1 Friday, 30 January 2004
2 [The accused entered court]
3 [The witness entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.12 a.m.
5 JUDGE LIU: Call the case, please.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Case Number IT-02-60-T, the Prosecutor versus
7 Vidoje Blagojevic and Dragan Jokic.
8 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
9 Good morning, Witness.
10 THE WITNESS: [Microphone not activated].
11 JUDGE LIU: Would you please make the solemn declaration in
12 accordance with the paper Madam Usher is showing you.
13 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
14 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
15 WITNESS: KATHRYN BARR
16 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. You may sit down, please.
17 It seems to me that you are new. Would you introduce yourself for
18 the sake of the record.
19 MR. SHIN: Yes, Your Honours. My name is Milbert Shin and I will
20 be appearing for the Prosecution today.
21 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
22 Mr. Shin, you may begin your direct examination.
23 MR. SHIN: Thank you, Mr. President
24 Examined by Mr. Shin:
25 Q. Dr. Barr, could you please tell the Trial Chamber your full name?
1 A. It's Kathryn Jean Barr.
2 Q. What is your profession?
3 A. I'm a forensic document examiner.
4 Q. And where are you based.
5 A. In Birmingham in the U.K.
6 Q. I will be speaking a little bit more slowly, not to tax the
7 interpreters too much at the beginning of the day. Where are you employed
9 A. I'm employed at a company called Document Evidence Limited which
10 is based in Birmingham.
11 Q. What position do you hold there?
12 A. I'm a director of the company and a forensic document examiner.
13 Q. Dr. Barr, has the Prosecution requested you to conduct two
14 handwriting comparisons?
15 A. It has, yes.
16 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please make a pause between
17 questions and answers.
18 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Shin. Since you and the witness are speaking the
19 same language, I would like to ask you to slow a down a little bit,
20 because we missed something in the transcript.
21 MR. SHIN: My apologies, Your Honour. I will maybe back up a
22 little bit.
23 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
24 MR. SHIN: And begin very slowly.
25 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
1 MR. SHIN: And I am of course open to cautions of speeding up
3 Q. Dr. Barr, what is your current profession?
4 A. I'm a forensic document examiner.
5 Q. And where are you based?
6 A. I'm based at a company called Document Evidence Limited, which is
7 in Birmingham in the United Kingdom.
8 Q. And what position do you hold at document evidence limited?
9 A. I'm a director of the company and I'm a forensic document
11 Q. Dr. Barr, did the Prosecution request you to conduct two
12 handwriting comparisons?
13 A. Yes, it did.
14 Q. Were you provided documents for that purpose?
15 A. I was, yes.
16 MR. SHIN: If I could have the assistance of the usher. This is a
17 document which has previously been entered into evidence in this case.
18 Exhibit P133.
19 Q. If you could turn to the first red tab there. Could you please
20 take a look at that page and the pages up to the second red tab. Do you
21 recognise those pages?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And are those the pages that you were provided for the purposes of
24 your document examination?
25 A. Yes, they were.
1 MR. SHIN: Your Honours, for the record that is ERN pages 02935743
2 through 02935753. These are pages from the duty officer's unofficial
3 workbook, which, as I noted earlier, has the Exhibit Number P133.
4 Q. Dr. Barr, before we get to your analysis and any conclusions or
5 findings you may have made as a result of that analysis, I'd like to ask
6 you first about your training and experience; and secondly, I'd like to
7 ask you if you could explain to us the field of handwriting comparison and
8 the methodology involved.
9 If we could begin with your training and experience. What is your
10 educational background?
11 A. I've got a bachelor of arts degree and also a Ph.D.
12 Q. What year did you receive your Ph.D.?
13 A. 1993.
14 Q. And what did you do immediately after your -- receiving your Ph.D.
15 A. As soon as I finished by Ph.D., I started work as a forensic
16 document examiner at the Metropolitan Police Forensics Science Laboratory
17 in London.
18 Q. And what year was that?
19 A. 1992.
20 Q. How many years did you work there?
21 A. I worked there until 1998.
22 Q. And then what did you do?
23 A. I transferred to the forensic science service laboratory in
24 Wetherby until 1999.
25 Q. And were you still a forensic document examiner at that point?
1 A. I was, yes.
2 Q. And how long were you at that institute?
3 A. I moved on from there in November 1999 to join my present company,
4 Document Evidence Limited.
5 Q. Where -- as you have already explained to us you are a forensic
6 document examiner?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Dr. Barr, what does a forensic document examiner do? What sorts
9 of tasks does a forensic document examiner do, for example?
10 A. We do many -- basically, any examinations involved with documents
11 that have been involved in -- that are in dispute, so that includes
12 handwriting and signature comparisons, looking for alterations and
13 obliterations, indent impressions, looking for type writing, printing
14 methods, counterfeiting of documents, generally a whole gamut of
15 examinations that could involve -- in the documents.
16 Q. Would a forensic document examiner have a specialisation among
17 those tasks that you've just listed for us?
18 A. No. Within the United Kingdom a forensic document examiner is
19 involved in the totality of those examinations.
20 Q. So you yourself have undertaken all of those tasks?
21 A. I have, yes.
22 Q. In the course of your career?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Dr. Barr, how does one become a forensic document examiner? Is
25 this something that you can study at university to become?
1 A. There are now forensic examination courses. There wasn't when I
2 was at university. Generally the only way to become a forensic document
3 examiner is to undertake a period of training within a forensic document
5 Q. And how long would that period of training typically be?
6 A. Typically it would be two years.
7 Q. Did you yourself undertake such a training period?
8 A. Yes, I did.
9 Q. And where did you undertake your training?
10 A. At the Metropolitan Police Forensics Science Laboratory.
11 Q. And you explained earlier is that in London. Can you -- could you
12 please just explain to us just briefly what you do as an apprentice --
13 someone who's in training, let's say?
14 A. Generally you start off with an initial period whereby you are
15 taught the basic principles of document examination, so that you know what
16 sort of examinations are undertaken. But then, most -- you then move on
17 to shadowing other experienced document examiners, undertaking small parts
18 of cases for them, all within the supervision. And then gradually over
19 the period of the years you do more and more of your own work under less
20 and less supervision.
21 Q. During your period of training, did you undertake handwriting
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. So you have been a forensic document examiner now for 12 years, is
25 that correct, from 1993, I believe you said --
1 A. 1992.
2 Q. 1992.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. During those 12 years how many handwriting comparisons have
5 you done?
6 A. I've done over a thousand cases. Within those cases, there could
7 be many different handwriting comparisons.
8 Q. And could you please describe just briefly what sorts of documents
9 were involved in those comparisons.
10 A. Literally any type of document at all: Cheques, forms, letters.
11 Any type of handwriting on any type of document.
12 Q. And these handwriting comparisons, who have you done them for?
13 A. We work for police forces, but also for banks, building societies,
14 insurance companies, government agencies such as customs and excise,
15 inland revenue, human resources, departments of companies, and for members
16 of the public.
17 Q. Dr. Barr, have you previously given evidence in court on the basis
18 of your document examination work?
19 A. I have, yes.
20 Q. Approximately how many times would you say you've done that?
21 A. For handwriting comparisons, probably 20, 25 times.
22 Q. In the course of your career as a document -- forensic document
23 examiner, are there other professional activities that you undertake in
24 addition to your work?
25 A. I'm also involved with going to conferences, writing articles, and
1 also looking at research collaboration with university departments.
2 Q. Do you have any accreditations as a document forensic -- forensic
3 document examiner?
4 A. There are very few accreditations available for a forensic
5 document examiner. A new body that's been set up within the United
6 Kingdom is the council for the registration of forensic practitioners.
7 And I am accredited by that body.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 Dr. Barr, I'm now going to ask you to explain the field about
10 handwriting analysis and comparison and also to give us some explanation
11 of the methodology involved in that. But I'd like to begin by asking you
12 first to give us a brief definition of handwriting. What is handwriting?
13 A. Handwriting is a human skill, whereby character shapes are
14 generated by use of a writing implement as a visual representation of
16 Q. In the -- I'll just pause for a minute to make sure the
17 translation is there.
18 In the field of handwriting comparison or handwriting analysis,
19 are there -- what are the principles -- what are the fundamental concepts
20 of that field?
21 A. The basic principle on which it is based is that given sufficient
22 writings, no two people will write in exactly the same way.
23 Q. And are there other principles or underlying tenets that would
24 guide your analysis?
25 A. The main principle is that handwriting comparison can only be
1 undertaken with a like-for-like comparison. By that, I mean that it
2 involves individual comparisons of characters, but a block -- an upper
3 case A can only be compared with other upper case As, not with lower case
4 examples of that letter, and obviously not with other letters. There are
5 other features involved, and that's -- in any handwriting comparison, even
6 between two different people, there will be some similarities, because
7 character shapes can't -- have to conform to recognised designs for
8 writing to be readable. And so simply by chance, some features will
9 always be similar. And similarly, even within the writings of one person,
10 things will be different because human beings aren't machines and don't
11 reproduce things exactly. So there will be a range of variation between
12 writings done on different occasions.
13 Q. Thank you. Broadly speaking, what is handwriting comparison?
14 What is it that you do when you're comparing handwritings?
15 A. It involves a systematic step-by-step approach going through the
16 writings that you've been asked to compare to look at each character in
17 turn to determine how that character has been constructed, and by that I
18 mean how the pen has moved across the paper to construct it, and then to
19 look at other features, for example, fluency, slope, proportion,
20 connectiveness, all the other features associated with those characters.
21 Q. Could I ask you to explain further. Is there a particular order
22 in which you go about this? Would you look at both sets of documents that
23 you're trying to compare?
24 A. Generally you would choose either the writing that you've been
25 provided that's questioned or the writing that you've been provided with a
1 specimen. You take one of those two types of writing and go through that
2 in turn.
3 Q. You were explaining to us about this step-by-step approach and
4 looking at the way each character is constructed. You used some terms and
5 I would like you to please explain what some of those terms mean to us.
6 First you used the term "fluency." What is that?
7 A. Fluency is the speed with which the handwriting has been written.
8 Most practiced writers write fluently at some speed. This can be
9 determined by looking for things such as variation in pen pressure and
10 tapered ends to strokes. By that I mean that when you're coming to the
11 end of a stroke, you know that you're coming to the end of that stroke,
12 and so you will start lifting the pen from the paper before the stroke is
13 finished. And this leads to a tapered end to it. By contrast, if you
14 ended the stroke and then abruptly lifted the pen from the paper, the end
15 of that stroke would be very blunt, and therefore, you can tell the
16 difference between writing that's been written at speed and stuff that's
17 been written more slowly.
18 Q. You also used the word "slope," and what is that?
19 A. It's an indication of whether the writing is upright or leans
20 forwards or backwards.
21 Q. And you mentioned a couple other features that you look at. And
22 what are those?
23 A. Proportions, which would be the variation of the size of
24 characters, both within the proportions of the character itself and also
25 within a word. And also connectiveness, which is how one character is
1 connected on to another.
2 Q. And you say that you do this by going through the character --
3 individual characters?
4 A. Yes, in a step-by-step approach, working through the alphabet.
5 Q. Does that mean you do it letter by letter then?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Is there some way that you document or maintain records of your
8 analysis as you proceed through this?
9 A. Generally we make notes of actually drawing out the characters
10 when we determine their construction on a piece of paper that we call a
11 tick sheet, which is basically a piece of paper with the alphabet written
12 out on it so that it ensures that you go through in a systematic and
13 methodical approach, documenting all the features that you find.
14 Q. And this document that you call a tick sheet, if one were to look
15 at that, would that capture the totality of your analysis?
16 A. No. Obviously it can only be an aide-memoire because what you are
17 trying to do an assess the range of variation of each character in the
18 writing. Obviously it's not possible or reasonable to have to draw every
19 single character, when many will only vary by a small amount. So you use
20 it as an aide-memoire, so that, for example, when you have to come to
21 court you can remember what are the salient features that you thought were
22 important in a particular case.
23 Q. Thank you. And this process of examining each set of writings and
24 producing this tick sheet as part of your analysis, I gather this is
25 something you do for both sets of documents?
1 A. It is, yes.
2 Q. After you've gone through this stage of examining both sets of
3 documents, what's the next thing that you do as a forensic document
5 A. At this point you will have -- for each set of writing you will
6 have a range of variation for each character. It's then important to look
7 at those two ranges of variation and assess how similar or how different
8 they are.
9 Q. Could you just explain that a little further. When you say
10 "range of variation," what do you mean?
11 A. What I mean is that, as I've said before, when -- because people
12 vary when they write, each character they produce isn't exactly the same
13 as the other one but -- as one they produced before, but they will only
14 vary within a defined range. The idea of looking through the documents is
15 to determine what that range is, how much they vary.
16 Q. Okay. What sorts of things are you looking for when you compare
17 these ranges of variations?
18 A. You're looking for how similar or how different characters are.
19 Q. Is this a process that's also reflected in the tick sheet or is
20 there some other way that you would normally capture this in the process
21 of analysing documents?
22 A. Normally you would mark on the tick sheet how similar or how
23 different you find, but also there would be a mental approach to it as
25 Q. And what would that mental approach be?
1 A. It would be using your experience to assess the significance of
2 the similarities and differences that you found.
3 Q. So after you've conducted this comparison of the range of
4 variations in one set of documents and the range of variations in the
5 other set of documents, what do you do next in your analysis?
6 A. As I say, you decide how similar and how different they are and
7 more importantly what the significance of those features are.
8 Q. Just so that we can understand, could you give us some examples of
9 some types of variations, whether a similarity or a difference, that would
10 be as you say significant at this stage of the analysis.
11 A. What I would say is, for example, there are some characters that
12 could be similar and not necessarily be significant. For example, the
13 letter I, which is written -- in most people just by a simple down
14 stroke. Many people would write it in a similar way, but that wouldn't
15 make it significant. By contrast, if in one set of writings, the Os were
16 written in an anti-clockwise direction whereas in the other set of writing
17 they were written in a clockwise direction, then that would be a
18 significance between the two sets of writing.
19 Q. Now, after you've compared the two sets of documents and you've
20 undertaken this assessment process that you've explained to us, how would
21 a forensic document examiner express their conclusions afterwards?
22 A. There are no mathematical statistics that have yet been produced
23 for the variations in characters, and therefore, it's not possible to
24 express a conclusion in a numerical fashion. Therefore, document
25 examiners use a verbal range of opinions to express their findings.
1 Q. Do you as a forensic document examiner also use a range of
3 A. I do, yes.
4 Q. Could you explain your range of opinions.
5 A. Yes. At the top of the scale, there would be a conclusive
6 opinion. And by that, I mean that I think that there are sufficient
7 similarities between two sets of writings, that they have been produced by
8 one person and that I can exclude the possibility of another person being
9 involved. And similarly on the negative side, there would be an opinion
10 that two sets of writings were definitely produced by different people.
11 In the middle, there is an inconclusive level, whereby you can't express
12 an opinion one way or the other. However, there are also between those
13 two extremes qualified opinions. One down from the top would be strong
14 evidence. In this case, there would be a lot of similarities that some
15 features that couldn't be matched, which would mean that while a
16 conclusive opinion couldn't be given, I would consider it unlikely that
17 anybody else has produced the writing. There is also a level of opinion
18 which is weak evidence, whereby there are a lot of similarities but you
19 couldn't exclude the possibility that other people who wrote in a similar
20 fashion had produced the writing. And obviously the weak and the strong
21 are mirrored on the negative side.
22 Q. Okay. So in your analysis, just to be clear, how many levels of
23 opinion would you give?
24 A. Seven.
25 Q. Seven, okay. And the seven, as you explained, represent a
1 spectrum from -- conclusive that it is someone's handwriting and
2 conclusive that it's not?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Thank you. After you've completed your analysis and come to your
5 conclusions, is there any sort of quality control that a forensic document
6 examiner would undertake?
7 A. Yes. Every case that we do is checked by a colleague to ensure
8 that we've answered the questions that have been asked, that we haven't
9 missed anything out, and that they agree with the findings that we've
11 Q. Dr. Barr, if I could ask you this: Is it necessary to understand
12 the language of a handwriting in order to conduct handwriting comparison?
13 If you could answer simply first, if possible.
14 A. Because I've explained what we undertake is a
15 character-by-character comparison, it's not essential to be able to
16 understand the language to be able to compare it.
17 Q. Now, you've explained to us the principles of handwriting analysis
18 and the methodology that a forensic document examiner would go through to
19 compare handwriting. Now, these principles and the methodology, how would
20 they differ, if at all, in analysing handwriting in a language that the
21 document examiner did not understand?
22 A. The same basic principles would be undertaken, irrespective of the
23 language that it was written in.
24 Q. The same basic principles. And would the same methodology also be
1 A. It would indeed, yes.
2 Q. In this case of a document -- I'm sorry, a document and a
3 handwriting that the examiner does not understand, are there any special
4 precautions that a document examiner should make, or are there any
5 measures that a document examiner should apply differently?
6 A. The main problem, if it is a language that you don't understand,
7 is that some people write in a less legible fashion than others, and they
8 run a lot of characters together. Now, obviously if it's a language that
9 you can speak, generally you can work out what the characters in a word
10 are from the context of that word. Normally only certain letters occur in
11 certain positions, therefore you can work out what the characters are.
12 However, if it's a language that you don't understand, you lose that
13 ability to work out the character from its context, if you can't work out
14 what it is from its appearance.
15 Q. You've explained to us a problem that comes up in analysing
16 handwriting in an unknown language. Is there anything that a document
17 examiner can do to address this issue?
18 A. Obviously you need to be able to determine the characters. And
19 one way to do that would be to have a typed transliteration of the words
20 you were looking at to know what characters were present in them and
21 therefore pick them out for comparison purposes.
22 Q. Dr. Barr, do you understand a language once referred to
23 Serbo-Croatian and referred to here as Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian or B/C/S?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Yet, were you able to compare -- would you -- were you able to
1 compare handwriting in B/C/S?
2 A. Yes. It's written in Roman script, which is the same as English.
3 So the characters are the same, and so a comparison and the basic
4 methodologies of it, as I described, are the same within that language.
5 Q. Is this the first time that you've examined handwriting in a
6 language that you didn't understand?
7 A. No. I've also examined other handwritings that I didn't
9 Q. And what languages were those handwritings in?
10 A. Two examples would be Dutch and Kurdish.
11 Q. And for whom were you doing that handwriting analysis?
12 A. For the police.
13 Q. Thank you. Dr. Barr, I'd like to turn now to the work that you've
14 done for this case. You were requested by the Prosecution to conduct two
15 comparisons. Is that correct?
16 A. I was, yes.
17 Q. In the first comparison, the questioned document were -- the
18 questioned documents were, as we discussed earlier, the documents that are
19 in Exhibit 133, 11 pages.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Were you also given another set of documents with which you were
22 supposed to compare that first set?
23 A. I was given documents that I was told bore the specimen writing of
24 Mr. Jokic.
25 Q. And could you explain -- describe briefly those pages. How many
1 pages of handwriting was it?
2 A. I was given a personal information form, which is one page, and I
3 was also given a book and given three entries within that book that I was
4 told bore his specimen writing.
5 MR. SHIN: If I could please have the usher's assistance in
6 placing. Just one moment, please.
7 For the record, Your Honours, we -- the documents referred to now
8 are Prosecutor evidence 509/B. Prosecution Exhibit 118/A and -- and
9 Prosecution Exhibit 723 -- I'm sorry, 722.
10 Q. Dr. Barr, if you could please take a look at that -- those
11 materials. If that's not correct, please indicate so.
12 MR. SHIN: Your Honours, we seem to be having a little problem
13 sorting these papers out. If you could just give us a minute, please.
14 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour --
15 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Karnavas.
16 MR. KARNAVAS: Perhaps if we could go one document at a time, that
17 might assist the presentation. Because the witness has been given several
18 documents; we only have one on the ELMO. So if we could go step by step,
19 that would probably expedite matters.
20 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Thank you very much.
21 MR. SHIN: Thank you.
22 And in fact, maybe if we could begin then taking the suggestion of
23 Mr. Karnavas.
24 Q. Dr. Barr, do you recognise that document?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And what is it?
2 A. I saw the original of this document, but I believe it was the
3 personal information form that I was given.
4 Q. And was that one of the documents you were using to compare with
5 the questioned writing?
6 A. It was, yes.
7 MR. SHIN: If I could please ask the usher to place Prosecution
8 Exhibit 722 on the ELMO. My mistake there. If we could next turn to
9 Prosecution Exhibit 509/B, turning to the ERN page number 00962683.
10 THE WITNESS: I think you mean 76.
11 MR. SHIN:
12 Q. I'm sorry it's 00760278. I was reading the English ERN number.
13 This is the -- the proper ERN numbers there.
14 Do you recognise that page, Dr. Barr?
15 A. That wasn't one of the ones I was given.
16 Q. Okay. If we could place on the ELMO Prosecution Exhibit 118/A.
17 We'll turn to the next document, please.
18 Dr. Barr, do you recognise that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Was that one of the pages that you were asked to examine --
21 A. It was --
22 Q. To use as a known specimen?
23 A. It was, yes.
24 Q. And next -- the next document, if we could have from that same
25 Prosecution Exhibit, if we could turn to the next page 00760310.
1 A. Yes, that was another one of the ones I was given.
2 Q. Okay. And for the last document, if we could just try again, on
3 Prosecution Exhibit 509/B. And the ERN page number should be 00760278.
4 Dr. Barr, do you also recognise that document?
5 A. Yes, I do.
6 Q. And was that one of the specimens that you were asked to review in
7 comparing the handwriting?
8 A. Yes, it was, although I did see the originals rather than the
10 Q. In conducting your examination as a forensic document examiner, do
11 you normally work with original documents?
12 A. It's -- if original documents are available, it's always best to
13 look at the original documents, because you can see far more detail than
14 you can from a photocopy.
15 Q. So the material that you had before you were, as we explained
16 earlier -- as you had described to us earlier, on the one hand you had the
17 11 pages, which you had described being from this workbook; and secondly,
18 you had these four pages which you have just looked at now.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. The comparison that you did between those two sets of handwriting,
21 that led to your first report. Is that correct?
22 A. It did, yes.
23 Q. And that report was dated the 16th of July, 2003?
24 A. It was, yes.
25 MR. SHIN: If the usher could please -- if I could please have the
1 usher's assistance. It's the first report, which is marked for
2 identification: Prosecution Exhibit 716.
3 Q. Dr. Barr, just quickly, is that your first report?
4 A. It is, yes.
5 Q. Did you also provide a second report --
6 A. I did.
7 Q. And that was date the 22nd of August, 2003?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Could you explain is that report to us?
10 A. I was asked to provide some more details to explain the findings
11 my first report. I did that in my second report.
12 MR. SHIN: If I could have the usher's assistance to place on the
13 ELMO Prosecution Exhibit -- numbered for identification purposes P717.
14 Q. Just quickly, Dr. Barr, is that your second report?
15 A. It is, yes.
16 Q. Dr. Barr, if we could just go through the methodology that you
17 used in conducting this first handwriting comparison. Could you please
18 explain to us what you did.
19 A. As I've explained previously, the basic methodology is as I
20 explained. I took the writing that I had been provided with as specimen
21 writing and went through it, determining the character construction and
22 their range of variations. I then did exactly the same thing with the
23 questioned writing so that I had the two ranges of variations for each of
24 the characters within the two sets of writings. I then compared them to
25 see how similar or how different they were and then assessed the
1 significance of those features.
2 Q. Is this consistent or different from the methodology you would
3 normally follow to compare two handwritings?
4 A. It's exactly the same.
5 Q. And did you then come to some conclusions there?
6 A. I did, yes. What I found when I had compared the two sets of
7 writings was that there were a lot of similarities between them; however,
8 there were also some features within the questioned writings that I was
9 unable to match within the specimens that I had been provided with. The
10 presence of these differences meant that I was unable to express a
11 definite opinion. However, the similarities were such that, in my
12 opinion, there is strong evidence that the questioned writing was written
13 by the writer of the specimen writing. And I considered the possibility
14 of another person being involved is unlikely.
15 Q. Now, you explained to us earlier that you would express -- as a
16 document examiner, you would express your opinion along a range on a scale
17 of seven points.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Where would that opinion fall on a scale of seven points?
20 A. It would be one below the top range of opinions.
21 Q. You also explained to us earlier of a problem that could come up
22 in comparing handwriting of unknown -- of a language -- of an unknown
23 language. Could you -- and you also explained to us some ways of
24 addressing that problem. Could you please explain to us what, if
25 anything, you did in this case to address that problem.
1 A. Yes. I found in this case that the specimen writing is quite
2 fluently written and in part is very highly connected. So determining
3 where one character ends and another one starts does become quite
4 difficult. However, for the purposes of my comparisons, I had been
5 provided with books. And these books contained other entries written by
6 other people, most of whom wrote in a far more legible style than
7 Mr. Jokic. And also, because I'm assuming the nature of the entries, a
8 lot of the words and phrases that appeared in his entries also appeared in
9 other peoples' entries. And therefore, it was possible to use the other
10 entries in the book as a means of determining -- where I couldn't decide
11 what one of his characters was, if I found the same word in somebody
12 else's writing that was more legible, I was then able to go back and
13 determine what his characters were.
14 Q. Were you also provided with the translation of some of that
16 A. I was. And again, that was a help with some of -- in particular,
17 the block capital writing and the use of acronyms. It was possible to
18 work out what the characters were.
19 Q. And were you able to, on the basis that you have just explained,
20 were you able to make out the individual character in all cases?
21 A. Not the -- there are probably some in there that I still wasn't
22 certain of, but I did work out -- so although I wouldn't be able to work
23 out every single one, I was able to work out a range of variation for each
25 Q. After you concluded your analysis, this first comparison to
1 handwriting -- two sets of handwriting, did you continue to follow your
2 methodology that you described earlier as regards quality control?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Would you please explain to us what was done in that regard.
5 A. In this case my work - the statement I produced - was checked by
6 one of my colleagues. In fact in this case it was actually, I think,
7 checked by two of my colleagues, to be sure that they agreed with the
8 findings that I came up with.
9 Q. And are those two colleagues persons experienced in handwriting
11 A. They are, yes.
12 Q. I'd like to move to a little more detail, a little more
13 elaboration of your findings on this first handwriting comparison. You
14 set out some of that -- some of the basis for your conclusions in your
15 report. Is that correct?
16 A. That is correct, yes.
17 Q. Would you, taking a look at the first report and the second
18 report, just guide us to where some of that is. If we could take the
19 first report first, and when you identify the page, please pass it to the
20 usher so that she may place it on the ELMO. I'm sorry, is it there.
21 A. Yes. In my first report in paragraph 5.3, I listed the page
22 numbers and said which of the writing in there that I had found
23 similarities between Mr. Jokic's writing and the questioned entries. And
24 then in paragraph --
25 Q. I'm sorry, Dr. Barr, if I could just stop you there. Here it
1 appears that you go through a page-by-page assessment of the questioned
2 pages of handwriting. Is that correct?
3 A. That is correct, yes.
4 Q. Thank you. I'm sorry to interrupt. If you could please continue.
5 A. And then in paragraph 5.4, which is the bottom of that page and
6 the next page, I then explain that I found the similarities but also the
7 features that cannot be matched, which leads me to my conclusion that
8 there is strong but not conclusive evidence that the same person wrote the
9 specimen and questioned writings.
10 Q. Thank you. If we could please turn to your second report now.
11 And when you identify the section where your findings are set out, if you
12 could please pass that page to the usher to place on the ELMO. And, for
13 the record, we are now looking at ERN page 03356722.
14 Dr. Barr, if you could just tell us in brief what it is that we
15 have there.
16 A. As I explained, for my second report I was asked to add some more
17 details for the reasons for my findings from my first report. In
18 paragraph 3, I identified a number of the characters in which I found
19 similarities between the two sets of writings, so that other people can
20 also determine what the characters I found similar were. I've also listed
21 in paragraph 4 the characters that were less well-matched, in particular
22 the use of extra strokes on a number of characters that couldn't be
23 matched. And then, in paragraph 5, which also goes on to the next page,
24 I've indicated that my assessment -- what my assessment of those
25 similarities and differences were.
1 Q. Now, these similarities and differences which you have set out in
2 this second report, does that constitute the totality of your analysis,
3 the totality of your analysis of the similarities and differences?
4 A. No. It's an indication more than that. It gives an indication of
5 the characters I found similar or different, but obviously it's easy to
6 write down a character and explain why it's similar or different. It's
7 difficult to explain why I consider them significant, because that's based
8 on my years of experience. And so -- and this one covers both the
9 similarities and differences and my assessment of those.
10 Q. Dr. Barr, are you prepared today to show us in greater detail some
11 of these similarities and differences, which you have set out here in your
13 A. Yes. It's possible for me to point out some of the similarities
14 that I found; however, it should be borne in mind that -- because for
15 illustration purposes, it's only really possible to compare one thing
16 against another thing. And while that does enable everybody to see how
17 similar or how different they are, it's not an accurate reflection of the
18 work done, because obviously that encompasses every character and the
19 ranges of variation. And also my experience to assess the significance of
20 those. But it is possible to illustrate some of the features that I
22 Q. Okay. If I understand you correctly, this will merely illustrate
23 some of the steps that you took in your analysis?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay.
1 MR. SHIN: If I could please ask the usher's assistance in placing
2 Prosecutor's Exhibit marked for identification P724/A. If we could please
3 have that on the ELMO. Thank you very much.
4 Q. Dr. Barr, what -- what is it that we have on the ELMO?
5 A. On these sheets what we've got are words or phrases that have been
6 taken from specimen and questioned writings. In each case, the one on top
7 is in the questioned writing, and the lower one is taken from the specimen
8 writing. They've also been enlarged to make them easier to see.
9 Q. I'm going to ask you to point out some of these similarities and
10 differences, which you've noted in your report and in the course of
11 conducting your analysis.
12 MR. SHIN: If I could please have Dr. Barr provided with a red
14 Q. Dr. Barr, in both the questioned handwriting and this specimen
15 that you use as a known specimen, if you could please circle the feature
16 that you're speaking of, and then I'll ask you to write a number next to
17 it. If you could now on the ELMO point to the first feature you'd like to
18 show us.
19 A. If we start with the beginning of the word, because again it
20 illustrates quite nicely in this case the fact that a lot of the
21 characters do run together, but at the beginning of both words we get the
22 characters - I'll circle them - M and U. Do you want them labelled?
23 Q. Could you just draw a small 1 next to that.
24 A. And the same on the top?
25 Q. Yes. If you could circle the same and draw a small number 1 next
1 to that as well. And what can you tell us about that comparison?
2 A. Within that, the types of things that we look for when we do a
3 comparison with this M, you can see that you've got what we would say
4 would be a small tick at the start of the stroke and then a large leading
5 stroke coming up to form the start of the character. And then the M and
6 the U are joined together in a series of very fluently written peaks to
7 form the peaks and troughs of the M and the U.
8 Q. And in your assessment, is that a significant similarity for the
9 purposes of handwriting comparison?
10 A. As I said, yes, it's not that common a construct of an M. And as
11 I said, it's not just the construction. What we're looking at is the
12 fluency, the proportions, the connectiveness between them, how similar
13 these two characters are. And in this case, we can see that it's an
14 illustration on just these two words. You get a lot of similarities
15 between them.
16 Q. Dr. Barr, could you point to another -- would you be able to point
17 to another point of comparison on this particular page.
18 A. On this particular page, again the ending of the word, which I
19 will circle.
20 Q. If you could please put a 2 next to both of those circles.
21 A. Both A and A. It's more obvious on the top one. The A is a loop
22 that actually joins over on the left-hand side, and the down stroke for it
23 is a separate stroke. It then goes into the N, which is formed by two
24 loops and ends with an A, which is again written as two separate -- a
25 circle and a down stroke. And again, this can be mirrored in the bottom
1 one, the A -- two-stroke A going into two loops and then ending with
2 another two-stroke A. This word, as I say, does have a lot of
3 similarities, but clearly within it if you took -- if you circled it and
4 labelled it 3, you can see that the letter S is actually different and, as
5 I said, we're not actually comparing that one S with that other S, I'm
6 looking at the range of variations of the S's within both sets of
7 writings. So there will be other examples that match between the two,
8 however, even though they don't match in this particular word.
9 Q. Dr. Barr, if I can ask you to clarify that. The -- as you say,
10 there are differences between the S on the top which you've circled and
11 put the number 3 next to it and the S on the bottom, also circled with a
12 number 3. But if I understand you correctly, you're saying that's not a
13 significant difference.
14 A. What I'm saying is that when I looked at the S's throughout the
15 whole bodies of writing, the variation would be matched between the two
16 even though it's not matched in those particular words.
17 Q. So that in a set of questioned writing you may find a range of
18 different S's?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. That range of different S's would that include the S on the
21 bottom -- on this page?
22 A. The other way around because it's the specimen on the bottom.
24 Q. Okay. Thank you.
25 MR. SHIN: Should we move to the next one, if I could have
1 Prosecution Exhibit marked for identification 724/B placed on the ELMO.
2 Thank you.
3 Q. Dr. Barr, could you please explain what we have here.
4 A. Again, we're taking an extract from the questioned writing on the
5 top and the specimen writing on the bottom. And to point out, for
6 example, in the words "fornik," the construction of the letter Z.
7 Q. Could you please circle that. Yes, thank you. Circling the Z and
8 placing a number 4 next to it on the top and on the bottom of this page.
9 A. Again with the letter Z, we can see clearly that it's very looped
10 at both ends, which corresponds between the specimen and the questioned
11 writing. And again, within this word --
12 Q. I'm sorry, Dr. Barr, if I could just ask you: Do you consider
13 that a significant similarity for your assessment?
14 A. It is another good similarity between the two, yes.
15 Q. Is there another feature you'd like to point out to us.
16 A. Another feature I found was significant between the two was within
17 this word, the middle of the word, all the characters are in lower case,
18 except the R which is in an upper case form. And again, you get the match
19 between the two. Again, it's a nice matching feature between the two that
20 wouldn't be seen in a lot of people's writings. Again, similarly --
21 Q. And I'm sorry. That means -- would that mean that you find that a
22 significant similarity?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 A. I would say each one of these significant ones isn't significant
1 in itself, it's the totality of them that makes them significant.
2 Q. You've explained that before. Could you expand on that a little
3 bit, when you say that it's not significant in itself.
4 A. As I explained when we were going through the methodology, some
5 things are -- you will always get some things matching and some things
6 differing between the two. And it's how you assess those similarities and
7 its difference -- and differences that's important. And so it isn't just
8 one character matching that leads you to come to that conclusion, it's the
9 fact that you get many matches between the writings that enables you to
10 come to your conclusion.
11 Q. So in fact it's not these specific similarities and differences.
12 If I understand you correctly, that leads your conclusion?
13 A. No, it's the totality of the similarities and differences.
14 Q. And these are simply then illustrations of those kinds of factors
15 that go into the totality of that comparison?
16 A. Yes, it is.
17 Q. Is there another feature that you'd like to comment on this?
18 A. Again, within these words --
19 Q. You're drawing two circles with the number 6 next to them now?
20 A. Yes, which is the character N, which can clearly be seen to be
21 different. However -- and don't match. However, that use of two strokes
22 to form an N we have seen on the previous example was present in the
23 specimen writing.
24 MR. SHIN: Can we just briefly have that previous example on the
1 DR. BARR: Put that one back again within the specimen writing.
2 THE INTERPRETER: Counsel, please slow down and make pauses.
3 MR. SHIN: My apologies to the interpreters again. I'll be
4 speaking very slowly now.
5 Q. Dr. Barr, you were saying that this difference -- you were
6 explaining the difference of these two Ns.
7 A. Yes. What I was trying to explain was that in the questioned
8 writing on -- in the first example, the two Ns are different; however, if
9 you look from this example of the specimen writing, you can see that the
10 N -- it doesn't show it brilliantly because of the size of it, but again
11 it is two loop strokes forming an N construction. And so that we can see
12 that within the specimen writing that is a construction that does occur.
13 Q. So -- I'm sorry, if I could just clarify -- if I could just ask
14 you a clarification on this. Within the specimen writing, which is the
15 writing on the bottom, you have - as you've shown us - two different types
16 of N constructions. And you conclude from that that the difference
17 we have on this sheet, 724/B, Prosecution 724/B, on the N which is circled
18 and 6, that that is not a significant difference?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Would you like to go to the next sheet --
21 A. If we just finish with this one because it also illustrates some
22 of the features that I was unable to match. And examples of those are the
23 use of a circle for the I dot, and these extra strokes associated with the
24 K. Again, these are some of the features that I was unable to match that
25 were present in the questioned writing that I was unable to match in the
1 specimen writing.
2 Q. Thank you. Should we move on to the next sheet then. For the
3 record, this is a sheet marked for identification P724/C.
4 A. Within this one I think if we --
5 MR. SHIN: And for the record, Dr. Barr is circling a letter on
6 the top handwriting sample and on the bottom putting the number 7.
7 Q. Could you explain that to us, please.
8 A. This is to show the similarities between the two letter Gs.
9 Again, you've got -- it's constructed in two strokes, so you've got the
10 circle forming the bowl of the G, in both cases, even in this example the
11 fact that it starts here, comes around, and finishes sort of within the
12 bowl of the G, as you can see is matched in the questioned. And then the
13 tail of the G is a separate stroke, and it forms this very sort of
14 triangular base to it. Again, it's good matches, and a lot of people --
15 most people do their Gs in one stroke and often have a very rounded base
16 to them. So it's a good match between the two sets of writings.
17 Q. When you say it's a good match, does that mean that it's a
18 significant similarity in your assessment?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Maybe just a couple more examples. I'm not sure if you would want
21 to go on the next page --
22 A. Probably quicker on the next page if we just --
23 Q. Excuse me, Dr. Barr, this next page is marked for identification
24 P724/D. Thank you.
25 A. To speed up, if we just circle on the bottom and label it 8 in
1 comparison with the word on the bottom and the questioned writing on the
2 top, you can see the similarities in the narrow S joining up from the
3 bottom to the top of the T the way the crossbar of the T joins into the A
4 and forms a very open circle that goes straight into the G, which comes
5 gown as a very straight line. So again, a lot of similarities between
6 those two words.
7 Q. And in the similarities between those two words, in your opinion,
8 is that a significant similarity?
9 A. Well, again as we're saying -- we're building up similarities as
10 we're going through, each one of which becomes significant.
11 Q. Okay. Perhaps if we could stop there, unless you would like to --
12 A. No.
13 Q. As you're saying, Dr. Barr, these are illustrations of
14 similarities and differences, which you identified in your analysis. The
15 Prosecution also asked you to conduct a second handwriting comparison. Is
16 that correct?
17 A. That's correct, yes.
18 Q. The questioned handwriting there, that was the same?
19 A. It was, yes.
20 Q. What did you have as the known specimen?
21 A. I was provided with the same specimens that I've had for my first
22 report, but I was given further specimen writing.
23 Q. Okay.
24 MR. SHIN: If we could please have the assistance of the usher in
25 placing these pages marked for identification, Prosecution 723/A
1 through -- /A through /K.
2 Q. Dr. Barr, do you recognise these documents?
3 A. These are photocopies of the original writing that I was provided
4 with as additional specimen writing.
5 MR. SHIN: Your Honours, we're coming close to the break. Before
6 I go into this second comparison. Would you like to take the break or
7 should I -- it may be more convenient if we do so now.
8 JUDGE LIU: Well, how long are you going to take for your direct?
9 MR. SHIN: I would say less than 10 more minutes.
10 JUDGE LIU: Let's continue and finish this section.
11 MR. SHIN: Thank you, Mr. President.
12 Q. If I could ask you briefly, Dr. Barr, what methodology did you
13 apply in comparing -- in conducting this comparison?
14 A. It was identical to how I've described it previously. I simply
15 had more examples of specimen writing with which to compare the questioned
16 writing to. And, as I've explained, because people's writing does vary
17 from an occasion to an occasion, the more specimen writing you can get --
18 is generally better.
19 Q. In the course of carrying out your handwriting comparison in this
20 case, did you also apply the same quality-control measures that you had in
21 the other -- in the first handwriting comparison and in your work
23 A. Yes. There was no difference between the previous comparison or
24 indeed any of the other comparisons that I did.
25 MR. SHIN: If I could now have the assistance of the usher in
1 placing on the ELMO a document marked for identification P718/A.
2 Q. Dr. Barr, what is that document?
3 A. It's a copy of my third report, which was dated the 27th of
4 January, this year.
5 Q. And is this report based on the second handwriting comparison that
6 you conducted?
7 A. Yes, it was. It was based on the comparison, taking into account
8 the additional specimen writing.
9 Q. If you could please guide us to the parts of the report in which
10 you set out your findings and your conclusion.
11 A. What I found in paragraph 2.5, the specimen writing that I'd been
12 provided with previously contained very few block capital letters. There
13 are more in the second bit of specimen writing. So I was able to better
14 match the block capitals from the questioned writing to the specimen
15 writing, which helped me to confirm my previous findings. However, the
16 features that I marked up before, such as the circular I dot and the
17 addition of extra strokes are still not matched within this additional
18 specimen writing. And so I did not feel that I was able to alter my
19 original conclusion that the number and the nature of the similarities
20 lead me to conclude that there was strong evidence that Mr. Jokic wrote
21 the questioned entries. However, the presence of those differences means
22 that I can't be more certain than that.
23 Q. So your conclusion on the seven-point scale, which you had
24 explained to us previously, your conclusion on this report, where does
25 that fall?
1 A. Again, it's the second down from the top.
2 Q. So you've come then to the same conclusion that you came to
3 following your first handwriting comparison?
4 A. Yes.
5 MR. SHIN: Just one minute, please, Your Honours.
6 Q. Dr. Barr, on this second handwriting comparison you were provided,
7 as you explained to us, this additional material, the, I believe, it's 11
8 pages of handwriting specimens. What were you told about that handwriting
10 A. I was told that it was taken from Mr. Jokic as a dictation from
11 the 11 pages of the questioned writing.
12 Q. Okay. Dr. Barr, are there any features about receiving these
13 additional pages that changed your work or that had an impact on your
14 methodology and your comparison?
15 A. Not really. It's more -- it's merely further specimen writing
16 with which to compare the questioned with.
17 Q. How were -- how did you incorporate these materials into your
18 comparison? Did you conduct the entire comparison again?
19 A. Obviously I still had my notes from the previous examination of
20 the questioned writing, and I was also provided with the questioned
21 writing again. In this case what I did was go through the additional
22 specimen writing to confirm that it was consistent with the specimen
23 writing that I'd received previously. I actually went through and drew
24 out each character again for this additional one and made notes where I
25 could better match things, where the matches were the same between the
2 Q. Dr. Barr, you explained that your understanding is that these
3 additional materials were handwriting -- was a handwriting specimen given
4 when the questioned material was dictated. Is that correct?
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. To a layman, the question might come up then: Why isn't it -- why
7 is it not identical to the questioned specimen and why are you not able to
8 move to the highest level of conclusion that it's definitely written by
9 Mr. Jokic?
10 A. I'm not able to move to that highest level of opinion because, as
11 I've explained, that there are still features within the questioned
12 writing that aren't matched within this additional -- within the totality
13 of the specimen writing that I've seen. However, as I've explained
14 before, two sets of writing are never similar from one to the other, and
15 so it doesn't surprise me that there will still be differences within the
16 additional specimen writing, because for example writing produced on
17 request, such as this was, generally doesn't contain the full range of
18 variation contained within a person's handwriting, which is why we take it
19 in addition to the previous specimen writing. And also, I am aware that
20 there is a time difference, again which can alter why you can't match
21 everything. And also obviously the circumstances under which this
22 additional writing occurred is different to the circumstances within the
23 specimen writing. And so while, as I think I said previously, the more
24 specimen writing you've got, the better. It doesn't necessarily mean that
25 the more you get you will always be able to match everything. There are
1 some occasions when that's simply not going to happen for whatever reason.
2 Q. So if I understand you correctly, Dr. Barr, one person writing the
3 same text on two different occasions, for the reasons you've explained, it
4 wouldn't necessarily be identical?
5 A. It would never be identical.
6 Q. It would never be identical.
7 Thank you.
8 MR. SHIN: Thank you, Your Honours. That's all.
9 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think we will take a break and we will resume
10 at 11.00.
11 --- Recess taken at 10.36 a.m.
12 --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.
13 JUDGE LIU: Well, before we have the witness, we have a ruling to
14 make. Yesterday or the day before yesterday Mr. Karnavas informed the
15 Bench that there's no need for him to cross-examine a witness called
16 Ibrahimafendic. So we looked into her testimony or statement and we
17 believe that we are in the position to admit her statement into the
18 evidence through 92 bis. It is so decided.
19 So could we have the witness, please.
20 [The witness entered court]
21 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Karnavas, are you ready for the cross-examination?
22 MR. KARNAVAS: Regrettably I have nothing to cross on.
23 JUDGE LIU: Oh, I'm surprised.
24 MR. KARNAVAS: Not that I don't want to, but I don't think it's
25 necessary, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
2 Mr. Lukic?
3 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, we have some cross. May we proceed?
4 JUDGE LIU: Yes, please proceed.
5 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Cross-examined by Mr. Lukic:
7 Q. Good morning, Ms. Barr, or I would rather say Dr. Barr. We don't
8 have those resources as the OTP and we don't have an expert on
9 handwriting, as Mr. Shin and I will have to conduct this
11 First of all, I would like just to clarify one thing, because in
12 the CV we received from the OTP it is mentioned that you finished Natural
13 Sciences, Girton College, Cambridge University and you acquired MA or is
14 it Bachelor of Arts, as you said?
15 A. It's an MA.
16 Q. MA?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Thank you. Before my real cross, I would like to put in front of
19 you our case, and our case that we are not claiming that Mr. Jokic did not
20 write portions of this operational duty officer logbook; we're just
21 claiming that some of the portions of these entries were tampered or added
22 later. And with your analysis and expertise, actually, you confirmed the
23 claims of Mr. Jokic. And I will just ask you today to give us some more
24 additional clarifications.
25 Is that fair enough?
1 A. [No verbal response]
2 Q. I will just ask you about probability scale or range of options,
3 as you named it and as it's identified within your report. Is it correct
4 that in the field of forensic handwriting comparative analysis, examiners
5 utilise different probability scales, as opposed to one probability scale,
6 as identified in your expertise?
7 A. Different forensic scientists will use different scales.
8 Q. You said that you conducted one examination of Dutch handwriting.
9 At that time, did you utilise NFI, actually Dutch system, or you utilised
10 your own scale?
11 A. My own scale.
12 Q. Your own scale. Okay.
13 MR. LUKIC: If Dr. Barr could be given her expertise from the 27th
14 of January, 2004, marked as 718, I guess.
15 Q. In this expertise you told us today that there is seven specific
16 levels that can be utilised by an examiner, such as yourself, in
17 conducting these comparative analysis. Correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. With respect to the category strong but not conclusive that you
20 reference, it states that you consider it unlikely that another person was
21 responsible. Correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Still, even after reviewing the specimen, writing by Mr. Jokic -
24 that's how we pronounce this name - you do not claim that there is
25 conclusive evidence that Mr. Jokic is a writer?
1 A. No.
2 Q. In your analysis and expertise, you found that there are some
3 parts in the middle of this questioned writings that were not written by
4 Mr. Jokic. And these parts you described on page 3 on your expertise from
5 the 16th of July, 2003. And if I'm not wrong it's marked as 716. And
6 these pages are marked by the Prosecution with numbers. So page 3 of your
7 expertise. And there are portions marked by the OTP exhibit numbers. And
8 if I can direct your attention to number -- fifth from the top, it's
9 02935747 and the next page, 02935748.
10 Is it right that the latter portion of the first page and the top
11 portion of the second page is not written by Mr. Jokic?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. In the same expertise from the 16th of July, 2003, on page 3 under
14 OTP numbers 02935745 and 02934747 you found that Mr. Jokic did not write
15 some numbers, a part of this writing. Is that right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Can you be so kind and take now the exhibit number P133, which is
18 actually 11 pages of the questioned text. You have them with you?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. With your permission, I would like to direct your attention to
21 page marked as -- it's actually the fourth page marked as 02935746. Do
22 you see that page?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Working this analysis you had a translation in front of you. Is
25 that correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. It's a typed translation. Is that correct?
3 A. That's correct, yes.
4 Q. Do you understand that numbers on the left-hand side actually
5 marked time, numbers on the left-hand side --
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. -- like 10.10, 24, and 15.
8 A. Yes. So I would ask you something about this number 15. On the
9 next page marked as 02935747, as we have already established, the bottom
10 part, the last four lines, were not written by Mr. Jokic. Is that
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. The first line of these four lines has number 13 or 14 in it. Is
14 that correct?
15 A. It seems to have, yes.
16 Q. And this number also represents time. Do you understand it that
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. On the next page, if you can turn, marked as 02935748, after four
20 lines that are not written, for lines on top, that are not written by
21 Mr. Jokic, in the third line written by Mr. Jokic there is also number 15.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. I would ask -- I would like to ask you now if you have any
24 explanation about this illogical time sequence represented in this
25 document, meaning that in between 10.24 and 13 we have time marked as 15,
1 1500 hours.
2 A. That's outside my expertise.
3 Q. But I wanted to ask you: Is it possible to establish that these
4 two zeros in 1500 hours are not written by Mr. Jokic?
5 A. On 2935748 --
6 Q. No, 5746.
7 A. It's not possible.
8 Q. So it's possible that those two numbers are not written by
9 Mr. Jokic?
10 A. It's possible.
11 Q. So did these differences, as added numbers, some different
12 characteristics of letter A and H, actually protected you from expressing
13 a definite opinion, although you had a specimen written by Mr. Jokic?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. As I could see from your last project written on 27th of January,
16 this year, you had a task to compare the additional specimen handwriting
17 in item 6 together with the handwriting detailed in paragraph 5.2 -
18 sorry - of your report dated 16th July, 2003, with a question on pages
19 20935743 to 20935753 of the unofficial duty officer's logbook in order to
20 determine whether or not there is any evidence that Dragan Jokic wrote the
21 questioned entries. Is that correct?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. My lead counsel from this case, Mr. Stojanovic, who is not with us
24 today, told me that it was agreed between him and Mr. McCloskey from the
25 Prosecutor's office that you will be asked to compare the whole day of the
1 13th of July, 1995, which is outside of these pages. Have you been asked
2 to do that or not?
3 A. No.
4 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. I had informed Mr. Stojanovic that anything
6 that was any new comparisons, which is what my understanding that he was
7 asking us about, needed to be done by his own expert, because as this
8 expert has told us previously they don't do separate tests for different
9 parties. And so this just came in in the last couple of days, and I did
10 tell him that they could not do any new comparisons, that this had come up
11 with Ms. Stojanovic -- Ms. Sinatra, because she had also, I believe, asked
12 this company to do something, and they told her a long time ago that we
13 can't work for both parties at the same time. It's just not how they do
14 it. So that is what this subject has to do with. And I'm sorry
15 Mr. Stojanovic isn't here.
16 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
17 Mr. Lukic, maybe there's some miscommunications between your
19 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, inside our team or in between our teams
20 with the Prosecution?
21 JUDGE LIU: Well, maybe that's inside your teams because the
22 changing of the counsel. Ms. Sinatra told Mr. Stojanovic and
23 Mr. Stojanovic told you about that.
24 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, Mr. Stojanovic and I speak the same
25 language and my B/C/S is much better than my English, so I doubt that
1 there would be any miscommunication, but I will move on. Thanks a lot.
2 JUDGE LIU: Yes, please.
3 MR. LUKIC:
4 Q. And, Dr. Barr, I assume that you cannot do that examination here
5 today for the rest of the 13th of July?
6 A. Not well.
7 Q. Fair enough. Thanks a lot.
8 I have one last set of questions. Is it possible to determine how
9 old are various parts of handwritings in this - how do we call it -
10 unofficial duty officer's logbook you examined, if one part is older than
11 the other, only for a couple of days?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Examining the specimen given by Mr. Jokic, did you conclude that
14 he tried to hide anything or his handwriting we can understand as honest
15 as possible?
16 A. Yes, it looked to be natural, fluent handwriting.
17 Q. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Barr, we don't have any further questions.
18 And we wish you a safe trip -- to have a better trip than yesterday when
19 you came.
20 JUDGE LIU: Any re-direct, Mr. Shin?
21 MR. SHIN: Nothing from the Prosecution, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
23 Well, at this stage, are there any documents to tender by the
25 MR. SHIN: Yes, Your Honour. We have -- I'll take them in order.
1 We have a document marked Prosecution 716. That's the first report of
2 Dr. Barr on her handwriting comparison. Second, we have Prosecution 717,
3 which is a second report of Dr. Barr, which was an expansion of that first
4 report. Thirdly we have Prosecution 718, which is the third report of
5 Dr. Barr. This is the recent one dated 27th of January, 2004.
6 Prosecution 719, which is the CV of Dr. Barr. Prosecution 720, which we
7 will not be tendering that. I'll move to Prosecution 722, which bears the
8 ERN number 02096264, that's one page; that is a personal information form
9 used by Dr. Barr in her handwriting comparison and analysis. Next a
10 document marked Prosecution 723, these are the 11 pages of handwriting
11 specimen recently provided for the purposes of Dr. Barr's third report.
12 And after that we have a document marked Prosecution 724, and I believe
13 that's 724/A through /K. And these represent some of the graphic
14 comparisons of the questioned and known handwriting, which Dr. Barr had
15 explained. And -- oh, yes, and finally we have the Prosecution 724 bis,
16 and these are the same documents as Prosecution 724 but with red circles
17 and numbers to indicate which letter or character she was explaining to
18 the Trial Chamber. So the Prosecution would move to have these admitted
19 into evidence.
20 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
21 Any objections, Mr. Karnavas?
22 MR. KARNAVAS: I don't have any objections. I do, however, as a
23 point of clarification find it somewhat odd that an expert who would
24 refuse on behalf of the Prosecution to examine a piece of document
25 requested by the Defence, given that the Prosecution has the burden of
1 proof at this stage. And I find it rather curious, and I -- perhaps I
2 think this is something that the Court may wish to make an inquiry because
3 it goes to the objectivity of the witness, You Honour.
4 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, my understanding, and the witness
6 would know the best, but my understanding is that being asked to examine
7 material for both sides is -- puts the examiner in a very potentially
8 difficult situation. And it's my recollection that that was not their
9 policy, having had a conversation about it. And so I think the
10 conclusions or the suggestions by counsel are really, at this point,
11 unwarranted. And I don't find any substance in them. But this witness of
12 course may be able to answer any issues there are on that point, as I'm
13 going on conversations I had with Ms. Sinatra and the office that she
14 works for several months ago.
15 JUDGE LIU: I see.
16 Well, I think different legal systems have different rules
17 concerning the expert witness. In some countries the expert is allowed to
18 testify for both parties and some not. I think in this case we believe
19 that the Defence team has the full opportunity to call their witnesses,
20 expert witness, on that specific issue in a later stage.
21 MR. KARNAVAS: Just --
22 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
23 MR. KARNAVAS: -- Just one point of clarification. The request
24 was made the Defence to the Prosecution, therefore the Prosecutor was
25 making the request of the expert. But be that as it may, I think that we
1 are well aware of, and I want to stress this, even though it's not -- this
2 is not a particular issue in my case right now, but the Defence has very,
3 very limited funds. We are allocated 100 hours in total for all experts
4 for our cases, and that's why I think there are times when the Defence
5 asks Prosecution witnesses to, for instance, make those examinations. And
6 so I think the Court needs to keep that in mind that we don't have the
7 resources that we would normally like to enjoy under the concept of
8 equality of arms.
9 JUDGE LIU: Well, that is another matter. If in your case you
10 have some difficulties, please inform the Bench. We'll do our best to
11 help you within certain limits.
12 Well, Mr. Lukic, do you have any objections to the documents
13 tendered by the Prosecution?
14 MR. LUKIC: No, we don't, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. I think at this stage --
16 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
17 JUDGE LIU: And before we make the rulings, there's a
18 clarification I would like to seek from the Prosecution. That document
19 P724 is from the /A to /K. And document P724 bis is from the /A to /H.
20 Is that right? Are they the same document or different documents? For
21 the sake of the record, we would like to have a clear understanding.
22 MR. SHIN: Yes, thank you, Your Honour. The 724 is broken down
23 into 724/A through /K. 724 bis is the same thing as 724, but in the case
24 of case of 724/A, 724/B, 724/C, and 724/D, all of those 724 bis, they have
25 on them the red circles drawn by Dr. Barr, together with a number
1 indicating which circle -- to distinguish the circles.
2 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
3 So this matter is cleared up. So our ruling is that those
4 documents are admitted into the evidence.
5 Are there any documents to tender by the Defence?
6 MR. LUKIC: No, Your Honour, we don't have anything today.
7 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
8 MR. KARNAVAS: No, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
10 Well, Witness, thank you very much for coming to The Hague to give
11 your testimony. It seems to me that the time you used for your testimony
12 is much less than the time you travelled to The Hague, although usually
13 they only take a one-hour flight. But we are greatly assisted by your
14 testimony. The usher will show you out of the room. I hope this time on
15 your way back you are much luckier than when you came here.
16 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
17 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
18 [The witness withdrew]
19 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. McCloskey, are there any other witnesses
20 waiting for this afternoon?
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: No, Mr. President. We have -- Mr. Brunborg is
22 coming over from studies in the Middle East and he should be here this
23 weekend and ready to go for Tuesday, as planned. And Dean Manning is here
24 and ready to testify after Mr. Brunborg. So we don't have anybody to fill
25 the small gap this afternoon, but we're on schedule and regarding the
1 potential two new witnesses, I was able to speak to Mr. Jovicic, the RS
2 liaison and he has assured me he will do all he can to get those folks
3 here. And looking at the last week of February is the best possible time,
4 perhaps sooner if we can make it sooner.
5 Perhaps one thing to clear up, I misspoke yesterday, the Rule
6 regarding reciprocal discovery and the Defence's obligation to provide
7 reciprocal discovery to the Prosecution was recently deleted from the
8 Rules. It's a little unclear where that puts us going back to our
9 original agreement for reciprocal discovery. I've discussed this briefly
10 with Mr. Karnavas and I don't think we'll have a problem sorting this out,
11 and we'll continue to discuss it as you had mentioned. I apologise. I
12 didn't realise that it -- as you know, these Rules tend to come and go at
14 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. So you mean that next week we
15 only have two witnesses?
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: That's correct. And Mr. Brunborg, I'm hoping,
17 will not take more than a day on direct. And I know Mr. Karnavas is
18 looking forward to cross-examining him. And he'll -- I haven't gotten an
19 estimate from him yet. And I don't think Mr. Manning will take more than
20 one day on direct either, though I'm speaking for Mr. Waespi and Ms. Issa,
21 so I haven't got the latest information, but I think that's about right.
22 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
23 Are there any matters that the Defence would like to raise?
24 MR. KARNAVAS: No, Mr. President.
25 MR. LUKIC: No, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
2 So the hearing for today is adjourned.
3 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned
4 at 11.34 a.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday,
5 the 3rd day of February, 2004, at 2.15 p.m.