when comparing their
5 fate, as far as damage is concerned.
6 THE WITNESS: Well, Your Honour, the reason I say it was -- at
7 the time of discovery it was still inside its leather cover. And I don't
8 me just placed inside its leather cover, it was in the right place of its
9 leather cover, and we know that from the scanned photographs. We know
10 the front cover of the -- the carpral cover has been scanned inside and
11 out, and then all the pages, but the back cover wasn't. And yet the
12 leather part of the back cover was. And the only explanation of that is
13 it was not visible because it was inside its leather cover.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but the rigors you are talking about are rigors
15 it went through after they were found.
16 THE WITNESS: Well, we know they were all scanned, I believe --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but --
18 THE WITNESS: I believe twice.
19 JUDGE ORIE: But -- but before.
20 THE WITNESS: Oh, before.
21 JUDGE ORIE: What happened --
22 THE WITNESS: Well, that's the whole point. We don't know what
23 happened before.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
25 THE WITNESS: And it is that period, of course, that I'm
1 interested in. Whatever happened after discovery happened to all of the
2 books in any event, I understand.
3 JUDGE ORIE: So the -- the same rigors would --
4 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
5 JUDGE ORIE: -- be about that period, then, not about a period
6 before they were discovered.
7 THE WITNESS: Exactly. And it is of course the damage that's
8 caused to the book before they were discovered. That is, obviously, of
9 greater interest, I suppose.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 THE WITNESS: But we don't know.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
13 Please proceed.
14 MR. JORDASH: I notice the time, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes, I apologise. I should have kept an eye
16 on that.
17 Mr. Groome.
18 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, during my cross-examination I intend to
19 use a chart which summarises the primary findings of the report. I think
20 we could save some time if Mr. Browne were allowed to review that over
21 the course of the break rather than here. It's simply short quotes from
22 the report tied to the different books.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Browne, we have a bad habit in this court, that
24 is, to take a break and to ask the witnesses to work hard during the
25 break. If you would join in these bad habits, that would be highly
2 THE WITNESS: Of course, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Groome, please provide it to the witness.
4 We take a break, and we resume at five minutes past 4.00.
5 --- Recess taken at 3.36 p.m.
6 --- On resuming at 4.09 p.m.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, are you ready to continue?
8 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes. Thank you.
9 Q. A few more questions, Mr. Browne, please.
10 MR. JORDASH: Let's go back to your report, 1D05300.
11 Q. And we were dealing with paragraph 55.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. You note there that 54 pages are in misalignment with their
14 neighbours. I just want to make sure we understand that precisely. How
15 were those pages within the overall book? Were they affixed to the book
16 or slotted in, or how was it?
17 A. Well, I think they had once been affixed to a book and glued in,
18 but they were -- they were -- a lot of them were loose. Twenty eight
19 were loose. Fifty four were -- how can I describe it? Let me just see
20 if I can find it in the bundle of photographs that we have, this bundle
21 that's already been provided. The pages have all been printed out by a
22 printer. The measurements and the lines and the spacing and the margins
23 and so on would have been design by the printer, and then all the pages
24 are blocked. They are bound into the spine. And then there're all
25 trimmed. That is the normal way these books are made. I don't think
1 these books were made to order. Particularly, I think they're off of the
2 shelf. Therefore, there's nothing to indicate they've been done
3 specially. And as such, by and large the printed pages will align one to
4 the next to the next, unless for some reason or another they have moved
5 within the book or they have been taken from one book and put into
6 another. That is a possibility.
7 Q. How do you distinguish the 28 loose pages from the 54? What's
8 the difference in observation?
9 A. Well, they're completely separated.
10 Q. So the 54 are completely separated?
11 A. No, no, no, sorry, the 28 pages.
12 Q. But then the 54 are attached --
13 A. -- but misaligned.
14 Q. Could you just develop -- I'm not sure I -- maybe I -- it's only
15 me, but could you just describe that a little more? The 54 are attached
16 but misaligned in the wrong place?
17 A. No, sorry. Misaligned as in up and down with their neighbour.
18 The printed line should go straight across like that, and they don't,
19 even though they're stuck into the book, for all intents and purposes
20 what remains of the book. They misalign.
21 Q. Are you able to tell whether that's a result of poor manufacture
22 or later alteration?
23 A. I'm not able to tell that, no.
24 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, could we please identify the specific
25 pages that we are speaking about so I can follow along with the handout?
1 THE WITNESS: My problem is which pages have we got here.
2 MR. JORDASH: I don't know if this could be adjourned to the next
3 break, where Mr. Browne could identify the pages from his -- which --
4 from his notes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: If Mr. Browne thinks that he's better able to answer
6 the question after the next break, we, of course, would accept that.
7 THE WITNESS: It might be advisable using this --
8 I beg your pardon, I keep forgetting they're there.
9 It might be advisable to do that if nobody minds.
10 MR. JORDASH: If that's acceptable to the Prosecution.
11 MR. GROOME: It is, Your Honour.
12 THE WITNESS: I'm grateful.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Let's proceed.
14 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
15 Q. At 57 you appear to take the matter a bit further. Could you
16 elaborate, or would that depend upon you finding the pages?
17 A. No, it -- basically it's a general comment about the whole of the
18 book. The problem is there are so many loose pages, there are so many
19 pages that are barely attached. I can't establish when those pages were
20 attached or how or in which procedure. The problem with single pages is
21 there's nothing to anchor them to the book.
22 If you've got a set of pages that have an opposite number, a
23 partner, as it were, elsewhere in the book, you've got something to
24 anchor the page so that 1-2 two can be the same piece of paper as 5-6, or
25 something of that nature. Depending on the size of the book, of course,
1 we're dealing with. But if you've just got single sheets, then you take
2 a sheet out, you can put another sheet in. We can't establish what has
3 happened with this book.
4 This is one example, absolutely, where ESDA would have been of
5 huge assistance, because we would be able to see whether the writing on
6 each page had indented into its next page or whether the indentations
7 actually didn't go into that page but went somewhere else and we don't
8 know where they are. And we could have done that with all the --
9 certainly all the loose pages to see if that was going to render any
10 significant information. It is entirely possible, of course, that it
11 might not have rendered any significant information.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you about that same paragraph. You say
13 it would seem that pages have been introduced from elsewhere. Now, is
14 there a possibility that they have got loose from the book, from the
15 original book, and that they are not from elsewhere from -- but from that
16 same book, and after having been loosened, then to be put back again in a
17 similar way as if it would have come from another book or from elsewhere?
18 THE WITNESS: Yeah, this is where learned counsel for the
19 Prosecution's question is a valid one. Where or how --
20 JUDGE ORIE: I've not heard of any question -- [Overlapping
21 speakers] ...
22 THE WITNESS: No, sorry --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you have read, you have done your homework.
24 That's good, but ... yes?
25 THE WITNESS: -- which I will answer properly after the next
1 break, because it's going to need, in the context of the pictures we
2 have, identifying the pages that -- where there is a mismatch. Now, the
3 mismatch couldn't be or shouldn't be wrong, shouldn't be imperfect
4 manufacture. Because once the books are bound together, they're trimmed
5 top and bottom. If the pages are sticking out of the top or bottom,
6 then -- then that isn't the way they were manufactured. If they've been
7 put back in --
8 JUDGE ORIE: No --
9 THE WITNESS: -- they may have been put back in during usage, but
10 if they are in the right place and the lines mis-- you know, the printing
11 misaligns significantly, then that is an indication they could have come
12 from another book.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, they could.
14 THE WITNESS: It could.
15 JUDGE ORIE: But they could come from the same book as well.
16 THE WITNESS: It could, that it has been badly put together, it
17 has been badly manufactured. I can't tell.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. We just start now.
19 Please proceed, Mr. Jordash.
20 Oh. Mr. Groome.
21 MR. GROOME: Just --
22 JUDGE ORIE: I apologise. I haven't read this yet. So when I
23 put some of the questions that you intend to put, then ...
24 MR. GROOME: Well, I think what the witness was referring to when
25 I suggested that it would be helpful to know which pages he's referring
1 to, I think that's what the witness was referring to.
2 And can I just say before -- while we're talking about this, that
3 can the witness be advised that we have all the pages of that book in
4 e-court, although we only have a certain selection here. So he should
5 not feel bound just to this, but simply he can check his notes and let us
6 know which pages.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 MR. JORDASH: We'll be providing him with a full copy of the
9 Cyrillic over the break, with Your Honours' leave.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Jordash.
11 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
12 Q. Let's move on from this book to one other book. Book 21. You
13 deal with this at paragraph 70 of your report.
14 MR. JORDASH: Could we have that on e-court, please.
15 Q. I want to try to understand --
16 THE REGISTRAR: I apologise. Can we have a number?
17 MR. JORDASH: We're there on the screen, actually. Paragraph 70.
18 Q. Book 21, you note that it relates to the 2008 seizure. And a
19 single page has been removed, page 543. This appears to be in the middle
20 of a meeting.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And if we go to paragraph 71, you note that the book appears to
23 have been completely -- completed almost entirely within the
24 chronological lifetime of book 20 above.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And perhaps if you are able to demonstrate your observations on
2 this by reference to the book.
3 MR. JORDASH: If we could have on the screen, please, P394.
4 English page 11, B/C/S page 16. And B/C/S 0649-0536.
5 And for Your Honours' information: Book 21, parts of book 21,
6 have been exhibited under P394, pages forty -- exhibited by the
7 Prosecution, of P394, page 42, 72 to 73, 124 to 125, 140 to 141, 189 to
8 190, 204 to 210, and 263 to six -- 268. And I just want to assist, if I
9 can, Your Honours a bit further.
10 Q. So this reference in your report to page 543 missing and
11 appearing to be in the middle of a meeting. This is a meeting, it seems,
12 in Belgrade on the 30th of June, 1995.
13 MR. JORDASH: And if we go over the page to page 13 of the
14 English and 16 of the B/C/S -- sorry, let's go to page 12, because we can
15 see that - page 12 of the English and 17 of the B/C/S - where apparently,
16 allegedly, Stanisic is there and claims, as we can see -- its alleged
17 that he is talking about men from Banja Luka. And then over the page to
18 page 13 of the English and 18 of the B/C/S, he's alleged to have said:
19 "We have been supplying 100.000 men for six months. There is
20 poor organisation in RS. They plundered us."
21 And then if we go to page 15 of the English and 20 of the B/C/S,
22 Stanisic is alleged to have said:
23 "I can find 120 perfect men who would come there in seven days."
24 And then he's alleged to have said:
25 "They should not be engaged (we gave 80 from Erdut, we gave
1 80 from Deletovci ..."
2 Q. Now, before we return to the report, if we can look on the left
3 side of the screen at the Cyrillic, and I think it's accepted that CM
4 refers to Milosevic and JC refers to Stanisic. And we have a change, it
5 appears there, from CM apparently saying: "They should not be engaged (we
6 gave 80 from Erdut, we gave 80 to Deletovci ..." and then that's changed
7 to JC. So are you able to say anything about that, Mr. Browne? If you
8 can't, you can't. The change from Milosevic to Stanisic, there.
9 A. Nothing showed up on the infrared and -- the infrared lighting
10 which would indicate that a different ink had been used to make that
11 alteration. And therefore, it's -- there's nothing I can say about that.
12 Q. Okay. Fair enough.
13 A. It may be the same pen.
14 Q. Okay. Then let's go back to your conclusion about a missing
15 page, page 43.
16 MR. JORDASH: If we could go to page 54-- the actual page 543 in
17 the Cyrillic, which should be English page 18, B/C/S 23.
18 Q. Just so you can explain what, in fact, you were saying when you
19 said that page 543 was missing.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Which paragraph in the report are we at this moment?
21 THE WITNESS: 70.
22 MR. JORDASH: Paragraph 70, I think.
23 JUDGE ORIE: 70.
24 THE WITNESS: What am I looking at on the screen here, please?
25 MR. JORDASH:
1 Q. I'm not sure, actually, either. You should be looking at --
2 MR. JORDASH: What I'm interested in is B/C/S ERN 0649 to 0543.
3 A. I have got 595 here.
4 Q. Yup, so have I.
5 MR. JORDASH: Should I repeat the page?
6 JUDGE ORIE: Let's wait for a second.
7 THE REGISTRAR: We would prefer e-court page, because it's
8 difficult to navigate through actual pages.
9 MR. JORDASH: That's English page 18 and B/C/S page 23. Sorry, I
10 know what the problem is. Could we go back, please, to English page 17
11 and B/C/S page 22.
12 Q. Would you, while this is coming up, explain exactly what you mean
13 by this -- why -- how you observed a single page had been removed?
14 And ...
15 A. Yes, certainly. These books are manufactured as a series of
16 books stuck together, Your Honour. We have a series of books of a few
17 pages in each case, and then they are stuck together. But each separate
18 book is sewn together. And if you tear a page out, of course, these
19 pages all have, as it were, a brother on the other side of the spine.
20 And if you take one page away, you leave one page behind, and that is
21 what I'm looking at here. That page 542 is on a completed pair, then we
22 get to the stitches, and then page 543 is all that's left, as it were.
23 The original page 543 has been torn out.
24 Now, there's -- and thus it is missing. It has to be said, of
25 course, that page -- the missing page does not appear to have impacted or
1 had anything to do with the meeting of the 30th of June, as far as I can
2 make out. It had finished before the beginning -- the end of page 542.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
4 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, just to avoid confusion, and perhaps
5 there's a mistake, but Mr. Jordash does realise that page 543 is not part
6 of P394. I don't know if he appreciates that. But as far as I know,
7 this particular page we're talking about is not in evidence.
8 MR. JORDASH: I think that I had just realised that and was going
9 to deal with it via that explanation and then move on. But thank you to
10 Mr. Groome.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed, Mr. Jordash.
12 MR. JORDASH:
13 Q. I think that will do for that explanation, Mr. Browne, for my
14 purposes. Let's move to your final conclusions.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps I ask one question.
16 If a page is torn out, that means that then two pages are
17 missing, both sides of that sheet.
18 THE WITNESS: Indeed, Your Honour, yes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: So we are talking about one missing page.
20 THE WITNESS: One missing half-sheet.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Half-sheet, yes.
22 THE WITNESS: Yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's a more accurate description --
24 THE WITNESS: Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: -- of what we're talking about. Thank you.
1 MR. JORDASH:
2 Q. Let's move back to your report, Mr. Browne. 1D05300.
3 Paragraph 80, you note that the writing throughout the books appears neat
4 and small and orderly.
5 A. That's what it appears. I can't read Cyrillic, but that's -- the
6 writing does seem to be neat and compact and orderly, yes.
7 Q. Were you shown, as part of the preparation for your report, a
8 handwriting report prepared for the Seselj case by Dorijan Kerzan?
9 A. I was. Because it covered the authorship of the handwriting, and
10 effectively just disposed of it from my point of view, yes.
11 MR. JORDASH: And we intend to tender this, Your Honour, but with
12 agreement with the Prosecution.
13 Q. And he notes at page 12 that the handwriting of the disputed
14 notes is fluent. Legibility is very good. The writer has an excellent
15 writing skill, and the control of the pen is excellent as well. Mistakes
16 in writing are very rare. Did you agree with that assessment,
17 Mr. Browne?
18 A. I think it sums up probably in better language than I did it.
19 But yes, throughout the books that I've looked at.
20 Q. And paragraph 80, you go on to say you consider there must be
21 rough notes made at the time. What are you trying to say there,
23 A. Well, these book are meant to be, as far as I'm instructed,
24 they're meant to be diaries. They were written throughout -- across a
25 period of a number of years by, as I understand it, a senior military
1 officer. They are, if you like, his working diaries. They contain
2 minutes of meetings, as a part of my instructions, and notes of other
3 matters. I don't know what those minutes are, what they say, what the
4 words say. But they go -- we have a large number of books written by
5 hand throughout. I would expect -- so neatly, I would expect that there
6 would be rough notes from which these notes, these diaries, could then be
7 compiled. And there's nothing wrong with that. That's a perfectly
8 reasonable thing. But a sight of the rough notes would have been very
9 useful because that would show how the person actually writes at speed,
10 and then he returns to whatever room he uses to write his diary and
12 I can say this because I've used -- I've examined a lot of police
13 notebooks in my time, and have been notes of interviews and so on, and I
14 have been able to give evidence that the books were used -- the books,
15 those notes, were written up having used rough notes first. And that --
16 that's what these diaries seem to appear like for me. There are no rough
17 notes. They are very, very neat throughout. And there is nothing in
18 them that indicates they'd been written in action, if you like. And I
19 don't mean under shell fire, as in the working context of a senior
20 military officer. The writing is all his, so the report tells us, and I
21 have no reason to doubt that at all.
22 Q. I've got no further questions. Thank you, Mr. Browne.
23 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Jordash.
25 Could I ask one additional question in relation to the last
1 matter. You say:
2 "And there is nothing in them that indicates they had been
3 written in action."
4 Is there anything which indicates that they were not written in
6 THE WITNESS: Their neatness.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but --
8 THE WITNESS: It's exactly that. It's their neatness, their --
9 it's considered handwriting. It is neat. Somebody has thought about it
10 and they have put it in -- on paper. And as I say, there's nothing
11 inherently wrong with that.
12 JUDGE ORIE: No, but --
13 THE WITNESS: But it wasn't -- it's not during the rough and
14 tumble of a meeting, with people giving their opinions, and so on and so
15 forth, and coming out. It's all very neatly laid out again and again and
16 again. That is where -- where that's -- where I'm coming from with that.
17 And Mr. Kerzan points it out as well.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, you refer to your experience, because I'm
19 trying to find out what exactly the basis for this conclusion is. You
21 "I have seen notes of interviews and I have been able to give --"
22 and there the transcript is not very clear.
23 But at least it indicates that you were able to establish that
24 there had been rough notes first.
25 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. I had expressed as part of my
1 conclusions in the original part of the cases where I was involved in
2 this sort of work, an officer has said, No, I made these notes verbatim
3 at the time. And so on. And I have examined them and said, No, this is
4 too even, this is too smooth, this is too neat, if you like. And there
5 must have been rough notes. And then eventually the officer is
6 re-interviewed and he admits he had rough notes and he produced them.
7 Now, in some of those cases it didn't matter a bit that he had
8 rough notes. He just was foolish to not admit that there they were and
9 here they were. But, yeah, it's people who are writing in notebooks and
10 writing minutes, as it were, are writing under a certain amount of
11 pressure. And there's nothing in these -- in the way this writing, even
12 though it is Cyrillic, there's nothing in the way of this writing that
13 indicates that the person has been writing terribly quickly, that the
14 person has been writing under any sort of, not duress, but the pressure
15 of making sure he's got everything down.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Is this still within your field of expertise?
17 THE WITNESS: This --
18 JUDGE ORIE: It is more or less psychology, isn't it? That where
19 the people are able to remain fully calm and control their writing speed.
20 I'm just wondering whether there's any scientific basis for this
21 conclusion. Is there any publication about neatness is always a
22 indication that it has been copied? Is there any -- any source which
23 would support your conclusion?
24 THE WITNESS: There's source -- there's The Forensic Science
25 Society, the ASQDE. I can't quote the actual source of these, but there
1 have been studies carried out as to the deterioration of writing under
2 speed. In the immigration service we did it ourselves. We had to carry
3 out a study for internal use only as to write -- officers having to write
4 in notebooks. And that was in the days before we began to tape-record
5 all our interviews, because we had to try and maintain the flow of the
6 interview and yet record what was being said in that interview as
7 accurately as we could, and how the writing deteriorated the faster
8 people we were interviewing spoke.
9 And it's nothing really to do with the psychology. It's nothing
10 really to do with the -- a -- with duress or anything like that. It's
11 just the business of trying to get the information down on a piece of
12 paper accurately as you can, and then you write it up afterwards neatly
13 yourself. And we found that what we were trying to do in my office was
14 to try and find out an armament for getting tape recorders in rather than
15 carrying on writing in notebooks. And that is one of the things. If
16 duress doesn't really come into it and stress doesn't come into it,
17 because we know those things don't actually affect the way somebody
18 writes or signs their name, but the actual need for speed is the
19 determinator, as were, of slight deterioration.
20 There's also more chance you might have misheard, you make a
21 mistake, you go back, you alter it. And making the books neat from rough
22 notes is much more -- in my view, it's an acceptable explanation as to
23 the neatness of these books throughout.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Although we -- do we have any information
25 about the urgency and the speed needed if written in action or if copied?
1 I can imagine that someone who has a busy job to do, being in a high
2 military position, that copying would put him under similar time pressure
3 as the jotting down what he observed during the meeting. I mean, do we
4 know anything about that, or is it just --
5 THE WITNESS: I don't know anything about it at all. That's the
6 point. I mean, I can only make the observation having examined the
8 JUDGE ORIE: But would you agree with me that it, your
9 conclusion, is based on an assumption? Neatness should mean here, this
10 and this and this. Whereas, not knowing the circumstances under which
11 they were either drafted at a later stage on the basis of rough notes or
12 that are written down immediately is circumstances are totally unknown.
13 THE WITNESS: Well, it's -- this is -- this is the problem, one
14 of the problems. We do not know enough about these books in any event,
15 Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but your conclusions is rather firm. It must
17 be, isn't it?
18 THE WITNESS: I would -- I'm --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Let me check, because I -- I'm now quoting from --
20 THE WITNESS: Paragraph 80.
21 JUDGE ORIE: -- my memory.
22 "I consider there must be rough notes."
23 Which is a pretty strong conclusion, isn't it?
24 THE WITNESS: Yes. But I can tell you that that number of books
25 written over that period so neatly all the way through, as commented on
1 by Dr. Kerzan as well, is an indication that they were written in a
2 considered way. Otherwise, the meetings would take a very long time, I
3 think. But it's -- that is a throw-away remark. I can't tell how fast
4 he wrote any way.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Do I hear you say implicitly that on the basis of
6 your observations that you consider it likely or very likely that --
7 THE WITNESS: I consider it likely there would be rough notes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's different from: There must be rough
9 notes. Would you agree?
10 THE WITNESS: Yes, I'll agree to that.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
12 Please proceed.
13 MR. JORDASH: May I tender some documents before I sit down,
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so, Mr. Jordash.
16 MR. JORDASH: The following are documents which relate to the
17 search, which we would like to tender. They're 1D05300, and that's the
19 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
20 Yes, Mr. Groome.
21 MR. GROOME: Two things, Your Honour. First of all, just as to
22 relevance, what is the relevance? If I could hear why -- Mr. Jordash
23 address relevance. And the second thing is, there were a number of
24 photographs that were shown the witness and all he said was, "I've seen
25 the photo before." I saw furniture, I saw -- it looked like the inside
1 of someone's apartment. But we don't know much about them. I'm not sure
2 of what assistance they'll be to the Chamber to have pictures of the
3 inside compartment with nothing more than "the witness has seen them
4 before" without describing what it is we're seeing.
5 JUDGE ORIE: But at least to be able, at least, to follow some of
6 the conclusions of the expert, because he draws certain conclusions from,
7 I think, the type of furniture from which the documents were received. I
8 remember that it was something of the kind.
9 MR. JORDASH: Well, if I can explain very briefly, then. The
10 two -- three of the photographs -- I hadn't actually tendered these yet,
11 or applied to tender them, but 1D03486.1, page 51 -- that's 1D034861 --
12 86.1, page 51, 53, and page -- I'm sorry, 1D03487.10, page 4, are the
13 photographs of the documents. With the last document I referred to, a
14 picture of the documents as they were photographed in the OTP rooms, and
15 the first two being the documents as they were photographed, we think, in
16 situ -- sorry, not in situ. In the premises rather than in situ.
17 And then the other photographs are documents -- are photographs
18 which relate to a cabinet. And we will make submissions about these
19 photographs; namely, that there are some anomalies. Which I can address
20 Your Honour later if Your Honour prefers, but they provide further
21 evidence of what we say is fabrication. I don't know if you want -- it's
22 probably not wise if I go into that in front of the witness, but these
23 are 1D03486.1, page 4, page 5, page 6, page 47, page 48.
24 And then also the -- we would like to tender the photograph of
25 the satellite phone, which we again say is evidence of -- which tends to
1 show overall a fabrication. Or the means by which that was perpetrated.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
3 MR. GROOME: Perhaps an example of why I'm having such
4 difficulty. So there's a picture that we saw of books piled on top of
5 each other. The report describes, in paragraph 87, a pile of books
6 halfway out of a compartment behind a panel. I don't know if this
7 particular -- without it, any other evidence from the witness, I don't
8 know if this is the particular picture he was referred to in the report.
9 Mr. Jordash has just referred to that picture as being taken in the OTP
10 office. So we have contradictory information about the same picture. It
11 would just be helpful to know, unless I'm wrong - Mr. Jordash's eyebrows
12 are cringing - it says:
13 "And the first two being the documents as they were photographed,
14 we think ..."
15 MR. JORDASH: Paragraph 80 -- sorry.
16 MR. GROOME: It's just that I'm -- I mean -- I don't know, maybe
17 the Chamber -- maybe I'm the only one having this difficulty. The
18 dressers, I can make that connection that the dressers that we saw must
19 be the ones referred to in the report, but it's entirely unclear to me.
20 And it's also entirely unclear to me the -- Mr. Jordash is
21 referring to that this is evidence of fabrication, but fabrication by
22 whom? What is the Defence case as to who fabricated them and when they
23 were fabricated? Is it before they came into OTP custody, is it
24 afterwards? In the intervening years between the times they were written
25 and the time that they were recovered by the Serbian MUP? And knowing
1 that would assist me in knowing why are they relevant. Without knowing,
2 I'm unable to decipher that.
3 MR. JORDASH: May we go into private session, and I'll explain
5 JUDGE ORIE: We go into private session. But, of course, the
6 matter remains whether we should deal with the matter in the presence of
7 the witness. I do not know what you are going to raise, Mr. Jordash.
8 MR. JORDASH: I don't think there's anything that -- well, it
9 might be safer to, just so that there's no --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Browne -- first of all, we move into private
12 [Private session]
11 Pages 18376-18382 redacted. Private session.
21 [Open session]
22 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
24 Yes, Mr. Jordash.
25 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honours.
1 The photographs I've already referred to, the ones we would like
2 to tender, I hope that's --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Is that in one --
4 [The witness entered court]
5 JUDGE ORIE: -- bunch, one batch? Or is it --
6 MR. JORDASH: I think perhaps it would be more efficient to have
7 it all in one batch and we can upload these particular photographs
8 together, if it suits Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, would you then reserve a number for
10 that batch of photographs.
11 THE REGISTRAR: A number reserved for a batch of photographs
12 would be D768.
13 JUDGE ORIE: D768 is reserved for that purpose.
14 Mr. Groome, having heard the explanation by Mr. Jordash, do you
15 oppose admission?
16 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the Prosecution's position would be
17 that all the photographs taken at the scene should be admitted into
18 evidence, not just the select ones.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Now, I don't know whether we have all of those that
20 were taken --
21 MR. GROOME: No --
22 JUDGE ORIE: -- because the Chamber is always in -- somewhere in
23 a kind of a darkroom not knowing what happened.
24 MR. JORDASH: We're content with that suggestion, though,
25 Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So could we then -- D768 has been reserved
2 for the photographs.
3 Mr. Jordash, you'll take care that all of the photographs
4 available and made at that occasion will be uploaded, and then all those
5 photographs will be admitted.
6 Mr. Petrovic, I am looking at you, but I do not hear of any
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Jordash, anything else to be tendered?
10 MR. JORDASH: Yes, please. 1D05300 is the report.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D5300 will received number D769,
13 Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: In the absence of any objections, D769 is admitted
15 into evidence.
16 MR. JORDASH: 1D03488, please, which is a -- the statement by
17 Tomasz Blaszczyk. B-L-A-S-Z-E [SIC] -Z-Y-K.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D3488 will receive number D770,
20 Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
22 Mr. Jordash.
23 MR. JORDASH: 1 -- 1D03458, which is a declaration by
24 Erin Gallagher, investigator for the OTP.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D3458 will receive number D771,
2 Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: D771 is admitted into evidence.
4 MR. JORDASH: 1D03463, statement by Dejan Marinkovic.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D3463 will receive number
7 D772 [Realtime transcript read in error "D7762"], Your Honours.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
9 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I have no objection to the admission of
10 this document, but I think it is more properly characterised as an expert
11 report, and not a statement.
12 MR. JORDASH: I'm not sure that's right, but I'm not sure that we
13 need to decide that. It's a -- it's a description of the search.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. JORDASH: The various searches which took place on the
16 23rd of --
17 MR. GROOME: I apologise. The handwriting expert has a similar
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What's in a name, isn't it? I'm not going to
20 continue about roses, et cetera, but ... D76-- no, let me see. D772 is
21 admitted into evidence. There seems to be an error on the transcript,
22 page 63, line 18, where a four-digit number appears.
23 MR. JORDASH: 1D03463, I think it should be.
24 JUDGE ORIE: No, I think it says "D7762" in the transcript, where
25 it's meant to be "D772."
1 MR. JORDASH: And 1D03465, which is the order for a search, dated
2 the 22nd of February, 2010, from the Belgrade district court, war crimes
4 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D3465 will receive number D773,
6 Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence under that number.
8 MR. JORDASH: 1D03466, which is the record of the search of the
9 apartment and other premises, from the Ministry of the Interior of
11 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D3466 will receive number D774,
13 Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence under that number.
15 Please proceed.
16 MR. JORDASH: 1D03468, which is the certificate of temporarily
17 seized items from the relevant premises, from the Ministry of Serbia --
18 Ministry of the the Interior of Serbia.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D3468 will receive number D775,
21 Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
23 MR. JORDASH: 1D03482, which is another record of the search,
24 indicating the lawyers that were present on behalf of Mrs. Mladic.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D3482 will receive number D776,
2 Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
4 MR. JORDASH: And 1D05471 is a statement -- another statement
5 by -- from Ms. Gallagher taken by the Stanisic Defence team with the
6 Prosecution present during the interview.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D5471 will receive number D777,
9 Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Now, Mr. Jordash, have we looked at that statement?
11 MR. JORDASH: No, we haven't, actually.
12 JUDGE ORIE: It sounds that it could be a document which is
13 produced for the purposes of the proceedings before this Tribunal, which,
14 of course, usually triggers the applicability of Rule 92 bis, 92 ter,
15 et cetera. I do not know what your position is. Apparently the
16 statement was taken in the presence of the Prosecution, but it's at
17 least - not having seen that statement --
18 MR. JORDASH: No.
19 JUDGE ORIE: -- it raises this question.
20 MR. JORDASH: And I beg your pardon, Your Honour, I should have
21 showed it to you. It's a note of an interview with Ms. Gallagher which
22 has been agreed by Ms. Gallagher and agreed by the Prosecution as
23 representing an accurate record of a interview relating solely to her
24 knowledge of the chain of custody of these notebooks, from Serbian
25 government custody to ICTY Prosecution custody.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, I raised a purely procedural issue.
2 MR. GROOME: And given the substance, I would not take the
3 procedural point, although I do recognise that the Chamber is correct.
4 It would be ordinary subject to Rule 92 bis or ter. But the Prosecution
5 does not take that procedural point and is happy to have it before the
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course. And due to the possibility of
8 serving as precedent, I think the Chamber would need its time, look at it
9 first, before we decide on admission.
10 MR. JORDASH: Certainly.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, D777 is marked for identification.
12 Please proceed.
13 Mr. Groome.
14 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, just a word of caution with respect to
15 the Serbian documents. One of the interests that Serbia has -- has
16 sought to protect were the identity of some of the people who currently
17 still work for the Ministry of the Interior. I don't know if Mr. Jordash
18 has informed them that he would be tendering these or whether any of
19 those interests are implicated with these documents. I just raise it for
20 the Chamber's consideration as to whether or not we need to be cautious
21 in how those documents are tendered at this time.
22 JUDGE ORIE: From Jordash is tendering it. He has an
23 opportunity, if he has not done so yet, to consider whether any
24 protective measures for those documents should be sought.
25 MR. JORDASH: Certainly.
1 JUDGE ORIE: And then we would like to hear from you within
2 24 hours.
3 MR. JORDASH: Well, that may be tricky to get an answer so
4 quickly, but they've never indicated to us that they regarded these
5 documents as something which fell into the category that they'd been
6 concerned with before. I can put it that way.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. If you try to make up your mind as soon as
8 possible. Even if it would not be within the 24 hours, but preferably to
9 be done not later than tomorrow.
10 MR. JORDASH: Certainly. And then finally, 1D05472, which is the
11 protocol that was agreed upon for Mr. Browne's examination.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 Madam Registrar, the protocol would receive number ...
14 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D5072 will receive number D778,
15 Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
17 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, are you ready to start your
19 cross-examination? It will be only for the next, I would say, next ten
20 minutes approximately, because then we'll take a break. But if you're
21 ready, then --
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, Defence has no
23 questions for this witness. Thank you.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 Then, Mr. Browne, I don't have to explain to you who Mr. Petrovic
1 is, but he is counsel for Mr. Simatovic.
2 Mr. Groome --
3 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
4 JUDGE ORIE: -- are you ready to start your cross-examination,
5 although for a limited number of minutes at this moment?
6 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
8 Mr. Browne, I have forgotten to introduce Mr. Groome to you, but
9 he is counsel for the Prosecution.
10 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
12 Cross-examination by Mr. Groome:
13 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Browne.
14 A. Good afternoon, sir.
15 Q. Let me begin by just asking you to comment on one of the
16 sentences from your conclusion section of your report, now in evidence as
17 D769. You say, and it's the second full paragraph after, "in my
19 "The chronology of the books is such that no reliance can be
20 placed on their veracity."
21 Is it your conclusion that the Chamber should not place any
22 reliance on the veracity of any of the books that you examined?
23 A. Well, the problem is, the books appear to stand off all together,
24 to a certain extent. They've -- they've always been presented, as it
25 were to me, as a set. And there is -- there are problems with
1 continuity, anyway, as far as I'm aware from the documents served. Now,
2 I fully accept that the Defence and the Prosecution -- I beg your pardon,
3 may not have felt the need to furnish me with certain details as to
4 continuity, and that's fair enough. That's none of my business.
5 We do have this issue of the entries, the neatness of the entries
6 throughout. We also have books that appear to have -- be running tandem
7 with other books, and I can't think of an explanation for this. If
8 you've got books -- so this is a diary of events, this is -- these books
9 are one long diary of events, to all intents and purposes, covering a
10 period of time. I cannot understand why there would be a need to start a
11 second book and then revert to the previous book again later on.
12 And as such, then, if you've got books that are written out of
13 order, we don't know which books have been written out of order. And,
14 therefore, if we don't know which books were written out of order, how
15 can we accept any of them without some sort of chain of evidence or
16 custody that we can work off?
17 Q. So it's your evidence that it's beyond the reasonable possibility
18 that any of these books could be accurate and authentic?
19 A. As a whole, I think the whole concept of them being a record from
20 beginning to end, in chronological order, as a diary of events from then
21 to then, as a whole, I think the whole concept is flawed. Now, what
22 weight that -- that carries, I am unable to say, because that's really
23 not for me.
24 Q. Let me see if I can clarify a bit further. In your work
25 examining passports, if you came across a passport that maybe had the
1 stamps of ten different countries in there, and in your examination of
2 those stamps you identified one that you were quite certain was a
3 forgery, would that mean that you would consider all of the stamps in
4 that passport forgeries?
5 A. I wouldn't need to consider the rest, because once you've got a
6 forged stamp in a passport, the whole passport becomes a forgery.
7 Q. Okay. So now --
8 A. It's a false instrument.
9 Q. So perhaps --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Could I try to clearly distinguish there. At this
11 moment I think we are to some extent mixing up legal qualifications with
12 facts. If you say one false stamp makes the whole of the passport a
13 forgery, then from a legal point of view that may be true, but that's
14 not, I think, what Mr. Groome was in -- was asking you, whether it would
15 mean that the other stamps would been forgeries in themselves as well --
16 THE WITNESS: I apologise. Yes, I --
17 JUDGE ORIE: So there we should not mix up --
18 THE WITNESS: -- I understand that.
19 JUDGE ORIE: -- normal type of questions with factual questions.
20 THE WITNESS: I beg your pardon, and I beg Mr. Groome's pardon.
21 The -- of course not. If we're examining a whole series of
22 stamps, and one is demonstrably a forgery, and we can give evidence on
23 that, it doesn't render all the other stamps in the -- in that particular
24 passport forgeries. Of course. No matter what effect it has on the
25 whole document, or the document as a whole.
1 MR. GROOME:
2 Q. Now, you've just said with respect to the analogy that I gave you
3 with respect to the stamps in the passport:
4 "I wouldn't need to consider the rest, because once you've got a
5 forged stamp in a passport, the whole stamp [sic] becomes -- it's a false
7 A. No, the whole passport is a false instrument.
8 Q. So is that not the same analysis that you've applied here? That
9 once you found book 16, which caused you serious concern, you essentially
10 now have dismissed all the remaining notebooks as being unreliable?
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
12 MR. JORDASH: [Microphone not activated] Could I -- I don't think
13 that's what the witness said.
14 JUDGE ORIE: First of all, could you -- I don't hear you.
15 MR. JORDASH: [Microphone not activated] I beg your pardon, sorry.
16 I object to whether --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, well, I think that -- whether that's what the
18 witness said or not, but he's fully competent to explain whether
19 Mr. Groome did understand his words well or not. That's apparently your
21 MR. JORDASH: [Microphone not activated] Yes, and I was just going
22 to refer the Chamber to -- [microphone not activated] ...
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 Mr. Groome, could you please repeat, possibly rephrase, your
1 MR. GROOME:
2 Q. Sir, I'm wondering how it is that your concerns with respect to
3 16, book 16, would cause you to give an opinion, let's say, with respect
4 to book 2, which is a book that you've accepted as the handwriting of
5 Mr. Mladic, and you found no anomalies in that book. I'm trying to
6 understand how you reached the conclusion to -- that no reliance should
7 be placed on the veracity of what's in book number two based upon what
8 you found in book number 16.
9 A. Um, it -- the -- it's -- it's not as such what I have said.
10 The -- in the paragraph you're referring, which I've now lost again. I
11 do apologise.
12 Q. With respect to book 2, it's paragraph 21.
13 A. Oh, no, yeah, I was going back to the original point. You're
14 saying that book 16 nullifies the whole thing. In the paragraph we're
15 talking about in my conclusion, which is what started your line of
16 inquiry, the chronology of the books is such that the problem is, if I
17 have found -- oh, it's not something I have found. This is the
18 chronology. It's there to be seen from the entries in the books. It's
19 not something that I've been terribly clever about. The chronology, if
20 you have books that overlap, that overlapping affects in a ripple effect
21 all the way down the chain, as it were, because we -- we don't know which
22 was the one that was started or which is the one that has -- which, as it
23 were, is the original book that was abandoned and then rejoined or which
24 is the book that has been written ... we have no way of knowing what the
25 real physical chronology of the book rather than the datal chronology of
1 the books are. So we don't know which are the original books, which have
2 been rewritten, which have been written in tandem. We know there are
3 tandem books. That's a matter from the dates within the books. We know
4 there are tandem books in running, but we don't know which came first.
5 It's a chicken and egg to a certain extent. And that must ripple down
6 the whole chain.
7 Q. So is your conclusion based upon an assumption that if there are
8 two books being recorded into during the same time-period, that there
9 must be something suspicious about all of the books?
10 A. I don't think we can ignore that possibility, because we don't
11 know which order they were written in.
12 Q. But --
13 A. And it's not just, sort of, one book overlaps another. There are
14 some books that overlap three books. And how far back down does this go?
15 Q. Have you considered the possibility that perhaps one book was
16 used, let's say, in the main office of the Main Staff and perhaps another
17 book may have been used carried by a driver and used in the field? Have
18 you considered that that might be a logical explanation for multiple
19 books during the same time-period?
20 A. It doesn't appear to me to be terribly logical. Purely and
21 simply because, as I understand it, in my imperfect understanding of
22 Mladic's position in the world, although I understand he's a very senior
23 general, his staff are going to go with him, for a start. They are with
24 him. The books aren't that bad -- big that he needs to have one with his
25 driver and one with the other staff. And the fact is, he writes them
1 all. We -- that's common ground, I think, that he is the author of the
2 books. Why would he spread them around for various members of staff to
3 carry for him? It doesn't make much logical sense to me, to be fair.
4 I'm not denying that it couldn't be the case, but it doesn't make much
5 logical sense.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Is this logic within your field of expertise, to say
7 that how a general keeps his diaries at one place or another or give it
8 to his driver, as suggested by Mr. Groome? I'm just wondering what the
9 basis for your, although cautious, conclusion is that it's illogical to
10 do it this way.
11 THE WITNESS: Well, my father was a professional soldier and a
12 senior officer, but apart from that, very little. The observations --
13 the observations as to the chronology is just a matter of observation. I
14 don't have to be a document expert to be all to see that the dates
15 overlap. And indeed that information has been there for -- ever since
16 the books were discovered, and any side - Prosecution or Defence - could
17 have seen these. It's obviously they came out in some stark relief and
18 it's only when you put the books into chronological order that you
19 realise there are problems.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. At the same time, looking at your evidence,
21 you said:
22 "So we don't know which are the original books."
23 THE WITNESS: Well, we --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Which suggests that there's one original and another
25 one which is not original; whereas in the assumption of Mr. Groome, there
1 are two originals. You say: Which have been rewritten. Which is a pure
2 assumption that one of them has been rewritten and the other not or -- I
3 mean, that's all -- sounds rather speculative. And nevertheless, that's
4 the kind of questions you raise on what you say is a simple observation
5 on the chronology as we find it in the diaries itself. But you draw by
6 far more questions from that, with all kind of implicit assumptions.
7 That there is one who is rewritten and that there is one original and the
8 other one should not be original. But it's still to be established.
9 Would you agree with that?
10 THE WITNESS: I would to a certain extent, Your Honour. Yes, of
11 course, you're correct. But I would consider that one thing's for sure:
12 They can't have been written together, as it were, at the same time.
13 He's only got one hand with the pen. But we -- I -- and of course this
14 comment is made without knowledge of what the writing says, and I don't
15 know if any of the books have been translated.
16 JUDGE ORIE: All of the books have been translated.
17 THE WITNESS: All of the books have been translated. Then
18 obviously page by page it is simply to see what the books refer to in
19 each case. Something that is not for me. Other people can do that, of
20 course, and will undoubtedly have done so. But the fact is, we don't
21 know which book was started before another. We don't know. And your
22 comment is absolutely right, of course, Your Honour. We don't know.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Groome. No, I'm looking at the
24 clock --
25 MR. GROOME: Your Honour --
1 JUDGE ORIE: I think we should take a break. Unless you have
2 one --
3 MR. GROOME: Can I ask just one or two questions, just -- the
4 issue is very ripe now.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I'm looking at the Stanisic Defence. One or
6 two questions for Mr. Groome, or should we put them after the break?
7 MR. JORDASH: [Microphone not activated] We could continue,
8 Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Please, Mr. Groome.
10 MR. GROOME:
11 Q. Mr. Browne, while we're on the topic and while it's foremost on
12 our minds, did you ever ask the Stanisic Defence whether translations of
13 the diary entries revealed that they were two different versions of the
14 same event or two different versions of the same meeting recorded in the
15 overlapping books? Did you ever ask for that information?
16 A. No, I did not.
17 Q. Would that have been important information to have at your
18 disposal before drawing the conclusion that the fact that they were
19 concurrent books was per se evidence of an authenticity problem with the
21 A. Almost certainly it might have had a bearing.
22 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I can leave it there for the moment.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Then we take a break, and we resume at 6.00.
24 --- Recess taken at 5.32 p.m.
25 --- On resuming at 6.01 p.m.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, if you're ready you may proceed.
2 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Q. Mr. Browne, your last answer before the break with respect to
4 having information about duplicate recordings of the same event, you
6 "Almost certainly it might have had a bearing."
7 Can I ask you to accept my representation that there are no
8 duplicate entries for the same meeting or same event, and can I now ask
9 you what bearing does it have on your conclusions?
10 A. That -- that a number of books have been used out of sequence. I
11 don't know what the -- the ultimate significance is, but I will accept
12 that if there is absolutely no duplication, then I have no other
14 Q. And would you maintain your conclusion that I first began to
15 address with you, that the chronology -- chronology of the books is such
16 that no reliance can be placed on their veracity? Would you maintain
17 that conclusion or would this information have a bearing on that?
18 A. It is bound to have a bearing on the -- I'm sorry, I'm lost.
19 Q. This is on page 12 of your report. It's in the conclusion
20 section. And it's the second full paragraph of that section.
21 A. Yeah, sorry. I was looking at the screen. It's not there.
22 That's all right. Yeah. I beg your pardon, yes.
23 Q. So perhaps you could reword that or paraphrase your conclusion so
24 we can understand what bearing it would have.
25 A. I still say there must be some doubts cast upon the chronology of
1 these books. But I still can't -- I'm trying to -- sorry, I'm trying to
2 reword what you asked me to do. But ...
3 Q. Maybe just redraft --
4 A. Well, that's what I'm trying to do. I --
5 Q. -- only that first sentence.
6 A. -- beg your pardon. I beg your pardon.
7 If I was going to redraft it, then I would say the chronology of
8 the books is such that a limited reliance can be placed on their veracity
9 rather than no reliance.
10 Q. Okay. Now, if I could ask for your assistance in understanding
11 another conclusion that you draw.
12 MR. GROOME: And if we could go to e-court page 11.
13 Q. And if I could draw your attention to paragraph 82.
14 MR. GROOME: If we could zoom in on 82.
15 Q. The last sentence of paragraph 82 states:
16 "It also raises the question as to which books were written
17 contemporaneously and which were written after the event - neatly."
18 Do I take from this sentence that you consider that some of the
19 books were written contemporaneously and that some of the books were
20 written after the fact? Is that what you mean by that?
21 A. Well, this paragraph is based on the fact that we have -- we have
22 information that the -- form the print -- printing of the books that they
23 were manufactured years before and therefore they'd been held, presumably
24 empty, before they were actually brought into use. And we know of the
25 ability to start books in parallel, therefore there are a great many more
1 books than we seem to need if we were going to deal with this. And in it
2 raises the question -- obviously it raises the question as to
3 contemporaneity, and this has to be taken into account with the
4 handwriting which is neat throughout. And there is a question relating
5 to the contemporaneous nature of the entries.
6 Q. Now, we can see that in your report, and what I'm trying to
7 understand with some degree of precision: Is it your evidence that all
8 of the books that you examined were written after the fact, or is it your
9 evidence, as is suggested by this sentence, that some of the books were
10 written contemporaneously and some were written after the event?
11 A. I think it is my evidence that we can't -- I certainly cannot
12 exclude the possibility that the books were not written contemporaneously
13 and that they were written out neatly.
14 Q. So it's your evidence that all of the books, in your view, were
15 written after the fact?
16 A. Yes. And we don't know -- and it's not possible, therefore, to
17 date any of the actual writings, no matter what the date of the event
18 that is being recorded or reported on.
19 Q. Okay. Now, you undertook during the break to identify to us the
20 pages in book number 16 that are misaligned and that are missing or that
21 are detached from the book?
22 A. I have to report that I haven't finished my homework,
23 Your Honour. And I apologise for that. But the entries -- there are too
24 many entries for me to have done it in the time. I can tell you --
25 Q. Can I ask that we do the following, then --
1 A. Yes, certainly.
2 Q. With the Court's permission, could I ask you to identify those
3 pages as best you can now --
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. -- and then perhaps with the Court's permission you be allowed to
6 keep whatever you need overnight and finish your homework, as it were?
7 A. Yeah. Certainly. I've gone up to --
8 Q. Before we do that, can I ask one question.
9 A. Certainly. Of course.
10 Q. I had expected that you would have had this in your notes, this
11 information. Is it not a matter of simply referring --
12 A. Yes, yes, it's in my notes. But I'm demonstrating pictorially
13 what I was talking about, from these scans is what I've just been --
14 making sure they matched up. They are in my notes. I have loads of
15 notes on this book, I'm afraid.
16 Q. Okay. So then can we proceed in the following way: Could I ask
17 you to right now look at your notes and tell us which pages were
18 misaligned and then which ones were missing, and then tomorrow we'll ask
19 you -- I'll ask you or give you an opportunity to actually show us the
20 pages and how you came to that conclusion.
21 A. Certainly.
22 Q. So the misaligned pages first, please.
23 A. Right. Let me just make sure I'm talking the -- yes, we are.
24 These -- this book -- the scans start -- effectively, the first page is
1 Q. Can I ask that we use the number that the prefix is J. And I
2 think that's the --
3 A. That is. That is. 4212.
4 Q. Okay.
5 A. But it's -- they all start with J000.
6 Q. Okay, so at least that we're clear on that?
7 A. [Overlapping speakers] ...
8 Q. Okay.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Please do not overlap. Thank you.
10 MR. GROOME: That's my fault. I'll --
11 Q. We shouldn't overlap, otherwise there's difficulty in
13 A. I apologise. So the first one which is misaligned is 2134, which
14 is 4213 and 4214.
15 Q. I'm sorry. If we could stop there for a second. So can you
16 please explain exactly what that means?
17 A. What, to misalign with the next page?
18 Q. Yes. So you're saying that 2134 is in between pages 2-- 4213 and
19 4214; is that --
20 A. No, I beg your pardon. The misalignment occurs between 4213 and
22 Q. And 2134, is that of any --
23 A. No, no, there is no number -- sorry. All the numbers begin with
24 a 4. 4213 and 4214.
25 Q. Okay.
1 A. The two pages belong together and they don't align.
2 Q. Okay. Please continue.
3 A. 4215 and 4216. 4223 and 4224. 4225, 4226. 4227 and 4228. 4229
4 and 4230. 4231, 4232. 4233 and 4234. 4235, 4236. 4237 and 4238. 4239
5 and 4240. 4241, 422-- sorry, 4242. 4243, 4244. Then we come into an
6 area where there is some loose pages in the middle of it, which don't
8 Q. If I can stop you there. Are these the pages that are barely
9 attached or are these the pages that are completely disassociated from
10 the book?
11 A. The loose pages are disassociated with the book, but they've been
12 scanned in the order they appear, so they have to be taken that way, I
14 Q. If you do that, then just tell us that they are completely
16 A. Indeed. Okay, so we have 4248 is detached, and you can't see it
17 from the -- from the scans, but it matches with 4247, which is attached.
18 4249, which is, of course, the other side of 4248, doesn't match with
20 Q. Can I ask you how you came to the conclusion that 42 -- that 4248
21 matched 4247?
22 A. It's an manual thing. We've got a loose page. It's manual. I
23 place it so that the top matches the bottom and then compare the printing
24 lines across, as it were. Does that make sense?
25 Q. It does. But that -- is it possible -- do you know if the text
1 from one page carries over onto the next page?
2 A. I have no -- I have not noted any handwriting that goes across a
3 spine, a seem, from one page to the other.
4 Q. Okay. Please continue.
5 A. If that makes sense. I beg your pardon. Where was I - 4250?
6 Q. That's correct.
7 A. Not a good match with 4249, which was the loose page. There's a
8 loose page, 4251, and that's okay with 4252. 4253 doesn't align with
9 4254. 4257 doesn't align with 4258. 4261 doesn't align with 4262. 4263
10 doesn't align with 4264.
11 Q. And again, just so that we're clear: These pages are now
12 attached back in the book, they just -- they were --
13 A. They were -- they were attached at the time I did the
15 Q. What's the first -- the first one that's now attached but
16 misaligned -- if you could -- in this series?
17 A. Oh, I beg your pardon. 5354.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 A. I will tell you when there's a loose page, because you asked me
20 to. So -- and if I don't mention whether it's loose, it isn't. Does
21 that make sense?
22 Q. Understood. Thank you, sir.
23 A. Now I'm lost again, I do apologise.
24 Q. 4263 was the last number you were on.
25 A. Thank you. It doesn't align with 4264. 4265 doesn't align with
1 the loose 4266. But the other side of 4266, which is 4267, does align
2 with 4268, which is affixed -- it is attached, sorry. Is that what I
3 said: 4267 with 4268, that alines, yes?
4 Q. That's what you -- yes, that's how you're recorded.
5 A. Yes, I'm -- sorry. 4269 does not align with 4270. 4271 and 4272
6 do not align. 4273 and 4274 do not align. 4275 and 4276 do not align.
7 4277 and 4278 do not align. But - and this is a case where a page has
8 partially become detached but is not fully attached - 4277 matched 4280;
9 in other words, the page -- a couple of pages down and the one in the
10 middle is the one that doesn't work. But you can't see it from the
11 scans. It's -- it's there when you lift that part of the page.
12 We have a loose 4282, which doesn't match with 4281. And the
13 loose 4283, which is the other side, doesn't match with 4284 - 84 is
14 affixed. 4285 does not match 4286. And 4285 is good with, actually,
15 4288, but you can't see that from the -- the scan. And 4287 doesn't
16 match with 4288. 4293 does not match 4294. But there's a loose 4296
17 which does match 4293, but you can't see it.
18 Q. Can I ask, just in the interest of time: How many more pages do
19 you -- do you think you will be telling us?
20 A. Sorry, I'm looking for a pen behind my ear, but I can't have
22 Q. Just an approximate number.
23 A. About twenty -- between 25 and 30.
24 Q. In the Court approves, perhaps it would been an expeditious use
25 of time just to ask the witness overnight to write down these numbers
1 rather than spend the next 45 minutes going through them.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I'm looking at the other parties. There seems to be
3 no objection.
4 Not only homework during the day, Mr. Browne, but homework at
5 night as well. Would you follow this suggestion? Are you willing to
6 follow this suggestion?
7 THE WITNESS: Yes, of course. Of course, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one question in between.
9 If you look at the other books, like book 12 or whatever, do you
10 see bad alignment within those books where note pages seem to have been
11 loose from the book? I mean, to what extent is it specific for partly or
12 even entirely loosened pages to have bad alignment? Or does this happen
13 in the -- in the unaffected or the still integral books. And I think
14 this is a question which is related to some extent to what Mr. Jordash
15 asked you, that is, whether we can form any opinion as to bad production
16 or any tampering at a later stage.
17 Could you tell us whether you found any bad alignments in books
18 which were otherwise without suspicion?
19 THE WITNESS: In some of the cases where the books have been
20 bound by thread, Your Honour, and some of the earlier books in the
21 sequence that I examined, it was possible to show that batches of the
22 pages, where they connected, because they obviously come from a different
23 production line, or a different part of the production line, that's what
24 I would put it down to. In my experience, sometimes they marginally
25 miss, but there was no evidence of the book being dismantled. There was
1 no evidence of tampering at all. And it was reasonable to say that that
2 is a production fault in those -- in those cases, and therefore it's not
3 an anomaly and it was of no concern to me at all.
4 The difference in this book and the difference -- and -- and
5 book 12, I think it is, in my evidence, is that we -- this book is one of
6 the only two books that have single pages anyway. And it's also one of
7 the few books that's actually exploded, almost, to -- to -- for whatever
8 reason, is in bits. And therefore there is a greater significance.
9 Because it's single pages, it is so easy to take them out and put them in
10 from another book of a similar manufacture, but the bulk of the books
11 have been sewn together and therefore didn't cause me any concern at all.
12 I didn't consider any slight differences there as being significant,
13 because there was no evidence of other tampering.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Does that mean that you did not find in the
15 comparable book 12 any misalignment?
16 THE WITNESS: I can't answer that. I do apologise.
17 No. I didn't note any misalignment within that. There was just
18 the beginning of the -- the first page that had been -- was still on the
19 cover had split from the rest of the book and -- and that was that.
20 JUDGE ORIE: And you specifically looked for it?
21 THE WITNESS: Well, I did go back and look at that when it came
22 to the comparison, and there were no anomalies noted in book 12.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Groome.
24 MR. GROOME:
25 Q. Let me be sure that I understand your evidence correctly. When
1 you say "misaligned" --
2 A. Sorry. I'm listening.
3 Q. Many of the pages, the evidence numbers, are consecutive. So my
4 question to you is: The pages that are -- the lines that are misaligned,
5 are they the front and back of the same piece of paper or are they on
6 adjacent pages?
7 A. It's the alignment between adjacent pages. Not front/back.
8 That -- I mean, front and back have been printed in the same go, as it
9 were, and it's the alignment between that page and that page. Not that
10 page and that page. If that makes sense.
11 Q. Yes, thank you. Now, did you compare the alignment, not between
12 the adjacent page, but every second page? So, for example, did you check
13 the alignment between pages ending 65, 67, 69, 71, as it were, all the
14 odd pages? Did you check the alignment between the odd pages or the
15 odd-printed surfaces?
16 A. You mean one with the other?
17 Q. Yes.
18 A. If they were attached, that's very difficult to do, because you
19 would have to detach them to make that comparison.
20 Q. You wouldn't be able to bend the pieces of paper over to look and
21 see whether they line up?
22 A. Not with incurring the displeasure of the NFI person, because the
23 risk of the book being further damaged. But yes, where a book had become
24 partly -- a page had become partly detached, it was possible to just
25 carefully move it aside so that we could see whether there was a
1 cross-match between that page. And I mentioned a couple, when I was
2 reading out, that that page still matched that one but didn't match the
3 one in between, if that makes sense.
4 Q. Let me see if I can clarify: So is it your evidence that the odd
5 pages align with the odd pages, and the even-numbered pages align with
6 the even-numbered pages, they just didn't align with each other?
7 A. No, no. That's -- that is too simplistic, frankly. Sometimes it
8 was possible to see through the -- as it were, through the spine, behind
9 the spine, to show that odd and even matched each other between certain
10 pages but didn't match the pages -- the single page that was in between.
11 So, Your Honour, it would be wrong -- I mean, there were plenty of odd
12 pages that matched the even pages. They're the numbers I haven't read
13 out. It's just I have only reported on the anomalies.
14 Q. Now, can I ask you this question: Can you appreciate that for
15 those involved in this trial and are considering what weight can be
16 placed upon the substance written on pages in this book, that it would be
17 very important for us to know whether that page is actually attached to a
18 book or appears to be a loose page inserted into the book?
19 A. Yes, I can.
20 Q. Can I then ask you why you don't in your report identify the
21 numbers now that we're going through? Why is that not in your report?
22 A. I can only apologise for that. Partly a time issue. And
23 that's -- that's effectively it, really. I should have put them in. I
24 can appreciate that is the case. I should have done that, but I didn't,
25 and I apologise to the Court.
1 Q. I'm going to leave this topic for now and just want to gain a
2 basic understanding of your background and your experience.
3 As I understand from your report, as it pertains to your
4 background, you worked for the immigration service of the United Kingdom
5 for 21 years; is that correct?
6 A. Yes, 22, in fact, but yes.
7 Q. And you describe that position in annex A of your report as
8 having involved "the forensic examination, including handwriting, of a
9 variety of documents for evidence of fraud, including passports, identity
10 cards, driving licences, certificates, and company papers." Is that
12 A. That is correct.
13 Q. Then am I correct that some people seeking to enter the
14 United Kingdom unlawfully or remain there unlawfully would alter
15 documents fraudulently to deceive the immigration service?
16 A. They would probably be in possession -- could well be in
17 possession of fraudulent documents, yes. Whether they physically altered
18 them, I couldn't tell.
19 Q. And in possessing such falsified documents, their intention was
20 to misrepresent their identity or something about themselves, such as
21 place of birth or employment; correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Would you agree with me that for as long as governments have
24 issued and relied on identity documents, people have tried to falsify
1 A. The earliest I know of is 1236. But, yeah, I accept that point.
2 Q. So from 1236 you know, as an expert, that people have been trying
3 to falsify identity documents; correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Whether it's a 15-year-old who wants to have a beer in a pub or a
6 terrorist seeking entry unlawfully into a country under an assumed name
7 to commit a serious crime.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Would you agree with me that governments and private
10 organisations that issue identification documents are continually looking
11 for ways to make their documents harder to falsify?
12 A. Yes. Because there's one absolute standard, and that is: There
13 is no such thing as an unforgeable document. So they always have to try
14 and keep going with that.
15 Q. And over the years security features are introduced in an effort
16 to stay ahead of what a clever forger might be able to do with a colour
17 printer and a laminating machine?
18 A. Absolutely.
19 Q. Features such a holograms, micro printing, unique custom-made
20 papers, printing that is only visible under special lighting - these
21 would be some of the techniques that would be used; correct?
22 A. Absolutely.
23 Q. Your work for the UK immigration service has been to use your
24 skill, experience, and knowledge of these security features to identify
25 falsified identification documents; correct?
1 A. Identification documents, yes. And any other document that
2 happens to be carried or being used.
3 Q. Your specialised training, skill, and experience is more than
4 what the ordinary immigration officer staffing the immigration desk at
5 Stansted Arrivals would have, although that person would have some basic
6 training in identifying suspicious documents; correct?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. When you evaluate an identification document which you know
9 should have a security feature, would it be fair to say that you look for
10 the presence or absence of that security feature?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. So if you know that the passport or a passport should have a
13 picture of the Queen or some text printed in ink that is only visible
14 under black light, you place the document under black light to see
15 whether you can see that image; correct?
16 A. Yes, that would be right.
17 Q. And if you cannot see it, you know that it's a falsified
19 A. It would be one of the things one would look at and one of the
20 things one would take into consideration.
21 Q. Now, am I also correct in saying that any difference is per se
22 evidence of fraud. There is no legitimate reason for a person to change
23 the date of birth on their passport, is there?
24 A. Not that I have come across, no.
25 Q. So finding an anomaly in a document with security features is
1 per se evidence that the person is attempting to perpetrate a fraud?
2 A. Well, when I used the train immigration officers to look at
3 documents, we always said you had to collect the anomalies and see if
4 they were mutually inexplicable, because sometimes an anomaly might --
5 there might be a possibility of an explanation. You gather all the
6 anomalies, you put them together, you see what you've got, and you write
7 your report as to the fact that the document is false.
8 Q. Now, if I were to hand you an ordinary piece of paper, purporting
9 to be a letter from Mr. Jones, generated on a standard computer printer,
10 it would have no security features or litmus test that you could rely on;
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. That's a fundamentally different job, isn't it, to determine
14 whether that letter written on an ordinary piece of computer paper is
15 a -- is a falsified document?
16 A. Absolutely. We would have to have reference material.
17 Q. And would you agree with me that your -- your job as someone
18 trying to detect whether it's falsified is appreciably more difficult in
19 that scenario?
20 A. Yes. It depends what the question is, doesn't it, really?
21 It's [indiscernible] just holding up one piece of paper and saying,
22 Here's a letter, prove it's false. We would -- the first thing we would
23 say is, No. But we would ask for information, we would ask for
24 background, we would ask for reference documents with which to compare.
25 Q. And aren't the type of documents I'm now referring to
1 fundamentally different from documents with built in security features in
2 that an anomaly in these documents could be the product of a deliberate
3 effort to commit a fraud or could have some innocent and non-fraudulent
4 reason for the anomaly?
5 A. We'd have to find the anomaly. In the case of -- I'm sorry, I've
6 forgotten the name, Mr. Jones was it? His letter. We would have to be
7 pointed to what the suspicion was and then we would know what we could do
8 or couldn't do to complete the examination.
9 Q. So let's say that the letter from Mr. Jones said my birth-date is
10 the 21st of March, 1970, and then it was crossed out and a different date
11 was put there, that wouldn't be per se evidence of fraud. It could also
12 be evidence that Mr. Jones or whoever prepared the letter made a mistake,
13 an honest mistake, in recording his date of birth?
14 A. Yes. Indeed. That's why we'd need the background information.
15 Q. And that's a fundamental difference from Mr. Jones's passport
16 where if the date of his birth is altered on that document, we know that
17 there's been a --
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And if we look at your examination of the Jankovic diaries, you
20 noted 17 examples where dates had been altered, and you did this at
21 paragraph 14 of your report.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And although these alterations are numerous, you don't consider
24 them per se indications of fraud, and consider that there may be an
25 innocent explanation; correct?
1 A. That is because it's the only book that I examined, isn't it?
2 Isn't that what I say? What paragraph? I beg your pardon.
3 Q. Paragraph 14 of your report is where you deal with this
4 particular part of the Jankovic ...
5 A. Yeah. It's -- I can't comment. As you see in paragraph 50, I'm
6 unable to interpret the Cyrillic writing and thus can't comment on the
7 significance of the alternated dates. I can't. They've been altered by
8 perhaps one day. They've been altered in the same pen, with the same
9 ink. What can I say? I have no other books with which to compare. All
10 I've done is noted it.
11 Q. You don't have anything in the conclusion of your report with
12 respect to the Jankovic diaries in that conclusion section on page 12.
13 Is there any significance to that?
14 A. None at all. I must admit I didn't -- I didn't. I didn't
15 conclude anything from it, frankly. I had nothing with which to compare.
16 I have noted what I found. And it wasn't possible to go any further.
17 All right, I accept I should have put that in as a separate conclusion.
18 Q. So, just so the record is clear: What the your conclusion with
19 respect to the Jankovic diary?
20 A. I'm unable to interpreter the significance of my findings.
21 Q. Earlier today you said the following, and I've -- I apologise
22 that I don't have the transcript reference handy. You said:
23 There's no difference if it's a security document as a passport
24 or whether it's an ordinary handwritten notebook or diary.
25 And you were referring to examinations of the book.
1 Do you want to revise that in light of your testimony over the
2 last few minutes about the differences between security documents and
3 other documents without security features?
4 A. Well, if we're going -- if I can go back to the Jones letter. I
5 have said that you need reference material. You need -- if I was going
6 to examine Jones -- it depends what the question is, frankly. What are
7 you trying to say? Is the signature forged, or is the letter per se a
8 forgery? Has it been written with the wrong date? Or whatever. If it's
9 a matter of, We don't trust this letter -- and this does happen a lot in
10 litigation, where one party will turn around and say, Well that's all
11 very convenient, having a letter that says X, Y, and Z, but we don't
12 believe either that the letter was written then. We think it was written
13 just for the purpose of this litigation. We don't believe that X, Y, and
14 Z is the case. We believe it's something else.
15 Then we need reference material. We need documents that were
16 produced at the same time, that is, the same period, time-period. We
17 need documents that were produced from the same office, if it's an office
18 document or at home. We need paperwork that we can tie down to see if
19 that piece of paper was in use by that author at the time. I would ESDA
20 the letter. Sorry to mention that word again, but I would ESDA the
21 letter so see if there are any indentations that would give some hint as
22 to something wrong with the chronology or those sort of things.
23 Examining a document, as it were, in isolation, is extremely
24 difficult. If there was physical damage to the document and alterations
25 had be made and, as you have said, if the date of birth had been changed
1 in pen from one to the other, that's happened, but we can't say anything
2 else about it. And it is for this reason that I asked for permission to
3 examine all of the diaries, because that is my reference material.
4 Only a given few diaries were of any relevance to those
5 instructing me, but only by examining all of the diaries can I see if
6 there are any habits, any recurring faults, and things like this. And
7 basically the only habit that -- apart from the smoothness of the writing
8 and the neatness is the business of tearing a page out whenever -- for
9 whatever reason. It doesn't appear to be a page that was written on, so
10 it's possibly before the writing got there. And that happens book after
11 book after book.
12 But without that reference material, and examining only the few
13 books on which I was instructed, I would have nothing to base anything.
14 All of the anomalies I have found would remain totally unexplained.
15 That's why I needed to examine all the other books. I have a wealth of
16 examination reference material in those other books.
17 Q. Would it be true that over the course of your employment with the
18 UK immigration services the bulk of your work involved the assessment of
19 identification-related documents?
20 A. Um, not altogether true, no. It's -- certainly I examined
21 thousands of passports when I was on the desk, but when I moved to the
22 specialist unit in 1983, I had to examine all manner of documents.
23 Because once you move into the specialist unit, you're working for more
24 than just the port you're working at. You're working for police,
25 customs, other government agencies. And you're examining all manner of
1 documents. And then they're not necessarily documents of identity.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Now, could I ask you, then, if it's not the bulk,
3 could you give us a percentage, what approximately was the percentage of
4 passports and driving licences? Was that up to 88 per cent,
5 approximately? I am not asking you -- or was it 40 per cent, or was it
6 60 per cent?
7 THE WITNESS: What, documents of identity --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 THE WITNESS: -- as compared with the rest?
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 THE WITNESS: 60/40, I would have thought. As a guess only.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 THE WITNESS: Because there were a great many other. I mean, I
14 examined bank notes and bank cheques and things of that nature as well,
15 not documents of identity, but they were in possession of passengers.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but you would say that approximately
17 40 per cent was outside the realm of the identity documents.
18 THE WITNESS: Yes, indeed.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Groome.
20 MR. GROOME:
21 Q. On page 1 of your report you summarise your understanding of the
22 instructions related to your examination of the Mladic notebooks and the
23 Jankovic diary. You say, in the first paragraph of this section:
24 "The handwriting, all in Cyrillic script, has been forensically
25 examined and I have been instructed that it is accepted that Mladic wrote
1 all of the books. I have no difficulty in accepting that assertion."
2 A. What page? I beg your pardon, what paragraph?
3 Q. It's on page 1 of your report. Let me see if I can assist you
4 with the paragraph number. It's directly under "2 instructions."
5 There's no paragraph number.
6 A. Yeah, I see that. I do apologise. Yes.
7 Q. There is no dispute that the handwriting in the notebooks
8 purported to be that of Mladic is in fact his handwriting?
9 A. Well, I -- I -- I understand that the report written by - and I
10 do beg your pardon, again, Kerzan - Dr. Kerzan has been accepted. Yes.
11 Q. And you accept that it is Mladic's handwriting with respect to
12 all of the notebooks you examined. You saw nothing in your examination
13 that made you think, "Wait a minute, this may be of a different person"?
14 A. I didn't. Because I had been, A, instructed that the case I've
15 gone through, Dr. Kerzan's report, and noted that he used exactly the
16 same methods when compare handwriting that I would use, but obviously he
17 understands Cyrillic, I don't. I can see nothing to fault his report.
18 Q. And this is true even with respect to books in which you found
19 anomalies, whether they be loose pages that were inserted, damaged books,
20 misaligned pages - all of the writing on the pages is Mladic's?
21 A. Yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, I have some problems with this question,
23 and I'll explain to you why. It appears to me that the testimony of the
24 witness is: I saw a report in which the handwriting is analysed as to
25 the author.
1 THE WITNESS: Correct.
2 JUDGE ORIE: In that report I didn't find anything that surprised
3 me. It methodologically is the type of report we would have produced
4 ourselves, and I didn't pay any attention to authorship any further.
5 Now, if you ask him if on the books in which anomalies were
6 found, whether the witness saw anything which would cast doubt on the
7 authorship, the first question would be, is whether the anomalies he
8 found have triggered a change in approach, a change in attitude, so as to
9 deviate from the general approach which is: I'm not looking at
10 authorship matters. That's the first question to be put. And only if
11 that question has been answered in the affirmative, I think then your
12 question would be an appropriate question.
13 Mr. Jordash.
14 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, I was about to jump to my feet as well
15 because we would ask the Prosecution to clarify their case, because they
16 have called evidence through Milovanovic which puts this issue slightly
17 more ambiguously concerning the writing in the diary. So --
18 JUDGE ORIE: But if the witness has not looked at it, he could
19 not even give contradictory evidence to the Prosecution case because he
20 has no evidence on that. That's the first thing I want to establish.
21 MR. JORDASH: I agree with --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Only after that we may come - I'm not saying we'll
23 come - but we may come to a question as you raised. Would you agree?
24 MR. JORDASH: We would like -- I agree.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. JORDASH: But we would like the Prosecution to clarify that
2 is some point.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That's another matter. But I would first
4 like to focus on that first question.
5 Mr. Groome, in order to give any weight to nonobservance of any
6 anomalies in terms of authorship, we should first ask the witness
7 whether, on those books where he found anomalies of another kind, whether
8 that changed his attitude, whether it changed his approach to further
9 look into authorship matters as dealt with in the other report.
10 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I accept that that should be the first
12 Q. And, Mr. Browne, I take it that you've heard the question. So
13 rather than we repeat it, can I ask you to answer Judge Orie's question.
14 A. I didn't examine the handwriting for authorship. I'm not able to
15 examine the handwriting for authorship. And I just didn't touch that
16 part of the -- the case, if you like.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Even not in the books where you found anomalies of
18 another kind?
19 THE WITNESS: It was not something I could undertake. I am not
20 familiar with handwriting in Cyrillic. I am not familiar with Serbian --
21 the Serbian language. It would have -- I would have been unable to do it
22 in any event.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And you didn't notice anything where you
24 suddenly thought that, Although I can't give an opinion about it, it
25 nevertheless surprises me that suddenly everything is double the size
1 or -- of handwriting. I mean --
2 THE WITNESS: No, frankly --
3 JUDGE ORIE: No.
4 THE WITNESS: -- because it wasn't there for me to look at in
5 that way.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But even if you feel incompetent to carefully
7 study and draw conclusions and nevertheless something jumps into your
8 eye, and that didn't even happen in this respect on the books in which
9 you find anomalies of a different character?
10 THE WITNESS: Indeed. The problem with examining things under
11 the infrared and ultraviolet lights, we're look at minutiae. And I'm
12 looking at a differently aspect, as it were. And the matter of the
13 handwriting is for other people, not for me.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 THE WITNESS: And therefore, that didn't happen.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
17 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Q. So it's unequivocal: You did not undertake any examination of
19 any handwriting in any of these books?
20 A. Not in the terms of forgery and that sort of thing. Of course, I
21 could look at a page in the round and say that's all very neatly written,
22 but I don't know what is written or, indeed, whose written it, and
23 it's -- that was none of my business, as it were.
24 Q. I guess this is what I'm trying to work out: So it seems you did
25 do some examination of the handwriting. You examined it for neatness or
1 sloppiness, as it might be, but you did no examination with respect to
3 A. That is correct. I mean, it was just -- this is all very neatly
4 written, there are very few alterations, there are -- that is something
5 that is just observational. It does not impinge on or indeed require
6 forensic examination of the handwriting to see who wrote any of it.
7 Q. Now, if I could return to Judge Orie's question to you: When you
8 found a page that was misaligned or was loose and inserted, did you pay
9 particular attention to whether that page was neater or less neat than
10 the other pages in the book?
11 A. Not particularly. What I was more interested in was seeing
12 whether the inks had changed between the pages.
13 Q. Could I ask that we bring to our screens 65 ter 6436, and this is
14 the handwriting analysis report prepared for the Seselj case by document
15 examiner Dorijan Kerzan. And when you can see it on your screen, I would
16 just ask you to confirm whether this is the report that you had access to
17 and that you accepted and relied upon.
18 MR. GROOME: If we could perhaps move to the next page, I think,
19 is where we actually see -- I apologise. One more page. There we go.
20 THE WITNESS: And the signature at the bottom?
21 MR. GROOME: Can we go to the --
22 THE WITNESS: Thank you. Yes, that's what I have before me.
23 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, at this time the Prosecution would
24 tender 65 ter 6436.
25 MR. JORDASH: No objection.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Document 6436 will receive number P3109,
3 Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
5 Please proceed.
6 MR. GROOME:
7 Q. Now, it appears from your report and your evidence here today
8 that the methodology that you used in examining each notebook included
9 its examination under the VSC 6000; is that correct?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. And I think you characterise that machine as being a
12 sophisticated piece of scientific equipment.
13 A. It is.
14 Q. And among the several tests that you can do, it seems that you
15 have mentioned that you can examine documents under infrared light,
16 ultraviolet light, and oblique light; is that correct?
17 A. Yes, Your Honour. Effectively, yes.
18 Q. And am I correct in my understanding of this piece equipment --
19 piece of -- this piece of equipment, that it replaces several older
20 pieces of separate equipment?
21 A. Yes. The basic premises -- premise was, I think, when Foster and
22 Freeman designed it, that they would try and combine as many methods as
23 they could into the one machine and the findings would go straight to
24 computer, and so on. It enables the taking of enlargements and things of
25 that nature as well.
1 Q. And it -- and in addition to it being more convenient for the
2 examiner, it would also reduce the amount of wear and tear, as it were,
3 in moving a document or book from machine to machine; correct?
4 A. Yes, I think that's a fair comment. Yeah.
5 Q. Was it in full working order during your examination, or at least
6 the features that you attempted to use?
7 A. As I understand it, yes.
8 Q. And did you have any difficulty using the machine?
9 A. I wasn't -- I didn't use it. It was part of the protocol that
10 the NFI expert manipulated the machine, control it, and opened it and
11 closed the door, and so on and so forth. But when I -- you know, when I
12 needed something taken.
13 Q. Were they able to do everything that you requested them to do?
14 A. As far as I understand, yes, I got results.
15 Q. And did you look at every page of every notebook under both
16 infrared and ultraviolet light?
17 A. No. Only when I -- I certainly went through every page of the
18 notebooks to compare the ultraviolet light, yes. And the infrared light
19 I didn't, unless I found an anomaly that would attract my attention.
20 Q. And what kind of anomaly attracted your attention and made you
21 decide to request infrared light?
22 A. If we -- if I found that there'd been a change in the paper
23 reaction to ultraviolet, then I would check that the infrared
24 characteristics of the writing across from one page to the other page
25 were -- were the same.
1 Q. I'm sorry, I don't quite understand that. Am I -- do I -- are
2 you saying that if you had suspicions about whether the pages, the
3 adjacent pages, were really in fact from the same book, you would use
4 that feature to give you more information about the inks in the paper?
5 A. Yes. If there was a sudden change in the ultraviolet light -
6 I've lost the word, I do beg your pardon - features, if you like, or
7 reaction, from one page to another, it could be purely accidental,
8 because in that particular book - and I think I explained it earlier,
9 Your Honour. When we have the sewn books, whether a section had come
10 from just a different paper run, rather than evidence of fraud, I would
11 still look at the infrared characteristics of the inks to make sure that
12 we hadn't got ink A with that particular infrared finding and then
13 suddenly we got the paper of a different chemical recipe and ink B is a
14 completely different pen.
15 That would be, in my view, anomalous and would require a great
16 deal more looking at. But if I found that the paper had changed but the
17 ink hadn't and the writing hadn't, and as far as one could see, as far as
18 neatness and so on and so forth, then I wouldn't have bothered beyond
19 checking the ink for infrared characteristics and then carried on.
20 Q. Now, in preparation to examine you, I looked through the manual
21 of the VSC 6000. And is my understanding correct that it has the
22 capacity to take photographs under whatever feature you're using, whether
23 it's the microscope, the infrared light, whatever lighting feature you're
24 using, it has the capacity to document what you're seeing?
25 A. Yes, it does. Yes, it does.
1 Q. And did you in fact take pictures of some of your observations?
2 A. I took a great many.
3 Q. And none of the pictures or photographs made it into the report.
4 Can you explain? Was there nothing remarkable about the photographs?
5 Would they not have assisted us in understanding your finding?
6 A. They would have done if we'd had the books in court, but we
7 hadn't. And the -- the -- the photographs do not necessarily help in
8 illustration, in isolation. I -- all the photographs are available if
9 anybody wants to look at them, but they don't actually mean a great deal
10 unless you've got something to point to, and we haven't.
11 Q. Well, you -- you gave evidence earlier today that in the middle
12 of a meeting it seemed that the ink of the pen was changed. Would we
13 have been able to see that, or would we be able to see it, on the
14 photograph of that page if you had taken such a photograph?
15 A. If you're -- let's see, infrared light will -- if you have a book
16 or a page that is written all in black ink, infrared light would be able
17 to identify whether all of that black ink was in the same chemical recipe
18 as rest of the page. If you have black ink and you change to blue ink,
19 then it's an irrelevance, because infrared characteristics may alter,
20 they may be exactly the same, and yet we can see it's black ink and blue
21 ink. There is no probative value in that -- in doing that test.
22 It's only when you get difference within the same colour. And we
23 went to great trouble in the NFI. In some cases, at first glance, you'd
24 think, Well, that looks different ink. Shall we get excited? And by the
25 time we had put the VSC to work - and it really is an excellent piece of
1 kit - by the time we had put the VSC to work, we were able to establish
2 that, no, it wasn't. It wasn't a different ink at all, it was exactly
3 the same, and we can forget about it. Because it wasn't an anomaly.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, I'm looking at the clock.
5 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: And I think it's the appropriate time to conclude
7 for the day.
8 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Browne -- I'm looking at Mr. Groome.
10 Mr. Groome, how much time do you think you would need?
11 MR. GROOME: It's difficult to estimate at this juncture,
12 Your Honour. Could I please maybe advise the Chamber in the morning?
13 I'll take a look at my notes and I'll find out how much time I've used so
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, well I'm not interested in whether it's 40 or
16 45 minutes, but I'm interested in whether it's one hour and a half or --
17 I think your indication was two hours and a half to start with. Has that
19 MR. GROOME: I don't believe so, Your Honour. I think I'll be
20 within that.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Then there's a fair expectation that we could end
22 either at the end of the first session or somewhere in the beginning of
23 the second session.
24 MR. GROOME: I think that's reasonable, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 Would that -- Mr. Browne, I'm exploring with the parties how long
2 we keep you hosted here.
3 Mr. Jordash, as matters stand now, would you expect --
4 MR. JORDASH: 15 to 20 minutes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: 15 to 20 minutes.
6 Mr. Petrovic, you're still --
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I do not expect that
8 I shall need any time as matters stand now.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.
10 Mr. Browne, we'd like to see you back tomorrow morning at 9.00 in
11 this same courtroom. And I instruct you that you should not speak or
12 communicate in any other way with whomever about your testimony, whether
13 that is testimony already given today or whether it's testimony still to
14 be given tomorrow. And as you may have noticed from the answers, that
15 there is a fair chance, and that's the weak expression, that we'll
16 conclude your testimony somewhere tomorrow morning.
17 We stand adjourned. And we resume tomorrow, Wednesday, the
18 21st of March, Courtroom II, 9.00 in the morning.
19 [The witness stands down]
20 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.02 p.m.,
21 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the
22 21st day of March, 2012, at 9.00 a.m.