1 Thursday, 12 May 2005
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.17 p.m.
5 JUDGE LIU: Call the case, please, Mr. Court Deputy.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case number
7 IT-01-48-T, the Prosecutor versus Sefer Halilovic.
8 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
9 Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome back to these
10 proceedings. Judge El Mahdi won't be able to join us today and tomorrow,
11 so in accordance with Rule 15(B) the remaining Judges decided to continue
12 our proceedings. Before we hear the witness, are there any matters that
13 the parties would like to raise?
14 Yes, Mr. Weiner.
15 MR. WEINER: Just two brief matters, Your Honour. One is with
16 regard to Enver Mujezinovic. As we notified you at the Status Conference,
17 he is being withdrawn from our list.
18 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
19 Any comments on that, Mr. Morrissey?
20 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, in light of the rulings that Your
21 Honours made in the past concerning the Prosecution's ability to withdraw
22 witnesses, we don't seek to add anything to that. We do regret being put
23 to the work, but at the same time Your Honours have ruled on any
24 substantive matters that I would want to raise and I have nothing to add
25 to it now.
1 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much for your cooperation. This
2 witness is withdrawn from the witness list.
3 MR. WEINER: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 The next matter concerns actually an ongoing request by the Court
5 to try and limit or to try and 89(F) or 92 bis witnesses as much as
6 possible. As the Court knows, the first pathologist of the two we used
7 the 89(F) system or process, and were able to move quickly through that
8 request and get her completed within one day. The next witness is also a
9 pathologist. He has filed extensive autopsy reports. He has a witness
10 statement and he has provided proofing notes yesterday. So it is our
11 plan, and I mentioned it to the Defence -- in fact, the Defence a few
12 weeks ago suggested that we 89(F) -- or maybe three weeks ago suggested
13 that -- and we are in fact going to 89(F) the witness. We are making the
14 request to the Court to use the 89(F) process. We would put those three
15 documents in. The only testimony would be, other than background, have
16 him explain some medical concepts which are in fact in the different
17 various reports, and then turn him over for cross-examination.
18 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
19 Could I hear the comments from the Defence.
20 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes, Your Honour. This witness is an expert and
21 is giving evidence within his field of expertise. He has provided an
22 extensive statement and also we have the reports and have had them for a
23 long time. I'm not sure of the status of the proofing notes in the 89(F)
24 situation here. And in particular, I'm not sure whether they've been
25 signed or what the position is with respect to them. But generally
1 speaking, we agree and we encourage this approach to be taken. There will
2 be some significant cross-examination -- or not short cross-examination.
3 Whether it's significant is a matter for the Court to decide. But there
4 will be some cross-examination that happens. We may finish him today,
5 it's possible. Probably finish him tomorrow within, you know, half an
6 hour, perhaps an hour at the most. So we agree to that but I'm just
7 wondering if it would be possible to clarify what the situation with the
8 proofing notes is. Certainly as to the statements and the reports, I'm --
9 I do agree to those being tendered under 89(F).
10 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Weiner.
11 MR. WEINER: Yes. The witness arrived after lunch today. I've
12 shown him the proofing notes, he agrees to them. I can have him sign them
13 right here and introduce those.
14 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
15 So the Prosecution's request is granted by this Bench.
16 MR. WEINER: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Morrissey.
18 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes. Now, Your Honour, there's a matter that the
19 Defence has to raise. We've indicated to the Prosecutors by a letter that
20 we would raise it and now we do. This concerns the expert -- I describe,
21 unfortunately, as the alleged expert, Mr. Ridgway. Your Honours, by a
22 letter dated the 10th of May, the Defence continued a chain of requests to
23 the Prosecutor to clarify what the situation was with the expert that they
24 propose to call. That's Major General or Lieutenant General Ridgway, and
25 then the Prosecution responded by a letter dated the 12th of May,
1 indicating as follows, and we have to put this on the record now, what the
2 Prosecution have indicated, because we take it very seriously, we oppose
3 what's proposed, and we think there are some very serious issues raised by
5 What's been indicated to us here is that the Prosecution does
6 intend to call General Ridgway. That's the first step. Secondly, the
7 Prosecution say they want to -- they intend to tender the existing report.
8 Next, they say they would not highlight -- they would not rely on certain
9 portions highlighted in yellow to the annexed copy. I should indicate
10 that an annexed copy has been given to us with certain parts of it
11 highlighted in grey. That will be a function of our printer rather than
12 the Prosecutor's colour-blindness. So we know what parts they say they
13 don't want to rely on. They then go on to say this: "We will blank out
14 these parts from the tendered copy and have the general adopt the
16 Now, that's what's proposed, apparently, by the Prosecution. The
17 Prosecution have gone on to say this: "General Ridgway is the chief of
18 military intelligence for the United Kingdom. He has an extremely limited
19 time to testify and he's only available in the foreseeable future to
20 testify on 25 May. They indicate a contact they have had with the
21 Chamber's legal officer in an attempt to extend that time period to make
22 it an all-day session.
23 The Prosecution also indicate that there is some further materials
24 or further evidence that needs to be led. Firstly, it's indicated here:
25 "We would anticipate leading brief oral evidence from the general in
1 relation to several aspects of his report." It's not explained what they
2 are. The Prosecution also says, and I'm jumping a paragraph here just in
3 order to keep this as coherent, if I can. The Prosecution also says they
4 intend to lead additional oral evidence from him on the specific measures
5 that a commander should take to prevent breaches of international
6 humanitarian law. They say: "We will provide you with notes in the next
7 week of the effect of his proposed testimony on this point and concerning
8 any other additions to his report. We expect," says the Prosecutor, "his
9 evidence on failure to prevent to accord with our pleadings in the
10 indictment and the pre-trial brief on these matters."
11 Now, that's what the Prosecution have indicated to us, and I've
12 got some responses that I have to make to it now and to indicate further
13 responses that we are going to make. But, Your Honours, I have to call on
14 the Prosecutor before I go any further to answer a couple of questions,
15 and the first one is: Has Major General Ridgway seen the addendum with
16 the parts to be deleted? Secondly, has he agreed to sign such a document
17 that has been cut? Thirdly, are the deletions there deletions of the
18 Prosecutor or of Mr. Ridgway? And finally, it's probably the question
19 that should be asked first, have they spoken to him at all in person?
20 And we need answers to those questions before we go any further, so I ask
21 for those to be answered, please.
22 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Weiner, are you in a position to answer those
24 MR. WEINER: Mr. Re has handled that matter, would be in a
25 position. However, what we would request is that we have a witness
1 sitting out here and they've indicated that they would only spend maybe a
2 half-hour or so tomorrow. Can we deal with the witness and then maybe
3 spend an hour going back and forth fighting as to this issue tomorrow,
4 rather than having a witness sit there?
5 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Morrissey, is that an urgent matter?
6 MR. MORRISSEY: It is, Your Honours, because the way things are
7 proposed by the Prosecutor, they want to lead their expert evidence
8 through expertise that is as yet undiscovered to us. On the 25th, which
9 is 14 days away, our arrangements have to be made, if they're permitted,
10 and we're going to be moving that they not be allowed to call this witness
11 at all, I can indicate that. But depending on how things work, the fact
12 is we have to make our arrangements in a hurry. And so it is a matter of
13 urgency. I must say I'm entirely in Your Honours' hands as to whether you
14 want to hear this now. We want it dealt with today; we don't want it to
15 be put off. It's -- we've got some harsh comments to make and some
16 submissions we have to make about this; we can do it at the end of today;
17 we can do it now. The Prosecution case is nearly finished and we have
18 been asking for this for months. I understand there's a witness there,
19 and it's with regret that I raise it, but the Defence just finds itself in
20 an impossible position as a result of this. So if Your Honour is minded
21 to hear it at the end of the day, of course we'll cooperate with whatever
22 Your Honour thinks is appropriate in these circumstances, but urgency is
23 upon us.
24 JUDGE LIU: Well, maybe Mr. Re could answer the questions you put
25 to him today and you might save your harsh argument for tomorrow when we
1 finish the present witness.
2 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, it would ease my mind if he answered
3 those questions right now. It wouldn't take very long.
4 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
5 MR. MORRISSEY: Perhaps if we could have those answers and then
6 put the argument tomorrow.
7 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Mr. Re.
8 MR. RE: The questions are: Firstly, has the Major General seen
9 the addendum with the parts to be deleted? Well, yes, we sent him a copy
10 of the report with the highlighted portions, which we say that in the
11 light of the evidence given in the trial and the documents originally
12 provided to him, that we could not rely upon as part of his testimony. So
13 the answer to that is: Yes, the lieutenant general has an identical copy
14 of the document given to the Defence and the Chamber's legal officer.
15 Secondly, has he agreed to sign such document that has been cut?
16 I don't understand what is meant by "cut." There is nothing at all
17 abnormal about an expert amending a report in the light of changes to
18 evidence between when an original report is made and when a later one is
19 done. So the answer to that is the lieutenant general has not given any
20 indication one way or the other. The Prosecution has merely said that we
21 would not rely upon those portions of the report, in exactly the same way
22 as we would say we would not rely upon portions of a Rule 92 bis statement
23 or an affidavit which are no longer relevant to the proceedings. And most
24 particularly here, in relation to the failure to the prevent Uzdol,
25 obviously that part of his report is not relevant to these proceedings and
1 cannot be relied upon. So the answer to the second question is no.
2 Thirdly, are the deletions of the Prosecutor or of Mr. Ridgway?
3 Clearly -- my learned friend knows that, clearly they are the
4 Prosecutor's. The Prosecutor looking at the document and saying we can't
5 rely upon these parts of the report when we call him to give evidence. So
6 I hope that assists, but we are still mystified by any submission that
7 could be made attacking this particular general's expertise and the right
8 of the Prosecutor to call whoever it likes as it - as long as they are
9 qualified - as its military expert. And I add for the purposes of today's
10 proceedings, that nothing in that letter is in any way different to any
11 indication that we have previously given the Trial Chamber and the Defence
12 as to the procedure to be adopted and the fact that we're going to call
13 the general. We've just put it in writing because they asked us yet again
14 the same questions, which we have answered several times.
15 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
16 MR. MORRISSEY: I'm sorry, Your Honour. That's three questions.
17 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
18 MR. MORRISSEY: The fourth one is: Have they spoken to him?
19 MR. RE: The answer to that is yes, but it's only administrative.
20 JUDGE LIU: What do you mean by "administrative"?
21 MR. RE: To get him here. There's no -- not in any great
22 substance, touching briefly upon the fact that parts of the report can't
23 be relied upon and we would require oral evidence on the issue, as is
24 pointed out in the report -- the letter, that is, the failure to prevent,
25 and we will be in touch fairly soon.
1 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
2 I believe that tomorrow after we finish the witness we have plenty
3 of time to discuss these matters in detail.
4 There's two rulings concerning of the admission of the documents I
5 would like to make at this stage. The first one is about the document MFI
6 236. On the 15th April 2005, the Defence filed a motion for the admission
7 of evidence, in which the Defence requested the admission of document MFI
8 236. This document previously has been tendered through Witness Jusuf
9 Jasarevic on the 4th of March, 2005, but it was not admitted by the Trial
10 Chamber in its oral rulings on the 30th March 2005, without prejudice for
11 further application for the admission. During the trial hearing of the
12 10th March 2005 the Prosecution did not object to the admission of this
13 document. In its motion, the Defence requests that this document now be
14 admitted based on the evidence presented by Witness Nermin Eminovic. This
15 witness testified that he had received this report and had sent the
16 information to his superior. The Defence, on March 11, did not tender
17 this document through the witness Eminovic because it was understood that
18 it was already admitted.
19 The document contains information as to a number of relevant
20 issues, including information concerning the deaths of one of the alleged
21 victims, Slavko Mendes, in the attack on Uzdol. The Trial Chamber, based
22 on the evidence of witness Eminovic, found that the document MFI 236 is
23 relevant and has probative value and therefore grants Defence motion for
24 admission of evidence filed on the 15th April 2005 and admits this
25 document into evidence. It is so decided.
1 Another oral decision is about agreed facts. The Trial Chamber
2 will now decide on a motion re: agreed facts and the motion for withdrawal
3 of motion for judicial notice on the 22nd of April 2005. In the motion,
4 the Defence submits that on the 21st April 2005 the Prosecution and
5 Defence met and agreed upon a number of proposed facts from the Galic and
6 the Martinovic judgements, which were attached in annexes A and B to the
7 motion. The Defence requests the Trial Chamber to regard those facts as
8 having been agreed upon by the parties. The Defence also seeks leave to
9 withdraw its previous motion for judicial notice filed on the 29th
10 February 2005.
11 Rule 65 ter (H) is intended to promote agreement between the
12 parties and to narrow down the scope of factual and legal issues that will
13 be litigated to points regarding which the parties are in dispute. The
14 agreed facts are accepted into the proceedings and a matter to which the
15 agreed facts relate ceases to be a disputed issue.
16 Rule 65 ter (M) provides that the Trial Chamber may proprio motu
17 exercise any of the functions of the Pre-Trial Judge. The Trial Chamber
18 therefore finds there's no obstacles for it to record points of agreement
19 of parties at the trial stage. The Trial Chamber is of the opinion that
20 the recording of points of agreed -- of agreement between the parties at
21 the trial stage results in the acceptance of those agreed points as
22 evidence under Rule 89(C).
23 For those reasons, the Trial Chamber recalls the agreement of the
24 parties regarding the facts set out in the annex (A) and (B) to the
25 motion. The Trial Chamber also grants leave for the Defence to withdraw
1 its motion for judicial notice of 29th February 2005.
2 Lastly, the Trial Chamber admits the two annexes of the motions
3 into the evidence and requests the registrar to assign one Defence exhibit
4 number to the two annexes. It is so decided.
5 Well, I believe this is the moment for us to have the witness.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, pursuant to the oral order just
7 announced, exhibit numbers for the two annexes will be Exhibit D408.
8 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
9 [The witness entered court]
10 JUDGE LIU: Good afternoon, Witness.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
12 JUDGE LIU: Would you please make the solemn declaration in
13 accordance with the paper Madam Usher is showing to you.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
15 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
16 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. You may sit down, please.
17 Yes, Mr. Weiner.
18 WITNESS: SIMUN ANDJELINOVIC
19 [Witness answered through interpreter]
20 Examined by Mr. Weiner:
21 Q. Good afternoon. Would you state your name, please.
22 A. Good afternoon. My name is Simun Andjelinovic.
23 Q. Could you tell us what you do for work.
24 A. I'm a doctor and I have two specialisations; one is forensic
25 medicine and the other is pathology. At the moment I'm working at the
1 pathology department of the Split clinical hospital. I am the head of the
2 department. I have 77 employees who work under me.
3 Q. Sir, I'm going to ask you some leading questions to move through
4 your background very quickly. You have a degree in medicine and a Ph.D.
5 in forensic medicine. Is that correct?
6 A. Yes, that's correct.
7 Q. You serve as a professor of pathology and forensic pathology?
8 A. Yes. As I said before, I specialise in pathology and forensic
9 medicine and I teach at the faculty of medicine. I teach pathology and I
10 teach forensic medicine at the faculty of law.
11 Q. You have served as author or co-author of some 30 articles
12 relating to pathology and forensic pathology. Is that correct?
13 A. Yes. These are articles that were published in international
14 publications, but I have many more publications, more than that.
15 Q. You have lectured several times in the United States as well as in
16 Croatia, Slovenia, Italy, Austria, and Bosnia?
17 A. Yes. I'm a member of international associations for forensic
18 medicine; the American Academy for Forensic Medicine, for example, as well
19 as the Society of Pathologists of Europe.
20 Q. You've performed over 2800 autopsies. Is that correct, sir?
21 A. Yes, at least that many so far.
22 Q. Now, let's move to September 17th, 1993. Where were you working
23 at that time?
24 A. At the time, I was working at the Split clinical hospital at my
25 department, and I was at the head of the department as well as a
1 pathologist specialist and a specialist in forensic medicine.
2 Q. Now, on that date were some 27 bodies transported from Uzdol for
3 your examination?
4 A. Yes, that's correct.
5 Q. And did you and a team begin autopsies on that date?
6 A. Yes, that's what I did and I also wrote that down in the records.
7 Q. All right. Who performed the autopsies?
8 A. I, with my team.
9 Q. And as a result of these post-mortem examinations, were any
10 reports drafted?
11 A. Yes. Already in the course of the autopsy, I dictated certain
12 data and findings, after which all of that was recorded and I went over
13 what was recorded. And after I did that, I signed it.
14 Q. Sir, I'd like to show you Exhibit 65 ter 137, which has an ERN
15 number of 0105-7135 through 0105-7279.
16 THE REGISTRAR: That will be MFI 409.
17 MR. WEINER:
18 Q. Is it on your screen, sir?
19 A. Not yet.
20 MR. WEINER: Could you go to the next page or the pages with the
21 writing, please.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
23 MR. WEINER: Could you start scrolling -- could the registrar
24 start scrolling to the autopsy reports.
25 Q. The first autopsy report is --
1 MR. MORRISSEY: I'm sorry, could I just intervene very briefly
2 here. As I indicated, I don't object to the autopsy reports going in.
3 Some of the pages that are currently on the screen are correspondence with
4 other individuals. I don't know that they connect to this witness at all.
5 I didn't understand the Prosecutor was going to be tendering these. It
6 may be that in the break we can discuss that. I don't -- I had -- I just
7 don't have a position about it yet. I didn't think it was going to be
8 tendered, so I don't object to, of course, the autopsy reports themselves,
9 which I understand my friend to be going to, but it's just there's four
10 pages of material here which is probably irrelevant and not what the
11 Prosecutor is going to, but perhaps he can tell us what the situation is.
12 MR. WEINER: We can meet at the break and discuss those initial
13 matters. What I think it might be easier, let me just hand a book, which
14 is page 10 to 154 in English and the tenth page in B/C/S. If he can just
15 confirm that those are the autopsy reports.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Starting with number 01057145, those
17 are the copies of my original reports that I drafted during the external
18 examination and post-mortem of the bodies that were brought from Uzdol, a
19 total of 27 of them. And they go up to the page number -- just give me a
20 moment here, please -- 01057279. These pages correspond to the reports
21 that I drafted during the external examination on post-mortem on the 17th
22 of September, 1993.
23 MR. WEINER:
24 Q. Now, sir, did you provide the information that went into those
25 autopsy reports, the medical information?
1 A. Yes, yes. I participated in drafting these reports. And after
2 the external examination and post-mortem, I provided information that went
3 into the reports.
4 Q. Now, the information that's contained, is that accurate to the
5 best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
6 A. Some of the information contained at the beginning of the report
7 with regard to the name, the date of birth, the day and time of death was
8 provided to us by third persons, the persons who had brought the bodies to
9 us. As for the professional part of the reports, those were drafted
10 during the external examination of the bodies and post-mortem.
11 Q. Yes, and that's the information I'm interested in. The medical
12 observations and conclusions contained therein, are those true and
13 accurate to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
14 A. I did them to the best of my knowledge, and I fully believe that
15 this information is accurate.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 I would now like to show you a copy of a statement dated 16 April
18 2002. Are you familiar with that statement, sir?
19 A. I gave this statement during the interview with Mr. Brun Bernard
20 in Split in my office in the Split clinical hospital.
21 Q. And the information that you provided, is that also accurate to
22 the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
23 A. Yes. This information is correct and it is in keeping with the
24 reports of the external examination and post-mortem that I have mentioned
25 and that you showed a copy of to me.
1 MR. WEINER: I'd like to offer that at this time, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE LIU: Any objections?
3 MR. MORRISSEY: No, Your Honour, in keeping with what we said
4 earlier on.
5 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
6 As admitted into the evidence.
7 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P410.
8 MR. WEINER:
9 Q. I would like to now show you the Prosecutor's proofing notes,
10 which are dated yesterday, dated as of yesterday's date, 11 May 2005.
11 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
12 MR. WEINER:
13 Q. Have you seen those before?
14 A. Yes, I saw these notes while I was preparing for this testimony
15 and I fully agree with the things that I have said and that are recorded
17 Q. Could you please sign and date those notes, please.
18 A. [Marks].
19 Q. Thank you, sir.
20 MR. WEINER: Could we offer that, Your Honour?
21 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Morrissey.
22 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes. Well, Your Honours, as long as the witness
23 is asked the question that he -- and gives the answer that he speaks
24 English well enough to understand that document, then of course we don't
25 have any objection.
1 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
2 Usually proofing notes are not admitted into the evidence, but in
3 this case we will make an exceptional ruling on that. It is admitted into
4 the evidence.
5 MR. WEINER: Thank you.
6 JUDGE LIU: With a separate number on it.
7 MR. WEINER:
8 Q. And for the record, do you speak English, Dr. Andjelinovic?
9 A. [In English] Yes, yes, I speak English.
10 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P411.
11 MR. WEINER:
12 Q. Now, sir, the information that you were to testify to today are
13 your 27 autopsy reports, your 2002 statement, your Prosecutor's proofing
14 notes; is that the information that you plan to give to this Chamber
16 A. [Interpretation] Yes, all of this information.
17 Q. I'd like to show you one last item. It is a book of photographs,
18 and this is if the Court would like to see the photographs. They're
19 mentioned in the autopsy reports.
20 MR. WEINER: The book that we provided to the Defence had pictures
21 from Grabovica and other matters which we've removed, so it's strictly the
22 20 pictures taken during the 27 autopsies which relate to this witness.
23 The photograph numbers in the system, in the LiveNote system is 0 -- in
24 the e-court system is 0361-7328 through 0361-7483.
25 Apparently they're not in the e-court system; they've been given
1 those ERN numbers, but it should be in next week.
2 Q. Do you recognise those photographs, sir?
3 A. [No verbal response].
4 Q. When were those photographs taken?
5 A. Yes, I recognise all of these photos and they correspond to the
6 originals that I have with me and that were taken during the autopsies.
7 During the interview, Mr. Bernard took those photos from me, and as I say,
8 he photocopied all of them, so I can say that these photos are identical.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 MR. WEINER: We'd like to offer those, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE LIU: Defence?
12 MR. MORRISSEY: There's no objection.
13 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
14 And the question is: Should we have one number for all those
15 photos or each for one number?
16 MR. WEINER: One number for all those photos. They have a
17 separate ERN number on each photograph.
18 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
19 Could we have the number, please.
20 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P412.
21 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
22 MR. WEINER:
23 Q. Now, sir, in your report you describe gunshot wounds and various
24 locations or ranges of the weapon which fired a gunshot wound. You
25 described the marking that a gunshot wound would make. If I gave you a
1 sheet of paper, could you show us or draw on a piece of paper the
2 different types of wounds based on what you called close and absolute,
3 close wounds, intermediate, and relatively close wounds, and long-range or
4 distance wounds. If we gave you some sheets of paper and if we use the
5 ELMO machine, could you just show us what you were referring to in the
6 different distances and ranges.
7 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would gladly do that because this
9 is very important for the understanding of my descriptions.
10 JUDGE LIU: Is there any possibility for the witness to draw it on
11 the e-court system?
12 MR. WEINER: Yeah, if it could be done.
13 THE REGISTRAR: We could try that.
14 MR. WEINER: If it could be done.
15 JUDGE LIU: Let's try that first.
16 MR. WEINER: Try this first.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If we see this as the barrel of a
18 firearm from which a bullet is being fired, after the bullet leaves the
19 barrel, together with the bullet there is also gunpowder particles moving
20 together with the bullet, and parallel with them there is also fire which
21 is created during the combustion, and also the bullet moves along with
22 that. Every bullet has its shape, and it will all depend on where the
23 skin is posing an obstacle to the bullet that is moving at a high speed.
24 So an absolute-range wound is a wound which was inflicted from
25 between 0 centimetres and 5 centimetres from the barrel point of the
1 firearm. This wound will be star-shaped, it will be irregular, and at the
2 bottom of the wound we will have -- we will find burns due to fire and we
3 will also find dirt caused by gunpowder particles. Such an entry wound is
4 called an absolute closeness wound, and it is usually much bigger than the
5 exit wound inflicted by the same bullet.
6 A range between 5 centimetres and any other distance which depends
7 on the characteristics of the firearm and can be up to 1 metre, we can see
8 wounds on the body which is circular in shape. However, since there are
9 also gunpowder particles inflicting wound, there is a trace of gunpowder
10 around the wound in the shape of a tattoo. That's why this wound looks
11 different than the wound that was inflicted from a very close range and
12 has very different, very important characteristics of its own.
13 And finally, the last type of wound, that is the entry wound,
14 would be a far-range wound, which is also circular. And in its middle
15 inner part, it has the so-called contusion ring, the diameter of which
16 could be 1 or 2 millimetres; that is its thickness. What is important for
17 this type of wound inflicted from a distant range is that it is most
18 commonly circular if the bullet passes through the skin at the right
19 angle. However, if the bullet enters the skin under a different angle,
20 then this wound can be oval and the contusion ring in this case is more
21 pronounced in one part and less pronounced in another part.
22 What happens to the bullet when it actually enters the body? Its
23 kinetic energy, which is proportional to its speed, is transported across
24 the surrounding tissue. This tissue starts vibrating due to its
25 elasticity. And because of the transfer of energy, the surrounding tissue
1 starts breaking up. In addition to that, the bullet will also encounter a
2 bone. The bone will break up or shatter. And its fragments that
3 originate from that action assume kinetic energy of their own and they
4 continue moving and they also cause damage to the tissue. This is what we
5 called secondary projectiles.
6 When the bullet hits a bone, this may cause the deformity of the
7 bullet and it can split into two or even more fragments which will
8 continue moving as secondary projectiles. After this, the bullet
9 continues moving to the point where it will exit the body.
10 And now something has to be said about the exit wound, which
11 appears as the result of the break-up of the skin and subcutaneous tissue.
12 This exit wound has the following characteristics: It is star-shaped;
13 however, unlike the previous three entry wounds, the skin and the tissue
14 is pushed forward and the wound, when it is pushed back, can be almost
15 completely closed. That is why we call this an adaptable borders or an
16 adaptable wound.
17 As one can see from my drawing, every educated forensic
18 pathologist, based on the traces of -- on a dead body can make a
19 distinction between an entry wound and an exit wound.
20 Another thing that needs to be emphasised is the fact that in
21 forensic pathology we also see explosive wounds inflicted by firearms.
22 Such wounds are a result of the explosion or eruption of an explosive
23 device. When this happens, we have fragments of various shapes that
24 separate from the body of explosive device. These fragments move in
25 various directions away from the explosive device. Unlike a projectile,
1 particles of an explosive device are of an irregular shape and that is
2 why, when they encounter the human tissue, due to their shape and form
3 they will very soon transmit their kinetic energy onto the human tissue.
4 That is why they're -- the channel through which they pass will, as a
5 rule, be much shorter. A wound that is inflicted by such an irregular
6 object will also have an irregular shape and it will have a different set
7 of characteristics. Around the edges of that wound we will see contusion
8 spots and also we will see gunpowder particles and dirt which travels --
9 which travel together with the fragments of the explosive device. That is
10 why an explosive wound has different characteristics on the tissue than
11 the wounds previously mentioned.
12 What happens after that, and what is interesting from the
13 pathology point of view, what happens to the bullet that has entered the
14 body. For example, a bullet fired from a Kalashnikov, from an automatic
15 rifle, when this bullet enters the skin, it travels for 16 centimetres in
16 a very straight line. And after that, it starts rotating, and finally it
17 exits the body. In some other types of weapons and bullets, for example
18 AK-47 rifle, we have a bullet which in its upper part has air. When such
19 a bullet hits the skin, it starts moving forward so that its trajectory
20 through the body changes and rotation starts immediately after the bullet
21 has entered the body. And that is why this type of bullet causes more
22 serious damage in the body and that is why such a projectile causes bone
23 fracture, and that's why it is often referred to as a bone-breaker.
24 Q. For the sake of the record, on the bottom right could you write
25 "bullets" of the Kalashnikov and the AK-47 bullets on the bottom right so
1 we know there are four different or three different -- actually, four
2 different pictures.
3 A. Yes, this would be a Kalashnikov bullet, this would be an AK-47.
4 Q. And below AK-47 could you write "bullets," please, write the word
6 A. [In English] Okay.
7 Q. Okay. Okay. Could you write it in English, too.
8 A. [Marks].
9 Q. Thank you.
10 Now, to the left of that, to the picture, could you write
12 A. [Marks].
13 Q. In the middle could you write "bullet entry wounds" in relation to
14 the top left -- the middle left.
15 A. [Marks].
16 Q. And then on the top -- the middle right, could you write "exit
18 A. [Marks].
19 Q. And in the middle can you write "bone breaking" or "bone
21 A. [Marks].
22 Q. Thank you. Thank you.
23 MR. WEINER: Could we offer that, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE LIU: Well, before that, you may ask this witness to sign
25 this chart.
1 MR. WEINER:
2 Q. If you could do it on the lower right-hand corner.
3 A. [Marks].
4 Q. Thank you.
5 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
6 There's no objections from the Defence?
7 MR. MORRISSEY: No, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE LIU: So it's admitted into the evidence.
9 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P413.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise because of my
11 handwriting. It's not the prettiest.
12 MR. WEINER:
13 Q. It's fine, much better than mine.
14 Now I would like to show you some photographs from Exhibit P14,
15 which are the photos that were just admitted, three photos on Sanction.
16 You just described various wounds and I'd like to show you. The first
17 photograph is 0361-7381. That's from victim number nine. Of the three
18 types of wounds, which is that and why?
19 A. [In English] There is no picture now.
20 Q. One moment.
21 A. [Interpretation] This would be absolutely close-range wound. This
22 would be the first one in my diagram because the mouth of the barrel was
23 placed very close to the skin, so that the wound is star-shaped, it's of
24 an irregular shape. And we said that in that case the entry wound is
25 larger than the exit wound.
1 Q. Okay. Now I'd like to show you another one, from victim 18, which
2 is photograph 0361-7425.
3 A. If we look at the diagram, this would be a wound we described as a
4 relatively close-range wound, where along the edges of the wound you see
5 that tattoo effect by the gunpowder particles that I spoke about. And
6 that would indicate that the mouth of the barrel was further away from the
8 Q. Thank you. And now the final one I want to show you is from
9 victim 19, photograph 0361-7435.
10 A. This would be an exit wound.
11 Q. Okay. Could you explain why that's an exit wound, sir.
12 A. This is an exit wound which, according to my recollection -- I
13 will take a look at the whole report, if you allow me.
14 In case number 19, this exit wound is very characteristic because
15 we have two entry wounds and one exit wound here. The bullets or the
16 projectiles which entered the body of victim number 19 are -- belong to a
17 narrow group. Actually, they -- their point of impact is pretty close to
18 one another and this is quite characteristic of bursts of fire, and you
19 can see that on my original photographs.
20 Q. Could -- I'll show you this photograph, and could you look at that
21 from -- it's the same one you have in your hand.
22 A. It is the same photograph that I'm talking about. Could you
23 please zoom in a little bit because I can see it quite well but perhaps
24 the rest of the parties in the court cannot see it that well.
25 Q. We have it on the ELMO. If you want to look at the Sanction
1 system, if you want to try the Sanction, we have it pretty good.
2 A. Very well. We can place it like this on the ELMO.
3 Q. That's --
4 A. These are two entry wounds caused by projectiles of long range,
5 and they are very close to each other, just a few centimetres apart.
6 Their trajectory is similar and that is why victim 19, with him we have
7 the case that they ended up in the same exit wound and that is why this
8 exit wound is a little bit larger than is usual. It's also larger because
9 we're talking about the chest cavity where the projectiles struck the
10 ribs, causing secondary projectiles, and thereby, as a result, creating a
11 larger exit wound.
12 Q. Thank you. Now, sir, with regard to some of your -- some of the
13 wounds that you've seen, such as the intermediate wounds, you've indicated
14 an area that you think the gun was fired from. As opposed to just saying
15 it was a relatively close-range wound of 5 centimetres to 1 metre, you say
16 within that that it was closer to the 10 centimetres, or 10 to 20, or
17 closer to the 5 centimetres. How do you make that determination?
18 A. If we can go back to my diagram -- maybe we can put it up on the
19 screen. You can see very simply that these categories which we use in
20 forensic medicine in order to differentiate different wounds are quite --
21 MR. WEINER: Can we go back to his diagram, 413?
22 Q. Do you have it in front of you?
23 A. Yes, yes, I have it. These categories are arbitrary and we use
24 them just for sake of orientation. But as a lay person, you could see
25 that it's not the same whether the skin was 5 centimetres or 1 metre away
1 from the flame and the gunpowder particles, and that is why with a quite
2 high degree of probability we can talk about distance if we know what kind
3 of a weapon was used. However, if we would like be very specific, then
4 the weapon in question should be fired in lab conditions so that different
5 distances from the mouth of the barrel can be tested by placing a white
6 sheet in front of the mouth of the barrel, and that is exactly how we
7 would establish the characteristics and the -- of the weapon and the shape
8 of the wound that would be caused on the body.
9 Q. All right. Thank you.
10 A. So I am not speaking with 100 per cent certainty, but based on my
11 experience I think that we could be talking about close wounds up to 5
12 centimetres and intermediate ones which would be up to 1 metre.
13 Q. Now, sir --
14 MR. WEINER: First, for the record, Your Honour, the photograph
15 that was shown to the witness that had the two long-distance entry wounds
16 was 0361-7436.
17 Q. Now, sir, you performed a complete examination or an internal
18 examination on the first victim, Stjepan Zelic, but on the other 25 you
19 just did external and some partial internal, maybe of the brains,
20 examination. Why did you not complete full internal examinations on all
21 27 victims?
22 A. I started out with the idea of making all of the autopsy reports.
23 However, at that point we were short of time. The autopsies had to be
24 conducted, because of the war and also because of the customs in that
25 area, this had to be done in one day. I was the only forensic expert in
1 that time in Split - my colleague was away - and in order to do that it
2 would have taken too long for us to conduct all of the autopsies, because
3 we saw that based on the first example because the autopsy took much
4 longer and it would not have been possible for us to process all of the
5 victims in the same way.
6 Other than that, the wounds on the bodies of the other victims
7 were such that I could establish the precise cause of death without an
8 internal examination. And for that reason, I believe that the external
9 examination of the victims was sufficient. We started to work at 8.30 in
10 the morning and finished at around 10.00. So if we had worked at a slower
11 pace, we could not have managed to do all of that in one day, and that was
12 the request of the local authorities as well as of the families of the
14 Q. You indicated in the record that you finished around 10.00. Is
15 that 10.00 in the morning or 10.00 in the evening?
16 A. No, no. This was at 10.00 in the evening. The same day but 10.00
17 in the evening.
18 Q. Now, even though you did external examinations, what is your level
19 of certainty as to your conclusions as to cause of death?
20 A. I'm 100 per cent certain because I would not have signed the
21 permission for burial, that would be the permit based on which the cause
22 of death is recorded. Because the wounds were such that any pathologist
23 would be able to recognise them for what they were, and based on these
24 wounds the cause of death could be established.
25 Q. I would like to show you a piece of a video of Exhibit P312 at 36
1 minutes and 38 seconds.
2 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, we're not getting this.
3 JUDGE LIU: We are not getting it, Mr. Weiner.
4 MR. WEINER: We're just going to isolate on a picture. That's all
5 we want right there.
6 Q. Now, sir, this is Ruza Zelic -- I'm sorry, Zelenika. And you had
7 indicated that --
8 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, I don't have this.
9 MR. WEINER: It's on the Sanction. It should be under --
10 JUDGE LIU: It's still not there?
11 MR. WEINER: Try "Computer Evidence."
12 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour --
13 MR. WEINER: You should have it now.
14 Q. You had indicated a cause of death as a result of being shot and
15 also a hatchet or an axe or some sort of object was used. If you want to
16 look at your report number -- report number 6, Ruza Zelenika.
17 A. Just one moment, please. Yes.
18 Q. Now, looking at that pattern of the victim lying in bed, does that
19 have any effect on your opinion, the splattering pattern behind her head?
20 A. Based on the autopsy findings, I established that the head wound
21 was actually a cut, cutting wound. And that implies a powerful mechanical
22 item, like an axe or any similar item. Based on the way the wound looks,
23 which I examined and as the way it is shown on the picture, and I can show
24 you what I mean. Could you please help me? Could you please zoom in?
25 This is not the best image, but you can see two wounds where you
1 can see contusions on the edges of the wound. These would be the bruising
2 of the tissue caused by an object, which along with a sharp edge has also
3 a blunt edge, which would cause bruising of the tissue.
4 As far as the splattering effect is concerned that we see on the
5 wall, I must say that the head is a part of the body that is very well
6 supplied with blood and that is why, when we have head injuries, the
7 bleeding is quite severe, the blood vessels shatter or burst, and under
8 pressure they can result in the splattering that we have seen on this
9 video image.
10 What is missing here, what is not seen on the video footage,
11 perhaps, is whether we can see whether there were any particles of tissue
12 on the wall as well. This would be brain tissue or skin tissue. And if
13 this were the case, then we could allow for the possibility that some of
14 the injuries were caused also by a projectile. I stand by my assertion
15 that the two wounds on the forehead were caused by a mechanical implement
16 resembling an axe or something like that which also cause bruising of the
17 tissues with their sharp edge.
18 In view of the fact that bones are missing from this rest, it's
19 possible that a projectile was the cause of the injury, but subsequently.
20 Q. If -- let me ask you two questions off that. If it was a
21 projectile, meaning a gunshot wound, how close or far would the gun be to
22 the head? Basically, is it a close wound, an intermediate wound, or a
23 distance wound?
24 A. In that case, the -- this -- it would be an absolutely close wound
25 because a wound of this type cannot be caused by a projectile from a
2 Q. And finally, you indicated that there were -- she was shot to the
3 body -- there were four entrance and exit wounds on the body and that the
4 head wounds occurred after the gunshot wounds to the body. Could you
5 explain that.
6 A. That can be explained as follows: All the wounds were caused
7 while the victim was still alive. How do we see that? We see that by the
8 traces found along the edges of the wound where we see contusions.
9 Contusions can never been caused on the body if it is already dead; there
10 is no vital reaction in that case. The edges of the wound in that case
11 look quite different. For the purposes of making myself more
12 understandable, I can show you a photograph which I brought with me which
13 is also a part of this group of photographs, where you can see a wound
14 caused post-mortem, after death, where you can see that some animals,
15 small animals ate the flesh from the arm of the victim. And underneath
16 the skin, as well as in the muscles, you can see that there are no traces
17 of contusion or bleeding. In forensic medicine, this is something that we
18 call vital reaction, and that is a reaction which is a consequence of the
19 blood flowing through our veins and other reactions of the body.
20 So if we go back to the wound that we were looking at previously,
21 and that is victim number 6, it is possible even to the layperson that
22 after the wound sustained to the head, the victim cannot remain alive
23 after sustaining such a wound. The death would be instantaneous, and that
24 is why I believe that the gunshot wounds were caused first and then the
25 other injuries to the head, following which the victim died very quickly.
1 MR. WEINER: Thank you, Your Honour. No further questions. I
2 would supply, during the break, the two ERN numbers for those two
3 photographs that the witness referred to.
4 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
5 I believe that it's time for us to take and break, and we'll
6 resume at quarter past 4.00.
7 --- Recess taken at 3.45 p.m.
8 --- On resuming at 4.17 p.m.
9 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Morrissey.
10 MR. MORRISSEY: Thank you very much, Your Honour.
11 Cross-examined by Mr. Morrissey:
12 Q. Thank you very much, Doctor. Doctor, could I just ask you, do you
13 have the notes and the reports that you made in front of you there?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Very well. Can I just indicate to you that when you're giving
16 your evidence here, you may feel free to refer to those at any time. You
17 don't need to ask permission to do that. And furthermore, you may also
18 feel free to refer to other matters in the reports, if they arise out of
20 Now, could I first of all ask you to go to report number 23. That
21 concerns the deceased man Martin Ratkic.
22 A. I've found it.
23 Q. All right. Thank you. Now, with respect to Mr. Ratkic, would you
24 please just look at the following video that's going to be shown. This is
25 at Exhibit 3 -- P373, it's V000-2632-1. And the time that we're asking be
1 shown is at 01.40.
2 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, this is going to be shown by the
3 Prosecutor, who has agreed to show this. May I just ask that that be
4 played, and I'll ask that it be frozen at a certain moment.
5 [Videotape played]
6 MR. MORRISSEY: Stop there, please.
7 Q. Very well, do you have there in front of you now a depiction of a
8 man in a crouching position?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Very well. Just looking at that photograph there, does it appear
11 to you that that man has got a right ear?
12 A. I must admit that the picture is not very clear, but I believe
13 that you are right and that this man does have the ear.
14 Q. Yes. Look, I understand and I accept your reservation about the
15 view that you have of that picture. We've had sworn evidence in this
16 court about that from a British reporter who took that, and she indicated
17 that there was clearly an ear as well. What I want to ask you is: By the
18 time you came to look at Martin Ratkic, according to your report, that ear
19 was gone, wasn't it. Is that correct?
20 A. Yes, the ear was missing.
21 Q. Can you explain what happened to that ear?
22 A. When I was briefed by the Prosecutor, I looked at a photograph of
23 the right ear. And maybe it would be good for us to put it on the ELMO.
24 This photo is among the photocopies of my original pictures. You can see
25 the right ear clearly in that photo that I'm referring to.
1 Q. Yes. Well, do you have those photographs there? Because I've got
2 a copy of the photo.
3 A. [In English] I prefer ...
4 [Interpretation] What I would like to say, based on this photo, is
5 the fact that the right ear, judging by this photo, had been removed. But
6 that happened after the death of this person. Around the edges, we don't
7 see any signs of contusion. And that's how we know that the person was
8 dead when the ear was removed. I can't say with any precision what
9 happened between the period when the person died and when the ear went
10 missing. There are two possibilities: One is that somebody removed the
11 ear on purpose or that little rodents such as mice or maybe a cat or
12 similar animals had eaten the ear.
13 Q. As to that second possibility, though, the intervention of small
14 animals, in respect of another individual you were very cautious and clear
15 in pointing out the intervention of that animal, and I'm referring to the
16 bite on one of the limbs that you showed earlier. And therefore, can I
17 ask you this: Had there been the possibility of animal intervention in
18 respect of this individual, you would have noticed that, wouldn't you,
19 rather than using the term "amputated," as you did. Is that correct?
20 A. I believe that I would not have used the term, however
21 "amputation" equals removal. So "amputation" is not a wrong term
22 irrespectively of whether the ear was removed by a person or some
23 animals. This is not a term that would indicate who the doer of this
24 action was.
25 As I'm looking at this photo here, due to the irregular edges of
1 the wound, one could opt for the second possibility rather than the first
2 one. It would be easy to conclude that post-mortem small animals were
3 those that removed the ear.
4 And as for the right [as interpreted] ear, maybe we could show
5 that photo as well. The ear in question was removed during the life of
6 the person because one can see contusions within the removed part of the
7 ear and you can also see the remains of the ear in its lower part.
8 Q. Now, well, we'll come back to the left ear in just a moment. At
9 the moment I want to stick with the right ear. Did you use the specific
10 term in relation to the right ear as follows: "The right ear was
11 completely amputated." Perhaps -- I'll ask you to go to your report on
12 this topic and go to the heading "Opinion" in the final paragraph.
13 A. [In English] Okay.
14 Q. Do you see that?
15 A. [Interpretation] Yes, I can see that.
16 Q. And does the second and third sentences read this way: "The
17 external examination also found out that both ears had been amputated.
18 The right ear was completely amputated but the left only partially." Let
19 me ask you this: Why did you say that the right ear was completely
21 A. Because of what I found there. The whole ear was missing.
22 "Amputation" means removal, which could be partial or complete, and in
23 this case we are looking at a complete amputation.
24 Q. Is it -- but you don't suggest that "amputation" is not a
25 technical term, is it -- well, perhaps I'll put the question to you
1 another way: "Amputation" is a technical term, isn't it, especially in
2 the hands of a doctor. Would you agree with that?
3 A. In the narrow sense of the word. However, "amputation" means
4 removal and does not imply the mechanism of that removal. As you can see
5 here, I never mentioned the mechanism by which the ear was removed.
6 Q. Yes. But when you're teaching your students, as an experienced
7 pathologist and forensic doctor, when you're teaching them what an
8 amputation is, what do you tell them?
9 A. "Amputation" represents the removal of a part of the body or an
10 organ in the body. It can be caused by violence, by which we imply
11 various mechanical forces such as a traffic accident, a knife, a blunt
12 object; or it can be a result of a medical procedure, which is very
13 common. In that case, an organ is removed for therapy reasons or in order
14 to try and save a life if that part of the body or that organ is the
15 source of heavy bleeding. And as for the types of amputation, an
16 amputation can be either complete or incomplete, as I've already stated,
17 or partial, and that will be that.
18 Q. Are you able to point to any example in the professional
19 literature or indeed at any time in your professional career where you or
20 any doctor has referred to an amputation performed by mice or other small
22 A. An example -- I can't think of an example at this moment, but this
23 is not a mistake to call it that, if that is what you're referring to. In
24 this particular case, I did not have any mechanism in mind.
25 Q. Did you use the same term, "amputation," to refer to the cutting
1 of the left ear and the cutting of the right ear?
2 A. Yes, I used the same term.
3 Q. And when it came to the left ear -- sorry, the right ear and the
4 damage to it, did you ever offer an opinion prior to today that that may
5 have been caused by small animals?
6 A. No. This was mentioned only in my conversation with the
7 Prosecutor when we analysed some of these wounds in somewhat greater
9 Q. Yes. But analysing them in 2005 is one thing. At the time when
10 you looked at that wound, it was your opinion, wasn't it, that that ear
11 had been cut off after death with some sharp object like a knife. Is that
13 A. I don't think I was as explicit as that. I -- the only thing that
14 I said explicitly was that the wound occurred after the death of the
16 Q. Yes. But I'm not referring to what you made explicit in your
17 report, Doctor, but what your honest state of mind was at the time. And
18 at the time when you analysed that, it was your opinion that that was
19 caused by a sharp-bladed instrument after death. Is that correct? And
20 I'm speaking of the right ear.
21 A. As far as I can remember, I did not insist on that particular
22 thing so much.
23 Q. That was your -- however, I'm talking about your state of mind,
24 not what you insisted upon to other people, but your own state of mind.
25 That appeared to you at the time, didn't it, to be a cut by a sharp
1 implement after death. Is that correct?
2 A. I don't know how you can describe my state of mind. I told you
3 what I knew at the time and what I did, and I just wouldn't dwell upon
4 that. I never implied something that could not be confirmed.
5 Q. No, no. But why did you choose the term "amputate" when it comes
6 to the right ear rather than expressing the view that it could have been
7 caused by small animals?
8 A. The term, as I have already told you, is not wrong and it does not
9 imply a mechanism by which the amputation occurred.
10 Q. Well --
11 A. It was not my wish to imply anything. I always try to be as
12 professional as possible and stick only to the professional aspect of my
14 Q. Very well. Were you asked at the time of the inspection of Martin
15 Ratkic to comment on whether or not the ear injury on the left-hand side
16 had been inflicted during life or after death?
17 A. In my briefing we discussed this wound, and it was only yesterday.
18 Q. So at the time when you made the inspection, you didn't have any
19 opinion as to whether that ear was cut off during life or not. Is that
21 A. No, it's not correct. I just did not state that specifically. As
22 I said in the introduction, the most important thing was to establish the
23 cause of death. Given the fact that the ear wasn't the cause of death, I
24 did not analyse these particular wounds in detail.
25 Q. Well, we've nearly finished with this topic, but I do have to
1 press you a little bit further. Under the heading of "Opinion" you did
2 put two out of I think it's a total six sentences on the question of these
3 ears. In other words, they were of sufficient significance to you to
4 comment about that in the concluding paragraph, the opinion, and to give
5 some details. At that time, the details you chose to give were that both
6 ears had been amputated, and you used the technical term "amputated."
7 So in light of that, I return to my original question for the
8 final time to ask you this: Now looking back on it and recalling your
9 state of mind, do you agree that you chose the term that you did,
10 "amputated," because it looked to you like the right ear had been cut off
11 after death? And I don't mean what's implicit in what you said here, I
12 mean in your own mind at the time you looked at it.
13 A. You are trying to implant into my brain something that has nothing
14 whatsoever to do with my brain. In my findings I described the wounds
15 that I found on the body and in no way did I imply the mechanism by which
16 they were inflicted. I provided more detail about the gunshot wounds,
17 which were the cause of death, and that is why two-thirds of the text
18 under the heading "Opinion" covered the gunshot wounds. It was not my
19 desire -- it was not the state of my mind that made me write something
20 that wasn't true. I just wanted to describe what I found on the body and
21 the condition it was in.
22 Q. Which is the medical dictionary you use most frequently, Doctor?
23 A. I don't know what you are referring to. What dictionary?
24 Q. Well, if you were required now to go and look up a term, a medical
25 term, and give a dictionary definition for the use of your students or
1 perhaps for this Court, what dictionary would you turn to? What's the
2 name of the dictionary that you would use?
3 A. I speak Croatian.
4 Q. Yes.
5 A. And in our medical dictionary which we use, there are a lot of
6 words that come from Latin, they originate from Latin but they have been
7 adapted to the Croatian language. And just like in English, they have
8 become an integral part of the Croatian dictionary. As far as I know, the
9 same is the case in English.
10 Q. Certainly. What's the name of that dictionary and, if you can
11 recall, who were the authors of it?
12 A. The authors of the dictionary?
13 Q. Yes. The name of the dictionary first; the authors of the
14 dictionary second.
15 A. I don't understand your question.
16 Q. I want you to tell me what's the name of the leading medical
17 dictionary that you use, the title of that book.
18 A. I use a number of dictionaries, but I don't know their names. I
19 really don't understand what you're asking me. I really don't know.
20 Q. Well -- I mean, you've been called here as an expert with many
21 years' experience, and what I want to know is: What is the name of the
22 leading dictionary that you as a professional turn to in order to define
23 terms or in order to look up the meaning of a particular word?
24 A. It's the dictionary of terms used by all the medical textbooks.
25 Any special dictionary, I really wouldn't know the title. Every area of
1 medicine has its own terminology that it uses, the basis of which is
2 Latin, which has been adopted in all of our textbooks.
3 Q. Okay. Well -- but, with respect to your particular field of
4 expertise, what is the book to which one turns to find the meaning of
5 terms, words such as "amputation"?
6 A. There are various books pertaining to that area. In ones you will
7 find one definition; in others, you will find another definition.
8 Q. Just to assist us, though, can you tell us the names of one or two
9 of these books where these definitions are found?
10 A. There is forensic pathology for medical students. There is a
11 number of textbooks. And in my education I have used a lot of books that
12 are only in English because they have been printed in the English-speaking
13 part of the world.
14 Q. Of course. But if one of your students was researching the
15 meaning of the word "amputation," to what textbook would you refer?
16 A. I would refer him to a Latin dictionary to check the word
17 amputatio or amputationis, and that would be that.
18 Q. Would there be any medical dictionary or textbook to which you
19 would refer them in relation to the medical term "amputation"?
20 A. I wouldn't be able to recommend a specific dictionary, but I would
21 refer them to specific textbooks where the topic of amputation was
22 covered, the types of amputation, definitions, and so on. A definition
23 for a surgeon is one, and the definition for a pathologist is different.
24 They're similar but there are differences.
25 Q. In the past, have you yourself ever referred to an amputation
1 performed by animals?
2 A. Yes. Why not?
3 Q. On what occasion did you speak about an amputation that was
4 performed by animals?
5 A. When we're talking about shark bites, for example.
6 Q. Yes. And have you dealt with shark bite victims yourself?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And are you suggesting that that's the way in which you used the
9 term here? Is that your evidence, that when you used the term "amputate"
10 here, you meant it to cover the situation of animal bites to the ear of
11 Martin Ratkic, victim of a shooting in Uzdol?
12 A. Animal bites are a possible cause of amputation; that's how I
13 understand it. This is simply possible. This is not the wrong
14 application of a term.
15 Q. Turning to the left ear now, you indicated that there was what you
16 described as contusions, indicating that this ear had been cut off during
17 life. Now, I have some questions for you about that. Looking at the
18 photograph of Martin Ratkic, deceased as he was, it's obvious that he had
19 been resting with that side of his head, that being the left-hand side, in
20 a downwards position. Is that correct?
21 A. The translation perhaps was not adequate, so I don't know what you
22 mean the term "resting."
23 Q. Well -- very well. It's quite obvious that there's some level of
24 post-mortem lividity fixed on the left-hand side of his head. Do you
25 agree with that?
1 A. Yes, I agree. These would be so-called spots, death spots.
2 Q. It's also the case that his skin is folded and pressured into a
3 particular pattern of ridges that can be viewed in that photograph because
4 of the effect of gravity and the pressure of his head pressed on that
5 skin. Is that correct?
6 A. Yes. The left side of his face shows a region that is pale. That
7 is the place where he was leaning on or resting on the surface. And
8 what's around, these things around that pale spot, are the death spots
9 which are caused as a consequence of the blood flow following death.
10 Q. Yes, and in particular it's caused by the operation of gravity,
11 that loose blood collects at the lowest part of the body or in that part
12 of the body. Is that correct?
13 A. Yes, yes. Due to gravity, all parts of the body that are close to
14 the surface collect the blood, or these death spots are caused, which are
15 a purple-blue colour, while the places of pressure are pale.
16 Q. Yes. Now, it's also apparent that the left-hand side of Martin
17 Ratkic's face was washed for pathological -- for the purposes of
18 pathologists. Do you agree with that? I don't mean completely washed but
19 partially washed.
20 A. Yes, but the washing is done only after the clothing is completely
21 removed. So we can use the term "wiped" rather than the term "washed off"
22 in this case.
23 Q. Yes, well, I'm comfortable with you using that term. So what
24 you'd say is that Martin Ratkic at this stage, still being clothed, had
25 been the subject of some level of wiping for your own purposes of
1 examination. Is that correct?
2 A. That is correct.
3 Q. It's also evident from that photograph that some blood or
4 bloodstained fluid has made its way from Martin or from the body of Martin
5 not just onto his clothes but onto the steel surface of the tray on which
6 he lies. When you've had a look at that, can you indicate whether you
7 agree or disagree with what I've said.
8 A. Yes. Some of the blood has already trickled down to the surface
9 itself, but you have to be very careful when you're analysing this
10 picture. This would be the 23rd deceased in the order and perhaps this
11 blood could be there from the previous body.
12 Q. Well, I wanted to ask you about that. I understand that you're
13 under some time pressure, but because of the need to take proper
14 photographs what I suggest is that you, or your attendants, at least,
15 would certainly have cleaned the steel surface of the tray before placing
16 a new person on it for analysis. Partly in order, I'd suggest -- perhaps
17 I'll put the question to you generally, but -- I'll withdraw the question
18 and I'll put another proposition to you. You don't want the signs of
19 putrefaction from one body to be seen on another body. For example,
20 maggots, worms, or other small insects that may have come to dwell in the
21 body, and therefore you clean the slab down before you put a new body
22 down. Is that correct?
23 A. We were using two slabs. One was used to prep the deceased and
24 the other one I used to examine the body. So I cannot tell you
25 specifically whether each table was completely clean before a new body was
1 placed on it. You must understand that in this type of examination, it is
2 not so important to have the blood samples that were found on the body or
3 the table to be looked at because we don't have the danger here of mixing
4 samples because that is not that type of investigation.
5 Q. No, I -- and let me indicate I'm not challenging you on that point
6 at all, so that's not a battle we have to fight. What I'm asking you
7 about here is -- to the extent that reddish fluid, either blood or
8 blood-filled water, can be observed in that photograph, that certainly
9 doesn't indicate any bleeding from Martin Ratkic because he'd been dead
10 for days. Do you agree with that?
11 A. Yes, it doesn't mean that the person was bleeding, no. But what
12 you need to know is that a body that has been there for a while, there is
13 fluid that is formed in the lungs. And as you can see here, this fluid
14 can then seep out through the mouth and the nose if the body is turned in
15 the process of transport. So it is very difficult to talk about any kind
16 of bleeding. From this aspect we cannot really be precise about that.
17 Q. Very well. Well, I understand what you say about that. And what
18 I'm turning to now is the contusions that you have pointed to with respect
19 to this left ear. Would you please take the pointer and point to those on
20 the screen so that the learned Judges can see where you identified
22 A. The contusions can be seen much better on the original
23 photographs. You can't really see them very well here, but you can see it
24 along the edges of the wound and at the bottom of the wound, the bottom
25 edge of the wound. And they are not indicating any signs of post-mortem
1 changes. There are no --
2 Q. What I'm asking you to consider --
3 A. -- and this is visible on the right ear, but it's not visible on
4 the left ear.
5 Q. Well, just a moment. What -- are you suggesting that there are
6 post-mortem changes visible on the right ear or not? I'm dealing at the
7 moment with the left ear.
8 A. No, no. I am making a comparison.
9 Q. Okay. Well, just remaining with the left ear at the moment. By
10 "contusion" you mean swelling, don't you, sometimes accompanied by a
11 redness. Is that correct?
12 A. No, you're not correct. A contusion is a -- a crushing or
13 pressure applied on the tissues. It's the place where due to pressure
14 from some kind of force, small blood vessels burst. And this causes
15 damage to the tissues and bleeding in the tissue. When we have this
16 appear on the skin, it will look like a bruise. Subcutaneously, however,
17 it is an area that is splattered or streaked with blood and its edges are
19 Q. Yes. But in order to establish whether you're dealing with a
20 bruise or a contusion of the type that you've just described, you really
21 need to do some sort of histological analysis involving the use of slides
22 and microscopic equipment. Is that correct?
23 A. No, that is not required; that can only confirm what you are
24 seeing. But additional tests are hardly ever carried out in order to see
25 something that is already very evident to any competent pathologist.
1 Q. Yes. But what we're dealing with here is an inference that you
2 have suggested that the contusions there suggest that the ear was cut off
3 in life, and that's what I'm dealing with with you now. First of all, are
4 you able to point to a contusion that lies directly upon the cutting line
5 or the severing line of the ear in that photograph?
6 A. Most precisely stated, it would be along the edges of the wound
7 and in the depth of the wound.
8 Q. Well, my question is: Is that depicted in this photograph?
9 A. Yes. This is depicted in the photograph, but of course it was
10 much better to see it live as it actually was.
11 Q. Yes. But let's just stick with the photograph for a moment. Are
12 you suggesting that the cutting line is visible in that photograph?
13 A. The cutting line is partially visible. You cannot see the back of
14 the side of the cutting. We can strictly stick to the photograph, but
15 then we can draw the wrong conclusions, just as you previously saw blood,
16 which we can draw certain conclusions about but it's also possible that
17 our conclusions would be wrong.
18 Q. Yes. Well, that's okay. We'll come to the conclusions in a
19 minute. I just need to establish the facts first, and the facts at the
20 moment are you've said that there is -- the edge of the cutting wound is
21 partially visible. What I'd ask -- would you just excuse me a moment,
22 please, Doctor, we have a technical issue we have to deal with.
23 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, I would like the witness to mark
24 with a red marker, if that's possible, as we have done in previous
25 situations, with a circle where this cutting line is. I don't know if
1 that's possible with the technology if we're in Sanction at the moment.
2 I'm not sure where we are really in technological terms. So I'm just
3 inquiring of the court staff if they can help.
4 JUDGE LIU: I don't think this photo is in the e-court system.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Mr. Morrissey, this photograph has not been
6 uploaded into the e-court system so we have only a hard copy of this at
7 the moment.
8 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, I will ask the witness to mark my
9 hard copy and I'll just tender it as a hard copy. I think the time has
10 come to tear it out.
11 Q. Doctor, I'll just provide you with my copy, I think mine is
12 unmarked, but you feel free to mark that any way you want. What I would
13 like you to do, if you wouldn't mind, is to draw a circle around the area
14 where you say the cutting edge can be seen. So don't draw over the
15 cutting edge under any circumstances, but just draw, if you like, an oval
16 or a circle around it so we can see where it is for ourselves.
17 A. I will use a blue pen. This is where the visible edge starts. It
18 goes upwards. Here it becomes indistinct because of the hair. The hair
19 in this place is covering the edge, so we lose a whole section here which
20 was under the hair and we cannot analyse it on the photograph. Then we
21 have the bottom edge here, and that then goes on to the posterior of the
22 head. The lower part indicates a fragment of the ear that remained. But
23 it's very difficult to analyse the edge here because of the angle,
24 because, in a way, the edge is on the bottom. So that is why we are only
25 seeing parts of the edge. Its visible parts are one-third to one-quarter.
1 We are unable to analyse the part that is covered by the hair, and this
2 other part is not possible to analyse because the cutting edge is facing
3 down; it's on the bottom.
4 Q. Yes. All right. Now I understand that. Now, looking at that
5 picture there, you would point to the pinkish area to the right of that
6 cut as being a contusion, supporting the hypothesis that the cut happened
7 during life. Am I right so far?
8 A. This part here and along the bottom edges. Yes, you are right
9 there, that is correct.
10 Q. Can you point to the part that you referred to along the bottom
11 edges that you're talking about, please, that you say is a contusion.
12 You've indicated that round part in the middle, I understand that. But
13 you also indicated something along the bottom edges. Is that visible in
14 the picture; and if so, can you point it out.
15 A. You can see that in this part here, that's along the very edge,
16 under the skin.
17 Q. All right. All right. Well, I understand what you say about
18 that. Now, let me put this proposition to you: It's quite possible,
19 isn't it, that that contusion could have been easily caused by some other
20 blow or contact before death and that the ear cutting itself occurred
21 after death. Do you agree with that?
22 A. I would not agree with that. I think that you can clearly see
23 here the contusions which are distributed all along the bottom edge. So
24 that possibility is quite remote.
25 Q. Well, first of all, it is a possibility that you can't discount,
1 isn't it?
2 A. In many cases when I testify at court my assertions are not 100
3 per cent certain. You always have to be -- leave some room for
4 circumstances in life or medicine. And that is why I am saying as a
6 Q. And in this case I suggest to you that possibility is augmented
7 and increased by the fact that this man obviously at some stage was
8 resting with that side of his head in a downward position, thus bringing
9 to that side of his head loose blood, which may itself account for some
10 level of swelling in that area. Do you agree with that possibility?
11 A. No. It is clear here that you didn't understand me properly. The
12 death spots which are caused do not cause swelling. They just are a
13 pooling of the blood which drops there. It is collected there due to the
14 force of gravity. This does not cause contusions of the tissue. On the
15 other hand, you are probably trying to understand in some way that the
16 person, after sustaining some wounds, fell on that side and hit his ear.
17 In this case, I would have to rule out this possibility with quite a high
18 degree of certainty, because in that case there would be contusions on his
19 face, also abrasions, which would be visible on the face. Here you can
20 see that this part of the -- this protruding part of the features, which
21 we call the cheekbone, which would make contact first with the surface, do
22 not show such injuries.
23 So we cannot find any traces of external injuries around the ear.
24 So therefore we can assume that this blood that collected there could not
25 have been caused in that way. That would only be in the area of the ear.
1 It would be -- cover a broader surface. It would be in front of the ear,
2 below the ear, or around the ear. And also you would see the signs of
3 abrasions, injuries, and swellings on other parts of the skin.
4 Q. There --
5 A. And that is why --
6 Q. Sorry, if I could just stop you there to deal with what you've
7 raised. Aren't there two difficulties with that: First of all, you or
8 your assistants wiped that face, didn't you, wiped it clean, to some
9 degree at all events, of whatever was on it.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And secondly, you're inferring that the person fell on a
12 particularly flat surface and must therefore have banged their cheekbone.
13 But in any event, what's that black dot right in the middle of the
14 cheekbone there?
15 A. It is a blood clot or it's just a bloodstain.
16 Q. Well, how did that blood get there?
17 A. It got there, as you can see from the mouth, the nose, and also
18 perhaps from the area of the ear. What I have to say to the Court is that
19 after these photographs were made, we unclothed the body completely and
20 washed it more thoroughly. So my opinion is not only based on these
21 photographs but also on all the other details that I noticed during my
23 Q. Are there any notes of those other observations?
24 A. I stated that in my finding.
25 Q. I just wanted to put a definition from Black's Medical Dictionary,
1 39th edition, edited by Gordon Macpherson. It's a book found in the ICTY
2 library here and it's published by Madison Books 1999, and it defines
3 amputation this way: "Amputation: Severance of a limb, or part of a limb
4 from the rest of the body. The leg is the most common sight of
5 amputation. It is usually performed as a controlled operation and may be
6 required for a variety of reasons. In the young, severe injury is the
7 most common cause, when damage to the limb is so extensive as to make it
8 non-viable or functionally --"
9 THE INTERPRETER: Please slow down. The interpreters cannot --
10 MR. MORRISSEY: Pardon me. "... to make it non-viable or
11 functionally useless. In the elderly, amputation is more often the result
12 of vascular insufficiency, resulting in gangrene or intractable pain.
13 "The aim is to restore the patient to full mobility with a
14 prosthetic (artificial) limb, which requires both a well-fitting
15 prosthesis and a well-healed surgical wound. If this is not possible, the
16 aim is to leave the patient with a limb stump that is still useful for
17 balancing, sitting and transferring. Common types of lower-limb
18 amputations are shown in the illustration --" which I'll show you in a
19 minute. "The Symes amputation can be walked upon without requiring a
20 prosthesis. Below-the-knee amputation preserves normal flexion of the
21 knee, and virtually normal walking can be achieved with a well-fitting
22 artificial limb. Learning to walk is more difficult following an
23 above-knee amputation, but some well-motivated patients can manage well."
24 I've nearly finished. "After any amputation it is not unusual for the
25 patient to experience the sensation that the limb is still present. This
1 is called a phantom limb and the sensation may persist for a long time."
2 And then it's got a further note saying, "(See prosthesis, phantom
4 Now, is that definition one that you accept as a proper definition
5 for the term "amputation," bearing in mind your many years of medical
6 practice and teaching responsibilities and professorships?
7 A. If you go back to the first sentence, then the author defined
8 amputation very much similar to the way I did, saying that this is a
9 complete or partial removal of organs or parts of a body.
10 Q. Yes, but it doesn't normally include eating the part that you're
11 talking about, does it?
12 MR. WEINER: I object, Your Honour. This has been asked and
13 answered ad nauseam. This definition is not inconsistent with his
14 statement, and as a result it's irrelevant.
15 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Morrissey, if at least we spend 40 minutes
16 on the definition of "amputation" and that issue --
17 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, Your Honours, we did and you can see why
18 it's a matter of relevance and interest to the Defence. But never before
19 has this thesis emerged, now it does, and I really want to test it as hard
20 as I can. It couldn't be said under any circumstances to be irrelevant,
21 but although I don't agree with my learned friend's objection, if Your
22 Honour thinks it's been asked enough times and that it's become
23 repetitive, then that's the end of it. Because I referred to a medical
24 dictionary -- medical dictionaries earlier on and asked, for quite a
25 while, actually, whether we could be referred to one, I thought it was
1 fair to put it, I've put it, and that was the extent of what was going to
2 be put, frankly.
3 JUDGE LIU: Yes, I believe the testimony of this witness can
4 either go to the truth or go to the credibility. So in this sense that
5 you have achieved your purpose already.
6 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, I've asked as many questions as --
7 frankly, as even I consider legitimate and that's the end of the questions
8 on that topic.
9 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
10 MR. WEINER: Thank you.
11 MR. MORRISSEY: Thank you. Very well.
12 Q. However, returning to this left ear, you would agree with me about
13 this, wouldn't you, that never before did you say -- I'm talking about the
14 left ear now. That never before did you say that was cut off during life
15 until you got to The Hague. Is that correct?
16 A. When I was interviewed in Croatia, nobody ever asked me about the
17 mechanism by which the amputation of the ear or both ears occurred. This
18 was not considered important at all.
19 Q. Just a second. You knew that you had to complete these autopsies
20 in a hurry, partially because officials of the Herceg-Bosna wanted to hold
21 a press conference concerning these matters. Is that correct?
22 A. Whenever we were working in Bosnia or when we did something to do
23 with Bosnia, there was always a pressure of time due to the war
24 circumstances, and we had to work at a very fast pace and hand the bodies
25 over to their families. Our contacts with the representatives of the
1 government and the families were mostly through my associate,
2 Dr. Ivanovic. He also talked to the families of the deceased as well as
3 the representatives of the local authorities. He had contacts with all
4 these people. And he would pass on messages to us in the operating
5 theatre. At that time while we were involved in the post-mortems, we did
6 not know anything about a press conference. We were in the OR all day,
7 and the only break we had was sometime in the afternoon when we had
8 something that one might call lunch.
9 Q. Could we please go to autopsy report number 26. This concerns
10 Anica Stojanovic.
11 MR. WEINER: Excuse me, Your Honour, I think one of the
12 photographs was marked and there's no note of it being on the record what
13 the ERN is.
14 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
15 Are you going to tender it?
16 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes, I offer that document for tender.
17 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
18 I guess there's no objections from the Prosecution?
19 MR. WEINER: No objections.
20 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
21 MR. WEINER: While I'm up here, Your Honour, can I put for the
22 record the two photographs that were mentioned previously at the end of
24 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
25 MR. WEINER: Photograph relating to victim number 6 was 0361-7360,
1 and the photograph as to victim number 26 was 0361-7474. Thank you.
2 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
3 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
4 JUDGE LIU: I see. Mr. Morrissey, I was told that this photograph
5 is not marked yet. Do you want this witness to mark it again or not?
6 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, what I would prefer is to do it on the
7 e-court if that's possible and I'm not sure what is proposed about that
8 in the future.
9 JUDGE LIU: Well, I believe that for this document --
10 MR. MORRISSEY: But I think it's --
11 JUDGE LIU: -- it is possible.
12 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, Your Honours, the fact is I've asked
13 questions about it so we can't leave it hanging. If we can't do it on the
14 e-court later, I should do it now and just return to that site, means a
15 return to the ear, but perhaps we should do it immediately. So I will ask
16 that that be returned to the witness.
17 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
18 MR. MORRISSEY: And I just ask that he circle, as indicated, the
19 area where the cutting line that he discerns there is to be found.
20 Q. Yes, Doctor, earlier on you demonstrated by using the point of the
21 pen, but you didn't actually leave a mark on the page. We've got a number
22 of copies of that, so feel free. Could you just put a circle around the
23 area that you indicated as being where the cutting can be seen.
24 A. This line depicts the place where the border can be seen, then the
25 line is interrupted because of the presence of the hair. We can see the
1 bottom in the photo, and then it continues in the lower part. And in this
2 part, as I've already told you, the borders are underneath and cannot be
3 analysed, and one part of the ear is missing here. In this part here, we
4 can see the preserved part of the earlobe.
5 Q. Yes. Very well, thank you for doing that.
6 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, now I offer that to be tendered in its
7 marked form.
8 JUDGE LIU: Yes, it's admitted into the evidence.
9 MR. MORRISSEY: Thank you, Your Honour. Could I ask the --
10 THE REGISTRAR: Sorry, Mr. Morrissey. That will be exhibit D414.
11 MR. MORRISSEY: My apologies.
12 Q. Could we please just go -- Doctor, would you mind going now to
13 Anica Stojanovic, whose body was examined as Uzdol number 26. Do you have
15 A. Yes, I do.
16 Q. In this instance could you please turn to the section
17 "Patho-anatomical Diagnosis." Do you have that?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Do you see that the third topic that you've raised there is a
20 topic "animal bite to right lower leg." Do you see that?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay. Now can I ask you to go and have a look at the next
23 category down, which is "Cause of Death," and do we notice there on cause
24 of death no reference whatsoever to the animal bite. Is that correct?
25 A. Yes. Only the main diagnosis is put here, the one that actually
1 caused the death.
2 Q. Certainly. Now go to the heading of Opinion. You see the heading
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And would you please look at the last paragraph -- last section of
6 that opinion, where you say this: "There is a gunshot wound to the right
7 lower leg and wounds caused by animal bites, most likely those of small
9 Do you see that?
10 A. Yes, I can see that.
11 Q. When you saw animal bites by small rodents, you put it in your
12 reports, didn't you?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And although here in The Hague you've analysed the possibility of
15 the ear being bitten off Martin Ratkic by small rodents, what I'm
16 suggesting to you is that's only a thought that has occurred to you in
17 conversation with my learned friend the Prosecutor, Mr. Weiner. Do you
18 agree with that?
19 MR. WEINER: I object, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
21 MR. WEINER: This has been asked and answered and I want him to
22 put a basis for that question.
23 MR. MORRISSEY: Certainly.
24 MR. WEINER: Remove the witness.
25 MR. MORRISSEY: No, no, no.
1 MR. WEINER: If he wants to, let him remove the witness. If he's
2 going to make an accusation about me, let him remove the witness.
3 MR. MORRISSEY: I'm not making any accusations at all.
4 JUDGE LIU: No I think the Defence is entitled to know some
5 background informations.
6 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, I should make it clear, so there's no false
7 controversy, I'm not accusing Mr. Weiner of anything improper at all in
8 asking this question. The question is: This topic first came up in
9 discussions with the Prosecutor. It's a timing question, and that's all
10 I'm asking.
11 Q. The thesis that that ear came off courtesy of some small animals
12 first came up when you spoke to Mr. Weiner. Isn't that correct?
13 A. This is not the first time it appeared. It was then when we spoke
14 about the mechanism by which the wounds occurred. Your claim is partially
15 correct but partially incorrect. This was not a new creation. We just
16 analysed the mechanism, which was not mentioned previously.
17 Q. Why was it that you mentioned the mechanism of Ana Stojanovic's
18 wound to the lower leg courtesy of animal bites in the report that you did
19 on Anica Stojanovic?
20 A. I mentioned it with the intention to describe the wound. There
21 was nothing special to it.
22 Q. Well, if there was the faintest chance that Martin Ratkic's ear
23 was nibbled on by animals, why didn't you mention that in exactly the same
25 A. I simply didn't. I did not have any intentions. In that report,
1 I did not mention the mechanism by which the amputation of any of the ears
2 occurred. I just didn't do it. It was not on purpose. It just so
4 Q. All right. Now, since we're on Anica Stojanovic right now, I just
5 want to ask you some questions about her. In this Tribunal there's been
6 evidence given, somebody said they saw her being killed. But what you
7 observed was a number of bullet wounds to Anica Stojanovic when you came
8 to analyse her. Is that correct? Not one but a number. Is that right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. How many?
11 A. You can find it in my report; it's all there.
12 Q. Okay. But just tell us anyway. How many shots entered her body?
13 A. There is the cause of death wound, which is on the head, the
14 gunshot wound of the head, and then we also have the wound in the chest --
15 actually in the -- the entrance wound is in the front part of the chest
16 and the exit wound is on the back part.
17 Q. We have got a useful diagram. I understand these diagrams are not
18 meant to be entirely precise. Would you be able to indicate to the
19 Tribunal, just pointing to your own chest, approximately where that entry
20 wound was on the chest?
21 A. Judging by the description, it was in the back, on the back side.
22 And the exit wound was on the right-hand side of the chest.
23 Q. So effectively a shot from the back that came out on the
24 right-hand side of the front. Correct? So it's a shot that would cause
25 catastrophic injuries to the lungs and probably to the heart as well. Is
1 that correct?
2 A. Given the height, it would sooner be in the lungs and the internal
3 organs rather than in the heart.
4 Q. Yes.
5 A. Because the heart is somewhat higher.
6 Q. Yes. It's just a little difficult from the pictures to be sure
7 exactly where on the body that took place. Could I just ask you to look,
8 please -- I'll hold up the photograph --
9 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Morrissey, could we have a break at this
11 MR. MORRISSEY: Certainly, Your Honours. Just in order to finish
12 with this particular deceased person, might I just ask a two more quick
13 questions --
14 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
15 MR. MORRISSEY: -- and then Anica Stojanovic is finished. I
16 apologise for going on at this length.
17 Your Honours, I'm just going to hold up -- because we don't have
18 the e-court working, I'm just going to hold up this picture so that the
19 witness can see --
20 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
21 MR. WEINER: I have no problem with him holding up a picture, but
22 can he identify the number so we have it on the record.
23 MR. MORRISSEY: That's what I can't do, because the ones I've got
24 don't have numbers. If I hold it up -- it's got a number 26, of course.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Mr. Morrissey, there's an ERN number at the top.
1 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes, thank you, I'm grateful for the correction.
2 I do have that. The one I'm showing is 0361-7475.
3 Q. I'll just hold it up so you can see, Doctor, which one I'm looking
4 at. Yes. Thank you. Would you mind explaining which wound is depicted
5 there in that photograph concerning Anica Stojanovic.
6 A. This is not one of my originals. I don't have that original.
7 Q. What -- can you make any comment about that because, Doctor, all
8 we have on the Defence side is what we are provided by the Prosecutor and
9 I dare say what they've been provided with by your institution. Do you --
10 although that is not one of your photos, is it a photo that you recognise?
12 A. It's very difficult for me to say that I recognise the photo. I
13 recognise the number and the way the photo is marked, but not the photo
14 itself, I'm afraid.
15 Q. Yes.
16 A. Before I provide you with my opinion, I would like to know whether
17 this is an original photo like one of the originals that I have with me.
18 Q. Yes. Well, look, I'm sorry. If I can put it colloquially,
19 you're talking to the wrong man here.
20 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, I think it's probably best to take
21 he break because this is a photograph the doctor hasn't seen, so it's not
22 fair to him put it to him.
23 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Let's take a break, and we'll resume at 6.00.
24 --- Recess taken at 5.35 p.m.
25 --- On resuming at 6.02 p.m.
1 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Morrissey.
2 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, can I just indicate there's a bit of
3 a mystery about this photograph. The Prosecutors don't seem to have it
4 and the witness doesn't know about it. At this point what we might do is
5 just leave it and we'll make an inquiry later on to see if we can --
6 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
7 MR. MORRISSEY: What I might do is just ask the witness:
8 Q. Doctor, in relation to that photograph that I showed you earlier,
9 you're not -- because of being under cross-examination, you can't consult
10 with anyone else, but could I provide you with a copy of it and if it
11 turns out that you've got some sort of copy --
12 MR. MORRISSEY: I'm happy to hand this over now.
13 Q. And if it matches anything that's in your notes, would you mind
14 indicating that to us, perhaps tomorrow. I won't press you about now it
15 if it's not a document you've seen before, but maybe when you have time,
16 have a look and see what the situation is with it. If it fits anywhere,
17 I'll ask you questions; and if not, we won't.
18 Okay, so I've asked you about Anica Stojanovic and we've now dealt
19 with Martin Ratkic and Anica Stojanovic. Before I move on to the others,
20 so many of the others as I'm going to ask questions about, I've got some
21 general questions about the autopsy procedure that you followed here.
22 It's a fact that you performed a relatively full autopsy on young
23 Stjepan Zelic, who was only about 10 years old. Is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And I think in his case, because you looked at the wound tracks
1 within the body and because you were able to spend some time on him, you
2 formed a view that at least one of the projectiles that hit him did so at
3 a time when he was toppling to the ground or falling to the ground, thus
4 allowing a bullet to enter his body on two separate occasions in the one
5 flight. Is that correct?
6 A. The same projectile, yes.
7 Q. Yes, yes. I understand. And -- yes. Okay.
8 Apart from Stjepan Zelic, did you spend approximately 20 minutes
9 to half an hour on each other person?
10 A. I can't be certain of that. It was a long time ago. Some bodies
11 required more time for description because they had more wounds and some
12 bodies required less time for the same reason; they had less wounds.
13 Q. Okay. Well, I appreciate it's not right to put an average figure
14 on it, but is it accurate to say that the -- those bodies that had more
15 wounds you might have allowed 30 to 40 minutes and those who had less
16 wounds you might have allowed 20 to 30 minutes? These are approximate
17 figures, but are they accurate within that?
18 A. Again, whatever I told you would be just my approximation. It was
19 a long time ago and I can't give you any -- anything with any degree of
21 Q. Okay. In peacetime when dealing with a single murder victim,
22 let's say a person who was hit by two to three bullets, what's the range
23 of time that you would like to allow yourself to perform a full autopsy?
24 A. About an hour or an hour and a quarter or an hour and a half. It
25 would all depend on the simplicity of the findings, whether the findings
1 are simple or whether some of the findings have to be additionally
2 examined. Most of the time in peacetime autopsies one spends in taking a
3 dual set of photos; one set for the police and one set for the department,
4 and this is what takes up most of the time.
5 Q. In dealing with these autopsies, and I'm not talking about Stjepan
6 Zelic but the other 26, tell me if the following propositions are
7 correct: First of all, all of the bodies were to some degree afflicted by
8 putrefaction and post-death change. Is that correct?
9 A. Yes, it is correct. All the bodies demonstrated a certain degree
10 of post-mortem changes.
11 Q. Secondly, with respect to the remaining 26 bodies, you performed
12 no analysis of the internal path taken by any of the lethal projectiles,
13 bullets. Is that correct?
14 A. Yes. I made my conclusions based on the entry and exit wounds. I
15 did not perform an internal examination, an examination of the internal
17 Q. Very well. Thirdly, you did not nor were you in a position to
18 collect any bullets or projectiles for subsequent forensic analysis. Is
19 that correct?
20 A. Yes, you're right.
21 Q. Were you provided by the authorities with any projectiles or any
22 other items which were said to be connected with the cause of death, such
23 as bullets or other weapons?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Were you in a position to swab any of the wounds which appeared to
1 have powder marks or burn marks in their proximity in order to submit
2 those for subsequent chemical testing?
3 A. This is a very good question. However, you forget that it was the
4 time of war and that our autopsies were performed in conditions close to
5 war conditions. And to your question, I would like to answer by putting
6 you another question: What would I have done with such samples? Nobody
7 would have been able to pay for any such analysis.
8 Q. Let it be quite clear that that question wasn't meant to contain
9 any criticism at all, and I understand that there was a war on. But the
10 answer to my question is that that wasn't done. Is that correct?
11 A. No, no.
12 Q. And indeed it just wasn't a feasible thing to consider doing at
13 the time. Is that also correct?
14 A. That is correct, yeah.
15 Q. Well, I understand that. Are you familiar with the sort of tests
16 that I'm -- or the sort of procedure I'm talking about where in some cases
17 it's possible to take a swab of powder for subsequent gunshot residue or
18 indeed other chemical types of test?
19 A. Yes, I'm quite familiar with that procedure. I was educated to do
20 that, and not only can you perform a chemical analysis, you can also
21 perform an electronic microscope analysis which can confirm the origin of
22 the gunpowder particles and compare those with the gunpowder from the
23 possible weapon from which the crime may have been committed. Also, you
24 can do the so-called paraffin glove test, by which you take the sample of
25 gunpowder particles from the perpetrator's hand and those are compared
1 with the weapon and the particles found on the body or on the clothes of
2 the victim.
3 Q. Well, I understand that. And could I just pursue that a little
4 bit further. Did you notice whether or not any gunshot residue or other
5 crime scene residue could be discerned on the clothing or the hair of any
6 of the victims that you encountered?
7 A. Residue of gunpowder particles could be seen around the edges of
8 the wounds, as I have already explained in my drawing. They present
9 themselves as the blackish-greyish impregnation or the tattoo-like spots
10 on the skin. You can see those on the pictures in some of the cases
11 described herein. And especially in wounds which were inflicted from a
12 very close range or mid-range.
13 Q. Yes. And with respect to those marks that you see on wounds like
14 that, you've indicated two quite distinct phenomena which I want to ask
15 you about. The first one concerns the gunshot residue and the second one
16 concerns the burning marks. Now, it's a fact that on a particular wound
17 you might get either or both or, of course, none of those phenomena,
18 depending on how close the person is to the weapon that gets shot. Is
19 that correct?
20 A. To a certain extent, yes. You are covering a pretty wide range --
21 Q. Exactly.
22 A. -- but you are right to a certain degree.
23 Q. It was an introductory question, and I understand it sounds
24 babyish. As to the burning effect, the extent to which you can estimate
25 how close the gun was to the skin by virtue of burn marks is very much a
1 function of the nature of the firearm used in the particular case. Do you
2 agree with that?
3 A. Only partially. That is only partially correct and I would like
4 you to specify what you mean by the burning effect or the burn marks.
5 These burns --
6 Q. Well, the -- just -- sorry, go on.
7 A. -- are not classical ones. This is something that we find at the
8 bottom of the wound. It would be like soot or -- so that the term
9 "burned" is inappropriate here, even though it is caused from the flame
10 that comes from a firearm if it is quite close.
11 Q. Yes. And what's the effect on a wound of a tracer bullet, in
12 particular of the trail of a tracer bullet?
13 A. The question is not clear to me. Could you please -- what do you
14 mean by "tracer bullet"?
15 Q. Some bullets leave a trail that's visible to the eye of burning or
16 combustible material, leaving a path that can be seen and may in some
17 cases leave a mark. Do you have experience of such a bullet, a tracer
18 bullet, one of those bullets that discharges a combustible stream of some
19 sort behind it, causing a wound? And if so, what sort of wound does it
20 cause? Does it leave burning?
21 A. In my work on these 27 cases did not find indications that tracer
22 bullets were used, whereby the burn marks would be primary traces or
23 markings. These were classic projectiles fired at close range or at a --
24 from a distance.
25 Q. Does the existence of three or four days' of putrefaction of the
1 body assist or hinder in your ability to accurately comment on how close
2 the gun was to the body when it was fired?
3 A. Of course it makes it more difficult, and I did put that in some
4 of the reports.
5 Q. Yes, I agree with you and I acknowledge that you did, and that's
6 one of the reasons I'm asking the question. And in what ways is
7 putrefaction a negative factor in performing that analysis?
8 A. Putrefaction is an adverse factor in the sense that if a certain
9 amount of time passed, then there would no longer be any soft tissue left,
10 so we would not be able to make that analysis. On the other hand,
11 putrefaction discolours the skin and it causes secondary changes on all
12 tissues in the sense that gases collect and similar changes occur which
13 make analysis more difficult. Other than that, very quickly the bodies
14 are invaded by larvae which can then -- of maggots, which can then
15 completely destroy the tissue so that the tissue would then no longer be
16 fit for analysis.
17 Q. Okay. Very well. Now, I'm just going to take you to some
18 specific deceased persons now. Just forgive me while I assemble this.
19 Did you have at that time available to you a laboratory that could
20 perform histology, analysis of skin samples and so forth?
21 A. Yes. At the time we did have a lab for histological analysis of
22 skin samples, but this type of testing is very expensive.
23 Q. And was it exactly the same situation that we dealt with when we
24 were talking about the gunshot residue, that although you had -- in theory
25 you had the resources, in practice you just couldn't use them because of
1 the war?
2 A. Not only that, but the question -- the fact that we had a large
3 number of such cases was one thing; on the other hand, nobody paid for
4 this. Also, labs which were able to carry out that kind of analysis of
5 samples, gunpowder samples, were not located in our area. We would have
6 to ask for outside expert opinions.
7 Q. Okay. All right. Now --
8 A. Well, we don't want to leave the impression that histological
9 testing would shed more light on these cases. I just want to clarify
10 that. Pathological and histological findings are already known when we
11 have wounds like these, so no new information could be gleaned from those
12 kinds of analyses. But analysis of the gunpowder residue could tell us
13 what type of weapon was in question, but a histological analysis would
14 just confirm what we could actually see with the plain eye; that these
15 were in fact gunshot wounds.
16 Q. At the time you performed these autopsies, were you asked to
17 consider the question of whether or not any of these people had been
18 killed by artillery fire?
19 A. Nobody asked us to say that -- to do that.
20 Q. No, no. Was the topic one that occurred to you to deal with in
21 the course of your analyses?
22 A. Of course I thought about that. And as I said, I could tell that
23 some wound had been caused by a fragment of an explosive device because in
24 such devices we would have shattering of the -- when we're talking about
25 artillery weapons, such an effect would be even greater.
1 Q. Yes. But what happened hand grenades? Did you see the
2 possibility that somebody might have been injured by a hand grenade? And
3 in particular now I'm thinking of Ruza Zelenika, whose -- the top of whose
4 head was badly damaged in her or near to her bed, as was shown in the
5 photograph earlier on in the day.
6 A. As I said before at the beginning of my testimony, such a wound
7 caused by an explosive device would appear differently. It would have
8 irregular edges, it would have dirt and -- that happened to be around. It
9 would have traces of fabric or any other matter that would be impacted
10 into the wound. So such a wound would have completely different
11 appearance and characteristics from those that were described in this
13 Q. Okay. Now, I have a question for you about what you meant by
14 distant shots. When you describe a shot as being distant, does that mean
15 it's anything between 1 metre and the total range of the gun?
16 A. Yes, and by that I am thinking of a distance greater than 1 metre.
17 Q. Yes, I understand that.
18 A. And to be perhaps more precise --
19 Q. I'm sorry. I cut you off. Keep going.
20 A. We cannot say where it is coming from but whether it has enough
21 kinetic energy to cause a wound of a certain type.
22 Q. Yes. Very well. In this case, Doctor, there's three deceased
23 persons; Stjepan Zelic, he's your number one, victim number one; his
24 mother, Ruza Zelic, your victim number two; and his sister, Maria Zelic,
25 who was only 13 years old, and she's victim number 19. In each of those
1 cases it appears that you've referred to distant shots -- feel free to
2 look, and the Prosecution will correct if it's not right. But in each
3 case I believe you've referred to distant shots there.
4 A. I should actually look at it case by case, so I would ask you to
5 put your questions to me in that way so we could be more efficient.
6 Q. No, that's okay. I'm going to ask you to deal with them one by
7 one. Did you know or was it explained to you that those three had been
8 found together, killed on a road relatively close to each other?
9 A. No, I wasn't informed about that. And if my department was
10 informed of that, that information did not reach me. So perhaps
11 Dr. Jovanovic knew about it.
12 Q. That's okay. All right. Well, in any event, when you say Stjepan
13 Zelic was killed by a shot that's distant, or shots that were distant,
14 that could be anything between 1 and any -- 1 and hundreds of metres away?
15 A. [In English] Yes.
16 Q. Okay. And the same goes for Ruza Zelic, who is victim number two,
17 distant shots; and Marija Zelic, who is victim number 19, distant shots.
18 Is that correct?
19 A. [Interpretation] It's identical for all of them, from a distance,
20 yes. That's them. Probably it ...
21 Q. People who take a shot who were hit in the chest, in your
22 experience, may die very quickly or they may linger for some minutes
23 before the mechanism of death sets in. Is that correct, in your
25 A. That's correct. Some of them even survive if they are treated
1 adequately. It depends on the damage the projectile inflicts. If a major
2 blood vessel is damaged, death will follow very quickly. If lungs are
3 damaged, a person can live for a long time with damage to the lungs and
4 they can remain alive for quite a long time. So it depends on the type of
5 injuries to the internal organs.
6 Q. Yes. And so in the abstract, one thing that is possible is that a
7 person may be fatally wounded but they may still live for some minutes or
8 even in some cases for longer than that altogether. Is that accurate?
9 A. If adequate treatment is given, then they can survive. But of
10 course there is a difference in how long somebody would live once they
11 sustain a serious injury, and that depends on the speed with which a
12 person bleeds or how the injured organs react to the injury.
13 Q. I suppose the abstract or the hypothetical I'm putting to you now
14 is: If a person's shot and they collapse to the ground and crack their
15 head on the ground when they fall, then they may well develop bruising
16 because they're still alive where they fell down, even though they die
17 subsequently. They might live long enough to display some -- to develop
18 bruising and display some signs of bruising after they're dead. Is that
20 A. That is correct. And we can conclude that for as long as the
21 blood circulation is functioning, there is the possibility of contusions,
22 bruises appearing.
23 Q. Yes. Very well. All right. Now, can I move on now to the next
24 people -- well, I won't ask you about the distant shots people, but
25 there's some that I -- who it's relevant to ask about. Ruza Zelenika I've
1 already asked a couple of questions. This is your number 6. Could we
2 just have on the screen, please -- would you just excuse me a moment.
3 Exhibit P312 at 36 minutes and 39 seconds. I'm just going to show you
4 that photograph of the woman Ruza Zelenika who had evidently suffered
5 terrible injuries on or near to that bed. I would just ask that the image
6 be held when it reaches that point of displaying.
7 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, the Prosecutors are offering to help
8 by putting it in Sanction. I think in order to keep things moving I'm
9 very grateful for that and we'll use that.
10 [Videotape played]
11 MR. MORRISSEY: There we are.
12 Q. Okay. Now, just having regard to that, it's evident to you from
13 that photograph, isn't it, that there's some pinkish-grey matter that's
14 been sprayed on the wall and that, in addition, there are two large round
15 holes near the corner of that room in the walls. Do you see those?
16 A. No. Could you please show me where you're looking at.
17 Q. Don't you have that on the screen? Well, I don't think you can
18 see my screen --
19 A. I see the photograph, but could you please just point to what you
20 are talking about.
21 Q. If you look at the corner of the wall, do you see the corner of
22 the wall, where the wall turns at a 90-degree angle?
23 A. Yes, I see it.
24 Q. All right. Do you see perhaps a foot, maybe a foot and a half
25 above the head of the deceased two holes in the wall, which may be bullet
1 holes, they may be some other kind of holes, I don't know, but anyway do
2 you see those holes?
3 A. I do see some kind of imperfection but I don't know whether that's
4 a hole or not. Are you thinking of this upper right spot?
5 Q. I'm talking about in the corner of the wall, 18 inches or so above
6 the head of the deceased, you'll see there's a defect in the wall -- in
7 one wall and then there's another defect in the wall about the same height
8 on the adjoining wall. Do you see those holes? It's in the middle left
9 of the picture as a whole.
10 A. I see one defect. I don't see another one on that part of the
12 Q. Well, at all events I understand you initially formed a view that
13 there was the possibility of some chopping with an axe or similar
14 implement there, but do you acknowledge the possibility that -- now that
15 you've seen this photograph and the marks on the walls, do you acknowledge
16 the possibility that in fact what caused the loss of that part of the head
17 was in fact a burst of gunfire?
18 A. I already said that I do allow for that possibility.
19 Q. Okay. Now, as to -- as to killings performed by people with axes
20 or heavy implements of some sort, in your career I suppose you must have
21 seen a few crime scenes involving such killings. Is that correct?
22 A. Yes, of course.
23 Q. And in such situations it's very common that you will get a
24 phenomenon called cast-off whereby a blow having been struck, blood is
25 sprayed up the wall by the lifting up of the implement a second time. Are
1 you familiar with that? In English it's called cast-off, but are you
2 familiar with that phenomenon that you might get a line of blood up a wall
3 because a bloody instrument has been swung high?
4 A. Yes, I am aware of that.
5 Q. Do you notice here in this photograph that although there's
6 various pinkish-coloured marks, there seems to be, in simply the
7 photograph we're looking at, of course, a relative absence of red blood.
8 Is that something that catches your attention or not?
9 A. I think that you are incorrect because I think that there are some
10 traces of blood there. I don't know whether there were any changes or
11 not. It's difficult to analyse it like this, but it seems to me that we
12 are seeing some kind of blood here. It's very difficult to make a finding
13 based on a photograph that is of such poor resolution.
14 Q. Yes. Well, with respect, I frankly agree with what you say about
15 that. Very well. Well, those are the questions that I have on that --
16 for that particular deceased person, and that photograph can now be
17 removed from the screen. Thank you.
18 Victim number 7 was Kata Ljubic. This was a situation where
19 you've indicated I think three distant shots and one that's a relatively
20 close head shot with powder. Now, have regard -- of course you're allowed
21 to have in front of you the report that you wrote about Kata Ljubic, it's
22 number seven. What I wanted to ask you is this: As regards the close-up
23 shot, the head shot, it's not possible to say whether or not Kata Ljubic
24 was alive at the time when that shot was fired, is it?
25 A. No, based on the characteristic features of the wound, we could
1 say she was still alive. Again, this is on the basis of the vital signs
2 that we are finding around the wound.
3 Q. Now, the photograph that we're referring to, I just want to make
4 sure we're looking at the same one, is it this? I just wonder if the
5 witness wouldn't mind holding up the photograph which depicts these vital
7 A. [Indicates].
8 Q. Very well.
9 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, this is a photograph that is
10 numbered 0361-7365.
11 Q. Are you able to say that in that photograph you can see signs of
12 vital signs, you can see an indication of vital signs there rather than
13 simply a defect?
14 A. I do see signs of contusion of the tissue, and this would be a
15 wound that is typically sustained while the person is still alive.
16 Q. Very well. Are you able to say whether the other wounds that she
17 sustained were life threatening or likely to prove fatal in the absence of
18 this particular wound?
19 A. Given the fact that she had three more entry and three more exit
20 wounds in the chest and in the lower extremities, those are also serious
21 wounds that may have caused her death.
22 Q. Yes. Very well. Just excuse me one moment, please, Doctor.
23 [Defence counsel confer]
24 MR. MORRISSEY:
25 Q. Yes. Pardon me. I'm sorry about that. All right. The next
1 person I wanted to ask you about is Mijo Rajic. That's victim number 8.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Now, in the case of Mijo Rajic, I want to ask you a question about
4 whether it looks as if the same -- or perhaps I shouldn't -- I've got some
5 preliminary questions before that. Can I just ask you this: Were you
6 aware of a weapon called an M-48 at that time?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. All right. And were you familiar with -- could I ask you this:
9 Without performing an internal examination and in particular without
10 inspecting the lethal projectile, were you in a position with any of these
11 individuals, outside of Stjepan Zelic, to make a comment as to what the
12 weapon was that discharged the projectile?
13 A. All I can say here is that the wounds inflicted by hand-held
14 firearms show certain characteristics, and this was also the case with
15 Kalashnikov or M-45. From the forensic point of view, they looked like
16 wounds inflicted at a close range. The only difference will be in the
17 range at which they can eject gunpowder particles. And as for the
18 characteristics of these particles, they are the same. As I've already
19 said in the introduction, these wounds look very similar if they are
20 inflicted by similar types of firearms. That is why in order to analyse
21 whether a wound was inflicted at a close or a distant range, one doesn't
22 need to perform an internal examination. An internal examination will
23 just tell us about the internal organ lesions that the person suffered and
24 not about the characteristics or the range from which the projectile was
1 Q. Yes. All right. Would you just excuse me one moment, please,
3 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, would you just permit me one moment,
4 I just want to speak to Mr. Halilovic for one moment and then I'll resume.
5 There's no need to seek an adjournment. Could I just approach?
6 JUDGE LIU: Yes, of course.
7 [Defence counsel and accused confer]
8 MR. MORRISSEY: Thank you very much for that.
9 Q. My apologies for that, Doctor, but I can indicate this: I'm going
10 to finish tonight as a result of that. Very well.
11 Look, the last issue that I have to raise with you really is this:
12 Do you recall what instructions it was that you received when you dealt
13 with this group of bodies that arrived? In other words, what -- were you
14 simply told, "Perform an autopsy the best way you can," or were you told
15 to concentrate on a specific area?
16 A. Here I have to say that I didn't expect this type of question,
17 however I have to point out one thing: Throughout the war many war
18 victims passed through our hospital and through our department, both
19 living and dead. And irrespective of any religious affiliation of the
20 victims, we did everything professionally to the best of our capabilities
21 and knowledge. And any insinuations as to me having received any
22 instructions save for those to perform my duties are totally out of place.
23 In my work I only used --
24 Q. Stop there for a moment. You've misunderstood the question. It's
25 not a question of whether you did anything improper at all, Doctor, and
1 I'm not asking you that question. What I'm asking you is: Were you given
2 any instructions to take an interest in a particular area, such as whether
3 the bodies were mutilated or not?
4 A. No. I did not receive any such instruction. You know that in
5 conflicts there is an inclination to portray things worse than they
6 actually are. However, I as the head of the department and all of my
7 employees never acted in such a way. We never received any political
8 instruction or order to perform autopsies and point out things that could
9 be pointed out in order to put the other side in a worse position. We had
10 two things in mind as our priorities: We wanted to perform our
11 professional part to the best of our abilities at the moment. Can you
12 imagine me with 27 bodies? And if you can, then you will certainly agree
13 that this is some sort of a phenomenon in European terms. And when I told
14 this story to my European and American colleagues, they simply didn't
15 believe me. And we performed those autopsies extremely objectively
16 without any subjectivity whatsoever.
17 Q. Yes. Okay. I understand that's what you say. And the question
18 wasn't really --
19 A. In a nutshell, we never received any political instruction. We
20 just received a professional and human instructions to perform those
21 autopsies within the scope of one day. That was all.
22 Q. Okay. And was that instruction to do it in one day an instruction
23 you had in writing or was it a verbal instruction?
24 A. This was something that was said to me verbally, via Dr. Ivanovic.
25 Q. All right. Yes. Those are the questions. Thank you very much.
1 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
2 Well, it seems to me that we don't have enough time to finish this
3 witness today. So -- well, Mr. Weiner.
4 MR. WEINER: Yes, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE LIU: Would you prefer to begin your re-direct today or we
6 leave it tomorrow morning?
7 MR. WEINER: I think it would be easier if we do it tomorrow
8 morning because I want to show him a couple of little segments of a video.
9 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Yes.
10 Well, Witness, I'm afraid that you have to stay in The Hague for
11 another day, and I have to remind you that while you are in The Hague you
12 are still under the oath, so do not talk to anybody and do not let anybody
13 talk to you about your testimony. You understand that?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have been a forensic
15 expert for a number of years and I'm quite familiar with that.
16 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
17 I believe that the hearing is adjourned for today and will resume
18 tomorrow morning at 9.00.
19 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.56 p.m.,
20 to be reconvened on Friday, the 13th day of
21 May, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.