1 Monday, 5 September 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.18 p.m.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good afternoon to everybody in the courtroom and
6 to those who are following our procedure. Due to technical problems in
7 Courtroom III we are, again, in Courtroom II now.
8 I would like to raise two matters.
9 Mr. Tolimir, Mr. Gajic, you have received a confidential motion,
10 I think it was confidential because of medical information contained in
11 it, for leave to add Witness Dumanjic to it's witness list. It's not a
12 protected witness. We can expect the B/C/S translation to be filed by
13 the end of today or tomorrow, and I would like to invite the Defence, if
14 possible, to respond to that orally in the course of this week, perhaps
15 on Thursday, because we are now really approaching the end of the
16 Prosecution case and, therefore, we should speed up the best possible
18 Mr. Gajic, would that be possible for you?
19 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, as you know so far
20 this Defence has been efficient and our written reply is already
21 prepared. It just needs to go through a minor revision. I believe it
22 will be filed tomorrow or the day after tomorrow at the latest.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Are you now referring to the two 92 quater
24 submissions of the Prosecution or to this motion to add a witness to the
25 witness list, Mr. Gajic?
1 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] The submission concerning the
2 addition of a new witness to the schedule, and we will probably file a
3 combined submission responding to all the three motions of the
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much for that. That will speed up
6 the remainder of the Prosecution case, for sure.
7 There is another matter I would like to raise. Early in this
8 trial, I indicated that we will probably hold a housekeeping session at
9 the end of the Prosecution case. I am not sure which matters could be
10 discussed in such a housekeeping session. I would kindly ask the parties
11 if they have some matters to discuss during a housekeeping session, and
12 if so, what kind of matters the parties would like to put on the agenda.
13 If there is no need for that, then we should refrain from having such a
14 housekeeping session.
15 Mr. McCloskey.
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, good afternoon, Mr. President, Your Honours.
17 And I -- of course, we will discuss that, Mr. Gajic and myself, but as
18 you know we communicate so often with each other and with the Court, I
19 can't think of anything off the top of my head, but we'll discuss it and
20 see. There is probably -- there may be something out there, but right
21 now I can't think of anything, but we will get together.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic.
23 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, this is a rare
24 opportunity when I share Mr. McCloskey's opinion. There are no issues to
25 raise at such a housekeeping session.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I am astonished that you say this is a rare
2 opportunity. My experience is different, on procedural matters there is
3 a very good relation between the parties and a good co-operation. We
4 appreciate that.
5 Thank you for that. I would kindly ask the Defence about the
6 estimation of time to be used between the next two witnesses,
7 Michael Hedley and Jan de Koeijer. Are you able to provide us with your
8 estimate for cross-examination. At least I didn't receive any
10 I was informed by the Registrar that we, indeed, received your
11 estimation, one and a half hours for both of the witnesses.
12 Thank you.
13 The next witness should be brought in, please.
14 [The witness takes the stand]
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good afternoon, Mr. Hedley. Welcome to this
16 trial and to the courtroom. Would you please read aloud the affirmation
17 on the card which is shown to you now.
18 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
19 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
21 Please sit down and make yourself comfortable.
22 Mr. Elderkin, for the Prosecution, has questions for you.
23 You have the floor, Mr. Elderkin.
24 MR. ELDERKIN: Thank you, Mr. President. And good afternoon to
25 you, Your Honours, and to everyone else in the courtroom.
1 WITNESS: MICHAEL HEDLEY
2 Examination by Mr. Elderkin:
3 Q. And good afternoon to you, Mr. Hedley.
4 A. Good afternoon.
5 Q. As I mentioned when we had the chance to meet yesterday, since we
6 are both speaking the same language and the proceedings are being
7 interpreted, we should both try and go slowly. And the best way to allow
8 the interpreters to keep up is to leave a pause after I ask a question
9 before you start answering, and I will try to leave a pause after your
10 answer before I carry on.
11 A. I will do my best.
12 Q. Also I know you brought some papers in with you this afternoon,
13 could you just tell us what those papers are?
14 A. This is a copy of --
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And could you please move a little bit further
16 toward the microphones. Thank you.
17 THE WITNESS: How is that?
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Go ahead.
19 THE WITNESS: This is a copy of my report.
20 MR. ELDERKIN:
21 Q. That's fine, it's just so that everyone in the Court knows what
22 you've brought in. I should ask, first, for the record, that you say
23 your full name, please?
24 A. My name is Michael John Hedley.
25 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please speak into the
1 microphone? He can be barely heard.
2 THE WITNESS: My name is Michael John Hedley.
3 MR. ELDERKIN:
4 Q. And what is your nationality?
5 A. British.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think there is a technical problem with the
7 microphones. Perhaps the Court Usher -- it's hardly to be heard.
8 MR. ELDERKIN: Your Honours, I think it's coming from this
9 microphone here, which I'm about to unplug and replace with the original
10 one. So if you give me a moment, please.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, please.
12 MR. ELDERKIN: Silence, which I think is a good thing.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, please, try it again.
14 MR. ELDERKIN:
15 Q. So I think we have on the record, sir, your name. If you could
16 repeat, please, your nationality?
17 A. British.
18 Q. What is your current occupation?
19 A. My current occupation is that of a regional property manager for
20 a development company in the UK.
21 Q. When did you start that work?
22 A. 2002, after I left as a contractor with ICTY.
23 Q. And so what was your previous career?
24 A. I am a retired police officer. I retired from the police service
25 in the UK in 2000.
1 Q. And starting from when you first joined the police service, can
2 you talk us through briefly that career in the police in Britain.
3 A. It was a long time ago. Yes, I'll try. I joined the police
4 service in 1970 as a uniformed police officer in a county known as
5 Teesside in northern England.
6 Q. I think we are still picking you up. That's fine if you carry
8 A. I'm sorry. It's just a change in the -- yes, I joined in 1970 in
9 the Teesside in the north of England. I served in that constabulary for
10 five years, and I transferred to Gloucestershire constabulary which in
11 the southwest of England. In 1975, I was a uniformed police officer, I
12 served so until 1980, when I took an interest in scenes of crime work,
13 took an attachment with the scenes of crime department of the
14 Gloucestershire constabulary. I took an initial training source at the
15 national scientific aides' college in the UK. I was subsequently
16 accepted within the department, and carried on as a scenes of crime
17 officer for a number of years until, I think, 1996. During that period,
18 within scenes of crime, obviously, I started off at the bottom dealing
19 with the most minor crimes such as theft of motor vehicles, minor
20 assaults, then went on to investigation of burglary, more serious crimes
21 of rape, sexual assault, up to crimes of attempted murder and murder.
22 Obviously, I was mentored throughout the early service, and then
23 became a senior examiner in my own right later on.
24 Q. What was the nature of the training that you received at the
25 national college that you attended to qualify as a scene of crime
2 A. We were taught all aspects of crime scene investigation, from
3 finger-print retrieval through to collection of forensic exhibits,
4 packaging, preservation, for later submission to the forensic science
5 laboratories. We were also trained in photography and technical
6 photography of particular items found, evidential items found or
8 Q. Perhaps by way of example, can you talk us through what a scene
9 of crime officer does on any given case, bearing in mind you're the first
10 such professional that we have heard give evidence in this trial?
11 A. Perhaps I could describe the approach towards a burglary scene.
12 Obviously uniformed department would be called to the burglary first, and
13 then if the uniformed officers thought that there was a scene to examine,
14 they would request attendance of a scenes of crime officer. I would
15 attend, obviously approach the scene with a view to collecting evidence
16 on the same approach that perhaps the burglar would have taken. I would
17 then look at the point of entry, in particular look at any tool-marks
18 which were used to force entry. I would also look for traces of fibres,
19 perhaps even if the offender was injured, traces of blood.
20 At that point, if I haven't found any of these particular
21 articles of evidence, I would take photographs. I would take photographs
22 with scales attached to them to -- in case of a subsequent inquiry for
23 forensic examination. I would collect blood samples by means of a swab.
24 I would clearly mark the swab package to indicate the area -- the address
25 in which it was recovered. In the case of tool-marks, which would
1 obviously be in a fixed window frame which couldn't be removed, I would
2 probably use a casting material to cast the impression made by the tool.
3 Again, that's -- once the cast had set, I would remove the cast and
4 probably store it in a crush-proof box so it couldn't be damaged, clearly
5 mark it up for subsequent submission for forensic science laboratory.
6 Once the physical -- again, things like fibres, fibres might
7 perhaps be adherent to a point of entry, on a jagged piece of wood, say,
8 for example, in which case I would use a tape method of placing tape over
9 the fibre, lifting the fibre, and then attaching that to a celluloid
10 sheet. Again I would write on the sheet, clearly marking the address of
11 the property, the precise location where it was found in relation to the
12 point of entry. Again, I would clearly mark the time and date of
13 retrieval. Then, a finger-print examination would take place around that
14 point of entry, in particular looking at a place of entry where a person
15 might have pulled themselves, which is always a favourite of raising
16 finger-prints. That would be done with how aluminum powder and soft
17 brush. Sometimes there would be a finger-print in blood where you could
18 actually see the finger-print in which case you would have to take a
19 photograph of the finger-print.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Hedley, may I ask you to slow down a little
22 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, sir.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You are speaking very fast, and you must bear in
24 mind that we have interpreters who have to interpret everything which you
25 are saying into French and B/C/S and it's better to slow down a bit.
1 THE WITNESS: I apologise, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
3 Please continue.
4 THE WITNESS: I lost my train now. There are -- obviously, an
5 examination would then carry on inside the property. In particular,
6 looking for, perhaps, foot-prints which obviously would have also taken
7 place outside, footprints on windowsills.
8 MR. ELDERKIN:
9 Q. If I may interrupt there. I think you have given us a very clear
10 flavor of the detail with which a task is approached. You've described a
11 number of examples of the specific kinds of evidence in a burglary
12 situation you might be looking for and the detailed way in which you
13 would record and then store that evidence.
14 Were you following set protocols in your approach to this, or
15 does a scene of crime officer develop their own specific methods of work?
16 A. No, there is a --
17 Q. And if you could leave a pause again, just for a moment.
18 A. The word "protocol" is a word, it's attached, I think, with
19 something I found with the ICTY in the sites. But there was a set method
20 which we were taught during our basic training, and particularly it was
21 that of a collect -- method of collection of the evidence and method of
22 preservation of the evidence, and the correct storage of the evidence.
23 And then a chain of custody from myself to whoever else the investigating
24 officer decided to submit the sample to.
25 Q. Thank you. And just to get back to the end of your career with
1 the British police, can you tell us what was your last employment with
2 the police and then when did you retire from the police?
3 A. In 1996, I was offered a position of criminal intelligence
4 officer within the Gloucestershire crime intelligence unit. I served
5 there for four years until my retirement in 6th of January, 2000. I took
6 a couple of months off and approached ICTY with a view to employment in
7 the exhumation scheme.
8 Q. And you managed to obtain employment with the ICTY. Can you tell
9 us what terms you were employed and what position you were employed --
10 A. I was --
11 Q. And again just pause for a moment, first, please.
12 A. I was employed as a scene of crime officer, as a contractor, as
13 ICTY working under Professor Richard Wright.
14 Q. I see in the transcript it says you were employed as a senior
15 crime. I think I heard scene of crime officer.
16 A. Scene of crime officer is correct.
17 Q. And this employment as ICTY scene of crime officer started in
18 2000. Where did you carry out your work for the ICTY in the year 2000?
19 A. During 2000, we commenced in Croatia, at the site of -- sorry, I
20 can't remember the name of the site. We came across to Sanski Most and
21 worked at Prijedor cemetery, a site called Redak which was a stoneworks.
22 Then we came across to Visoko [Realtime transcript read in error "Bisko"]
23 and worked on sites within the Srebrenica inquiry. I worked at Lazete I
24 and II, Glogova 1, and I was requested to carry out an examination at
25 Kravica warehouse.
1 Q. And when did you leave the ICTY or leave your employment for the
2 ICTY, I should say?
3 A. At the end of 2000 I left the Srebrenica team, Richard Wright's
4 team, and then commenced the following year, and worked a season, a
5 couple of months, with Jose Pablo Baraybar's team, and then requested I
6 moved to the monitoring team, where I worked with Jon Sterenburg for the
7 remainder of the season at Cancari Road and Liplje sites, and Ravnice
9 Q. Can I just pick up one word that appears, if you look at the live
10 transcript. At page 10, line 4, it refers to a place called "Bisko"?
11 A. Sorry, Visoko.
12 Q. Now, focussing on your Srebrenica-related work, you've mentioned
13 your work at Lazete 1 and 2 sites, Glogova 1, Kravica, and then the
14 following year also at Ravnice, and I think you mentioned Liplje,
15 although it doesn't appear on the LiveNote at the moment. Does that
16 cover all the sites for which you worked in relation to Srebrenica?
17 A. To the best of my recollection, that includes them all, yes. I
18 don't know the numbers of the Liplje sites or the Cancari road, but I
19 think we did four or five sites, those locations.
20 Q. And what function did you perform at the different sites? Again,
21 just in relation to the Srebrenica sites.
22 A. Well, in 2000, I was senior scene of crime officer on site. I
23 had assistants, data entry assistance who also assistant SOCO. Later on
24 in the season, much later on in the season, we had two Dutch scene of
25 crime officers joined us at Glogova 1, and -- apologies, going back to
1 Lazete, we also had a South African SOCO that assisted us.
2 Q. How did you work as a scene of crime officer at these Srebrenica
3 related sites compare to your experience as scene of crime officer during
4 your police service back in Britain?
5 A. Well, the intensity on site was obviously much greater than the
6 more relaxed work carried out on domestic scene of crime in an urban
7 police force. Generally speaking, the principles were basically the
8 same, the volume of work was just that much greater.
9 Q. Can you describe, perhaps by, again, way of example for any of
10 the Srebrenica sites where you worked, what other professionals were
11 present and working at those sites. So you mentioned yourself as the
12 senior scene of crime officer and also assistant scene of crime officers.
13 Who else would have been present at a typical site and what would their
14 functions have been?
15 A. Well, obviously there was the senior archeologist, and in the
16 case of 2000, it was Professor Wright, with one break where
17 Fredy Peccerelli took over at Lazete. Also on site were several other
18 senior archeologists, and experienced anthropologists. We had one
19 archeologist who was also the total operator, the electronic theodolite
20 operator who used the map the sites. We obviously had the support staff,
21 who comprised of three or four chaps who generally looked after these
22 sites and our amenities. There were drivers. We had a photographer who
23 was an archaeological photographer. I think I have covered it all.
24 Q. Where would you stay during the course of your work on these
1 A. We were billeted -- in respect of Srebrenica, we were billeted at
3 THE INTERPRETER: Can the witness kindly speak closer to the
5 MR. ELDERKIN:
6 Q. Glogova 1 as one of the sites that you worked on in 2000 in
7 relation to Srebrenica, can you tell us about your work on that site?
8 Again, a brief summary as far as you remember when you arrived there,
9 what work was being carried out.
10 A. To my recollection when we first arrived, I think it was
11 postponed and we actually went -- I believe we started Rovici [phoen]. I
12 can't quite remember. But basically my duties would have been that of
13 opening up an evidence log and issuing numbers to particular items of
14 evidence that were uncovered, and eventually taking possession of those
15 items, securely packaging them, storing them for later handover to the
17 Q. Do you remember the site well enough to give us a brief
18 description of the site or its surroundings?
19 A. Yes. It was a large site, just at the bottom of a valley. It
20 was close to the main road between Bratunac and Konjevic Polje. The site
21 itself was flat. It was a large site. It was, I think, four or five
22 houses around the site. Probably three of them had been completely
23 demolished, they had been blown up.
24 MR. ELDERKIN: And perhaps just for orientation, if we could have
25 Exhibit P104 on the screen, and at page 8, I think, in e-court.
1 Q. Sir, I am just bringing up what I hope is a simplified map just
2 so we can see the locations that you've just mentioned.
3 MR. ELDERKIN: And as I say, can we have page 8, I think, in
5 Q. Sir, looking now at the map on the screen, you could see a red
6 dot around the -- just above the centre of the map marked with Kravica,
7 and then to the right-hand side of the screen Bratunac, and then down
8 towards the bottom, Srebrenica?
9 A. That's correct. Could I -- I've checked it on the -- my monitor
10 on the vehicle I was driving. Kravica is about 8 kilometres from
12 Q. And we can see Glogova on this map, then, on the road running --
13 starting at Konjevic Polje, going past Sandici, Kravica, then Glogova,
14 and then finally to Bratunac?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. And we --
17 MR. ELDERKIN: I don't need to have the map anymore for the
18 following question.
19 Q. But do you recall if any ICTY investigators were involved during
20 the course of the excavations at Glogova 1?
21 A. Yes. Dean Manning was obviously on-site quite often,
22 Bruce Bursik was on site, Jean Gagnon was on site, and a Finnish
23 investigator called Kai, as I remember. I can't remember his surname.
24 MR. ELDERKIN: Can we have Exhibit P873 on the screen.
25 Q. Sir, while this is loading up, it's going to be the report that
1 Professor Richard Wright wrote about the Glogova 1 excavations and
2 exhumations work in 2000.
3 First, have you ever seen this report before, actually?
4 A. Yes, I have. Yeah.
5 MR. ELDERKIN: Could we go, please, to page 3 in e-court. I
6 think the B/C/S will be the same. And let us read a little bit from the
7 summary findings, but they tell us how the work at Glogova 1 was carried
8 out in September and October 2000.
9 Q. And about halfway down it reads:
10 "Several objects considered to be from the Kravica warehouse were
11 found in the graves and Mr. Michael Hedley is writing a separate report
12 on the connection between the warehouse and Glogova 1."
13 We will come to your report in a minute, but first I want to ask
14 you about the features of the Glogova exhumations that led
15 Professor Wright and the team to believe that there might be a connection
16 with the Kravica site. Can you tell us what sort of features those were.
17 What gave this sort of indication?
18 A. Initially, it was obvious that certain elements were being
19 uncovered which included pieces of concrete, painted concrete, in the
20 process of removing the upper spoil from the grave. There was a couple
21 of metal doors which were scraped off the surfaces of A and B sections.
22 And also was found a painted metal girder. But as we got into the grave,
23 as I say, these concrete pieces were significant, because it was known, I
24 believe, that in order to remove the bodies from the Kravica warehouse
25 they had to break open the front of the warehouse in order to get a
1 digger in to the facility.
2 Q. The last piece of information you mentioned that it was known
3 that they had to break in the front of the warehouse to get a digger to
4 remove the bodies. Do you recall where you learnt that information and
5 about what period of time are we talking about when you say that the
6 bodies were removed from the warehouse?
7 A. Where the information had come from, it was obviously just part
8 of a briefing. Whether that came from Professor Wright, himself, or one
9 of the investigators, I can't quite recall, but we were aware of what we
10 were probably going to find.
11 Q. And when you say that "they had to break in the front of the
12 warehouse," who are you referring to by "they" and when are these people
13 breaking down the front of the warehouse, according to your information?
14 A. Well, we assumed it was the perpetrators or those people employed
15 by the perpetrators to remove the bodies and take them for burial, so we
16 would assume the Bosnian VRS.
17 Q. And in what kind of time-period would that have happened?
18 A. That would have been in July 1995. I can't remember the dates
20 MR. ELDERKIN: Now, could we go back to the exhibit we've just
21 had on screen and to page 17 in e-court, please. And actually one page
22 prior to that, please, in English. So page 16.
23 Q. I will carry on speaking while if B/C/S comes up. This page has
24 a heading on it: "Properties of graves and bodies." And then some details
25 are listed beneath that, including a list of graves with different
1 letters. Can you tell us if you recall whether there were several
2 different graves at the Glogova site? Because it appears from this table
3 that there are different designations for different graves?
4 A. Yeah, these designations were obviously given by Professor Wright
5 in his capacity as the chief archeologist. As regards the number of
6 bodies found, that was not my job to count bodies at all. But, quite
7 rightly, in my report I do mention the difference between the excavation
8 and the graves, but in my report I concentrate on the artefacts, in
9 particular, the concrete and the girders that were found within those
10 graves -- within particular graves that would have connected them to
12 Q. Thank you.
13 MR. ELDERKIN: And could we go to the next page.
14 Q. And I won't be asking you in detail about the bodies. I
15 understand that your focus was on the artefacts. I would just like to
16 look at one more paragraph underneath the properties of graves and bodies
17 section. Which is, if we look at the top of this page, and the third
18 paragraph down starting: "In the light ..."
19 And it reads:
20 "In the light of this unusual fragmentation of bodies that are in
21 situ, I consider it significant that Glogova 1 is the only primary site
22 where I have found remains of explosive devices in the form of grenades
23 and shrapnel."
24 First of all, sir, do you remember whether such items were
25 recovered at the Glogova site?
1 A. I can't remember the detail of the log, but I would have to look
2 at the log to remember those particular items.
3 MR. ELDERKIN: And then if we could move on to e-court page 19,
5 Q. And this page is where Professor Wright lists under the heading
6 of "Possible connections with the Kravica warehouse," a number of points
7 of linkage. Perhaps we could scroll down to see the indented points.
8 Sir, looking down this list and the kind of items listed here, so
9 fragments of reinforced cement panel, fragments of cement fins,
10 polystyrene foam, lumps of cut grass, pieces of metal door frame, we've
11 already heard you mention, panels of metal for covering a door, some
12 rolled steel joists, and finally, motor vehicle parts. To the best of
13 your recollection, are these the sorts of things that were being found in
14 the Glogova exhumations?
15 A. Yeah, just one point. Professor Wright mentions "rolled steel
16 joists." I would call them open box section girders.
17 Q. I would certainly defer to your experience, now, given your
18 current profession in the construction industry. If we could go one page
19 further from that. As you can see at the top it refers to you:
20 "Mr. Michael Hedley, scene of crime officer at Glogova 1 is
21 writing a detailed report on items from Glogova 1 and their comparison
22 with the Kravica warehouse."
23 Could you tell us how it came about that you were asked to write
24 the report? Do you remember who tasked you and what the instructions
25 were that you received?
1 A. It was obviously following discussions between Professor Wright,
2 the investigator -- investigators, and myself, as to whether, A, I was
3 proficient in collecting those samples and able and willing to provide a
4 report for the Court to -- in an attempt to create that connection
5 between the two sites -- a forensic connection between the two sites.
6 Q. Before we get into the report in detail, I would like to go to a
7 couple more references in Professor Wright's report.
8 MR. ELDERKIN: First of all, at e-court in page 38. If we could
9 please, first of all, zoom in to better see the photograph at the top of
10 the screen.
11 Q. In you're able, sir, can you describe to us what kind of scene
12 we're seeing here and how this relates to the question of artefacts from
13 Kravica being found in the Glogova grave?
14 A. What we see is, as you say, it's a grave, you can see bodies and
15 body parts, you can also see the girder to which I earlier referred to.
16 We have four archeologists, Jon Sterenburg [Realtime transcript read in
17 error "Stellenburg"], Jean Marie [phoen], Gina Hart, and I can't
18 recollect the name of the male archeologists.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could you please repeat the name slowly.
20 THE WITNESS: Jean Marie, on the left. On the right is
21 Gina Hart, and behind, with the pad, is Jon Sterenburg. And I can't
22 quite recollect the name of the male archeologist.
23 MR. ELDERKIN: And can we scroll down now to see the images below
25 THE WITNESS: Just looking at the screen, it's actually
1 Sterenberg, not Stellenberg. S-t-e-r-e-n-b-e-r-g.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And what was the first name. This is also
3 missing in the transcript.
4 THE WITNESS: Sorry, Jean Marie.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
6 MR. ELDERKIN:
7 Q. Okay. If the names are cleared up, then. If we can look back at
8 the images, perhaps you can tell us what we are seeing, are these
9 pictures all taken at Glogova or elsewhere?
10 A. Photo 56665_11a, is the doorway of Kravica warehouse as we found
11 it when we arrived in September 2000. Photo 56759_10a shows part of a
12 door which I will refer to in my report in amongst, as you see, body
14 Q. And if we could just scroll down to see that image just beneath.
15 A. I am afraid I can't quite make that out.
16 Q. If you take a moment, sir, also to perhaps read the text
17 underneath. And if we could zoom slightly out, in fact, to read the
18 width of the text beneath the picture. According to the footnote headed
19 figure 14, sir, it refers to?
20 A. Of course, that's polystyrene, it's not a particularly good
21 photograph, but it's -- yes.
22 Q. And could we go to the next page in e-court as well, please. And
23 zooming in at the top, please.
24 A. That looks like a hydraulic jack.
25 Q. Would that have come from the Glogova grave?
1 A. That was in Glogova, yes, that's marked as 146, which would have
2 been an artefact.
3 THE INTERPRETER: Can the witness kindly speak louder. Thank you
4 very much.
5 THE WITNESS: I apologise. Yes, it's a hydraulic jack, the
6 photograph is marked GL01 146, which would be an artefact recorded in the
7 evidence log.
8 MR. ELDERKIN: Could we scroll down to the second image please.
9 THE WITNESS: Again, a wheel off a vehicle, next to some
10 clothing. To the left I can see some metal.
11 MR. ELDERKIN: And the final image beneath that.
12 Q. And again, if necessary, there is a written description beneath
14 A. Yes, I see body, body parts, clothing, and grass beneath the body
15 or the body part.
16 Q. Do you know if the presence of the cut grass had any significance
17 in terms of establishing a connection with Kravica warehouse?
18 A. I personally didn't collect any samples from Kravica warehouse
19 which could have, to my recollection, could have been compared with that
20 but Richard Wright -- Professor Wright obviously saw significance in it.
21 Q. Okay. Now we will turn to your report.
22 MR. ELDERKIN: And that is at 65 ter number 7519, please.
23 I understand, Your Honours, for your information, this is not
24 technically on the 65 ter list, but given its been the basis of our
25 request to call Mr. Hedley for some considerable time, I don't think
1 there is anything controversial about requesting its addition to the
2 65 ter list at this stage.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, my usual question: Are you fine
4 with adding this document to the 65 ter exhibit list?
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I am fine with that.
6 And it has been common practice for the Prosecutor to add documents in
7 this stage.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Leave is granted, Mr. Elderkin.
9 Please continue.
10 MR. ELDERKIN: Your Honours, thank you.
11 Q. And if we could look quickly -- I think we will start with the
12 cover of your report, sir, since it's the first time we have had a chance
13 to see it. This, I take it, is the end product of the investigation you
14 carried out. When did you write the report and can you give us a brief
15 description of what work you did in order to produce the report?
16 A. I left Bosnia I think it was in November of 2001. Obviously, I
17 took Christmas break, and I commenced my report, I think, in January, the
18 first draft. I gathered up all the information I could that I was
19 allowed to take with me from Bosnia and commenced writing the report
20 which was the early stage of what you see today. We took -- I took a
21 month out on holiday with my wife, came back in probably March, and I
22 finished the report at that stage.
23 MR. ELDERKIN: And if we can go to the next page in e-court,
25 Q. And without needing to repeat what's written there, can you give
1 us a brief overview of the structure of the report and then of the
2 conclusions that you arrived at?
3 A. Well, for clarity, I broke up the report into two halves. It
4 makes it easier to read, and understand, and compare. And you want my
5 final conclusion?
6 Q. Yeah, if you could put the conclusions in context of the question
7 that you were asked, which I understand was to determine what might be
8 the links between Kravica warehouse and the Glogova grave?
9 A. That's right. Yes, it's a collection describing what I saw at
10 Glogova 1 and the exhibits, the artefacts, control samples, that I
11 collected from Kravica warehouse, and comparing them within the report.
12 MR. ELDERKIN: And could we go please to e-court page 20 of the
14 Q. Sir, for your information that's your own internal numbering,
15 page 19. And there, I think, the report states the conclusions, but can
16 you perhaps talk us through those just to give us a direct view of what
17 you state there?
18 A. As I say, all the exhibits that were recovered under the control
19 samples were collected with a view to comparison, where appropriate,
20 where a camera was available, photographs were taken with a scale
21 adjacent for future reference or for future forensic examination. I
22 prepared a list of all the relevant items listed by description and
23 location together with this suggested forensic or investigative
24 comparison with control samples taken from the warehouse, from Kravica
25 warehouse. I also noted at this point that there was a possibility of
1 contamination from the houses I described earlier that had been blown up
2 on the Glogova site, I think three of them had been blown up, and one of
3 those houses that I searched I found on the floor were blue tiles, and
4 the blue tiles were similar in appearance, not only in colour, but also
5 on the reverse of the tile indicating they were probably the same
6 manufacturer. I would say this contamination was only in relation to the
7 tile. We also found in that house insulating material similar to
8 polystyrene insulate material which wasn't similar to that that I
9 recovered as a control sample from the Kravica warehouse or that we were
10 finding within Glogova 1 grave.
11 Q. Sir, what conclusion did you arrive at if you had to summarise in
12 a sentence or two in terms of identifying links between Kravica and
14 A. Well, as I said in my report, the action of enlarging the doorway
15 at the Kravica warehouse in order to gain that vehicle access would have
16 resulted in the component parts of that doorway being pushed inside of
17 the building and falling amongst the bodies of the victims that lay
18 inside. Therefore, it would have been inevitable of a bucket vehicle to
19 have scooped up those bodies, they would have also scooped up the
20 demolished doorway. These together would have been conveyed to the
21 burial place. And, as we suspected, if Glogova 1 was the burial place,
22 you must consider that there is substantial evidence that those men
23 killed in the Kravica warehouse in July 1995 were amongst the same men
24 whose remains were recovered from Glogova 1 in September and October
1 MR. ELDERKIN: I might go into some more detail about the
2 specific linkages and hopefully put some images on the screen, but in
3 order to keep track of things I would ask at this stage for the report to
4 be admitted as an exhibit, please, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter document 7519 shall be
7 assigned Exhibit P2591. Thank you.
8 MR. ELDERKIN: Could we please have exhibit P94 on the screen and
9 at page 97 in e-court.
10 Q. And sir, for your information, this is a photographic exhibit
11 that I was able to show you briefly yesterday which contains a series of
12 different photographs around the Kravica area.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Before we move to that part of your examination,
14 Judge Mindua has a question.
15 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness, I am very interested,
16 intrigued, by your conclusion concerning the connection between the mass
17 grave of Glogova and the Kravica warehouse. We have just seen on one of
18 the photos that there was some sort of vehicle, and a metal object that
19 looked like a shock absorber, and some plants among the bodies. You just
20 said that the vehicle pieces originated from Kravica warehouse.
21 Do you have any explanation for those plants? Do you have any
22 evidence to support that conclusion?
23 THE WITNESS: I personally can't give any evidence regarding the
24 plants found beneath the body, but I didn't go into detail to describe -
25 which I probably should have done - the fact that the breaking open of
1 the doorway of the Kravica warehouse would have resulted in much of the
2 masonry surrounding the original doorway being broken away and falling on
3 top of the bodies. This included a lot of concrete, a lot of insulating
4 material, and of course it also included the reddish maroon fins which
5 were either decorative on the front of the warehouse or had the
6 functional purpose of strengthening the front of the warehouse. Now,
7 these were significant in the fact that they were painted a particular
8 colour and we were we are finding the same pieces within the Glogova 1
9 grave painted that same colour.
10 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. But
11 concerning the pieces of vehicles and the plants found around the bodies,
12 no other explanation has been found; is that the case?
13 THE WITNESS: I understood that from our original briefing when
14 we were told what we could expect to find within the warehouse -- sorry,
15 within the graves that had been taken from the warehouse, the witness had
16 mentioned that prior to the victims being detained within warehouse,
17 there had been vehicle parts within that warehouse. So those would have
18 been there before the victims arrived. Presumably, they were removed
19 with the victims.
20 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Oh, that's it. Now I understand.
21 There are witnesses who claimed that there were parts of vehicles inside
22 the warehouse.
23 THE WITNESS: As I understand it, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Elderkin, please continue.
1 MR. ELDERKIN: If I could return to the exhibit we were bringing
2 up in e-court, and ask to go to page 97.
3 Q. I will ask you a number of questions about the work at the
4 Kravica site, but to start with and give us some context, can you tell us
5 what we are seeing in these images here?
6 A. We are seeing the north aspect of the Kravica warehouse, and
7 outlined in red is the area where I undertook my examination. The
8 original -- the first visit to Kravica warehouse describes recovery of
9 shell cases and some skull fragments. That search was carried out in
10 front of the small red box on the grassed area in front of the warehouse.
11 Q. If I could ask you to talk to us about a couple of features on
12 the images. First of all, in the superimposed image, the winter scene
13 where we see snow on the ground, there is a very large opening in the
14 warehouse, within the red box. Does that correspond with how the
15 warehouse looked when you saw the warehouse or, if not, what were the
17 A. The difference to the doorway that we saw in September 2000 is
18 the doorway then had a new lintel in it and there was some reconstruction
19 above that lintel to close off the doorway to the roof level.
20 Q. And perhaps we could zoom in to the bottom right of the image
21 which I think will show the appearance as you describe. Is that correct?
22 A. That's right. And painted at the front. What's also
23 interesting, to the right of that box it shows a smaller building which
24 was -- contained -- was presumably a boiler house and that's where I
25 recovered a paint tin which contained paint which was, to the naked eye,
1 similar to the paint colour on the artefacts found at the Glogova 1 site.
2 Q. We may see this better in a later image, but you have mentioned
3 the concrete fins on the building, and we can see here a number of pairs
4 of vertical lines along the white facade of the building. Are those the
5 concrete fins that you have been talking about?
6 A. Yeah, those are the fins as I described them. You see, they are
7 uniformly spaced. They fit in with the pre-cast concrete slabs which
8 were interlocked together. So everything would just fit really neatly
9 together. It -- if I can later refer to my computer-generated
10 reconstruction of the door using the dimensions of the door as we knew
11 them and dimensions and the distance between the interlocking fins, and
12 also the witness marks which we discovered at the doorway which showed an
13 open box section and showed the actual position of the actual doorway.
14 Q. And do I understand that you're referring to the page marked as
15 appendix 2 in your report, sir? If you just give us a reference so we
16 can find that later?
17 A. Yes, appendix 2. Yes.
18 Q. Did your investigation at the Kravica warehouse involve also
19 going inside the building, or did you just perform your work outside?
20 A. No, obviously we had to go inside. As I recall inside, there
21 was -- there was some seed grain in there, which was infested with
22 vermin. When we first went in, there was -- mice scurried all over. To
23 one side, there was some wooden window frames but they were undamaged and
24 unglazed as I recall. To the back of the warehouse, halfway up the wall
25 were some wooden window frames but again there was no encasements in
1 them. To the left of the warehouse there was what appeared to be the
2 witness marks, as I described the witness marks, it's the bonding marks
3 where there was an internal room within the building, small room. There
4 were blue tiles to the base of the wall of that small room, I suspect it
5 was probably a kitchen or a washroom.
6 MR. ELDERKIN: If we could go to page 105 in e-court. And if you
7 could comment on that image once it comes up, please.
8 THE WITNESS: You can clearly see where that room was placed. It
9 was -- it was roofed -- it was the vertical and horizontal bonding marks
10 of the structure that was attached to it. And you can also see in that
11 photograph quite clearly the blue tiles at the base of the wall.
12 MR. ELDERKIN:
13 Q. Was this particular area of the warehouse of any relevance in
14 relation to your investigation when you were seeking to find connections
15 with the Glogova 1 site?
16 A. In respect of -- we took control samples of the blue tile and
17 we -- also beneath the debris you see on the floor there was vinyl tile
18 as well, and I took control samples of the vinyl tile for comparison.
19 MR. ELDERKIN: Can we now see, please, page 108 in e-court.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And these photographs, I take it, are all part of
21 the report of Mr. Hedley, P2591; is that correct.
22 MR. ELDERKIN: Your Honour, no. At the moment we are looking at
23 the photo book used with Jean-Rene Ruez. It's Exhibit P94, obviously
24 already admitted into evidence.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much for that clarification.
1 MR. ELDERKIN:
2 Q. Sir, this is another interior shot of the warehouse. Does the
3 condition seen in this image reflect how you saw the warehouse or, if
4 not, how did it differ when you saw it?
5 A. Yeah, that's pretty much the same. The walls pockmarked with
6 bullets. There was evidence that a fire had taken place within the
7 warehouse, as you can see, by the blackening of the walls and ceiling.
8 Q. If we could go back, please, to Mr. Hedley's report which has
9 just been assigned P2591. And go to --
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: If you want to stay with this photograph for a
11 moment, Judge Nyambe has a question.
12 MR. ELDERKIN: Of course.
13 JUDGE NYAMBE: Yes, thank you. Just now you have said there was
14 evidence that a fire had taken place within the warehouse. Can you say
15 whether it was before, after, or during the time of the death of the
16 bodies that you found in that warehouse.
17 THE WITNESS: Oh, no. All I can say is that a fire took place
19 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Elderkin.
21 MR. ELDERKIN: Yes, please. If we could have P2591, and if we
22 could go first to page 23 in e-court. And this is appendix 2, I think,
23 of the report coming up.
24 Q. Mr. Hedley, can you tell us -- you mentioned briefly a
25 computer-generated image which wasn't on the screen when you spoke about
1 that. But can you tell us what was shown in this part of your report,
2 which we see covers the frontage of the Kravica warehouse?
3 A. Yes, that's the north aspect of the warehouse as we discovered it
4 in September 2000. I think that photograph must have been taken in
5 October 2000.
6 Q. And perhaps we should scroll down so we can see also the second
7 image. If we can try to have both as best possible on the screen at the
8 same time, and if you can explain what are the differences?
9 A. As I said, we went back to the warehouse to look at the baseline
10 of where we suspected the original doorway was, and we found quite
11 definite witness marks on the ground. When I say "witness marks," there
12 has been a compression of the open box girders pressing on the ground for
13 a period of time which should -- created either a rust stain or a
14 compression in the soil or the surface which remained once the -- once
15 the frame itself had been removed. So from that we could ascertain the
16 width of the doorway, and from the recovered open box girders from
17 Glogova 1 site, we could ascertain the height of the doorway.
18 From that, the measurements of the fixed prefabricated slabs that
19 slotted into the wall construction, allowed us to precisely place the
20 original doorway, show the dimensions of the original doorway, but also
21 show the missing fins, one of the fins that had been demolished during
22 the gaining of access or increasing slightly the size of the aperture of
23 the doorway to get that digger in.
24 Q. And I know you have now mentioned a couple of times, and given a
25 clarification of the meaning of "witness marks," but if I may I would
1 like to paraphrase what I understand and make sure this is going to be
2 correct on the record. You are saying that there were marks that you
3 were able to identify on the ground at the site of the doorway which
4 allowed you to establish the size of the original doorway even though
5 that was no longer in place when you visited the warehouse. Have I got
6 it roughly right?
7 A. That's a good summary, yes.
8 MR. ELDERKIN: And if we could go on to the next page in the
9 report, please. This is a chart which -- perhaps we could zoom in just
10 towards the top so we can see some of what's on the screen. This is a
11 chart, as far as I can see, of items listed by grave.
12 Q. Could you tell us what this chart is cataloguing? What does it
13 show us?
14 A. Well, a scenes of crime officer in a domestic situation would,
15 let's say, collect the exhibit, list the exhibits, and suggest to the
16 investigating officer a way forward in comparison of the control samples
17 against the samples found elsewhere. So as you see in the chart that
18 I've prepared here, in black I have listed the samples; in red I have
19 suggested the comparison, the forensic comparison or the investigative
21 Q. So is it correct that your investigation involved collecting
22 control samples of materials present at the Kravica warehouse and in one
23 instance also the tiles from one of the destroyed houses in Glogova, and
24 then you would compare materials found in the Glogova graves to see
25 whether they matched those samples?
1 A. That's correct. Such was the nature of the control samples taken
2 and the scientific comparison, that would have to be made -- that would
3 have to be made by forensic scientists of the particular skill required.
4 In respect of the girder that was found in Glogova, one in the grave, one
5 within the spoil, we were able to compare the two girders at a right
6 angle, and because there was evidence of a broken weld, placing the
7 broken weld next to each other, it was obvious to either scientist, it
8 was obvious to the naked eye that those two welds formed a perfect
9 visible fit. Those were obviously photographed in that position with a
10 scale next to which, should they need to be submitted, that would be on
11 view for confirmation.
12 MR. ELDERKIN: Your Honours, I would ask if a packet of
13 photographs that is currently marked as 65 ter 7524, provisionally, could
14 be added to our 65 ter list. These are photographs from the
15 investigation that Mr. Hedley carried out. They have only just been
16 disclosed to the Defence. I believe a set of around 50 photos was given
17 to the Defence on CD, I've also provided hard copies of around a dozen
18 images to the Defence before Court this afternoon, and I understand that
19 there isn't an objection to their addition if Your Honours would agree to
20 that. They are -- involve showing objects that were found both at the
21 warehouse and in the graves, and in some cases are marked with
22 identifying numbers that are mentioned in the expert report itself.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Your request is only related to the 13
24 photographs listed in this -- in your Defence list of exhibits; is that
1 MR. ELDERKIN: In the Prosecution list of exhibits. Yes, that's
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes. You don't have a Defence list. Sorry, yes.
4 You are right. The reason is that in your list you used the term
5 "Defence list of potential exhibits," and I took this -- or perhaps I --
6 no, this is indeed your list and the heading is --
7 MR. ELDERKIN: Your Honour, I believe the two lists today are
8 identical, in fact. I think the Defence have copied our list for their
9 proposed exhibits.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Oh, now I realise what happened here. It looked
11 so similar. Thank you very much for this clarification.
12 Mr. Tolimir, Mr. Gajic, is there any objection to add these
13 photographs to the 65 ter exhibit list?
14 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we have no objection,
15 but the list of our exhibits is identical with the Prosecution schedule
16 in keeping with the instructions of the Trial Chamber that whatever we
17 intend to use we must put on the schedule.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. Leave is granted to add
19 these photographs to the list.
20 MR. ELDERKIN: Thank you very much, Your Honours.
21 And if we could have that exhibit up -- or that 65 ter document
22 up on the screen, it's 7524. And if I may, I would ask that we could
23 start at page 3. It would make more sense in the sequence if I do it
24 this way.
25 Q. Now, sir, we have already seen a few images now of the doorway at
1 Kravica. Just for some background, before we look at some more images
2 closer up, does this look the way the doorway was when you were visiting
3 the crime scene in 2000?
4 A. That's correct, yes.
5 MR. ELDERKIN: If we could go to page 2 now, please. And in
6 fact, if we could zoom in to the centre where you can see a small white
7 label on the metal lattice there.
8 Q. Now, sir, can you tell us what we can see here both in terms of
9 the material in the picture but also the labeling which I note states
10 GL01 053A.
11 A. I am just checking on my proposed comparison list for that
12 particular artefact number. I am afraid that doesn't help me at all, and
13 it appears to be a place where I might have taken a control sample from;
14 otherwise, I can't see the significance.
15 Q. Were GL numbers ever used -- But first of all, what does a GL
16 number signify?
17 A. Yes, right. That's -- when we first visited the site, Kravica
18 KA01 was not designated, so we collected control samples but entered them
19 into the Glogova 1 log. They were stored within the log but stored
20 separately within the artefact box. When authority was received from the
21 investigating team to designate Kravica as a crime scene, it was then it
22 was given the KA01 designation. At that point we transferred the control
23 samples from the Glogova 1 log into the Kravica log. So what you see in
24 there is a Glogova artefact number which subsequently became a Kravica
25 artefact number.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 MR. ELDERKIN: And could we now zoom out from that image to see
3 the whole of that picture.
4 Q. Looking at that, does that give you any better idea of what we
5 are seeing and what kind of materials are visible in the image?
6 A. Well, we have got concrete with reinforcing bars going through
7 it. There is a wire mesh gate above it. I don't recognise -- can't
8 describe what the silver item is. It could have been -- it could well
9 have been a hinge mechanism.
10 MR. ELDERKIN: And if we could go back to page 3 in e-court
11 again, just see whether we can place that image, the one we are just
12 looking at now, the one we see --
13 THE WITNESS: It's quite clear now. The metal strip on the
14 left-hand side of the doorway did, in fact, form a make-shift hinge for
15 the mesh door which, incidentally didn't have any damage to it in terms
16 of bullet holes or any blast marks on it.
17 MR. ELDERKIN:
18 Q. Okay. And I will just go through a sequence of the other photos
19 in this packet and ask you, as each one comes up, to comment, if you can,
20 on what we see.
21 MR. ELDERKIN: So can we go to page 1 on e-court.
22 THE WITNESS: That's a piece of concrete recovered from one of
23 the graves. I think I describe it in the report as being 700 millimetres
24 square. As you can see there's bullet damage to the front of it.
25 MR. ELDERKIN: And could we go to page 4 in e-court, please.
1 THE WITNESS: Yes, we saw that previously in Jean-Rene's
2 photograph. It shows the girder removed from, I think, grave G, but I
3 must double-check on that.
4 MR. ELDERKIN:
5 Q. And just to be clear about the difference in terminology between
6 you and Professor Wright, is this what you would call an open-box girder
7 and he would call a rolled seal joist?
8 A. That's correct. We are talking about one and the same thing.
9 MR. ELDERKIN: And if we could see page 8 in e-court, please.
10 THE WITNESS: That's -- we went through the process of putting it
11 through the two, the upright and the horizontal together at the welded
12 point to show the physical fit.
13 MR. ELDERKIN:
14 Q. And where were these items found?
15 A. One of the girders was found in grave G, the other girder was
16 found in the spoil, initially, when the surface of the grave was taken
18 Q. And were you able to establish where they've come from?
19 A. We're pretty certain by the dimensions of the open box section
20 that they originally formed the doorway of the Kravica warehouse.
21 MR. ELDERKIN: Could we have page 9, please.
22 THE WITNESS: Well, it's not a particularly good photograph that,
23 because it's pretty well shaded. But you can see the -- I mean, I can't
24 make it out there, but -- is there a better photograph?
25 MR. ELDERKIN: I believe there is a photo of one part of this.
1 We can look at page 7, although it doesn't show the angle of the join.
2 THE WITNESS: I see, yes. You can see the weld mark up on the
3 left of the bracket.
4 MR. ELDERKIN:
5 Q. Is this the item you were talking about when you described a weld
6 that could be seen to match?
7 A. I am afraid the photograph isn't as clear as I recall it. We
8 took some quite definite shots which were -- which showed that perfect
9 physical fit.
10 Q. I won't ask you to see things that aren't easy to see.
11 MR. ELDERKIN: Your Honours, I see it's the break and I've
12 probably got two to three minutes left and then I will be done with these
13 photos and also with the witness. So if you don't mind continuing --
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You should continue and then we will have our
16 MR. ELDERKIN: Page 11, please.
17 THE WITNESS: That shows a component part of the doorway and the
18 buckled metal. Now, this damage -- some of this damage could have been
19 caused during the excavation, because as I say we were using a backhoe,
20 truck with a backhoe to take out the earth.
21 MR. ELDERKIN:
22 Q. Again, where was this found, just for the record?
23 A. Again, I would have to go back to the log. It was found at
24 Glogova, and it refers to Glogova 368A. If you have copies of the log,
25 that would help.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 MR. ELDERKIN: Page 12, please.
3 THE WITNESS: That shows us the collection of white painted
4 concrete that was found within the grave. It shows one artefact number
5 which was the policy adopted by Professor Wright because of the number of
6 pieces that were coming up. For the purposes of mapping we had to show
7 the spread of the finds. So I subsequently took representative samples
8 from those particular stones for submission for comparison.
9 MR. ELDERKIN: Page 13, please.
10 THE WITNESS: That shows a selection of the motor vehicle parts,
11 and I see there were also tools which were found within the grave.
12 MR. ELDERKIN: And finally, could we see page 6.
13 Q. And we have already talked about the blue tiles, but I just want
14 to look at one of those images.
15 A. Yeah, that was found within the grave. The exact location would
16 be shown under GL01 240A.
17 MR. ELDERKIN: And if we go to page 10.
18 Q. Now, here you've already read back to us part of the report where
19 you described taking a control sample from the destroyed house and in the
20 report you refer to GL01 266A. Does what we see here then reflect the
21 control sample that was taken from the destroyed house?
22 A. That would be the case, yes.
23 MR. ELDERKIN: Your Honours, I would ask if the photo packet
24 could be admitted, please.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The 13 photographs will be received as an
2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter document 7524 shall be
3 assigned Exhibit P2592. Thank you, Your Honours.
4 MR. ELDERKIN:
5 Q. Just to finish up with that, the blue tile story. So could you
6 tell us then the locations where you took controls for blue tiles and
7 where also you found evidence of blue tiles?
8 A. Evidence of broken blue tiles was found within the graves of
9 Glogova 1 site. The control sample for the purposes of comparison were
10 taken from Kravica warehouse, and this particular sample was taken for
11 elimination from one of the demolished houses.
12 MR. ELDERKIN: Your Honours, I have no further questions.
13 Witness, thank you very much. And I'm sorry to keep everyone
14 five minutes longer.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much, Mr. Elderkin. We must have
16 our first break now and we will resume after half an hour, at 20 minutes
17 past 4.00, and after that Mr. Tolimir is commencing his
19 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We adjourn.
21 --- Recess taken at 3.51 p.m.
22 [The witness stands down]
23 [The witness takes the stand]
24 --- On resuming at 4.22 p.m.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Hedley, as I told you earlier, Mr. Tolimir is
1 now conducting his cross-examination. I would kindly ask you again to
2 speak a little bit more slowly, especially when you are mentioning names.
3 Please, it is -- we need everything on the record, and if it's not there,
4 then, then it doesn't exist, and that would be not very favourable.
5 Please slow down and speak up a little bit, because the interpreters
6 don't understand you properly.
7 THE WITNESS: I will do my best, sir.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, please, your cross-examination.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
10 May God's peace reign supreme in this courtroom and may God's
11 will be done today in these proceedings, and not necessarily mine.
12 Cross-examination by Mr. Tolimir:
13 Q. [Interpretation] I would like to welcome the witness to say
14 courtroom. I will have a few questions with regard to your report, sir.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could I please call up the report
16 in e-court. We saw it before the break, 52591 is the number. Let's look
17 at page 4.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, I think you are referring to the --
19 to the report of Mr. Hedley; is that correct? This is now P2591. Try,
20 please, to use that number. We have a quite different one on the record
21 at the moment.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
23 Thank you, I apologise. It is 65 ter 7519, thank you.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Indeed. And this is now P2591. But the number
25 is -- the 65 ter number is incorrectly recorded again. It is
1 65 ter 7519.
2 Mr. Tolimir, please go ahead.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Let us
4 look at page 4 in the report. The title is: "Professional Experience."
5 Q. I am reading the Serbian version. I suppose it will be the same
6 in English as well. Thank you.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Just for the record this is page 3 in English in
8 e-court. Thank you.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Let's look at page 3 in
10 English and let's look at the second paragraph.
11 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Where you say in lines 4 through 8:
13 [As read] "He attended the exhumation of eight grave-sites in
14 Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, his responsibility being the
15 identification, recording, collection, packaging, security, and
16 continuity of custody of all the evidence recovered from each site. In
17 all, this accounted for nearly 600 bodies and many hundreds of body parts
18 and associated exhibits (artefacts)."
19 My question is this: When you were in Croatia and in Bosnia and
20 Herzegovina, does this number of over 600 bodies and body parts refer to
21 your work in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina? Thank you.
22 A. It includes both those -- both those states, yes.
23 Q. Thank you. Do you have data for each of the states and each of
24 the localities where you worked? Do you have separate data for each of
1 A. No, I don't have that. I'd have to confer and come back to you
2 with that.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please speak up a little bit, a bit louder if
5 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Thank you. Would we find information on that in your report with
7 regard to the site in Glogova? Thank you.
8 A. No. That was not my field of expertise in assessing numbers of
9 individuals and body parts. That would have been in Professor Wright's
11 Q. Thank you.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let us now go to page 4 in your
13 report and let us now look at the first paragraph. The title of that
14 page is: "Glogova 01." It's the next page in e-court, thank you.
15 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
16 Q. "On the 23rd of August ...," I am reading the first paragraph.
17 [As read] "On the 23rd of August, 2000, the ICTY forensic
18 exhumation team commenced work to uncover the site of an alleged mass
19 grave situated at a location identified as Glogova 01. The site was
20 designated the site code GL01. (Map reference 61 degrees, 0.5 north and
21 96 degrees, 2 east).
22 "Information has been received alleging that during July 1995,
23 male victims, believed to lie within the grave, had been part of a group
24 who had walked the mountain route from Potocari and Srebrenica towards
1 My question is this, sir: Can you tell us when it comes to
2 Glogova, people went missing en route from Potocari and Srebrenica
3 towards Tuzla, were their bodies also found in this Glogova grave? Thank
5 A. On that page I am purely describing my understanding of the
6 situation that I understood it to be at the time, so I can't answer that
7 question. I have no knowledge of the history of the event in that
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please, let us go to page 6 in this
10 report. I am calling up page 6. The title is: "Kravica Warehouse." It
11 is page 5 in English, thank you.
12 Q. We are interested in paragraph 2 on page 5. The part in
13 quotation marks, in italics, I am going to read.
14 "The warehouse was identified at an early stage as an execution
15 site of Bosnian Muslims and has been subject of several searches by ICTY
16 investigators and a subsequent forensic examination was carried out
17 between the 30th September and the 1st October 1996 by investigators from
18 the United States Naval Criminal Investigations Service. Officers
19 recovered 149 representative blood, hair, and tissue samples from the
20 building, and subsequent analysis revealed 142 of these samples contained
21 human DNA."
22 My question: Was it established whether the 149 samples of human
23 DNA which were identified from the Kravica warehouse were identical to
24 the DNA samples from Glogova 01 site?
25 A. I can't confirm that. The reason why that particular extract is
1 in the report and it's an extract from Dean Manning's report, it was
2 placed in there purely and simply to indicate that my examination was not
3 the first examination. This was one of very many examinations, so the
4 accused would have to refer to Dean Manning's report and any results
5 arising from those DNA samples.
6 Q. Mr. Hedley, do you know whether the subsequent analysis of the
7 149 samples was carried out in the United States or right there on the
8 site or elsewhere? Do you know that?
9 A. I do not know that. No.
10 Q. Thank you, Mr. Hedley.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And now can we look at page 15 --
12 or 16 in Serbian, which would be number 15 in English. If it's 16 in
13 Serbian, it must be 15 in English. We are still looking at the report.
14 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation].
15 Q. Thank you. My legal assistant is going to help me with this.
16 Let's see what we are looking for --
17 THE REGISTRAR: For the record, this is page 12 in English in
18 e-court. Thank you.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to thank the Registry.
20 I need the previous page, number 11 in e-court, both in Serbian
21 and in English, thank you. And I apologise for not being very precise in
22 calling up the pages in e-court. I have somewhat dated material in front
23 of me and the page numbers do not exactly tally.
24 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
25 Q. On page 8 of the report, you stated that on the 7th of September,
1 2001, you carried out the first inspection of the areas; is that correct?
2 I am talking about Kravica warehouse.
3 A. That's correct. I've found the page, now. On the 7th of
4 September I undertook the first of six visits.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Elderkin.
6 MR. ELDERKIN: I am just rising for a correction. I believe
7 General Tolimir talked about 2001. When I read the report it reads 2000.
8 Perhaps we could confirm that, for the record.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Hedley, you are referring to which year?
10 THE WITNESS: 7th of September, 2000.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
12 Mr. Tolimir, please carry on.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you,
14 Mr. Elderkin.
15 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
16 Q. And then you said on page 14 -- which is actually not page 14 but
17 page 2, you say that your last visit to Kravica warehouse was on the
18 20th of October 2000; is that correct?
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. Thank you. In view of the fact that between the 7th September
21 2000 to 20th October 2000 you visited the location six times. Could you
22 please tell us whether during the period of six weeks was Kravica
23 warehouse continuously secured? Were there guards throughout all that
24 time when you decided to carry out your inspection visits to the Kravica
1 A. No, sir. It was not secured.
2 Q. Thank you. You said that we should refer to Mr. Wright's report
3 because he was the team leader for forensic exhumations. Let us look at
4 his report drafted for the year 2001. He claims in his report that 249
5 body parts were found in Glogova and that they were placed in a total of
6 32 body packs. Do you remember that that was indeed done? You said on
7 page 3 in e-court that you were in charge of safe-keeping the evidence
8 and artefacts exhumed from all of these graves?
9 A. I couldn't confirm those figures. No, I didn't count the bodies.
10 They would correspond with the site log.
11 Q. Thank you. In that case let's please look at P873, page 3. This
12 is Mr. Wright's report and a short summary thereof. Thank you.
13 And while we're waiting for the document to appear, I would like
14 to look at it together with you because you wanted us to refer to
15 Mr. Wright's report. You said that on page 5. You mentioned his name.
16 I am going to read his words back to you.
17 [As read] "In September and October 2000, I supervised a team
18 that found and exhumed a series of graves dug by heavy machinery at the
19 site called Glogova 1, in eastern Bosnia and west of Bratunac. We
20 exhumed 191 bodies. Severe robbing of the graves by heavy machinery, and
21 removal of an unknown number of the original bodies, means that 191 is a
22 minimum number. Many of the bodies show signs of blast damage; remains
23 of exploded grenades were found with the bodies, together with rifle
24 bullets. Several objects considered to be from the Kravica warehouse
25 were found in the graves, and Mr. Michael Hedley is writing a separate
1 report on the connection between the warehouse and Glogova 1."
2 My question to you, sir, is this: Was the total number of bodies
3 found at Glogova 1 indeed 191? You have just heard a summary of
4 Mr. Wright's report on the site. So bearing that in mind, could you
5 please answer my question? Thank you.
6 A. I am neither qualified nor had an involvement in the assessment
7 of the bodies. This would have been done possibly by Professor Wright,
8 most likely at the mortuary. I was purely the scene of crime officer who
9 was handling the bodies, handling the body parts, and handling the
11 Q. Thank you. Please, did you secure them, did you guard them as it
12 says on page 3 in e-court? It says on that page, and I have just quoted
13 the summary back to you where it says that you were in charge of guarding
14 the material exhumed from each of those graves? Thank you.
15 A. I just say there might be an error in the translation. The fact
16 of guarding. I never physically guarded the exhibits. I was responsible
17 for their security in that I was provided with refrigerated containers.
18 Each had a means of locking the containers. I was supplied with
19 padlocks. Onsite I had an artefact box. That also had a padlock when we
20 left it unattended. When a body was recovered from the grave or body
21 parts were recovered from the grave in any number, we would carry those
22 down to the locked refrigerated container. We would open the container,
23 we would put the body parts or bodies in the container. And then we
24 would relock it. We would walk back to our SOCO station and then resume
25 our duties. At the end of the day, or perhaps more than once a day, we
1 would take the recovered artefacts, we would carry them down to the
2 secure container, unlock the container, place the items in there, lock
3 it, and then return to our duties.
4 At the end of the day we ensured that that the containers were
5 locked. We had a permanent presence on-site of UN security officers, and
6 I was satisfied that the recovered bodies, body parts, and artefacts were
7 secure whilst in my possession.
8 Q. Thank you. Since Professor Wright said 191 bodies were found,
9 exhumed, is there a possibility that more bodies were exhumed at that
10 location or just the number quoted by Professor Wright who is in charge
11 of the exhumations and the analysis for Glogova 1 and Glogova 2?
12 A. I am just not qualified to answer that question. I have not go
13 knowledge of a minimum number of individuals of combing more bodies or
14 whatever. We were purely -- as scenes of crime officers we were told
15 there was a body or we were told it was a body part, and we logged it
17 Q. Thank you. In the report P170, page 12 in English, Mr. Janc said
18 that 224 persons were identified in Glogova 1 and 169 in Glogova 2 which
19 in total is 393. My question is: In view of the data presented by
20 Mr. Wright and Mr. Janc, how do you explain this difference between 191
21 and 393 in localities of Glogova 1 and Glogova 2?
22 A. I can't explain it at all. As I say the designation of B, body,
23 or BP, body part, was given to me by an anthropologist or an archeologist
24 or, in fact, Professor Wright on site. And that was how it was recorded.
25 I don't know whether they were re-recorded in the mortuary when they were
1 found, perhaps, to be a body, or there might have been less elements
2 present, so redesignated as a body part.
3 Q. Thank you. Mr. Hedley, can you tell us who had supervision over
4 the bodies and body parts?
5 A. Supervision. Once they were removed from the grave I had
6 supervision of the body bags which contained bodies or body parts. They
7 were assigned B or a BP number. They were stored within the container,
8 the refrigerated container on the site. There was never a discrepancy on
9 our log sheet to that which we handed over to the mortuary at the end of
10 a particular period. So yes, I had security. I never lost anything.
11 Q. Thank you, Mr. Hedley. Does that mean that when Mr. Wright who
12 said there were 190 bodies, there is a discrepancy with the number that
13 you --
14 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter apologises. Mr. Tolimir needs
15 to repeat his question. It was not understood.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, the interpreters didn't understand
17 your question. Please repeat it.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I'll repeat.
19 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Mr. Hedley, was there a comparison between the number of bodies
21 and body parts that you found and the number presented by
22 Professor Wright who said that there were only 191; whereas, some more
23 body parts were found? Were they found to be identical and is there an
24 explanation for any discrepancy?
25 A. All of the information Professor Wright would be basing his
1 figures on, I would suspect, came from the log sheets which we kept. So
2 comparing Professor Wright's figures, the log sheet would, I assume, give
3 him that number. I didn't physically count them. I didn't keep a tally
4 of how many bodies, how many body parts, and how many artefacts. I
5 purely and simply recorded them and ensured their safe custody. I didn't
6 take anything away or add anything to them.
7 Q. Thank you, Mr. Hedley. I am not blaming you for that. I am just
8 asking if the figures of Mr. Wright were identical to yours for Glogova 1
9 and 2 at the time of exhumations and at the time when you were in charge
10 of safe-keeping?
11 A. I will have to ask Mr. Tolimir to repeat that question. I didn't
12 quite understand. May I read it off the screen?
13 Q. Thank you. You can see the summary on the screen. In line 4,
14 you see, "We exhumed 191 bodies." Can you see that sentence?
15 A. I'm sorry. On which screen?
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: On the screen with the document with the heading:
17 "Summary Findings."
18 THE WITNESS: Again, this is Professor Wright's figures, and you
19 quoted from Mr. Janc's figures. I am not familiar with either of them.
20 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Let's leave Mr. Janc aside. I am asking you to tell the
22 Trial Chamber, is it possible that the number of bodies recorded by
23 Professor Wright in his final analysis is identical to the number of
24 bodies you safe-guarded at localities of Glogova 1 and Glogova 2?
25 A. I would have to carry out an audit of the log sheet and compare
1 the number of Bs in the B column and see whether we had 191 Bs.
2 Q. Thank you. I was asking only about Glogova 1, actually. Not
3 Glogova 2. I am asking you again: Is it possible that there are
4 discrepancies in numbers because Professor Wright quotes the figure of
5 191 bodies found at Glogova 1. Is it possible that more bodies or fewer
6 bodies were found?
7 A. I don't think so. We logged each body, each body part, and each
8 artefact that came out of the grave at Glogova 1. If I was told by the
9 exhuming anthropologist or archeologist it was a body, I was assign it a
10 "B" suffix. So therefore any count of the bodies coming from Glogova 1,
11 it would a count of the Bs within the columns, the columns of the
12 designated numbers.
13 Q. Thank you, Mr. Hedley. Let's go to another issue.
14 Professor Wright said 191 bodies were exhumed at Glogova 1; whereas,
15 Mr. Janc, in his report, said 224 bodies were exhumed.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, before you move to another issue,
17 Judge Nyambe has a question.
18 JUDGE NYAMBE: I just want to clear my understanding. Is it your
19 testimony that you received the body parts or the bodies and artefacts
20 from an archeologist or an anthropologist, you logged it in; and
21 subsequently, Professor Wright used your log sheet to compare his own
22 report with regard to these 191.
23 THE WITNESS: I would assume that. He would certainly have a
24 copy of the whole of the logs from which he would extract his
1 JUDGE NYAMBE: So it is okay to say your -- it is okay to say his
2 figures and yours should tally.
3 THE WITNESS: They should tally, yes.
4 JUDGE NYAMBE: Okay, thanks.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Judge Mindua has a question.
6 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Yes, Witness Mr. Hedley. You have
7 talked about the total number of bodies and body parts with which you
8 worked and that was 600. And here you are telling us that you are not
9 qualified to determine whether something is a body or a body part and it
10 is Professor Wright who is qualified to talk about that or perhaps
11 another anthropologist or archeologist. Now, concerning your work in
12 Croatia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina that involved 600 bodies and body
13 parts, this number, 600, who gave it to you?
14 THE WITNESS: That either came from my scenes of crime manager at
15 the mortuary or, perhaps, Dean Manning. And it was just an indication in
16 my preamble of my experience as to how much experience I had to give you
17 an indication attaching to my CV. I didn't personally identify each one
18 as a body. It was purely and simply from the records which were
19 available to the people -- the persons I asked.
20 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Very well, thank you. Then - and
21 now please correct me if I'm wrong, because I want to understand this,
22 what you're work involved. Your report had the purpose of establishing a
23 link between mass graves, notably Kravica -- or, sorry, the mass graves
24 of Glogova 1 and 2, and the Kravica warehouse. Is that correct or not?
25 THE WITNESS: No. The purpose of the report was to show a
1 connection between Kravica warehouse and Glogova 1, not Glogova 2.
2 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] All right. Thank you. And that's
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, please carry on.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
6 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Mr. Hedley, was Mr. Manning also in Croatia because this number
8 of 600 bodies and body parts is a number that you presented for the whole
9 theatre of war in Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as Croatia. Was
10 Mr. Manning in Croatia as well?
11 A. No, sir. He was part of the Srebrenica team, but he could have
12 given me part of the -- if, in fact, it was Dean Manning, he could have
13 given me part of the figure. It could have been given by my SOCO
14 supervisor from the mortuary who could have given me the other part of
15 the figure who was in both Croatia and, of course, involved in the
16 Srebrenica post-mortems.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we now look at P170, page 12
19 in English. That's the report of Mr. Janc where he said that Glogova 1
20 identified 224 persons.
21 THE WITNESS: I can't answer that. I have never read Mr. Janc's
22 report. I don't know what he's basing his figures on.
23 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Look, please, at this table, where he says -- the first table,
25 where he says Glogova 1, 224 bodies identified. My question to you is,
1 is it an increase in the number of 31 over Professor Wright's figure of
3 A. But you use the word "identified," was that the identity of the
4 victims? Because identity of a victim could come from a body part.
5 Q. Thank you. He identified individuals, 224 individuals, that
6 means those are bodies, not body parts; whereas, Professor Wright said
7 191 bodies were exhumed. He never spoke about body parts.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Elderkin.
9 MR. ELDERKIN: General Tolimir should please refer to the part in
10 Dusan Janc's report where he's saying that these are identifications
11 bodies and not body parts. My understanding of Dusan Janc's report is
12 that he is talking about DNA identifications and does not specify whether
13 DNA extraction comes specifically from bodies only or also comes from
14 body parts as Mr. Hedley rightly indicated is possible. So if there is
15 that reference, I'd like to hear it. If it's not there, then please
16 could the question be rephrased.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Elderkin. I will
20 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Mr. Hedley, you see this report, this table, where Mr. Janc says
22 224 individuals. My question is, can you tell us how come that he quotes
23 more individuals in Glogova 1 than Professor Wright who was in charge of
25 A. I read the paragraph above, and it says:
1 "DNA examinations by ICMP of human remains located within the
2 Glogova 1 grave indicate the following numbers of Srebrenica victims."
3 So I assume that they found 224 individuals as a result of DNA
4 testing, but I would suspect that the discrepancy is come from the
5 testing of body parts.
6 Q. Thank you, Mr. Hedley. But tell us, the people who are doing the
7 analysis, other than pathologists and experts, are they allowed to
8 increase the total number presented by Professor Wright who said there
9 were 191 individuals identified? That he exhumed 191 bodies.
10 A. That's totally beyond the realm of my experience and knowledge.
11 I just can't answer the question. If Professor Wright has mentioned the
12 figure 191, I would assume he took it off the Glogova 1 evidence log.
13 What happened subsequently, I really can't answer.
14 Q. Thank you. Mr. Hedley, on 28 April this year, Witness PW-064
15 testified here, page 15439, lines 16 to 23. And he said investigation
16 showed that there were -- the investigation of the OTP revealed that
17 there were 1.301 bodies buried in the Glogova mass grave. Are you
18 surprised by this figure?
19 My question is: Does this huge number, 1.301 as opposed to 191,
20 show that the OTP investigation considerably increased this number, and
21 is the Prosecution allowed to do this with the figures produced by
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, I don't recall this specific
24 evidence of another witness. You should indicate if you are referring --
25 if this witness was referring to Glogova 1 or Glogova 2 or even to other
1 mass grave-sites. To compare these figures without a clear indication to
2 which grave-site these numbers refer, it is not a fair way to do that. I
3 think we need some more information.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
5 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
6 Q. You see this page on the screen, Glogova 2, 169 individuals.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Now you are --
8 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Sorry, 169 --
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Now you are referring again to the report of
11 Mr. Janc. The present witness, Mr. Hedley, said he never read this
12 report. It's quite difficult for him to comment on these numbers, but
13 just a minute ago you were referring to the evidence of another witness,
14 a protected witness. You should give us the opportunity to look at the
15 transcript at the relevant page or you should indicate if you are
16 referring to Glogova 1 or Glogova 2 or both or to whatever a mass grave.
17 But if we have that on the screen, we should not broadcast that part of
18 the transcript.
19 Perhaps the Court can produce it and put it on the screen.
20 But, Mr. Tolimir, you reviewed the transcript, you should be in
21 the position to give us a clear indication what you are referring to.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I read from page 13439,
23 lines 16 through 23, testimony from 28 April, 2011, protected witness
24 064. I can tell you the name if you wish, but we would need to move into
25 private session, although I don't think it's really necessary.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: If it is not broadcast, you may continue.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
3 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
4 Q. I was reading out the question by the Prosecutor to this witness,
5 and I would now like to go back to the previous document, the report of
6 Mr. Janc.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No, we want to have the opportunity to look at
8 the transcript. Where can we find these figures? Mr. Tolimir, please
9 point that out.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. This is
11 the right page, and the lines 16 through 23 are now marked.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, the question of the Prosecutor was
13 related to this Glogova grave-site. I don't know which grave-site this
14 was. And then the answer is, I quote:
15 "It's probably a credible figure because there was work at the
16 location for five or six days. I was there for only limited periods of
17 time, and if my assumption is that between 4- and 500 people were buried
18 there when I was there, then the total you presented may well be a
19 credible number."
20 So this is what we can take from the transcript. But there is
21 only a reference to a Glogova grave-site, and therefore the question
22 remains open if this is a reference to Glogova 1, Glogova 2, or even
23 other grave-sites. Please carry on.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
25 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Mr. Hedley, were only at Glogova 1?
2 A. Yes, that was the only grave I attended.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we now look at P170, page 12
5 in English, the report of Mr. Janc. He, as an OTP investigator, deals
6 with both grave-sites, Glogova 1 and Glogova 2.
7 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
8 Q. And the total he mentions is 393 individuals, identified from
9 both localities, Glogova 1 and Glogova 2. At Glogova 1, 242; and at
10 Glogova 2, 169; which is in total 393. How can that suddenly turn into
11 1.131, which is the figure found by the OTP as opposed to the figure
12 produced by anthropologists and archeologists?
13 A. I can't answer the question. I am not qualified. I am not
14 familiar with the figures. I am not the right person to ask.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is not the first time the witness is giving
16 this answer because it was not in the limits of his duties over there, as
17 we all know.
18 Please continue.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I am
20 just trying to get his views with regard to the report that was published
21 on behalf of the witness. I did not subtract anything. I didn't add
22 anything, and I'm just quoting the Prosecutor's findings from a locality
23 that this witness investigated and analysed, and there is a huge
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I don't want to discuss the matter with you.
1 Please carry on and put the next question to the witness.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
3 Let us now look at annex 3 to your report. Thank you.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I would like to correct the figure on page 57,
5 line 2 [sic], the report said not "242 individuals identified from
6 Glogova 1," but in the report it was "224." Thank you.
7 Mr. Tolimir.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I
9 previously called up annex 3. This is an overview of the area and graves
10 at Glogova 01, but I don't have that on the screen. Thank you. Now I
11 have it. It's page 24 in English, thank you. Can we have both pages and
12 can they be zoomed in for the benefit of the witness.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: In the meantime, I would like to make another
14 correction. I didn't say "page 57, line 2," but "57, line 13" of today's
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
17 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Sir, what we have here is a table referring to Glogova 01,
19 Kravica warehouse. This is where you represented area A, area B, grave
20 C, grave E, grave F, grave H, grave K, grave L. These are just the
21 totals from this table. My question to you, sir, is this: In his
22 report, was Mr. Wright in charge of all of those graves and is the number
23 of 191 bodies the total number of bodies exhumed from all the graves, and
24 where -- did you attend all of the graves that you mention in your
25 report? Thank you.
1 A. We were on call for each one of those graves. They obviously all
2 didn't come together. They were uncovered one at a time. And we would
3 receive from those graves bodies, body parts, and artefacts, which we
4 dealt with in the way I previously described.
5 Q. Thank you, my question was this: In graves C, E, F, H, and K,
6 were the 191 bodies described by Dr. Wright in his analysis and in the
7 summary that we read out before the break, were the 191 bodies exhumed
8 from those graves that are referred to in your report?
9 A. Again, it -- Professor Wright would report upon the bodies, the
10 locations, and the designation. I purely received them after they had
11 been designated. I never changed the designation. They remained as they
12 were given to me.
13 Q. Thank you, Mr. Hedley, for all of the answers you have provided.
14 Thank you for coming to testify here today. I don't have any more
15 questions for you. I wish you a safe journey back home. God bless you
16 in your future work and life.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the Defence has no
18 further questions of the witness. Thank you.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much, Mr. Tolimir.
20 Mr. Elderkin, do you have re-examination?
21 MR. ELDERKIN: If I may just on one topic, very briefly.
22 Re-examination by Mr. Elderkin:
23 MR. ELDERKIN: This concerns the questions that we heard,
24 including, for example, at page 57, lines 11 to 15, when General Tolimir
25 asked about the numbers of Glogova-related victims and how it was
1 possible that the number could be as high as 1.131.
2 Q. Mr. Hedley, do you know if any Srebrenica-related graves were
3 disturbed such that human remains were moved to other graves before ICTY
4 investigations began?
5 A. I am not sure. I don't have that information.
6 MR. ELDERKIN: That's all I have. Thank you.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Hedley, you will be pleased that this
8 concludes your examination here in this trial. Thank you very much that
9 you were able to come to The Hague and to provide us with your expertise
10 and your recollection. You are now free to return to your normal
11 activities. Thank you very much again.
12 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 [The witness withdrew]
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Elderkin.
15 MR. ELDERKIN: Your Honours, Ms. Hasan is leading the next
16 witness. If I may be excused and I can also then make sure that people
17 are heading into the courtroom to replace me.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. Yes, indeed. Have a good
20 MR. ELDERKIN: Thank you very much.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: In that case, to save some time, we should have
22 our second break now and resume at 6.00 and then start with the next
24 --- Recess taken at 5.29 p.m.
25 --- On resuming at 6.01 p.m.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The witness should be brought in, please. And
2 welcome to you, Ms. Hasan, back to the courtroom.
3 MS. HASAN: Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon,
4 Your Honours. Good afternoon to the Defence and to everyone else in and
5 around the courtroom.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I have to confess that my question at the
7 beginning of today's hearing about the length of cross-examination was
8 only because of my personal mistake. I didn't want to blame anybody, not
9 the Defence, not the Registry, not the staff of the Chamber. I just had
10 forgotten and was confused by another matter. I wanted to put that on
11 the record so that nobody has the feeling I would like to blame somebody.
12 [The witness entered court]
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please stand a moment. Good afternoon, sir.
14 Welcome to the courtroom. Would you please read aloud the affirmation on
15 the card which is shown to you now.
16 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
17 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. Now, please, sit down.
19 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And make yourself comfortable.
21 Ms. Hasan has questions for you. She is conducting the
23 Ms. Hasan, you have the floor.
24 WITNESS: JAN DE KOEIJER
25 Examination by Ms. Hasan:
1 Q. Good afternoon, witness.
2 A. Good afternoon.
3 Q. Could you pleases state your name for the record?
4 A. My name is Jan de Koeijer.
5 Q. What is your profession?
6 A. My profession is -- I am at the moment team leader of -- I'm a
7 forensic expert in document examination, but at the moment I am team
8 leader of a group that does interdisciplinary forensic research, but I
9 have been a document examiner for the past 20 years.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could page 62, line 4, please be corrected. We
11 have now another witness.
12 THE WITNESS: No, 19 years, sorry.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No, that was not in relation to you, but we have
14 a wrong name on the transcript. And could you please repeat the name
15 because your answer in relation to your name was not properly recorded.
16 THE WITNESS: Okay.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: As well. That was page 62, line 8.
18 THE WITNESS: My name is Johan de Koeijer. No, it's not Johan.
19 J-a-n de Koeijer. De Koeijer is correct in the transcript. Yes, that's
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I would kindly ask the court reporter to correct
22 line 4 of page 62. Ms. Hasan, please continue.
23 MS. HASAN:
24 Q. Let's start with your formal education. Do you have any degrees?
25 A. I've a degree in chemistry.
1 Q. And at what level is that?
2 A. Masters degree.
3 Q. Where did you obtain that degree from?
4 A. I obtained that degree in the University of Utrecht here in the
6 Q. What year did you obtain your degree?
7 A. I have to just check my resume. I'm sorry. I obtained my degree
8 in 1988.
9 Q. Mr. De Koeijer, I noticed that you are looking through some
10 papers that in front of you. Could you please just tell us what's in
11 that file that's before you?
12 A. Well, the papers I am just looking through is my resume, which I
13 have a Dutch and an English version, and the rest is the case file which
14 I have with me with the report and other matters dealing with the case.
15 Q. In terms of forensic document analysis, have you received any
16 training in that field?
17 A. Yes, I received a training of about four years before I did my
18 examination and became an expert, and this training was in-house training
19 at the Netherlands Forensic Institute.
20 Q. Can you tell us a little bit more about what that training
21 comprised of?
22 A. The training is training under a mentor, it's on the job
23 training, partially, so doing case work under supervision. It also deals
24 with taking courses in specifics like courses in law, courses in
25 statistics, courses in reporting, so we have a whole number of courses
1 which are the general courses each examiner must undergo, then we have
2 specific literature training, studying the literature dealing with
3 document examination and related topics.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Kindly slow down and please make pauses between
5 questions and answers. Thank you.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is a request for both speakers.
7 THE WITNESS: Okay.
8 MS. HASAN:
9 Q. Are forensic document examiners, do they typically receive a
10 license or do they receive any certification of any form?
11 A. At the Netherlands Forensic Institute we have a certification
12 programme where after -- well, two to four years of training, depending
13 on other activities, we undergo an exam, and this exam is with an
14 external expert present and another -- and other people on the
15 examination committee from within the institute. This certification is
16 repeated every four years.
17 Q. And when you say that certification is repeated, what does that
19 A. That entails that a similar committee is assembled every four
20 years, usually each time with a different external expert, and we go
21 through the same routine looking through case work. Usually we put in
22 four to six case reports and they are reviewed by the external expert and
23 questions are asked, and also it is looked into your resume to see if you
24 kept up with your training and kept up with international contacts and
25 things like that.
1 Q. And who else sits on this examination board?
2 A. We have besides the external expert, a principal scientist from
3 our institute, the head of the department, a person from our personnel
4 team, and a lawyer.
5 Q. When did you --
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please pause between question and answer.
7 MS. HASAN:
8 Q. Witness, when you did you receive your personal certification?
9 A. I received my personal certification in 1996.
10 Q. Are you a member of any professional bodies that are relevant to
11 the field of forensic document analysis?
12 A. Yes, I am a member of a number of bodies. One body here in the
13 Netherlands which is called Quality Circle on Documents and -- I just
14 have to see the translation. I'm sorry. I am not used to doing this in
16 Q. I believe --
17 A. Yeah, it's the Quality Circle on Documents, with members -- all
18 document examiners in Holland are a member of this. I am also a member
19 of the American Academy of Forensic Science, of the document section
20 there, and a member of the American Society of Question Document
22 Q. And I take it these are the professional bodies that you've
23 listed on page 1 of the English version of your --
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. -- CV?
1 A. That's right.
2 Q. And I see from your CV that you were on the steering committee of
3 the European Document Experts' Working Group?
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. Can you tell us just what projects that steering committee --
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please pause between question and answer and the
7 next question. We have some problems.
8 THE WITNESS: This steering committee -- this working group does
9 work on harmonisation of methods and techniques within the document
10 community, so we have done a lot of writing of methods relevant to
11 document examiners. Furthermore, we are combining areas of research in
12 documents, and we are organising conferences to help exchange knowledge
13 between document examiners within Europe.
14 Q. Have you authored any articles on these topics or on forensic
15 documents examination generally?
16 A. Yes, I have authored a number of articles on document
17 examination. Some on the more chemical aspects of ink analysis, and some
18 also on some physical examinations of ink and toner.
19 Q. And these articles that you've authored, have they been published
20 in peer-review journals?
21 A. Yes, all articles published -- are published -- they are all
22 published in the standard peer-review journals for forensic science.
24 Q. Do you hold any teaching positions?
25 A. Yes. I teach at a number of different locations, one is the
1 University of Amsterdam, a forensics course. The second is the
2 Hogeschool of Amsterdam, it's a technical college of Amsterdam, they also
3 have a forensics course. We also teach the judges and the lawyers in the
4 Netherlands specific to document examination, and I also teach an
5 international course on document examination given to mainly border
6 control police and people from other forensic labs which come to Holland
7 for this course.
8 Q. And in terms of the subject matter of the field itself, what
9 types of services do forensic examiners provide?
10 A. What type of service? What do you mean?
11 Q. In terms of what are the general tasks of domestics -- sorry, a
12 forensic examiner would be tasked to do?
13 A. At the NFI, we have two major types of cases, one is an analysis
14 of anonymous or threatening letters to determine the origin thereof; and
15 the second part is more general document examination, it could be
16 contracts, it could be bank documents, it could be fire-damaged
17 documents, water-damaged documents, all kinds of documents which are in
18 the -- which come to us from the police or from the prosecutor dealing
19 with criminal trials.
20 Q. And what sort of things are you looking for?
21 A. Well, we look for, for example, for authenticity of a document to
22 try and see if the document has undergone changes, and we will sometimes
23 need to determine if two documents come from the same source, to see if,
24 for example, a print is made by a specific printer. We can also, like,
25 in this case, if we have latent impressions or latent text or whatever to
1 try and enhance that and determine what was the original entries. So
2 it's quite broad aspect. Ink analysis is sometimes done to compare an
3 ink to a pen from a suspect, paper analysis. All kinds of different
5 Q. Thank you. And have you been trained in all these aspects of the
6 discipline that you have just described?
7 A. Yes, we have. That's partly the on-the-job training and partly
8 the chemistry background which I have.
9 Q. Where you are currently employed?
10 A. I am currently employed at the Netherlands Forensic Institute.
11 Q. And what is your current position?
12 A. Team leader of the interdisciplinary forensic science group.
13 Q. Is this an accredited institution?
14 A. Yes, the NFI has been accredited since 1994.
15 Q. Since when have you been employed with NFI?
16 A. 1992.
17 Q. And just to be clear, is NFI a governmental agency, or is it a
18 private enterprise?
19 A. It's a governmental agency.
20 Q. Does it belong to any particular ministry?
21 A. Yes, the Ministry of Justice and Security.
22 Q. And generally, during the course of your work with NFI you have
23 described the types of work that document examiners received, but with
24 your work with NFI, who is it that assigns you work?
25 A. Work is assigned by -- well, we get the request from either the
1 police, the prosecutor, or sometimes investigative judge.
2 Q. And can you describe your current responsibilities as head of the
3 interdisciplinary forensic science group?
4 A. My current responsibilities are the group -- the group I run now
5 is a group which deals with the larger cases which come into the
6 institute. There is the larger murder cases, for example, where a lot of
7 different requests are put into the institute within one case, and my
8 section co-ordinates these larger cases and sends out a co-ordinated
9 report on all the examinations done within the NFI.
10 Q. Now, do you recall when you received a request from the OTP for
11 which you're here to testify about?
12 A. Well, I don't recall it very specifically. It was to --
13 Q. The year?
14 A. Oh, the request to testify?
15 Q. No, sorry, I mean the request for you to produce a report, an
16 expert report?
17 A. Well, I --
18 Q. The year?
19 A. The year, well, it was in 1999. So my recollection of the
20 request itself was not so -- is not so vivid in my mind, but it was the
21 first -- I think it was the first case we did for the Tribunal so that
22 was -- well, in that -- in that effect it was memorable.
23 Q. And at the time that you received this request, what position did
24 you hold at NFI?
25 A. At that time I was senior forensic document examiner and also, I
1 believe, the head of the department for document and photography.
2 Q. Could you briefly describe your practice at that time in 1999?
3 A. At that time we had two document examiners, I think, myself and
4 my colleague, and -- well, the practice was mainly doing daily case work
5 and some research in documents. And -- well, some leadership issues but
6 it was mainly case-work driven.
7 Q. And how many cases would you say your section was involved in on
8 a yearly basis?
9 A. On a yearly basis we do between 100 and 200 cases. It used to be
10 a bit more, but it's going down at the moment, but so roughly between
11 those figures.
12 Q. And after you were a senior forensic document examiner, well, at
13 the time in 1999, did your position change at any point thereafter?
14 A. My position's changed quite a bit. In -- we have had
15 reorganisations within our institute. I have been head of the department
16 of document examination, finger-prints, and photography, and then I was
17 head of the document examination and photography, because finger-prints
18 went separately. Then there was a period when I was only senior document
19 examiner and someone else was head of that department. And the past two
20 years I have been head of the department of documents and handwriting --
21 or team leader of that department. And, well, now, I have just switched
22 to team leader of the new department.
23 Q. Okay. And if we can go back to 1999 when you were the head of
24 the document section. Were you, yourself, directly involved in the
25 examination of documents?
1 A. Yes, I was.
2 Q. Did you have any supervisory role?
3 A. Also, yes. I had a trainee at that time, and I also had a role
4 to supervise the work coming out of the photography department.
5 Q. Of the cases that you worked on in your section, you know, how
6 many of them, roughly, were for criminal cases?
7 A. That would be more than 90 per cent because the times that we
8 have a noncriminal case is very limited, so it would probably be 95 to
9 99 per cent criminal case work.
10 Q. Have you ever been called to testify as an expert in the past?
11 A. I have been called once here at the Yugoslav Tribunal, and two or
12 three times in Dutch court.
13 Q. Do you recall in which case and what you were tasked to do for
14 this Tribunal?
15 A. I was -- I know I had a -- numerous documents I had established
16 for stamps to see if there are any alterations in the document, but I
17 don't recall exactly for what -- who the suspect was in this case.
18 MS. HASAN: Mr. President, at this stage I would offer
19 Mr. De Koeijer's CV into evidence. It has 65 ter number 7521 and this
20 wasn't previously on our 65 ter list as we just recently received an
21 updated version of Mr. De Koeijer's CV.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I take it from my experience with the Defence
23 that there is no objection, especially not with this document, so leave
24 is granted to add it to the 65 ter exhibit list.
25 MS. HASAN: And I would in that case offer it into evidence.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, 65 ter document 7521 shall be
3 assigned Exhibit P2593. Thank you.
4 MS. HASAN:
5 Q. I am going to now turn -- just divert our attention a little bit
6 to the examination of documents, specifically. Could you describe the
7 methods that experts in your field use to examine documents that have
8 been altered?
9 A. Yes. The main methods are optical methods to look at altered
10 documents. Microscopy is a method you usually start off with, looking at
11 the document through a microscope. Of course, well, first you examine
12 the document with the naked eye, but the microscope is the method which
13 you use quite often. We will use luminescence and reflectance techniques
14 so they are light-driven techniques where we have different types of
15 light sources which you then look at the document with and these are
16 mainly used to detect remnants in the document from original entries, for
17 example. Sometimes these -- there are remnants in the document from inks
18 which have specific properties under these different lighting conditions
19 which make them light up or be enhanced.
20 Other -- there are other more sophisticated chemical techniques,
21 scanning techniques which we will seldom use. There is also -- lately we
22 are also using more digital image enhancement techniques where we have a
23 very good scanner to scan the document and then do image analysis. This
24 was something which we did not do back in 1999 because, well, the
25 scanners were not of as good quality as they are now.
1 MS. HASAN: Could we please have 65 ter 642 displayed on the
3 Q. Sir, do you recognise this document?
4 A. Yes, I recognise this as something come -- well, it's a
5 translation, of course, but it looks like something coming from our case
6 file system, our case system.
7 Q. Okay.
8 MS. HASAN: Could we just turn to page 2, please.
9 Q. And what would this be?
10 A. I recognise this as a translation of my report, the front page of
11 my report.
12 MS. HASAN: If we could just turn to page 5 now, the last page.
13 Q. Now, do you recognise this as being -- would this have been the
14 report that you prepared --
15 A. Yes, yes.
16 Q. -- for the Tribunal?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And --
19 A. Or the translation thereof.
20 Q. And what language was the original in?
21 A. In Dutch.
22 MS. HASAN: Could we go back to page 1.
23 Q. At the very top of this page next to the word "co-ordinator," it
24 has the letters -- the abbreviation "DO," and next to that that's been
25 translated as "investigation director," which is followed by your name.
1 What does the abbreviation "DO" in Dutch mean?
2 A. The abbreviation stands for document onderzoeker which means
3 document examiner. It's more the section within the institute where the
4 case needs to go to or where I belong to. That's the section which I
5 belong to.
6 Q. Can you tell us what -- okay, where this request originated from?
7 Who did you receive the request from?
8 A. The request came from the -- from ICTY.
9 Q. And when you received the request, what were you asked to do?
10 A. We were asked to examine the documents listed here to look for
11 erased writings, examine the tables, and more specifically later on we
12 were asked to emphasize on the specific letter "O" in the documents,
13 where the letter O had been erased.
14 Q. Okay, and when you say this was emphasized, what do you mean be
16 A. This was in -- well, we talked to the requestee Bertel [phoen]
17 and to limit the amount of research on the document he -- he or she, I am
18 not sure if it was a lady or a man, specified that we should put emphasis
19 on the letter "O" and on the legenda [sic] part of one of the pages.
20 Q. Okay. So do I understand you correctly that that is what you
21 were meant to look for?
22 A. Yes, yes.
23 Q. And were you provided with any materials?
24 A. Yes. We obtained four sheets with -- containing the tables. And
25 these -- the sheet is listed at the bottom of this page.
1 Q. Were these -- was this an original document?
2 A. This is an original document, yes.
3 MS. HASAN: May we have P1754 displayed.
4 And if I may ask for the assistance of the Court Usher to hand
5 the document to the witness.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The original document or --
7 MS. HASAN: Yes.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, the Court Usher will assist.
9 MS. HASAN: I think it's sufficient for this purpose to not have
10 the English translation up for the time being, just simply the B/C/S so
11 we can see it clearly.
12 Q. Sir, if you could just flip through that and let us know if that
13 is the document that you received?
14 A. Yes, this is the document.
15 Q. And would that be the document -- did you -- sorry, did you
16 examine the original document or would you have examined a copy of it?
17 A. No, we examined the original document.
18 MS. HASAN: Mr. President, I would offer the original to
19 Your Honours to have a look at while the witness testifies, if you wish
20 to see it.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: If he doesn't need it during the answers he is
22 providing to you?
23 THE WITNESS: I don't think so. I think I have copies with me,
24 so ...
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That's fine, the Chamber would like to see it,
1 but also the Defence should have the opportunity to have a look.
2 Ms. Hasan, please continue.
3 MS. HASAN:
4 Q. Mr. De Koeijer, aside from that document, were you provided with
5 any other materials?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Did you examine that document yourself?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Did anyone else examine the document?
10 A. A colleague of mine examined the document first, and I examined
11 it after him.
12 Q. Is that standard procedure?
13 A. This is -- all case work at the NFI is done by, at least within
14 the document section, is always done by two people, and specifically if
15 there is an interpretation issue then the second examiner will always
16 look at the items in detail or so and do their own examination.
17 Q. Could you describe for us the techniques you used to examine this
18 particular document?
19 A. This particular document was examined with different types of
20 lighting. Looking at it with transparent lighting, with oblique
21 lighting, which is lighting from a low angle, this in combination with
22 stereo-microscopy, we also looked at it with infrared, infrared
23 reflectance method, which is using infrared light shining on the document
24 and looking at the reflectance and the absorbance of the inks on the
25 paper under this infrared light using a camera to register this. This
1 technique is mainly done because pencil contains carbon and carbon
2 absorbs infrared light very strongly. So if there are very weak pencil
3 marking, they could be enhanced a bit by looking at it with infrared
4 reflectance technique.
5 Other technique which we tried which we did -- another technique
6 which we tried, which we did not report, is electrostatic detection
7 apparatus, which is a technique which looks mainly at indented writing
8 impressions, and, well, this technique didn't work as well as the other
9 techniques which we did report.
10 Q. And can you just elaborate a little bit on what it is that this
11 transparent or oblique lighting shows you?
12 A. If you use oblique lighting, then impressions will show a darker
13 rim around the impression, so they will stand out more in the paper
14 than -- than they would with normal reflective lighting.
15 Q. And what is a stereo-microscope?
16 A. A stereo-microscope is a microscope which has a binocular, so you
17 can view it with both eyes. Not just one eye, it has a binocular.
18 Q. And do all these techniques or equipment, do they assist you in
19 also discerning the underlying text?
20 A. Yes, they do.
21 Q. In addition to determining whether there has been an erasure?
22 A. Yes, yes.
23 MS. HASAN: If I could have the report back on the screen, which
24 are 65 ter 6 -- no, 65 ter 642.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic.
1 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, on page 77, line 15,
2 there is something that seems completely unclear to me. It says: "So
3 you can view it with Bozovic implies." It must be an error. This
4 sentence is completely nonsensical and in Serbian I heard something
5 entirely different, in the interpretation, I mean.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It was very clear that the witness said, "with
7 both eyes."
8 Please continue, Ms. Hasan.
9 MS. HASAN:
10 Q. Witness, if I may just go back to the infrared reflection
11 technique you talked about.
12 Now, you said you could observe -- you could use it to look at
13 the absorption of the light when looking at documents that have ink and
14 pencil on them. In this particular document, what is used? Is it ink?
15 Is it pencil? What's used on this document?
16 A. This document was written in pencil.
17 MS. HASAN: If we could turn to page 3 of the report.
18 Q. Under the subheading "Investigation of documents," you note that
19 the characters on this document were written, and I will quote the
20 English, "With considerable pressure leaving deep imprints in the paper."
21 How are you able to see these imprints?
22 A. These imprints you can see quite clearly with the oblique
24 Q. Were you able to see these imprints --
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please pause between question and answer at the
1 next question.
2 MS. HASAN: I apologise.
3 Q. Were you able to see any imprints on this document using the
4 naked eye?
5 A. Using the naked eye you could see that part of the pencil
6 material had not been erased fully. It's more difficult to see the
7 imprints just with the naked eye, but you can if you're in a darkroom and
8 use side lighting, you can then, with the naked eye. But just under
9 normal lighting conditions, it's much more difficult. But in a darkroom
10 with side lighting, you can with the naked eye, you can see these
11 imprints, also, yes. You don't really -- if it's large enough, you don't
12 need a microscope to see these imprints.
13 Q. And for the entire document that you examined, did you apply all
14 the methodologies or did you select a few for specific entries? How did
15 you go about examining it?
16 A. We would first examine it with the naked eye using different
17 lighting techniques, and when you want to examine it in more detail, we
18 would go to the microscope and examine it at a larger magnification, and
19 that's mainly to see if there are any -- to look at the letters a bit
20 more closely to see if there are maybe letters which may look similar.
21 Like, if it's an "O" or it's a "C" or if the closure is correct in a --
22 or it may be a tail, there could have been an A, for example. That kind
23 of detail we would look at under the microscope.
24 MS. HASAN: Could we have the document P1754 again displayed on
25 our screen. And could we turn to page 8. And it's sufficient if we
1 just, I think, have the B/C/S version of the document on the screen.
2 Q. Now, based on your examination of this page, did you see -- yeah,
3 perhaps we can centre the text a little bit more. I know it's printed
4 that way in the original -- no, maybe not. Okay. Did you see any
5 alteration that's been done on this page?
6 A. Yes, we did.
7 THE INTERPRETER: Would the witness kindly wait for the
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Just look at the transcript and see if the --
10 THE WITNESS: It's finished, yes.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- question is finished.
12 THE WITNESS: Yes, we did. We saw below the -- or row nine,
13 below the "T," we saw that a part of the text there -- of the text there
14 had been erased. You see it as the white line in this legenda [sic].
15 MS. HASAN:
16 Q. Now, the original document itself, do you see any evidence of
17 erasure on that document. It doesn't --
18 A. It doesn't register on the copy, no. But on the document itself,
19 you can see, very lightly, you can see it with the naked eye, but using
20 the equipment we have we could get a better image and we are able to
21 interpret what was there.
22 Q. And what were you able to discern was written there before it was
24 A. The line started with the letter "O," and then there was a dash,
25 and then the name Orahovac, O-r-a-h-o-v-a-c.
1 MS. HASAN: Mr. President --
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please. Is that correct, the spelling of this
4 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's correct.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
6 Judge Nyambe has a question -- Ms. Hasan, please continue.
7 MS. HASAN: Mr. President, when I met with Mr. De Koeijer earlier
8 today he provided us with some images of this particular -- from this
9 document that were part of his file, and these have now been uploaded
10 onto e-court and they have the number 65 ter 7527, and I would ask leave
11 to add these images which were recently provided to us to our witness --
12 to our 65 ter list.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, do you have any objection to that
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. No
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Leave is granted to add these documents.
18 MS. HASAN: Thank you. Could we have then 65 ter 7527 displayed
19 on our screen.
20 Q. Mr. De Koeijer, do you have those images that you gave us earlier
21 today with you?
22 A. Yes, I do.
23 Q. Okay.
24 THE INTERPRETER: Again, the witness is kindly asked to wait for
25 the interpretation.
1 MS. HASAN:
2 Q. Could you please tell us how these images were captured?
3 A. These images were captured with an apparatus called the VSC, it's
4 a video spectral comparator. And some of the images of this image was
5 captured with side lighting or with oblique lighting, and there are also
6 one or two images in here which were captured with infrared reflectance.
7 Q. Now, we will go through these images, but what I want to ask you
8 before we get into them is do they reflect -- what we see on the screen
9 here, is that a reflection of what you would have seen through the device
10 you were looking through at the time?
11 A. The image quality is always quite a bit less on printed images,
12 and the quality is always better when viewing it directly under the
13 microscope or with the apparatus on the screen. Once you print it, the
14 quality is less and, well, this is of course a copy of a print of mine so
15 the quality is, again, somewhat less. But some of the features you can
16 see here I can also see on my copy, and some of the features I can see a
17 little bit better maybe on my copies.
18 Q. Okay. Let's look at one of the these images which is on page 4
19 of this document. Can you tell us what we see here on the screen?
20 A. What we see here is a side light image, oblique light image,
21 where we can see some of the paper -- well, the impressions in the paper.
22 This is a pretty rough image. We have some better images for the side
23 lighting, but you could see also the paper fibre disturbances in this
24 image that -- also the paper has been damaged a bit, at the place of the
1 MS. HASAN: Let's turn to the next page of this document.
2 Q. And can you tell us what we see here?
3 A. Yeah, this is also a side light image, and -- but here we see
4 less of the paper fibre disturbances, and we see a bit more of the
5 impressions which can be, well, deciphered partly from this image. But
6 the image I saw on the screen and under the microscope is better than
7 this quality, and also the one I have in front of me is somewhat better
8 quality than this is. But here we can see the text "Orahovac."
9 MS. HASAN: And let us turn to page 6 in e-court.
10 Q. What are we seeing on this page?
11 A. This is an infrared image of the same line. This image is weaker
12 than the previous one with the side lighting, and it's -- well, it gives
13 more or less the same information but it's more difficult to decipher.
14 Q. I am going to move to some of the other findings you've made in
15 your report which relate to your search for the letter "O." If we can
16 look at one example.
17 MS. HASAN: Could we go back to P1754 and turn to page 3.
18 Q. Now, I'd like to just take as an example row 1 in this table. In
19 your examination of that row, did you find any alterations in your search
20 or did you find any Os?
21 A. Yes, we did. In column number 14, we found that there was an
22 original "O" entry underneath the "T."
23 Q. If perhaps we can focus in a little bit on column 14, row 1. And
24 did you find any other alterations in this row?
25 A. Yes. In 15 -- in column 15 we found that the letter "R" had been
1 changed to a "T."
2 Q. Okay. Now, we're going to look at some other images of these
3 particular findings.
4 MS. HASAN: If we could revert back to 65 ter 7527, please. And
5 if we could just zoom in a little bit on this page, thank you.
6 Q. Can you tell us what we are looking at here?
7 A. Yes, again, this image is -- the quality of this image is less
8 than what I have in front of me, but in column 15 you can see quite well
9 the "R" in this case, and -- but in column 14 it's still difficult to see
10 the "O," but there are some -- well, you can see there are some round
11 part in there around the bottom of the "T," but there is -- there should
12 be a better image.
13 Q. Okay. And how is it that you know that this is row 1, the same
14 row we were looking at in the other document?
15 A. Well, this is -- you can check this very easily by just
16 overlaying this image with the document.
17 Q. Okay.
18 A. But it's also stated on here on the image itself, which you have.
19 MS. HASAN: Yeah, if we zoom out of this a little bit. I don't
20 know if it's been picked up on the screen. It hasn't.
21 Q. But in your version I note that you noted down the ERN number of
22 the document.
23 MS. HASAN: Perhaps Your Honours can take a look at the copies of
24 the versions that he has. But for the time being, if we could then turn
25 to the next page, I think there is another image that's been captured of
1 these same two columns.
2 Q. Mr. De Koeijer, would you be able to answer my questions about
3 these images without having your copies of the documents before you?
4 A. Yes.
5 MS. HASAN: And I would just propose to hand those up to
6 Your Honours as they are a little bit clearer than what appears on the
7 screen, and the Defence can take a look at them as well.
8 Well, we can just hand up the one page.
9 THE WITNESS: Is it possible for me to use a pointer of some
11 MS. HASAN: Absolutely. The Court Usher will assist you with
12 that in a moment.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. This page which is now on the screen
14 with the ERN number 0559-2134 is handed over to the Defence and to the
15 Chamber. Please continue, Ms. Hasan.
16 MS. HASAN:
17 Q. Mr. De Koeijer, you wanted to show something using the pointer?
18 A. Yes. Is it just this one? In column 14 you can see the outline
19 of the "O" here going something like this, and the "R" is -- in column 15
20 is like this.
21 MS. HASAN: Mr. President, given that the witness has marked this
22 particular page, I would offer this page into evidence.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This marked page will be received.
24 THE REGISTRAR: The marked page of the 65 ter document 7527 shall
25 be assigned Exhibit P2594. Thank you, Your Honours.
1 MS. HASAN: Mr. President, I note the time, and it would be a
2 good point to end.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. I would like to give the original
4 documents we have received as the Chamber back to the Prosecution and the
5 witness respectively.
6 Indeed, we have to adjourn for today. Ms. Hasan will continue
7 the examination-in-chief tomorrow and followed by Mr. Tolimir with his
8 cross-examination. We have to adjourn and we will resume tomorrow in the
9 afternoon, 2.15, in Courtroom III.
10 Mr. De Koeijer, just to let you know, you have no permission to
11 contact either party about the content of your testimony during the
13 THE WITNESS: Okay.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We adjourn.
15 [The witness stands down]
16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
17 7.02 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday, the
18 6th day of September, 2011, at 2.15 p.m.