Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 7021

 1                           Tuesday, 28 September 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness takes the stand]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Good morning, everybody.  Judge Morrison cannot be

 7     with us today due to an authorised Tribunal business.  He will be back

 8     tomorrow.  So we'll be sitting pursuant to Rule 15 bis.

 9             Yes, Mr. Karadzic, please continue.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Good morning to

11     everyone.

12                           WITNESS:  PATRICK VAN DER WEIJDEN [Resumed]

13                           Cross-examination by Mr. Karadzic: [Continued]

14        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Van der Weijden.

15        A.   Good morning.

16        Q.   We left off yesterday at Marin Dvor incident because it's

17     important.  Is this where the well-known Sniper Alley was?

18        A.   Based on what I've seen on television at the time, it's about in

19     that vicinity, yes.

20        Q.   Thank you.  Are you familiar with Unioninvest building and the

21     so-called red building?  Perhaps you have you've come across them from --

22     in UNPROFOR reports.

23        A.   No, I'm not.

24        Q.   So no one every told you that you should check whether fire was

25     opened from the red building or the Unioninvest building; correct?

Page 7022

 1        A.   That is correct.

 2        Q.   Thank you.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we now please have

 4     65 ter 21216.  Thank you.

 5             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   Can you recognise this photo, Mr. Van der Weijden?  You can;

 7     right?

 8        A.   I recognise the buildings on the photo, yes.

 9        Q.   Can we agree that between the buildings of the museum and

10     philosophy school the street that runs between them is the

11     Franjo Racki Street?

12        A.   I do not know the name of the street, but that is the street that

13     I've marked as the field of fire in my report.

14        Q.   Could you please mark it again.  Draw a line from the Metalka

15     building all the way to the tram tracks.

16        A.   I do not know the Metalka building, exactly which building that

17     is.

18        Q.   What building, then, did you mark as the possible site where the

19     origin of fire was?

20        A.   That would be this building.

21        Q.   Thank you.  Would you now please draw a line all the way to the

22     tracks beginning with that -- from that building.

23        A.   [Marks]

24        Q.   Thank you.  Now, do you see the street to the left of the

25     School of Philosophy?  At the time it was called Djure Danicica Street,

Page 7023

 1     and today I believe it's called Ferde Hauptmana Street or

 2     Kosta Hermana Street.

 3        A.   I do see a street left of the faculty, parallel to the street

 4     that I've just marked.

 5        Q.   Would you please draw a line or mark that street from the red

 6     building to the tracks, running down that street.  Can you see that head

 7     building beyond Metalka building?  It's approximately in line with

 8     Djure Danicica Street.

 9        A.   You mean this building?

10        Q.   That building and the next one, the one next to it.

11        A.   [Marks]

12        Q.   Could you now please draw a line from those buildings to the tram

13     tracks running down Djuro Danicic Street.

14        A.   [Marks]

15        Q.   Thank you.  Mr. Van der Weijden, were you informed under whose

16     control these red buildings were?

17        A.   No.

18        Q.   Thank you.  Could you please date and initial this photo.

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And I would like to tender it into

20     evidence.

21             THE WITNESS:  I would like to point out that this photo is,

22     again, in perspective and that from street level these buildings would be

23     blocked from view from the tram lines by this group of buildings down

24     below.

25        Q.   Well, the testimony of an UNPROFOR observer in the Milosevic

Page 7024

 1     case, of witness Asam Butt is not to that effect.  He said that the red

 2     buildings were dominant, that they were higher.  Now, have you ever

 3     checked these buildings?  Did you ever go there?

 4        A.   I did not check the buildings because from the location of the

 5     incident site I could not see those buildings.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  These are all waste of time, Mr. Karadzic.  The

 7     witness does not know anything.  But we'll admit this.

 8             MR. GAYNOR:  Sorry, before we do so, Mr. President.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Gaynor.

10             MR. GAYNOR:  Could I request that the witness mark on the diagram

11     the buildings which prevent a direct line of sight, which he's just

12     indicated.

13             JUDGE KWON:  How about putting the numbers?

14             Mr. Tieger, do you have anything to say?

15             MR. TIEGER:  Only to indicate that I think the witness did

16     indicate that with the circle; it's just that the record would not have

17     reflected what that last circle meant.

18             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, so why don't we put to the rectangular --

19     number 1 for that rectangular building, and what do you refer to?

20             THE WITNESS:  This is the building that I believe has been used

21     as the origin of fire.

22             JUDGE KWON:  Origin of fire.  And the red building --

23             THE WITNESS:  The red buildings I will mark with 2.

24             JUDGE KWON:  -- number 2.  And number 3?

25             THE WITNESS:  Number 3 is the group of building that would

Page 7025

 1     prevent the line of fire [sic] from the red buildings to the tram tracks.

 2             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

 3             THE WITNESS:  In my view.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  That will be Defence Exhibit ...

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D649.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

 7             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Mr. Van der Weijden, how do you know that building number 3

 9     obstructs the view from building number 2?

10        A.   Because I also checked this street and I did not see the

11     buildings, the red buildings, beyond, when I visited the -- that

12     neighbourhood.

13        Q.   Thank you.

14             JUDGE BAIRD:  Can we -- can we have those markings again, please?

15     We've lost them.

16             JUDGE KWON:  We'll bring back the -- D649.

17             JUDGE BAIRD:  Right.

18                           [Trial Chamber confers]

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to --

20             JUDGE KWON:  Okay.  Very well.  We can move on.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- tender it.

22             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, it has been admitted.

23             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we now please have 21215 from

24     the same binder, the photo preceding the other one.

25             JUDGE KWON:  Number 6.

Page 7026

 1             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   I would like now to ask you to do the same thing we've done

 3     earlier, to show the building that you assume was under Serb control and

 4     then also on Rasko Street from the red building down the street to the

 5     tram tracks.  So, in other words, could you please mark both streets from

 6     both of those buildings down all the way to the tram tracks.

 7        A.   I've not marked in my report anywhere where a building is under

 8     Serb control.  I've only marked buildings of -- marked buildings that I

 9     believe as the origin of fire.  I did not indicate any party.  But this

10     building is where I believe the shooter has fired from, down this street.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Let's put number 1 for that building.

12             THE WITNESS: [Marks]

13             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

14             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   Thank you.  Could you now please circle the two red buildings.

16        A.   [Marks]

17        Q.   Mark it to indicate that it's number 2, and then draw a line

18     towards the track down Djure Danicica Street.

19        A.   [Marks]

20        Q.   Thank you.  Now, can you see to the right of this the white,

21     square building some five to six storeys high?

22        A.   This building?

23        Q.   Yes.  Yes.  Could you please put a number 3 there.

24        A.   [Marks]

25        Q.   Has anyone informed you that that was the Unioninvest building,

Page 7027

 1     which was also under Muslim control?

 2        A.   No.

 3        Q.   Would you now please draw the line of vision from the western

 4     corner of this building towards the tracks.

 5        A.   For -- to draw a line of vision, I would have to visit the site

 6     and look at street level, but for a line from this -- from the left

 7     corner to the tracks, I will just draw this.

 8             So this is, in my view, not the line of vision, but it's just a

 9     line to the tram tracks.

10        Q.   Thank you.  Do you know that on the other side of the bridge,

11     from Vrbanja bridge, the street that leads on is called Trscanska Street.

12     Can you see the bridge?

13        A.   I can see a bridge on the right side of the photo.

14        Q.   Would you agree that Branimira Cosica Street runs from it and

15     then on, after the high-rise, Trscanska Street continues towards the

16     hospital?

17        A.   I did not know the name of the streets at this time.

18        Q.   Very well.  Thank you.  Would you please date and initial this

19     photo.

20        A.   [Marks]

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to tender it.

22             JUDGE KWON:  That will be Exhibit D650.

23             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  We can now remove this.

24             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   Mr. Van der Weijden, do you remember the Dragomir Milosevic case?

Page 7028

 1        A.   In general, yes.

 2        Q.   In that case, did you work on this incident as well as on the

 3     incident in which Alma Cehajic was wounded?

 4        A.   I would have to view the report, they match.

 5        Q.   Could I then relate you to the first instance judgement in the

 6     Dragomir Milosevic case.  This is an incident that occurred on the 8th of

 7     October involving Alma Cehajic, and Mulaosmanovic came to testify here.

 8     And we will find this on pages 84 and onward.

 9             Mr. Van der Weijden, you testified and produced an expert report

10     on -- for many cases before this Tribunal, and these two incidents were

11     part of your reports.  Now, do you recall that you mentioned certain

12     matters and there, for instance, in paragraph 303 where you said that the

13     tram --

14             JUDGE KWON:  For record, what's the date of the incident in which

15     Mulaosmanovic was injured?  Is it not F15 incident, 27 February 1995?

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, that was on the

17     27th of February.  And the paragraph that relates to that is paragraphs

18     300 and higher.

19             So could we please look now at paragraph 300 where says --

20             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   Now, let me ask you this first, Mr. Van der Weijden:  Have you

22     updated your findings to reflect the adjudicated facts?

23        A.   I have reviewed all cases, but I would have to look at the

24     report, the previous report, to check it.

25        Q.   Well, I will try to assist you now.  And I'd like to refer you to

Page 7029

 1     paragraph 300 of the first instance judgement in the Milosevic case.

 2     That's on page 100.  And in the paragraph it says:

 3             "In one UNPROFOR report of the same day, which was shown by the

 4     Defence, it is stated that the tram which was near the Holiday Inn had

 5     been shot by eight shots in which incident one person was wounded, and

 6     it's possible that three other individuals were wounded or killed.  In

 7     the same report, it says that these bullets were fired in the

 8     Vrbanja Most region and the red building area where at the time there was

 9     fighting and shooting between the SRK and the BH Army."

10             And that's in footnote 1.062 from a report, an UNPROFOR report

11     sitrep, of February, pages 2 to 9.  And then a few pages on, it says that

12     military observers of the UN conducted an investigation into the alleged

13     incident and confirmed that the tram was hit by -- with eight bullets and

14     that the fire had been opened from the south.

15             And then Witness W-118 explained that that report probably did

16     not refer to the incident when her tram had been hit, because in the

17     report mention is made of an exchange of fire between the two sides, and

18     Alma Mulaosmanovic could not confirm that there was any shooting at the

19     time when the tram had been hit.

20             In addition, the report also mentions that the tram was close to

21     the Holiday Inn, which, according to Witness W-118, was an area near

22     Marin Dvor, Holiday Inn, and not the area near the Marsal Tito Barracks

23     where the tram had been.

24             Now, in the report, in the UNPROFOR report, the red buildings is

25     mentioned as the building from which fire was opened; and according to

Page 7030

 1     Witness 118, that area is not the same as the Grbavica area which she had

 2     talked about, and so on and so forth.

 3             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  We do not have the

 4     original text that was read out.

 5             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   So the last sentence, the area of the

 7     Vrbanja bridge-red building, which was mentioned in the UNPROFOR report

 8     as the place from which the fire was -- fire was opened, is not the same

 9     area as the Grbavica area.

10             Now, would you agree with me that this is in fact the same area

11     because these two buildings are one next to the other?

12        A.   Well, I do not read from your statement that the Vrbanja Most

13     area and the red building area is the same as the red building or the

14     bridge.  It's an area, so it might be -- I don't know how big that area

15     is, mentioned in the UNPROFOR document.  So they might include the

16     buildings that I think the fire came from.  But I only see, as you've

17     read from the UNPROFOR report, an area instead of specific buildings.

18        Q.   Now, in your analysis, would you have paid more attention to

19     UNPROFOR reports because they observe the developments throughout the day

20     rather than opinions that people who are on the tram were willing to --

21     to provide?

22        A.   As I've stated yesterday, my method was, with the brief situation

23     description, to go to a location, view the incident site, and in my view

24     determine the origin of fire.  If some of the -- my findings correspond

25     with UNPROFOR reports or witness reports, that is okay, but it doesn't

Page 7031

 1     influence my judgement.

 2        Q.   Do you remember -- let's look at paragraph 3.4 on page 101.

 3     Lieutenant Van der Weijden in his report also states that the sniper was

 4     probably on the Metalka building.  However, the Trial Chamber has in mind

 5     that Lieutenant Van der Weijden thought that the tram was on the

 6     cross-roads between the museum and the Holiday Inn, farther to the east

 7     from the area where the tram, as witnesses have confirmed, had been hit.

 8     Witnesses W-118 and Alma Mulaosmanovic and Alija Konjak confirmed that

 9     the shot had been fired from one of the high-rises in Grbavica area.  In

10     other words, the people on the tram claim that they knew where the shot

11     had come from.  And your opinion is mentioned here as being of -- as

12     being opposite to that.

13             Now, would you please take a look at paragraph 106 of the

14     judgement.

15             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Karadzic, do you have the judgement?

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I do have the judgement before

17     me.

18             JUDGE KWON:  Let him read it.  But -- while I don't see any point

19     of analysing the other Chamber's judgement at this moment, if you'd like

20     to put a specific question, it is incumbent upon you to show that

21     paragraph to the witness.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I do have a hard copy in the

23     Serbian version, but I would like to discuss something that's very

24     important for this case, and that is where the tram exactly was hit and

25     the time when it occur.

Page 7032

 1             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   Now, Mr. Van der Weijden, do you know where the tram was at the

 3     moment when --

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  Put your question, and you can submit your

 5     submission later on.

 6             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   Do you know where the tram was when it was hit?  Were you able to

 8     establish that, or did anyone establish it and you accepted that?

 9             JUDGE KWON:  What incident are we talking about?  F15 incident

10     where Alma Mulaosmanovic was injured?

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Incidents 11 and 15.  First

12     incident 11 and then 15.

13             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

14             THE WITNESS:  In case of 11, according to the situation, the tram

15     was approaching from the west to the east, the intersection between the

16     Museum of the Revolution and the Faculty of Philosophy.  So it was just

17     in the direct vicinity of the crossing that fire was opened.

18             And for case 15 -- just a moment.  There it's only mentioned that

19     the tram was near the Tito Barracks, which are close to the Holiday Inn

20     and the same intersection.

21             JUDGE KWON:  Can you bring back D650.

22             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   When you say close to the Holiday Inn, does that mean before the

24     intersection or after the intersection?

25             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Van der Weijden, can you see those -- both those

Page 7033

 1     points in this picture?

 2             THE WITNESS:  For case F11 -- oh, sorry.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  We can use the black one, if necessary.  Could you

 4     wait a minute, or are you accustomed to that tool already?

 5             THE WITNESS:  That's the two buttons, I believe.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Let's give it a try.

 7             THE WITNESS:  [Marks]

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Excellent.

 9             THE WITNESS:  For case F11, it would be --

10             JUDGE KWON:  Could you just put F11 there.

11             THE WITNESS:  [Marks]

12             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

13             THE WITNESS:  The tram was traveling from west to east and

14     nearing the intersection which is this intersection between the museum

15     and the faculty.

16             JUDGE KWON:  And the second incident.

17             THE WITNESS:  The second incident, I would have to go a little

18     more to the left.

19             JUDGE KWON:  Then we will do it again.  We cannot keep this one.

20     I will ask him to mark it again.  No, no, we bring back 650 anew.

21             Is it fine, Mr. Van der Weijden?

22             THE WITNESS:  A little more to the left, please.  No, all the way

23     to the other side.  Yes.  Thank you.

24             JUDGE KWON:  Okay.  So could you mark F11 again.  Yes, we can do

25     that.  Yes.

Page 7034

 1             THE WITNESS: [Marks]

 2             And for case F15, the tram is travelling from the Old Town, so it

 3     will be travelling westwards in the vicinity, but it doesn't give it

 4     distance because Tito Barracks is a large area, so it's -- these are

 5     the -- and more to the west.  These are the Tito Barracks.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  Put the date and your signature, please,

 7     Mr. Van der Weijden.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Marks]

 9             JUDGE KWON:  That will be Exhibit D651.

10             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Mr. Van der Weijden, was it important for you to know where the

12     tram was exactly when it was hit?  What were the positions of the bodies

13     that were hit?  And how did the entry/exit wounds look like?

14        A.   For the first question, it would -- would be important for me to

15     know exactly when it was hit.  As for the second questions, I have not

16     seen the positions of the bodies, nor have I seen the entry/exit

17     wounds -- entry and exit wounds.

18        Q.   Thank you.  Do you agree that a thigh on a human body is below

19     the hip?

20        A.   Yes, I agree.

21        Q.   So if an entry wound is in the thigh and the exit wound is in the

22     hip, the canal then stretches from down, upwards.  Would you agree with

23     that?

24        A.   The wound canal would stretch upwards, yes.

25        Q.   Thank you.  In paragraph 304 of the judgement, I'm going to read

Page 7035

 1     it out to you, it says the following:

 2             "Lieutenant Van der Weijden said in his report that the sniper

 3     was probably in the Metalka building.  However, the Trial Chamber bore in

 4     mind the fact that the lieutenant thought that the tram was at the

 5     intersection which was much more to the east as shown by the

 6     eyewitnesses."

 7             Now, can you see these two streets and that Djure Danicica street

 8     is somewhat more to the east than the Djure Racko Street?

 9        A.   I did not say in my report that there was mention of a sniper,

10     just to justify that.  And -- which case?  This is still case F11?

11        Q.   Yes, yes.

12        A.   In case 11, there's -- I do believe that the location of the tram

13     that I was given by the OTP was slightly different from the location

14     where I believe the tram was at the time of the incident, but it's not

15     far more to the east; it's only a little bit -- little bit maybe

16     50 metres further to the east, in front of the faculty building.  So not

17     the -- the next intersection.

18        Q.   Do you agree that between these two blue lines the distance is

19     not more than 50 metres?

20        A.   I would have to check on a map.

21        Q.   Do you agree or do you remember that it was concluded that on the

22     Racki Street you think was the path of the bullet, then in that case the

23     tram must have been approaching an S-curve and had to slow down?

24             MR. GAYNOR:  Objection, Mr. President.  Mr. Karadzic is now

25     putting questions to the witness as to the factual findings made by the

Page 7036

 1     Trial Chamber in the Dragomir Milosevic case with which the witness is

 2     not necessarily familiar.  Mr. Karadzic should be putting factual

 3     assertions to the witness and ask him if he agrees or if he disagrees, or

 4     he can put the witness's prior evidence to him, or he can put items of

 5     evidence relied upon by the Trial Chamber in that case; but asking the

 6     witness whether he recollects a judgement that he hasn't necessarily read

 7     or asking him to engage in comparative factual analysis with that carried

 8     out by the Trial Chamber in that case is inappropriate in my submission.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you, Mr. Gaynor.  That's what I told him to

10     do.

11             Put a specific question as to his evidence or put your specific

12     factual questions.  What is your question, Mr. Karadzic?

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] My question, with all due respect

14     to Mr. Gaynor, was relating to an enormous number of adjudicated facts,

15     and the burden of disproving them is on my shoulders.  Many of them stem

16     from the Milosevic judgement.

17             Mr. Van der Weijden testified in all these incidents, and it was

18     established that the tram had to slow down on the Racki Street because it

19     was approaching the S-curve.  I'm asking Mr. Van der Weijden if he knew

20     that.

21             THE WITNESS:  Yes, I'm aware of that.

22             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   Do you agree with that conclusion?

24        A.   Yes, I agree.

25        Q.   Thank you.

Page 7037

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please now have on the ELMO

 2     this particular section of the map in order for us to determine where the

 3     right-hand tram track forks.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Do you have a 65 ter number of that map,

 5     Mr. Karadzic?

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't think so.  That's the map

 7     provided by the US government, and we have already seen it before.

 8             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Can you first please show this so that we can establish what this

10     refers to.

11             JUDGE KWON:  I don't think ELMO is working at this moment.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm kindly asking for your

13     patience, because you will realise how enormously important these facts

14     are.

15             JUDGE KWON:  I take it we should have a 65 ter number of what

16     Mr. Van der Weijden is now looking at.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to ask the OTP to have

18     understanding, because we realised this overnight, and it seems that the

19     previous Trial Chamber was misled by an incomplete presentation.

20             JUDGE KWON:  That's a totally inappropriate comment,

21     Mr. Karadzic.

22             Now, yes, we have ELMO.

23             MR. KARADZIC: [Microphone not activated]

24             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

25             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

Page 7038

 1        Q.   Mr. Van der Weijden, do you agree that this is a picture taken

 2     from the Holiday Inn Hotel?

 3        A.   I agree it's a picture taken from the direction of the

 4     Holiday Inn but not from within the Holiday Inn at all.  It's from an

 5     elevated position above.  It's probably from a helicopter.  But it's

 6     looking down at the curve in the tram tracks.

 7        Q.   Can we agree that this is this so-called Sniper Alley that

 8     features in many incidents?

 9        A.   I have not visited Sniper Alley at that time.  I only seen it on

10     television, so I only know where the -- the wider area is.  I do not know

11     if this is the exact location.

12        Q.   We shall nevertheless try to find this photograph in e-court.

13             JUDGE KWON:  I take it this is a magnified or zoomed-in picture

14     of 21216.  If we bring up Exhibit -- 65 ter 21216, but not marked, but we

15     can recognise it.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  That's exactly right.

17     Precisely so.

18             JUDGE KWON:  Exhibit -- no, not exhibit.  65 ter 21216, map 7 of

19     the binder.  The bottom part.

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honours, thank you.  That's

21     right.

22             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   Now, can you mark the Racki Street, Mr. Van der Weijden, which,

24     according to you, coincided with the projectile trajectory, and also this

25     S-curve.

Page 7039

 1        A.   This would be the street.  I do not know the name that I've

 2     identified as the field of fire.  And the S-curve for the -- in this

 3     incident from the tram travelling from --

 4             MR. GAYNOR:  Sorry to interrupt.  Mr. --

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Gaynor.

 6             MR. GAYNOR:  Mr. Van der Weijden appears to be marking with the

 7     pen.  It's not coming up on the version that I'm looking at.  I don't

 8     think it's coming up, Your Honours.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  It's coming.

10             MR. GAYNOR:  Oh, thank you.  I had the wrong picture.  Thank you.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  Please carry on, Mr. Van der Weijden.

12             THE WITNESS:  So this would be -- this stretch would be the

13     S-curve.

14             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   Do you know, Mr. Van der Weijden, for how long this S-curve had

16     been existing?  Did it exist at the time when the incident took place?

17        A.   I did not see any other different signs of construction for the

18     dead-line or the lines in the centre, so I assumed that they were present

19     at that time.

20        Q.   Can you please put the date and your initials.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And I would like this to be

22     tendered into evidence.  And after that I would appreciate to see the map

23     provided by the US government.

24             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  That will be exhibited as

25     Defence Exhibit D652.

Page 7040

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  Correct, Your Honour.

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can I please ask the Registry to

 3     show us on the ELMO the publisher and the date of the map that we can

 4     see.

 5             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   Do you agree that this map dates from 1993, and the bit below

 7     that you will see that it was published by the State Department?  The

 8     name of the publisher must be a little bit towards the bottom of the

 9     page.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is not the correct reference.

11     There must be a publisher mentioned somewhere because there's no doubt

12     that it was provided by the State Department of the US government.  Yes,

13     I think we can see it now.  Thank you.

14             Can I please now ask for the section that I have marked to be

15     enlarged.

16             [Microphone not activated]

17             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

18             THE ACCUSED:  Move it a little bit right, please.

19             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Mr. Van der Weijden, can I ask you now to identify the tram track

21     and to mark the bifurcation place on the tram track, which means where it

22     is forking into two directions.

23             JUDGE KWON:  Would you like the witness to mark on the original

24     map?  That's the only possible method at this moment.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Maybe after the break, after we

Page 7041

 1     have made a copy.  But I can give him the map of Sarajevo, although I'm

 2     sorry to see it used in this way, and then we can look at the US map

 3     later on.

 4             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   Do you agree, Mr. Van der Weijden, that the right stretch of the

 6     tram deviates from the main track at the point where the church

 7     Marin Dvor on Trscanska Street is and which is far away from the area

 8     that was constructed after the year 2004?

 9        A.   Could I see the transcript, please?

10             Yes, I agree that on this city map, where the tram track splits,

11     it's farther away from the intersection than I -- than this split at the

12     intersection where I believe the incident happened.

13        Q.   Thank you.  Can you please put a circle around this particular

14     location on the map where the split is between the two tram tracks.

15             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Gaynor, can we not find the map which depicts

16     this area from this Sarajevo booklet?

17             MR. GAYNOR:  Yes, we'll try and find it immediately.

18             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

19             THE WITNESS:  I can just mark it here?  [Marks]

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It will be easier if we get an

21     e-court version.

22             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   Do you see the Unioninvest building close to the Vrbanja bridge;

24     and if you do, could you please mark it.

25        A.   [Marks]

Page 7042

 1        Q.   Thank you.  Can you see the Wilson promenade opposite Grbavica?

 2     So the Wilson promenade.

 3        A.   I do not recognise that name on the city map.

 4        Q.   This is where the river ends -- or, rather, it's parallel to the

 5     river.  So it's on the Muslim side, exactly across from Grbavica.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  How about sheet 7 of that map binder, Mr. Gaynor?

 7             THE WITNESS:  Would it be the same as Visanova Cetiliste [phoen].

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Van der Weijden, if you speak -- please speak to

 9     the microphone, please.

10             THE WITNESS:  Oh, I'm sorry.  Would that be Visanova Cetiliste?

11             JUDGE KWON:  But just a second.  Let's wait.

12             MR. GAYNOR:  If we could bring up 65 ter 09390C, that should

13     represent -- give this part of Sarajevo.  Page 13, please.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We should have page 13, which is

15     0546-6581.

16             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Gaynor, did you mean this one?

17             MR. GAYNOR:  Yes.  The top -- the top left of that area.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Page 13 would be better, which is

19     0546-6581.  It's identical, but it's readable.  So the page number is

20     0546-6581.

21             THE WITNESS:  Your Honour, I would like to point out that I think

22     there is a mix-up in different split-ups, because as visible on page 88

23     of my paper report, of my expert report, I'm -- there's already visible

24     the next intersection where the tram lines, also according to the map,

25     split.  But the split where I -- on the intersection where I believe the

Page 7043

 1     incident took place is just a split where the -- from whereon the tram

 2     lines run parallel to the same street and then further split up into

 3     different directions.  And I'm sure if we would have a better photo from

 4     Google Earth it would be clearly visible that it's a different

 5     intersection that Mr. -- Mr. Karadzic is referring to.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  Unless we can find the proper map to

 7     which both parties can agree, then we shall proceed with that map on the

 8     ELMO.

 9             I propose to take a break for 20 minutes.  In the meantime, then

10     I hope the parties can sort out all the maps.  If it is agreeable.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is.

12             JUDGE KWON:  We'll break for 20 minutes.

13                           --- Break taken at 10.00 a.m.

14                           --- On resuming at 10.24 a.m.

15             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  Very well.  I see a map on our bench.

16             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   Mr. Van der Weijden, would you now please mark the spot where the

18     tram tracks fork, where they separate and then make a loop around the

19     centre of town.  Can we agree that this is near number 8, near the

20     Vrbanja bridge and Trscanska Street?

21        A.   There is a split of tram tracks at location number 8.

22        Q.   Thank you.  Mr. Van der Weijden, could you please tell us -- or

23     can you confirm that you have actually been misled by the new situation

24     with the tracks and that based on that you concluded that the tram was

25     visible on the bullet path or within the scope of the trajectory of the

Page 7044

 1     bullet for eight seconds?  Correct?

 2        A.   No.  This is not correct.  If I could have an aerial photograph

 3     of that area, I could point out how I came to my conclusions.  Since

 4     there are two dividing -- two points within a short distance where the

 5     trams separate -- the tram lines separate.

 6             MR. GAYNOR:  I suggest it might be helpful if Mr. Van der Weijden

 7     could refer to his -- the aerial photographs in his report.

 8             THE WITNESS:  They are not detailed enough.  I would need an

 9     aerial photograph of Sarajevo.  And I believe there is somewhere, but it

10     would have to be straight down.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Just for the record, the map we are looking at is --

12     I take it is Exhibit D617, which we admitted through Dr. Nakas.  Am I

13     correct?

14             MR. GAYNOR:  I understand that's correct, Your Honour.

15             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would also like to tender it

17     through this witness to point out the fork in the tram tracks.

18             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   Mr. Van der Weijden, when was the photo taken that you have

20     referred to?

21        A.   I do not recall on what date the Google Earth photo that I used

22     for my report was taken.

23        Q.   But would you agree with me that Google Earth did not exist at

24     the time and that it is being updated every two or three months nowadays;

25     correct?

Page 7045

 1        A.   That might be.  Could I, then, have the area which I marked 1

 2     magnified, please.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.  Could we have that magnified,

 4     but I will also show the American map, the US map, the 1993 map.

 5             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   And can we just bear in mind the time periods.  Up until 2004,

 7     was the fork in the tram tracks here at the spot which you marked next to

 8     number 8?

 9        A.   There is a fork at the location number 8, yes.  But I do not know

10     until 2004.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Do you like the map zoomed in any further?

12             THE WITNESS:  No.  This would be fine.

13             JUDGE KWON:  So could you mark the fork part again for the

14     record.

15             THE WITNESS: [Marks]

16             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, that's good.

17             THE WITNESS:  One second.

18             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could you use the pen, please.

20             THE WITNESS: [Marks]

21             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

22             THE WITNESS:  I -- Your Honour, would I be allowed to draw

23     something on the map?

24             JUDGE KWON:  By all means, Mr. Van der Weijden.

25             THE WITNESS:  You will see that even from aerial photography that

Page 7046

 1     should be made at the time by NATO forces or any other, that if you would

 2     have a view of the tram tracks, you will see that there is a split up of

 3     tram tracks here.  And since the tram tracks along the roads at the

 4     intersection number 8 - the northern one, it runs on the north side of

 5     the street and the southern one runs on the south side - there is a

 6     previous split up a little more to the west where I believe the

 7     intersection is where the incident happened.  Just for planning purposes,

 8     because I think for planning -- for city planning this would be a more

 9     difficult situation.  So if you would have an aerial photograph, you

10     would see that there are two split-ups of the tram tracks.  That's what I

11     would like to point out.

12             JUDGE KWON:  Could you put number 1 and 2 for those intersections

13     and that split.

14             THE WITNESS:  Number 1 is the first split, and number 2 is the

15     split that's also visible on the city maps.

16             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   And where does the right fork from the first intersection, the

18     first split, where does that lead?  Where does it go?

19        A.   It runs parallel to -- on the same street, but only on the south

20     side of the street.

21        Q.   Why can we not see it on any map before 2004?

22     Mr. Van der Weijden, I lived in this city, and I know exactly where the

23     tram forked and where it forks today.  So why could we not find this fork

24     before 2004 on any of the maps?

25        A.   Because it's -- it's a map, and it doesn't necessarily show the

Page 7047

 1     exact -- the width of the line of the street does not also specifically

 2     mark the -- the width of the street.  It's a map, and it's a guide to

 3     reality.  And I believe since -- from that -- that S-curve that I

 4     describe at the intersection of the incident site, because the tram lines

 5     run parallel to the same street it's not mentioned in -- it's not shown

 6     on the maps.

 7        Q.   Mr. Van der Weijden, I'll show you now a US map, and it's rather

 8     accurate.  This is a US government map from 1993.  And we also have a

 9     Muslim -- or, rather, a Sarajevo map of 2004.  And we can see that the

10     only fork was in line with Trscanska Street, which is now called

11     Zavidovicka Street, or something like that, and that's at number 8.  And

12     you cannot locate this in any other map.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So I would like some assistance

14     from the Court Usher to show the witness this map that we've already

15     identified earlier.

16             The Prosecutor has seen the map.

17             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   So could the witness now please mark on this map.

19             And could we place it on the ELMO, please.

20             So could the witness please mark this US map and show us where

21     the fork in the tram tracks was.

22             Would you please mark Trscanska Street.  Can you see it?

23     T-r-s-c-a-n-s-k-a.  Perhaps if you can put the map up a little bit.

24        A.   [Marks]

25        Q.   And then Branka Radicevica Street.  That's below Hotel Zagreb.

Page 7048

 1     That street, too, has a new name now.

 2        A.   [Marks]

 3        Q.   Is that the place where the fork is, Mr. Van der Weijden, in line

 4     with the Catholic church that we can see there?

 5        A.   That is fork -- there is a fork at that intersection, yes.

 6        Q.   To the west of this fork we see that the track -- there's a

 7     double track; and to the east of it, the loop going around the centre,

 8     the Sarajevo city centre, is only one set of tracks; correct?

 9        A.   Could I see the transcript?  This one?

10        Q.   Excuse me, but what have you just marked now?

11        A.   There is -- on this map, there is a tram line with a loop that I

12     marked.

13        Q.   But is this the only way you can take this -- these tracks, would

14     be if you're going from the city centre to the railway station; correct?

15             For us, this fork is irrelevant.  Let me just repeat the

16     question.

17             To the west of the fork we see that there is a double track, and

18     to the east we only see one set of tracks going south and north.

19             THE ACCUSED:  Can I ask you to submit this to Mr. Witness, this

20     original.  No, no, no.  Not on the ELMO.  On the ELMO it can be the copy.

21     And just to help him see better.

22             THE WITNESS:  To the west of the crossing with the Catholic

23     church there was only one track leading west, and then after

24     approximately 150 metres there's another track with the loop splitting

25     off to the north-west.

Page 7049

 1             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   Would you agree that that is the fork leading to the railway

 3     station and that it's irrelevant to this case?

 4        A.   If the black building with the multiple lines is the railway

 5     system -- station, it would be irrelevant, yes.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  Now, can you tell us, how do you mark on a map double

 7     tracks, and are -- these vertical bars, are they actually an indication

 8     that there is a track to the west of the fork?

 9        A.   I could not conclude that from the legend of this map.

10        Q.   Thank you.  But can we agree that before the fork that you've

11     indicated there are no other forks?  There is no fork on this map to the

12     west of the fork that you identified and that the tram did not have to

13     slow down at any point there because of some alleged S-curve.

14        A.   I agree that there is no other indication of a fork on this map.

15     But it's not a fork, it's an S-curve.

16        Q.   Mr. Van der Weijden, the curve actually exists at -- from the

17     point where the tracks fork, and then -- and you have indicated that

18     spot.  Now, after the war, the fork was near the Holiday Inn, and the

19     purpose was to make it -- to make the traffic flow more easily in this

20     area, and the thing is that you have used the map that was of a later

21     date and thus were misled.  And, of course, I do not blame you or the

22     Trial Chamber for it, but would you agree with me that this kind of

23     reality set in after 2004 and that there are no indications whatsoever on

24     earlier maps that there was a curve at the time of the events?

25        A.   I would not know.  I'm not aware of the city planning in

Page 7050

 1     Sarajevo.

 2        Q.   Well, very well, but I'm talking about documents here.

 3             Now, let me ask you this:  Now, you have agreed that the hip on

 4     the human body is above a thigh.  Now I would like to read paragraph 256

 5     in the judgement, in the Milosevic judgement:

 6             "When the fire -- firing started, panic set in.  People tried to

 7     hide behind seats.  The shots first hit the upper portion of the tram and

 8     then the bottom part of the tram, and then the victim" - I don't want to

 9     mention the name - "was standing next to the central door, tram door, and

10     was turned with her back to Grbavica.  She was wounded in the left part

11     of her head, and also a bullet ran through her right thigh, hitting and

12     severing the large artery."

13             Now, how would you explain the wound canal, that it was actually

14     ascending, it was going from a lower angle to a higher angle if the shot

15     was from a higher ground, from the Metalka building?

16        A.   I do not from which place the entry wound exactly was because the

17     right thigh is a large part of the leg, but the bullet also enters the

18     tram and it can already deviate its -- its trajectory from just entering

19     the tram.  So I do not know from exactly which angle the bullet entered

20     the body.

21        Q.   But you know very well what a ricochet does to the body.  It does

22     not cause an entry/exit wound but, rather, a different kind of wound, and

23     here it was established that the bullet had entered the thigh and exited

24     it.  But here it also says that Mr. Van der Weijden, in his report,

25     concluded that "the shooter was probably on the roof of the Metalka

Page 7051

 1     building," and so on and so forth.

 2             Now, two questions:  Mr. Van der Weijden, had you had a medical

 3     report showing that the entry wound was in the thigh and the exit wound

 4     near the hip, would your conclusions have been different?

 5        A.   I did not conclude that the shooter was on the roof of the

 6     Metalka building, since being on the roof is tactically not a very good

 7     position.  And I did not have a medical report.

 8        Q.   Maybe it was a misinterpretation.  It says here that the

 9     shooter -- it was concluded that the shooter was on the Metalka building.

10     So that's one.

11             But now, had you known what the situation was at the time of the

12     incident, that there was no fork and no S-curve, would your conclusion

13     have been different in terms of those eight seconds of visibility of the

14     tram?  Would it have been perhaps that it was only three seconds or so?

15        A.   The conclusion would be the same, but I agree that the eight

16     seconds, if there was no S-curve at the time, the eight seconds would be

17     less.  It would probably be four seconds.

18        Q.   Thank you.  Could you please now initial the map, the hard copy

19     map, please.  Would you mark the fork and put your initials and date on

20     the map, on the hard copy.

21        A.   On the original?

22             JUDGE KWON:  No, on the --

23             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   On the copy, please.  I need the original.

25        A.   [Marks]

Page 7052

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.  Let us see the marking again.

 2             What does number 2 refer to, Mr. Van der Weijden?

 3             THE WITNESS:  It would be the incident site.  [Marks]

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Then just a second.  For a better view, we'll admit

 5     the clean version as well to see the S-curve in the -- in number 1 area.

 6     So we will admit this marked map as Exhibit D -- what number should be

 7     given?

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D653, Your Honour.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  And we'll admit, separately, a clean version of this

10     map, another copy, as Exhibit D654.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

12             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   Let's move on.  Now, would you agree with me that the direction

14     of the origin of fire can be established on the basis of the bullet that

15     is recovered?  Now, would you agree with me that if a bullet hits soft

16     ground that then it would not ricochet, and then if -- if it -- if the

17     ground was harder it would ricochet and cause a cloud of dust?

18             JUDGE KWON:  That's not for the witness.

19             Yes, Mr. Gaynor.

20             MR. GAYNOR:  Yeah, indeed that point.  And also my previous

21     point, which is to request the accused to put each assertion in turn to

22     the witness so the witness has an opportunity to respond to each

23     assertion instead of building these compound questions with five or six

24     in-built questions.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  I apologise, but I'm

Page 7053

 1     trying to save some time.

 2             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   Mr. Van der Weijden, would you agree with me that if a bullet --

 4     the incoming angle of the bullet is small, then there would be a cloud of

 5     dust that would be almost horizontal, above the spot?

 6        A.   It would be different for every -- every surface.

 7        Q.   Now, if the ground is soft, dusty?

 8        A.   If the ground is soft and dusty, there will be a larger cloud.

 9        Q.   And how would this cloud of dust disperse, for instance, if a

10     bullet, the incoming -- the angle of incidence was, let's say,

11     20 degrees?

12        A.   That would depend on the wind conditions.

13        Q.   And what happens if there's no wind?

14        A.   If there's no wind, the dust will hang in the air until it drops

15     back to the ground.

16        Q.   Thank you.  But it would move in any direction.  The dust

17     particles would also have certain angle of their own to indicate the

18     direction from which the bullet came.

19        A.   Some conclusions could be drawn from the spread of the dust.

20        Q.   Thank you.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please now look at the video

22     footage V0000-000 -- 4374 from 3 minutes and 29 seconds onwards.

23             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   Do you know that this incident of the 8th of October was recorded

25     live by the Sarajevo Television?

Page 7054

 1        A.   Do not know that, but I assume that it's recorded live.

 2        Q.   Thank you.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please now play this video,

 4     which starts at 2 minutes -- 3 minutes 29 seconds until 3 minutes,

 5     36 seconds.

 6                           [Video-clip played]

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can you please replay again.

 8             And can you please pay attention to the dust that was created by

 9     the burst of fire.

10                           [Video-clip played]

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please now have 1D2418.

12             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   But before that, can you see the Franjo Racki Street, that is to

14     say, the street that in your view coincides with the trajectory?

15        A.   Do I not know where this video exactly was shot, so I do not know

16     which street is intended.

17        Q.   Do you agree that in the foreground is the Faculty of Philosophy

18     and in the background is the museum?

19        A.   I recognise the faculty.  And the museum I cannot recognise.  But

20     it's -- that look -- exactly in the centre of the image, that looks to be

21     the intersection from -- on which the curve, S-curve, is visible, by the

22     way.

23             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now have document 1D2418.

24     It's a still photo or a photo of the same location.  1D2418.

25             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

Page 7055

 1        Q.   This is the photograph.  Do you agree or have you noticed that

 2     fire was opened at the people walking down the pavement and that two

 3     individuals remained lying on the ground?  We can see these two people in

 4     this photo; isn't that right?

 5        A.   In this photo, I do not see people lying on the ground.  But in

 6     the video just shown, I did see people on the ground.

 7        Q.   Do you agree that in respect to this location,

 8     Djuro Danicic Street is instead of Franjo Racki Street?  To the east of

 9     the faculty, if you remember, was Djure Danicic Street; and to the west,

10     between the faculty and the museum, was Franjo Racki Street; isn't that

11     right?

12        A.   Yes, I agree that in this case the fire appears to be coming

13     down -- down a street east of the street that I've indicated in my

14     incidents -- or the incidents that I examined.

15        Q.   Thank you.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now look at 65 ter 40374.

17     It's a video footage.

18             Just one moment, please.

19                           [Video-clip played]

20             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   Can you see the two people falling down onto the ground?

22        A.   Yes.  Well, I see three people, actually, falling to the ground.

23     Two people are actually lying on the ground.

24        Q.   Thank you.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now have document 1D02419.

Page 7056

 1     It's a photo.  It's number 18.  We need number 19.

 2             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   Now, do you see this young boy in a jacket lying on the pavement

 4     and the other person being assisted by some people?

 5        A.   Yes, I do.

 6        Q.   Let us now look where this boy in the green jacket was wounded,

 7     and for that we need 65 ter -- it's the same footage, but it starts at

 8     06:26 until 06:38 seconds.

 9                           [Video-clip played]

10             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Is that the boy in the green jacket that had been lying there?

12        A.   It would appear so.

13        Q.   Do you see the gentleman who is carrying him and who is quite

14     calmly smoking a cigarette or having it in his mouth and that he also has

15     a radio, Motorola, in his breast pocket?

16        A.   I see something, but I don't know for sure that's something of a

17     radio.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now have photo 1D02-2420.

19     It's another photo which is more accurate.  So we need photo number 20.

20     This one was number 19.

21             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   Can you now see that he has a cigarette in his mouth and that

23     there is a radio set with the antenna in the breast pocket of his shirt?

24        A.   I can see the cigarette, but I could not conclude that it's a

25     radio.

Page 7057

 1        Q.   Thank you.  It doesn't take too much imagination to conclude that

 2     this is, in fact, a radio.

 3             Do you agree that this person was wounded in his right leg, a

 4     little bit below the hip?  Rather, both persons.

 5        A.   I can see a dark spot, but I could not see exactly where he was

 6     hit.

 7        Q.   According to the bloodstain, would you say that this is the right

 8     leg below the hip?

 9        A.   From this picture, I can see a dark spot, but I do not see the

10     complete wound, so I -- I'm not going to draw any conclusions for where

11     the wound exactly is.

12        Q.   Thank you.  If the wound is -- is underneath this stain, would

13     you say that it is approximately 70 centimetres from the ground?

14        A.   Probably 70 to 80 centimetres, yes.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have back 1D02419, please,

16     so that we can see the position of this person on the pavement.

17             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   Do you agree that this boy in the green jacket was about one

19     metre from the edge of the payment and that the man who is in front of

20     him was also about one metre from the edge of the pavement?  And would

21     you agree that the boy in the green jacket was hit first and then this

22     man was hit second?

23        A.   I could not draw that conclusion.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we play back the video-clip

25     65 ter 40374.

Page 7058

 1             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   You can see where this boy's right leg is.  Please pay attention

 3     at the moment when this boy in the green jacket falls down and when the

 4     other man falls down.

 5                           [Video-clip played]

 6             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   Do you agree that the boy in the green jacket was the first to

 8     fall down?

 9        A.   Yes, I agree.

10        Q.   Could you agree, then, that they were hit while they were one

11     behind the other or one in front of the other?

12        A.   Possibly.

13        Q.   Thank you.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we look now at 1D02421.

15             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   Do you agree that this stain, this bloodstain, is visible in a

17     better way and that it is located between the knee and the hip?  This is

18     the boy who was standing in front but was hit later, because he's wearing

19     a blue jacket, not the green one.

20        A.   I agree that there is a bloodstain on the -- between the knee and

21     the hip, on the right side.

22        Q.   Do you agree that this person is a little bit bulkier than the

23     person in the green jacket and that he was wounded in the right leg

24     approximately 70 centimetres from the ground?

25        A.   He -- from the video, he appears to be older than the other --

Page 7059

 1     than the man in the green jacket, and the height would be, again, in the

 2     70 to 80 centimetres.

 3        Q.   Can we look again the video from 3:29 to 3:36.  Please pay

 4     attention to these two falling persons and to the dust going up next to

 5     them on the pavement.

 6                           [Video-clip played]

 7             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Let's play it back again.  Just look at how they're falling and

 9     how the dust is rising.

10                           [Video-clip played]

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now look at the photo

12     1D02423.  2423.  I think that's the next one.  Yes.

13             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   Do you agree --

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we zoom in the part that is

16     being marked by this arrow.

17             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   Mr. Van der Weijden, do you agree that the dust is going

19     vertically up under a large angle, probably 90 degrees or thereabouts?

20        A.   The particles are going up from the impact.

21        Q.   Mr. Van der Weijden, from the Serbian positions that were

22     321 metres away and at the elevation of 13 metres, the descent angle in

23     this situation could be maximum 5 degrees?

24        A.   I did calculate that yesterday evening, and it would be just

25     about 5 degrees.

Page 7060

 1        Q.   The Defence is grateful to you for taking your time to do that.

 2             We have seen on the footage that the dust is almost next to the

 3     edge of the pavement.  Can we now assume that the shooter was very

 4     precise and that the element of shooting were almost identical.  So if he

 5     failed to hit someone, the bullet would land right to the edge or the

 6     kerb at the pavement?

 7        A.   I do not agree, since I did hear multiple shots that would

 8     indicate a machine-gun, and a machine-gun is built to spread bullets and

 9     not to -- for all bullets to end up at the same location.  So he might

10     fire one shot in the grass and the other shots a little bit higher.  It's

11     a cone of fire.

12        Q.   Thank you.  But you can see where these people who are hit are.

13     They are a metre away from the place where the dust is going up.  What's

14     the distance between their entry wound, which is 70 metres above the

15     ground, and the edge of the pavement?  It's approximately 90 degrees.

16     I'm talking about angle.  So, you see, they are not very far away from

17     the pavement, and they were hit at about 70 or 80 centimetres above the

18     ground.

19             Can that make a 5 degree angle or a 35 or 45 degree angle?

20        A.   If it was just one bullet, it would not be possible.  Or it would

21     be very unlikely.

22        Q.   Each of them was hit with one bullet only.

23             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can all the photographs and the

24     video-clip that we showed be admitted into evidence.

25             JUDGE KWON:  We will deal with them one by one.  First we deal

Page 7061

 1     with the video footage.  We saw two parts of that video, 65 ter number

 2     403 was 374.  First part is from 3 minutes, 28 seconds and on.  They will

 3     be given a separate number first.  That will be Exhibit D655.

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  That's correct, Your Honour.

 5             JUDGE KWON:  And then second part of that video which ran from

 6     06 minutes, 38 seconds, that will be given Exhibit D656.  And then we saw

 7     five pictures, stills of that -- of those video footage.  If first,

 8     1D2418 will be given Exhibit D657.  2419, Exhibit D658.  1D2420 will be

 9     given the number of Exhibit D659.  21, D660.  And 23 be given the number

10     of D661.

11             I think we dealt with everything.  Let's move on.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

13             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   Do you recall incident number 7 from Schedule F that took place

15     on the 25th of May, 1994?

16        A.   Yes, I do.

17        Q.   Which documents did you have at your disposal when you were

18     working on this case?

19        A.   Those would be the documents listed on page 57 of the paper copy.

20        Q.   How did you establish the location of the bus at the -- at the

21     point of impact?

22        A.   The location of the bus was shown to me by the investigator,

23     together with GPS coordinates.

24        Q.   And then on the basis of this -- but first tell me who showed

25     this to you.  Was that an OTP investigator or a Bosnian investigator?

Page 7062

 1        A.   The OTP investigator.

 2        Q.   And then on the basis of this information and the location

 3     indicated to you, what did you establish?

 4        A.   I was shown the location and the orientation of the bus, that the

 5     bus was standing with its nose oriented south/south-west, exposing the

 6     right side, down the street, to the north-west.  From those, together

 7     with the witness statements, I concluded that the shot must have

 8     originated from down that street and that it was a single bullet since

 9     there was -- in the witness statement there's only a single bullet

10     mentioned.  It would be easy to find other bullets since it would have

11     entered the side of the bus.

12        Q.   In which particular part did the bullet penetrate the bus?

13        A.   I have not seen it.  I've only had the witness statements -- the

14     witness statements at my disposal for that.

15        Q.   Did you have any expert report -- or, rather, forensic and

16     criminal investigation report about the bus provided by the Sarajevo

17     authorities?

18        A.   No, I did not.

19        Q.   But was it necessary -- in view of all these elements that you

20     had, wouldn't it have been necessary for you to know, in view of

21     orientation of the bus, the place where the bus would be entered, and

22     would that indicate the origin of fire and the place from which the shot

23     originated?

24        A.   It would be helpful but not necessary.

25        Q.   So why, then, did you accept the suggestion that the shot had

Page 7063

 1     come from the School of Theology?  Or, rather, wouldn't the trajectory of

 2     this bullet have continued on?  Wouldn't it be at the point of entry, the

 3     penetration of the bus?  And then where would its imaginary bullet track

 4     be - or let's say -- let's call it the wound canal - through the bus?

 5     How did you determine where the shot had come from if you don't know

 6     where it had penetrated the bus and then where it had continued to travel

 7     through the bus, what its trajectory there was?

 8        A.   I did not accept the suggestion that the shot had come from the

 9     School of Theology, but I only accepted that if the bus was exposed with

10     the right side to the north-west, that the shot must have originated from

11     that direction.

12        Q.   But here it says:

13             [In English] "Alleged shooting position ... Faculty of Theology

14     Nedzarici.  Distance to the incident at least 600 metres."

15             JUDGE KWON:  It was not reflected in the transcript.  Your report

16     says:

17              "Alleged shooting position is the Faculty of Theology in

18     Nedzarici."

19             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Is this the zone where you determined that the bullet had come in

21     and gone out of the bus?  Correct?

22        A.   I did not determine that the bullet went out of the bus.  I only

23     read in the victim's statements that first the victim on the right side

24     of the bus was hit and then the other victim -- another victim on the

25     left side of the bus.  I did not determine that the bullet came out.

Page 7064

 1        Q.   Very well.  But now we have to establish where the shot had come

 2     from.  You said that it had come from that side.  We can agree on that.

 3     If the bullet -- if the bus had been struck from the right-hand side,

 4     then that's where it was it.  But on the right-hand side of the bus you

 5     would have an angle of 180 degrees.  The possibility would have been that

 6     it had come from any of those.  So how did you determine that it had come

 7     from the School of Theology?

 8        A.   I did not determine that it came from the School of Theology.

 9     That's the alleged shooting position.  And the distance to the incident

10     site, because I do not know where the Faculty of Theology actually is,

11     because of the whole area, on page 53 of my paper copy, if you would look

12     at the red field, there is an elliptical shape within -- on the left side

13     within that field of fire.  Somewhere within that field I believe the

14     shooter must have been --

15             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.  Then we'll --

16             THE WITNESS:  Oh, sorry.

17             JUDGE KWON: -- shall we bring up your report, page 53.  Because I

18     don't have in colour.  E-court number should be different.  Fifty-four.

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we now please have page 53 of

20     this document.

21             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   And in the meantime, let me ask you this:  How did this entry

23     "School of Theology in Nedzarici" find its way into your report if you

24     don't know where that School of Theology is in Sarajevo?

25        A.   Because this is information given to me by the OTP.

Page 7065

 1        Q.   Did you then establish where the bullet had come from or was it

 2     the OTP?

 3        A.   I established that the bullet must have come from down the street

 4     in that -- from that direction, but I did not establish that it had come

 5     from the School of Theology since I don't know where that school is.

 6        Q.   Let's take a look at your report.

 7             [In English] "The bullet that wounded the victim first penetrated

 8     the bus on the right side, then hit the knee of the victim, hitting at

 9     the right side of the bus --"

10             JUDGE KWON:  Previous page.

11             MR. KARADZIC:

12        Q.   "... and then hit the other victim at the other side of the bus.

13     Since there was a lack of possible shooting position closer than

14     550 metres, the 7.62x39 millimetres would most probably not have caused

15     the injuries.  That round would not have sufficient energy at that range

16     to cause the damage of this incident.  That rules out the M-70 series as

17     possible weapon."

18             [Interpretation] So, Mr. Van der Weijden, the bullet penetrated

19     the metal plate of the bus.  Then it struck one victim, went through it

20     and struck the second victim.  And based on that, you concluded that the

21     bullet had a certain energy; correct?

22        A.   Yes, but that's not the only reason why I ruled out the

23     7.62x39 millimetres.

24        Q.   You excluded that round because it would not have had sufficient

25     energy; correct?

Page 7066

 1        A.   Above 550 metres it would not have sufficient energy.

 2        Q.   Where did you get this 550 metres from?  Who suggested this

 3     distance to you?

 4        A.   We would have to turn to page -- the next page, page 53, the

 5     paper copy.  If we could zoom in a little more on the -- the top

 6     photograph.  Yes.  Thank you.

 7             As is visible here of the -- of the layout, the buildings lining

 8     the street from the incident site to the -- to the green area where I was

 9     told by the OTP that during the war screens were put up to -- to blind

10     possible shooters from that direction, if I were to be in a building

11     parallel to -- to the street, I would have to lean out the window to fire

12     at the bus.  It would be physically challenging to -- to take a position

13     like that, and it would be very inaccurate.  So that's why I concluded

14     that it would most likely -- the shooter would have to be above the

15     550 metres, and therefore I came to my conclusion that the

16     7.62x39 millimetres is unlikely to have been used.

17        Q.   Mr. Van der Weijden, would you please explain to the Chamber and

18     to us who is between the green shaded area and the incident site, and why

19     was it not possible for the shot to have been fired from a calibre

20     7.62 millimetres x 39 millimetres?

21        A.   I do not know who exactly is between the green shaded area and

22     the incident site.  I was only told that after.  But I assume that the

23     screens were put up to -- because beyond that screen there was probably a

24     separation line.  But why, it's not possible.  I do not -- I cannot

25     completely rule it out, but it would be -- I would have to lean out the

Page 7067

 1     window.  So I would not -- I could not take a proper shooting position

 2     within a room, but I would have to lean out a window.  And especially

 3     since I would -- I would expose myself to fire.  So it's -- it would be

 4     very unwise to shoot like that.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  Can we agree, then, at the spot where it says

 6     550 metres you were told that's where the separation line was; correct?

 7     To the west of the screen.

 8        A.   Yes.  Beyond that, I was not told, but that's -- I was told that

 9     beyond that there was -- somewhere, there was a separation line.  But I

10     do know -- I do not know exactly where.

11        Q.   And then you were told that the origin of fire should be placed

12     in the Serb territory.  In other words, to the west of the screen, beyond

13     the 550 metres?

14        A.   I was not told that the origin -- origin of fire should be

15     placed.  That's what I concluded.

16        Q.   But how did you draw the conclusion to that effect?  How did you

17     decide that it wasn't to the east of the green screen and that it was

18     maybe that smaller calibre, the 7.62 x 39 millimetres?

19        A.   Because if I would be on the south side of that street, I would

20     have to lean out the window and shoot from my left shoulder, which not a

21     lot of people I know are capable of, at least not for a precision shot.

22     And since the bus was parked on the right side, on the northern corner,

23     you would have to float out the window and shoot down the street at the

24     bus.  It's physically -- it's almost impossible.

25        Q.   And why would the shots have to be fired from an apartment?  Why

Page 7068

 1     not from the street to the right of the screen?  How did you exclude the

 2     entire area of this trajectory, which is 500 metres from the green screen

 3     to the bus, how did you conclude that the shooter was in that area?  You

 4     exclude that.

 5        A.   I did not mention shots.  I only mention one shot fired.  And the

 6     reason why I excluded the shooter being out in the open on the street is

 7     pure logic.  It's -- tactically it's not a smart thing to do, and I don't

 8     think the bus would be there if there were people shooting on the street.

 9     Plus the bus was parked there for a longer time.

10        Q.   How do you account for the fact that this bus was parked full of

11     passengers, that it was not in motion, that it stood in one position for

12     a while?  Was there a bus-stop there?

13        A.   I do not know.  This is something that I had from the witness

14     statements.

15        Q.   Thank you.  How far is the School of Theology from this spot,

16     from the spot that is marked there?  Where is the School of Theology here

17     in this photo?

18        A.   I do not know what the School of Theology is, nor do I know where

19     it is.

20        Q.   But it did appear in your report as the alleged origin of fire.

21        A.   Because this was stated in information given to me by the OTP.

22     So as in all incidents, I've put down -- I've written down the alleged

23     shooting position, because that's the -- what I had to work with from the

24     start.

25        Q.   So when you began with your work, this was an alleged origin of

Page 7069

 1     fire.  But once you've completed your report, have you actually

 2     established that was actually the origin of fire?  In this particular

 3     case, did you establish beyond reasonable doubt that the origin of fire

 4     was from the -- at the School of Theology, as was suggested to you by the

 5     Prosecution?

 6        A.   No.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  Now, if one were to fire from an -- from anywhere

 8     between the green screen and the bus, the shooting would have -- could

 9     have been done by a weapon of a smaller calibre; correct?

10        A.   Not of a smaller calibre, but it would be a less powered bullet,

11     because it's the same calibre but only with less propellant.

12        Q.   So it could be a 39 millimetre calibre in this area between the

13     green screen and the bus; correct?

14        A.   If the shooter would be between the green and the incident site,

15     then the distance could be suitable for that cartridge, yes.

16             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Van der Weijden, you said earlier on that in

17     order to shoot from that area the shooter must have leaned out from the

18     window.  Could you elaborate a bit further?

19             THE WITNESS:  Well, the street -- the street runs parallel to the

20     direction where the shot must -- must have originated from, so the

21     shooter, where normally you would be inside a house and shoot out towards

22     your target, in this case, because the target is parallel to the walls of

23     the buildings, you would have to lean out the window to get a clear view

24     of the incident site.  And that would make it very difficult to take a

25     good shooting position.

Page 7070

 1             JUDGE KWON:  In this picture, you see a, in the middle of that

 2     road between that green screen and the bus, that blue part, a rectangular

 3     building.  From the top of the building, if you have a clean view of that

 4     incident, then the shooter did not have to lean out from the window.

 5             THE WITNESS:  I would have to see, because I --

 6             JUDGE KWON:  It's just a hypothetical.

 7             THE WITNESS:  Hypothetically, if he would be on a high-rise

 8     building, he would be able to see the incident site.  That's correct.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

10             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   And would you agree that this southern building had some lower

12     buildings and there were some of the windows that are looking out in the

13     direction of the bus?  Can you see it?  They're not in line completely.

14     Some of them are lower.

15        A.   Some are lower; that is correct.

16        Q.   What calibre are we talking about, Mr. Van der Weijden?  What

17     calibre was involved in this incident?

18        A.   Well, I believe that if the shooter was above 550, which I think

19     is -- would be tactically -- tactically the more possible solution, then

20     the calibre would be 7.62 x 54R or 7.92 x 57 millimetres.

21        Q.   But did you know, Mr. Van der Weijden, that the Serb army did not

22     have 7.62 x 54 or 57 but only 7.62 x 39 millimetres?  And you actually

23     confirmed this because you saw those invoices where the requisition

24     papers showed that they only had this type of ammunition.

25        A.   As I've said it yesterday, I did travel through Sarajevo during

Page 7071

 1     the war and I did see, at Serbian checkpoints, weapons that use those two

 2     calibres, the 7.92 x 57 and the 7.62 x 54R.  So that calibre was

 3     available in the Serbian army.  I didn't travel through Serbia, but I

 4     travelled through Bosnia.

 5        Q.   No, we didn't have that type of ammunition, but we will prove it

 6     in another way.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now have 1D02410.  For the

 8     transcript, I said we had ammunition up to 39 millimetres.  We did not

 9     have 57 and 54.

10             Can we now please have 1D02410.

11             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   This is a photo of the Catholic university, or School of

13     Theology, that was under our control, and we received from one of the

14     friars this photograph.  Are you familiar with this building?

15        A.   No, I'm not.

16        Q.   Can you agree with me that this opening on the narrower side of

17     the building is actually a firing position, that this is how one creates

18     a firing position and with some protection there?

19        A.   I agree that it might be used an as firing position.

20        Q.   Thank you.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now please have 2411.

22     1D02411.

23             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   We have been allowed to take photos from this opening of the area

25     where the bus was.  We were kindly allowed to do that.

Page 7072

 1             Now, this is what you could see from there, Mr. Van der Weijden.

 2     Would you agree with me that this tree would have taken more than ten

 3     years to grow this tall?

 4        A.   Yes, I agree.

 5        Q.   Can we conclude, then, Mr. Van der Weijden, that you only

 6     concluded that the bus was struck on the right side and that the shot,

 7     the bullet, could have come down that street, and that was the only thing

 8     you could conclude, nothing else?

 9        A.   In addition, I concluded that the bullet was probably of -- of a

10     certain calibre; but for the rest, I agree.

11        Q.   Thank you.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to tender these into

13     evidence, please.

14             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Gaynor.

15             MR. GAYNOR:  I'll leave it to Your Honour's discretion.  There's

16     nothing in the evidence to support that the location from which this

17     photograph was taken is that as asserted by Mr. Karadzic.

18             JUDGE KWON:  You have no objection as to the Faculty of Theology?

19             MR. GAYNOR:  No.  No -- no objection to that photograph.

20             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Van der Weijden, can you agree or confirm that

21     this picture or panoramic view is taken from the alleged incident?

22             THE WITNESS:  This picture is not taken from the incident site

23     itself.

24             JUDGE KWON:  Of from the theology, from that opening.  You cannot

25     confirm that?

Page 7073

 1             THE WITNESS:  Your Honour, I do not know where the School of

 2     Theology is, so I cannot confirm it.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  We'll admit 1D2410.

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D662, Your Honours.

 5             JUDGE KWON:  You can tender the next -- the 2411 with another

 6     witness because this witness cannot confirm that.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I with like to take the liberty to

 8     ask the Trial Chamber whether they would actually visit the site.  And

 9     the Defence is willing to provide assistance in the visit to the site.

10             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.  We will consider the matter.  Move on,

11     Mr. Karadzic.

12             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   Mr. Van der Weijden, do you recall incident 10 from the

14     F schedule, F10, that is, the incident involving

15     Miljenka Cvitkovica Street, which is presently Ferde Hauptmana Street,

16     and it occurred on 22nd of July, 1994?

17        A.   Yes, I do.

18        Q.   Can you tell us briefly what this incident involved?

19        A.   The situation as I was presented involved a 13-year-old boy who

20     was shot and wounded in his belly while he was standing in front of a

21     window with his family on a certain location which is marked in the -- in

22     the several maps, in the photos.  I was given the GPS reading.  I went

23     to the -- I visited that incident site, checked for possible locations

24     from where a shot might have been fired, and then visited those locations

25     to try to find possible locations where a shooter might have been.

Page 7074

 1        Q.   So in the case of this incident, did you -- were you -- did you

 2     have -- were you more fortunate in establishing the origin of fire?

 3        A.   I was not able to pinpoint an exact location, but I was able

 4     to -- to determine -- to determine an area where the shot might have come

 5     from.

 6        Q.   Thank you.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now look at 1D02-179.

 8             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Do you agree that the old name of this street was

10     Miljenka Cvitkovica, whereas it's now called Ferde Hauptmana?  Is that

11     one and the same street?

12        A.   This is also mentioned in the situation, so I -- I agree.

13        Q.   Thank you.  That would be helpful when we deal with the map.

14             So what were the principal sources of your information?  What did

15     the OTP provide to you in those terms?

16        A.   They were the documents that are listed on page 85 of the paper

17     copy, which include an investigation report and some photographs and

18     witness statements.

19        Q.   Thank you.

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now look at 1D02192.  That's

21     a section of the map of the city of Sarajevo.  I apologise, it's 93 --

22     no.  I apologise again.  It's 92.

23             It seems that it's time for a break, because I am losing my

24     concentration.

25             JUDGE KWON:  How much longer do you have with this witness,

Page 7075

 1     Mr. Karadzic?

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, Your Excellency, each of

 3     these incidents in any other civilised country would require two or three

 4     days of hearing.  You can see how I am tackling each of these incidents

 5     very superficially by relying on the -- that many of them are contained

 6     in the adjudicated facts.  I leave it to the Trial Chamber's discretion

 7     to decide about that, but if we're allowed, we may file a complaint in

 8     that sense.  But as I said, this witness is extremely helpful, and we

 9     really need to establish what was done in a wrong way.

10             Please accept my apology.  I'm not criticising the previous

11     Trial Chambers, but the differences between legal systems created such a

12     situation.  So therefore, I would like to -- you to allow me to go

13     through each and every incident or to have the whole F list of incidents

14     rejected.

15             JUDGE KWON:  But you didn't indicate how much longer you would

16     need to complete your cross-examination.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, you see, we have covered only

18     one-third of the incidents.  We shed at least some light on them.  So

19     allow me to confer with my team, please.

20                           [Defence counsel confer]

21                           [Trial Chamber confers]

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We have gone through half of the

23     incidents.  What remains are some minor incidents, and they won't take so

24     much time.  We've gone through the minor -- to the more serious incidents

25     such as the Marin Dvor, et cetera.  Therefore, I would require two to

Page 7076

 1     three [as interpreted] sessions to complete this in a satisfactory way.

 2             JUDGE KWON:  We'll break now for half an hour.  So when we resume

 3     at 25 minutes past 12.00, we'll let you know how much you have or how you

 4     should proceed.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please correct the record.  I said

 6     three to four sessions and not two to three.  It seems that I have been

 7     sabotaged or undermined by the transcript.

 8                           --- Recess taken at 11.56 a.m.

 9                           --- On resuming at 12.32 p.m.

10             JUDGE KWON:  The Chamber considered the cross-examination of

11     Mr. Karadzic so far.  While the lines of questions cannot be said to be

12     irrelevant, in some cases the questions were repetitive, and overall I

13     don't think it's a very efficient conduct of cross-examination and there

14     should be ways to conduct more efficiently.

15             So the Chamber is telling you, Mr. Karadzic, given that we had --

16     we had experienced technical difficulties in bringing up maps, et cetera,

17     so we'll give you another session today.  So try to finish your

18     cross-examination by the end of today.

19             That said, shall we go into private session briefly.

20            [Private session] [Confidentiality lifted by order of  Chamber] 

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] As far as I'm concerned, there's no

22     need.

23             JUDGE KWON:  During the cross-examination, Mr. Karadzic raised

24     the issue of on-site visit by the Trial Chamber to the places.  The

25     Chamber is minded to hear the views of the parties in relation to that

Page 7077

 1     issue.  And then at the end of day, the Chamber need a written motion

 2     from the parties.  But before that, at the end of the next conclusion of

 3     the evidence of next witness, I'll invite the parties to address the

 4     Chamber orally.

 5             Let's go back into open session.

 6                           [Open session]

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Karadzic.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  With the highest

 9     regard, I would kindly ask you to understand the Defence position, and

10     that is that we shall deem covered and examined only those incidents that

11     we were able to examine.  As for the remainder, we cannot consider them

12     to be examined.

13             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   Mr. Van der Weijden, are you familiar with this map?  It is

15     related to F incident number 10.

16        A.   I recognise features of the map, yes.

17        Q.   Can you mark the site of the incident F10 that you investigated?

18        A.   Since it's not a topographical map, I can only indicate an area,

19     but it would -- it would be within this area.

20        Q.   But you encircled the Zmaja od Bosne Street, whereas the incident

21     took place on the Miljenka Cvitkovica Street which is now called the

22     Ferde Hauptmana Street.  Isn't that correct?

23        A.   On this map, this street is marked Zmaja od Bosne; that's

24     correct.

25        Q.   Can you mark the Miljenka Cvitkovica or the

Page 7078

 1     Ferde Hauptmana Street, which is, in fact, the incident site.

 2        A.   I do not see it on this map.

 3        Q.   Do you have a map of your own that you used in your report?  How

 4     did you make these markings in your report?

 5        A.   I made the markings with the GPS reading of the victim location

 6     together with the area of photography and the terrain features.

 7        Q.   Well, how shall we find our bearings in this map?  Will this map,

 8     which is at the same time the map of the city and the topographic map, be

 9     of help to you?

10        A.   The topographical map might be of help.  But this is not a

11     topographical map.

12        Q.   May I kindly ask you to take this American map and to show us --

13     [In English] This is this section.  This section.

14             MR. GAYNOR:  Your Honour, it might save a lot of time if we

15     simply use 65 ter 13578, which shows the incident site marked on it.  And

16     then the witness can be questioned as to whether he agrees with that.

17             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you, Mr. Gaynor.  Let's try that first.

18     13578.

19             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Is it now easier, Mr. Van der Weijden?  And can we say that the

21     Ferde Hauptmana Street is the incident site?

22        A.   From this map, the Ferde Hauptmana appears to be north of the

23     location of the incident.

24        Q.   But in all the documents it is stated that the incident took

25     place and Miljenka Cvitkovica Street which has been renamed

Page 7079

 1     Ferde Hauptmana.  How did that happen?  How did -- how was the incident

 2     site moved to the south?

 3        A.   I do not know.

 4        Q.   Did you work on the assumption that the incident happened on

 5     Miljenka Cvitkovica Street as stated in all the documents produced by the

 6     Bosnian police, or was your working assumption a completely different

 7     one?

 8        A.   I did not just the street location as a marking because I used

 9     the photographical -- of the photos from the evidence, which show the

10     window of the shop that is still there as the location for the incident

11     site.  I didn't look into the exact name of the street where the incident

12     was.

13             JUDGE KWON:  Before we move on, Mr. Gaynor, this map we are

14     looking at now is map 12 of the binder, but those markings are done by

15     the OTP?

16             MR. GAYNOR:  Yes, that's correct, based on GPS readings obtained

17     by an OTP investigator.

18             JUDGE KWON:  And then that red 10 refers to the sniping incident

19     F10?

20             MR. GAYNOR:  Yes, it does, Your Honour.

21             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It would be helpful if the OTP

23     would clarify to us how it happened that this building is positioned with

24     regard to Ferde Hauptmana Street.  Maybe Mr. Van der Weijden also can

25     help us, but in all the documents we have the address of the incident

Page 7080

 1     site as Miljenka Cvitkovica Street number 4.  It is now called, as I

 2     said, Ferde Hauptmana Street.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  It is for the parties.  Ferde Hauptmana Street is

 4     the one which runs from north to south, between Nedima Filipovica and

 5     Zmaja od Bosne?

 6             MR. GAYNOR:  Yes, I understand that the street goes in a square.

 7     And to the north of the row of shops marked with the red dot is also part

 8     of the street, and the incident happened on the south side.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  The Defence team

11     visited the location, and we are going to present that.

12             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   Now, what was your conclusion as regards the origin of the shot?

14        A.   With the evidence from the report including the round retrieved

15     on -- from the restaurant, that already indicates that the shot might --

16     must have come from the general direction of the south.  With my -- with

17     myself at the exact location, I viewed towards the south and determined

18     what buildings would have a view, a direct view, on the incident site,

19     and with -- thereby and with eliminating tactical or tactical

20     impossibilities or unlikely situations, I came out -- I came up on the

21     fields of fire as I've marked on page 80 of my report.

22        Q.   Can we now look at 65 ter 0965T, which is actually Exhibit P19,

23     page 11.  In the meantime, let me ask you this, Mr. Van der Weijden --

24             JUDGE KWON:  Shall we admit this map with markings --

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The markings were made by the OTP.

Page 7081

 1     However, I would like Mr. Van der Weijden to mark the direction and the

 2     place where he was and how he reached his conclusion with regard to the

 3     spot of the origin of fire.

 4             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   Can you please use the pen.

 6        A.   This would be the approximate location.  It's where I -- from

 7     where I took my measurements and the general direction, and from there I

 8     viewed the wide area, and I came up with the markings as are visible on

 9     page 80 of the report.  By -- the buildings on the -- on this map, only

10     the high-rise buildings are visible, so it's -- it's not possible for me

11     to draw the fields of fire on this -- the basis of this map, I'm sorry.

12        Q.   But we do agree, don't we, that the possible shot came from the

13     50 or the 55 angles that you have marked here.  Isn't that so?

14        A.   Excuse me, what 50 or 55 angles?

15        Q.   You have drawn the range within which you think the bullet could

16     have come on.  I'm talking about degrees, not bullets.  Your drawing is a

17     bit more than 90 degrees.  One hundred and eighty degree is to the south,

18     and your markings indicate 90 to 100 degrees.  Is that the range or the

19     area within which or from which the shot could have come?

20        A.   No.  These two -- two lines that I have drawn just now, they

21     represent the area from which I started.  So they didn't -- they don't

22     represent the area where I think the shots have originated from, but this

23     is where I started from, and from there I went on eliminating areas.

24        Q.   What prompted you to apply this range?  Or more precisely, did

25     you take the bullet path at the incident site into consideration or as a

Page 7082

 1     predominant factor?

 2        A.   I did take it into consideration as a general direction but not

 3     for the extreme or the precise direction.

 4        Q.   But why did you start with such a wide area?  What was your

 5     motive for doing that?

 6        A.   Because the shots did not originate from within the shop.  So

 7     that's why I started with the -- the whole area to the south.

 8        Q.   But what was the decisive factor for you taking such a broad

 9     area?  Were you guided by the bullet path at the incident site, and did

10     that give you an idea that it might have come from this particular area?

11     Why didn't you start with a broader or a maybe narrower area?

12        A.   Because I wanted to keep all possibilities open.

13        Q.   Thank you.  Can you tell us where the bullet was fired from?  But

14     first of all, tell me what were the consequences of the shot?  What did

15     the bullet produce?

16        A.   There was one bullet retrieved from the wall in the restaurant,

17     so inside, and there was -- from the hole in the window, in conjunction

18     with the hole in the -- the impact on the wall, that gives -- that gives

19     back -- further points back to a certain location.  From my experience

20     with shooting through glass, glass has a big effect on the path of the

21     bullet.  So the line from the impact in the wall through the glass

22     doesn't necessarily exactly lead back to the location of the shooter.  So

23     that's how I narrowed down my field -- the area.

24        Q.   Thank you.  What kind of the angle of refraction are we talking

25     when we have glass in the path of the bullet?  We know how the water

Page 7083

 1     surface reflect -- refracts, but can you tell me something about the

 2     angle and how this angle is affected if glass is in the way of a shot?

 3        A.   It would depend on the type of window.  If the window is a loose

 4     pain of glass or if it's within a frame, if it's single -- a single layer

 5     or a double-layered glass, if it's tempered glass, if it's safety glass.

 6     So it depends on the type of glass that is used for the window.  But in

 7     general, when a bullet hits the glass at an angle, it will turn inwards.

 8     So it does -- will not ricochet, as most people would expect, but because

 9     the bullet -- the side of the bullet that is closest to the window meets

10     the first resistance of the window, it will cause the bullet to turn more

11     inwards.  I would have to -- I could draw it out if that would make it

12     clearer.

13        Q.   Unfortunately we don't have time for that, but we can all imagine

14     that the path is deflecting just as it happens when an object is going

15     from the air into water.

16             So you had two points, a hole in the wall and a hole in the

17     window or in the glass.  If you were to extend this line, how would you

18     then conclude the origin of fire?

19        A.   I believe this was done by the investigator at the time of the

20     incident or at the -- later on that day, and they came to -- I believe

21     they came to an origin of fire that was slightly east of the area that I

22     concluded.  But I would like to rectify that the path is not deflecting.

23     It's towards the other -- it's -- the bullet comes through the other

24     side.  So it doesn't ricochet on glass.

25        Q.   But it doesn't travel along the straight line.  Once it passes

Page 7084

 1     through the glass, it changes its direction.  Is that what you said?

 2        A.   There can be -- in general, there's a slight change in direction.

 3     That's correct.

 4        Q.   Is that done to such an extent that it has to be taken into

 5     consideration in determining the origin of fire, or is it not relevant

 6     enough and can be disregarded?

 7        A.   I would not disregard it.

 8        Q.   Which coefficient did you apply in adjusting or correcting the

 9     path?  In this particular case.

10        A.   Since I did not know exactly which kind of 7.62 bullet was used,

11     I cannot determine which coefficient -- ballistic coefficient the bullet

12     has.

13        Q.   Was the bullet ever found?  It was found in the wall, wasn't it?

14        A.   The bullet that was found in the wall, that was retrieved and was

15     written about at least in the investigation report.

16        Q.   Was this bullet shown to you or were you given a photograph of it

17     with its characteristics?

18        A.   I was given a photograph, but the only characteristics was that

19     it states that it was a 7.62-millimetre bullet.

20        Q.   What was the size of the bullet, 39, 54?

21        A.   Well, the bullet -- the 39 and 54 don't refer to the bullet

22     itself.  They refer to the length of the casing.

23        Q.   But what was the casing of the bullet that was fired?

24        A.   That would not be at the incident site.  It would be at the

25     location of the shooter.

Page 7085

 1        Q.   All right.  So what were the consequences of that shot?  And I'm

 2     sorry for trying to be as quick as possible.  You didn't say anything

 3     about the consequences.  Was there a boy who was wounded in that

 4     incident?

 5        A.   According to the situation that I received from OTP, there was.

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please have 09652.  That's

 7     P19 -- or my apologies.  Before that ...

 8             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Witness, would you please just put the date and your initials on

10     this.  And could you mark the map to show the direction from which the

11     round had come.  You have marked here the range, but could you also

12     indicate the range of the possible directions from which the bullet may

13     have come.

14        A.   [Marks]

15             JUDGE KWON:  Shall we change the colour of this.  So far we used

16     blue, and then we'll use black for the possible direction of the fire.

17             THE WITNESS:  Could we erase that?

18             THE ACCUSED:  The witness needs help, Your Honour.

19             MR. KARADZIC:

20        Q.   Please, could you rehabilitate this part of blue and then do in

21     black.

22        A.   [Marks]

23             MR. GAYNOR:  I'd just like to note, Mr. President, the witness is

24     being asked to reproduce exactly the same information which appears on

25     page 80 of his report.

Page 7086

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

 2             MR. GAYNOR:  I don't know if it's a complete waste of time to

 3     undertake this exercise.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you, Mr. Gaynor.

 5             THE WITNESS:  This is not a topographical map, so it wouldn't --

 6     it's only an indication.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, Your Excellency, you would

 8     have been able to see that according to 92 ter Rule whether this was

 9     useful for the Defence or not, but I accept your suggestion.

10             Can we admit this into evidence.

11             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   But before that, can you explain these four lines?  Are all four

13     of them important, or are only two of them important?

14        A.   I will mark them like this so they will be similar to the fields

15     of fire in my report.  So all four lines were important, because between

16     the two lines on the left, that's an area that offers a view of the

17     incident site, and the same goes for the two right lines.

18             JUDGE KWON:  Let us move on.  Again, this was a repetition of

19     this witness's report.  Yes, we'll give the number.

20             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D663.

21             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Karadzic, do you like to tender the exhibit

22     which reflects the changes of the street name, or it won't be necessary

23     because it was confirmed that the Ferde Hauptmana Street is the current

24     name.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We do not have to burden the

Page 7087

 1     evidence if we all agree that this is reflected in the transcript.

 2             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   Mr. Van der Weijden, why wasn't it possible for a shot to come

 4     between these two fields that you indicated?  Why wasn't it possible for

 5     a bullet to come between these two cones?

 6        A.   I excluded that building because of logical reasoning.  There

 7     were -- there was a big group of people present on and around the

 8     incident site, and they would not be present if there was firing from

 9     that building because that building was very close to the incident site.

10        Q.   And why, then, would it not have been possible for the shot to

11     have come from one -- from the hill there, from some part of that area?

12     What was it that prevented you from concluding that this entire area

13     could actually be the area from which it could have come?

14             So if we can just go back a little.  Was there anything in

15     between these two cones?  Was there anything obstructing this line from

16     the bases of the two cones?

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we see the earlier document on

18     the screen D663.  We're have not -- we're not done with that.

19             JUDGE KWON:  I think, Mr. Karadzic, the witness answered the

20     question.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, the question wasn't clear.

22             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   Now, these two cones, why was it that they could have been the

24     trajectory of the bullet, whereas the area in between could not?  We

25     don't have a clear answer to that.

Page 7088

 1        A.   The area in between the two cones is blocked by a high-rise

 2     building close to the location of the incident site, and as I explained,

 3     this is -- for logical reasons, I did exclude that building.  So that

 4     would leave -- that would make a gap between the two cones.  It's not

 5     visible on the map because it's -- the map is not precise enough for me

 6     to draw the lines.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Then you can mark the location of that high-rise

 8     building?

 9             THE WITNESS:  Your Honours, as I've -- it's impossible for me to

10     work with this map because the aerial photographs or the pictures on the

11     ground, that I've taken on the ground, should be -- should give enough

12     visual insight, especially the pictures on -- of the photos on page 82 of

13     my paper report.

14             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   Now, what kind of logic -- logical thinking did you apply to

16     conclude that the shots could not have come between -- from between these

17     two -- somewhere between these two buildings?  Why was -- why did you

18     come to that conclusion?  In other words, Mr. Van der Weijden, were these

19     two cones, in fact, attempts to locate Serb positions and not all the

20     possible sites from which the fire would have originated?

21             JUDGE KWON:  This is, again, an answered question.  Witness said

22     he excluded the building because of logical reasoning, which is reflected

23     in line 1 to 4 on page 65.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, his answer was not

25     satisfactory, because this was actually trying to nudge this a bit so

Page 7089

 1     that it would indicate to a Serb position.

 2             Now, could we please look again at 09652.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Van der Weijden, do you like to add something?

 4             THE WITNESS:  No.  I -- as I've -- as you have explained before,

 5     the reason why I came to my conclusion, because it's the same as I've

 6     written on page 83 of my paper copy in identification, in the witness

 7     statements that there were people, up to ten people, present in the

 8     restaurant and also on the terrace of the restaurant.  There were

 9     children playing.  And this would be very unlikely if fighting had been

10     going on nearby.  And that includes the first -- the high-rise building

11     that separates the two cones.  So I do not -- I cannot completely exclude

12     it, but I -- it doesn't make sense if people are on the street enjoining

13     a meal if -- if the possibility of shooting from close by exists.

14             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   Thank you.  That's better.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We can now remove this.  And if we

17     can have 65 ter 09652, please.  P19.  Maybe that's going to be easier to

18     locate.  Page 1.  Yes, in B/C/S we have the right document.

19             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Are you familiar with this document?

21        A.   It's been a long time since I've looked at these documents, but I

22     do recognise some names, yes.

23        Q.   Did this investigation produce any results about a young boy

24     being wounded in Miljenka Cvitkovica Street number 4?

25        A.   Could we slide, please, to -- the left page to the top of the

Page 7090

 1     page.  Thank you.

 2             And could we switch to the previous page for this one.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  I take it this is the first page, but why don't we

 4     show the witness only the B/C/S and the coloured pictures.  Show the

 5     second page, third page.

 6             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   If we can only agree that this is in fact

 8     Miljenka Cvitkovica Street number 4 and that on page 1 we saw that the

 9     Bosnian police indicated that it was an incident at Miljenka Cvitkovica

10     number 4; correct?  We see it here too.  Do you agree with me that in the

11     second line it says Miljenka Cvitkovica Street --

12             JUDGE KWON:  Let's show him the English page as well.  Second

13     page.

14             THE WITNESS:  I didn't -- as I read this, it is number 4.  But I

15     only checked with the GSP co-ordinate and the incident as pointed out to

16     me by the investigator.

17             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   Thank you.  I will have now to intervene in the translation.

19     This shop is a wide view of the scene, and the cafe - and I would

20     appreciate the interpreters checking what I'm reading - owned by

21     Mehmed Mujanovic at -- in Miljenka Cvitkovica Street behind number 4,

22     which is not what it says in English, because in English it says at

23     number 4, which was exposed to sniper fire from aggressor position on

24     July 22nd, 1994, and on that occasion a boy named Seid Solak was injured

25     in the vicinity.  Can you confirm that?

Page 7091

 1        A.   I'm not familiar with the other language.

 2             JUDGE KWON:  Your reading was translated.  Let's move on,

 3     Mr. Karadzic.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 5             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   Would you agree with me that we see this is an outdoor cafe,

 7     Arijana cafe, and that this is open to patrons?  The cafe's open;

 8     correct?

 9             MR. GAYNOR:  Your Honour, perhaps the accused can move on a bit.

10     If he wants to submit this file of photographs, we certainly won't

11     object.  The kind of question he's just asked right now is really quite

12     obvious to anyone looking at the photographs.  Perhaps he can move on to

13     his point.

14             JUDGE KWON:  And he doesn't need to tender it because it has been

15     already admitted.  Let us move on.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I will now have to disclose

17     my case.  This is Dzemala Bijedica Street, and Miljenka Cvitkovica is

18     behind it.  And the entire confusion and the inconsistency actually

19     arises from these details.  And this is not the only case.  In other

20     cases, too, that kind of confusion was evident.

21             And what I would now like to see is to see what Mirsad Kucanin

22     said in his report.  He's the person who conducted the investigation

23     between 10 and 12 November 1995.  That's 09939 or, rather, Exhibit P23,

24     page 2.  Can we please pull that up.

25             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

Page 7092

 1        Q.   While we're waiting for that, Mr. Van der Weijden, are you

 2     familiar with the term "Kuca Przulja"?

 3        A.   No, I'm not.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we have the next page,

 5     please.  And another one, please.  The next one -- or, rather, we need

 6     page 4 of this document.

 7             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   And it said in the first line:

 9             "From Zagorska Street -- or, rather, from the Przulja house there

10     was a lot of shooting and the BH Army had under its control through the

11     entire period of the war of this area."

12             Now, did you have occasion to see this report by the Sarajevo

13     police?  And --

14             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction:  The army of

15     Bosnian Serbs, not the BH Army.

16             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   And to assist you further, this is a statement that an

18     investigator of the Sarajevo police gave to the OTP, and what does he say

19     on?  In the file there's photo number 8, which shows the house called

20     Przulja.  The shots were doubtlessly fired from that position.  And then

21     he goes on to say, I don't know what the results of the ballistic

22     investigation was -- were because each individual is in charge of his own

23     field of expertise and area of responsibility and so on and so forth.

24             Now, were you able to establish that the shot had come from the

25     Przulja house, or, rather, did you actually establish where the shot had

Page 7093

 1     originated?

 2        A.   I could not establish if the shot had come from the Przulja house

 3     because when I visited the site there was a new building obstructing the

 4     view from the house pointed out in the photograph to the incident site,

 5     so I was not able to see Przulja house because of the new building.  And

 6     for -- I did not indicate a single location from where I believe the shot

 7     originated from.  I only indicated an area.

 8        Q.   In other words, we do not know the exact place, the exact origin

 9     of fire, and we cannot say or state that it was at Przulja -- from

10     Przulja house; correct?

11        A.   That is correct.

12        Q.   Thank you.  Just a moment.  Please bear with me while I confer

13     with my team.

14                           [Defence counsel confer]

15             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   I just have one more question, Mr. Van der Weijden.  Were you

17     told by anyone that the incident site as arises from the documentation of

18     the Bosnian police is actually recorded as a site behind this cafe and

19     that they actually used the street of Miljenka Cvitkovica instead of

20     Dzemala Bijedica, that was a confusion on the two streets?

21        A.   No, I was not.

22        Q.   From the northern side.  I don't know what it states in the

23     transcript.

24        A.   Again, I'm -- I don't know.

25        Q.   Thank you.  I believe we're done with this incident.  We can now

Page 7094

 1     move on.

 2             Mr. Van der Weijden, do you remember the incident of

 3     18th November 1994 that you also worked on, involving the wounding of

 4     Dzenana Sokolovic and the death of her son Nermin Divovic who was killed

 5     on the occasion?

 6             That is F4, incident F4.

 7             MR. GAYNOR:  I think Mr. Karadzic probably means incident F12.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  Page 81 of your report.

 9             THE WITNESS:  As I recall, an incident involving those two people

10     in case number 12 on page 91 of my paper copy.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Ninety-one, yes.

12             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   You're right.  I apologise.  It is incident F12 of November 18.

14     Now we have to go back to Marin Dvor, the same location at

15     Franjo Racki Street.  Could you please tell us briefly what this incident

16     entailed?

17        A.   In incident number 12 or F12, a mother and her son are walking --

18     and her daughter are walking home.  They were -- on the intersection they

19     were shot and her son was -- was fatally wounded, and she was wounded in

20     her stomach.  And from the information source, the alleged shooting

21     position is Grbavica, or the area, and there was an international

22     firefighter who assisted at the scene and made a photographic record of

23     the incident.

24        Q.   Thank you.  Did you do research of -- on this incident in the --

25     in General Milosevic case?

Page 7095

 1        A.   Yes, I did.

 2        Q.   Did you establish that the shot was fired from the Metalka

 3     building?

 4        A.   If the Metalka building is the same building as I've marked in

 5     the layouts, then it would be the same building.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  Did you establish that it was fired from there or

 7     that it could have been fired from there?

 8        A.   I established that it most likely had been fired from there.

 9        Q.   And how many other places were -- were there from which the shots

10     were less likely to have come from?

11        A.   The -- the shooter could have been on the street, in the middle

12     of the street.  And that were the only possibilities, the further

13     possibilities.

14        Q.   Thank you.  Are you aware of the contradictions involving the

15     incident site where they were hit, that Dzenana Sokolovic herself said in

16     one of her statements that she was hit before she actually stepped onto

17     the pedestrian crossing, and then in her other statement she said that it

18     was on the pedestrian crossing?  Do you recall that?

19        A.   No, I don't.

20        Q.   Is it your position that the bullet had first passed through the

21     abdomen of the mother and then hit her son in the head, passed through

22     her and hit her son in the head?

23        A.   This is the information that was given to me by the OTP.

24        Q.   Were you told that the medical records indicate -- or stated

25     that, that was one version, and then the other version in the medical

Page 7096

 1     records was that the bullet had first actually hit the child and then

 2     passed through him and hit the mother?

 3        A.   I'm not aware of that.

 4        Q.   Do you know what the entry and exit wounds were and where they

 5     were on the body of Dzenana Sokolovic?  You can use your notes if you

 6     need to refresh your memory.

 7        A.   I do not know.

 8        Q.   Were you told that in one version the conclusion was that the

 9     bullet had entered through the left side and then exited on the right

10     side and that later on that was actually reversed, and it was concluded

11     that the bullet had come in from the right and exited through the left?

12     We have all that medical -- all those medical records.  Have you been

13     shown them, these records?

14        A.   No, I haven't.

15        Q.   All right.  Well, let's take a look at General Milosevic's

16     judgement and see what it has to say about this incident.  That's

17     paragraphs 325 and on.  At 329 it says the following:

18             "Lieutenant Van der Weijden --"

19             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Karadzic, you don't need to rely on judgement by

20     the other Chamber.  Just put your case or -- or if you would like to

21     refer to the evidence given by this witness, you may do so.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

23             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   Well, what I'm trying to say is that in the judgement itself it

25     was established that there was complete confusion in this matter.  For

Page 7097

 1     instance, were you told that the wounds were practically parallel, the

 2     entry and exit wounds, that they were at the same height; and this was

 3     something that Dr. Sefik Beslic established?

 4        A.   I cannot recall that.

 5        Q.   Would -- if a shot was fired from the street, would the wounds be

 6     parallel, the entry and exit wound?

 7        A.   If a shot was fired from down the street, the wounds would not be

 8     parallel, but there would be a wound channel parallel to the street.  It

 9     would be a wound channel instead of a wound in general.

10        Q.   And the entry and exit wounds would be approximately at the same

11     height; correct?

12        A.   Probably.

13        Q.   In respect of the ground.  Now, if a shot was fired from a tall

14     building, would it have the same result or with it be different?

15        A.   That would depend from where within the tall building the shot

16     would be fired.

17        Q.   According to your findings, was it possible to fire from the

18     Metalka building from any level, or did it have to come from the

19     8th floor in view of the trees that were there and also the position of

20     the building in respect of the incident site?

21        A.   There were possible shooting positions throughout the building on

22     all levels, only differing in -- in views.  One view would be more than

23     from another position.

24        Q.   From which position would it have been better?

25        A.   The position that I visited or the apartment which I visited was

Page 7098

 1     on the 4th floor, and on the 4th -- because -- I visited that apartment

 2     because there are bullet holes around the windows.  So I assume that had

 3     been -- that had been a shooting position and had been return fired upon.

 4     And from that position, I was -- I took the photograph toward the

 5     incident site.  So that has been my -- that was on the right side of the

 6     building, the eastern side of the building.  So not the east side but the

 7     eastern side, facing north.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Sir, you identified some certain scope of those

 9     windows that would offer the view on the incident on page 8 -- 93 in your

10     report.

11             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour, I did.  I checked the building.

12     I was not able to go into all the apartments, of course, but on all -- on

13     several levels in the staircase I checked for views of the incident site.

14             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   And which position offers the best view of the intersection or

16     the Sniper Alley, from which particular floor?

17        A.   I could not establish that because I was not able to visit all

18     the apartments.

19        Q.   Have you established exactly where the incident happened?

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And can we please have this

21     intersection with the Sniper Alley on our screens.

22             Can I have a moment, please.  65 ter 21216.  Can we zoom in on

23     the intersection in the bottom of the photograph.

24             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   Mr. Van der Weijden, have you seen Dzenana Sokolovic's statement

Page 7099

 1     in which she said that the shot was fired before she stepped on the zebra

 2     with her children?  This is what she said in her original statement.

 3     Isn't that right?

 4        A.   That could be right.  I would have to re-read it.

 5        Q.   And the original medical report said that the entry wound was on

 6     the left.  Do you agree that she was facing east -- or, rather, that she

 7     was coming from the museum towards the Faculty of Philosophy?

 8        A.   The travel direction would be from west to east.  I agree.

 9        Q.   So from west to east.  And she was closer to the museum on the

10     pavement when she was hit.

11             Do you agree that if the entry wound is on the left-hand side,

12     she must have been shot at from the position where the photograph --

13     photographer is standing, that is, close to the Holiday Inn Hotel?

14        A.   As I agree then, she would have -- if the entry wound would have

15     been on the left side, then she would have to be fired upon from the

16     north to the south.

17        Q.   Thank you.  So her original statement says that she was not on

18     the zebra crossing yet and that the wound was on the left-hand side.

19     What followed, Mr. Van der Weijden, after the wound healed, a new opinion

20     emerged by Dr. Beslic stating that the entry wound was on the right-hand

21     side, after all, and that the exit wound was on the left.  And he

22     concluded that by measuring the size of the scar.

23             In your experience, is it possible to take the size of the scar

24     to determine where the bullet entered and exited, because this does not

25     affect -- the scar only indicates how the healing process went on.

Page 7100

 1        A.   From my general knowledge, I would -- the entry wound is usually

 2     smaller than an exit wound, but I do not know the amount of surgery and

 3     extra scars that would have formed after she was treated in hospital.

 4        Q.   Let me just remind you of the original medical report saying that

 5     the entry wound was on the right and exit was on the left.  After the

 6     wound healed, Dr. Beslic is trying, based on the size of the scar, to

 7     arrive at a different conclusion.

 8             If the wound is infected in the healing process, would the scar

 9     be larger in that case?

10             MR. GAYNOR:  Objection, Mr. President.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Is it for the witness to answer those questions,

12     Mr. Karadzic?  You don't have to put everything to the witness.  Put

13     questions to which the witness is able to answer and to which he dealt

14     with.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellency, this witness

16     worked on the same case.  He must have been shown all the relevant

17     documents on the basis of which he would have been able to draw

18     conclusions.  If something was concealed from him or not shown to him,

19     then we must wonder how we proceed.  The original findings were as I

20     described them.

21             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   Do you know what the medical records and what the doctor said

23     from day one relating to this incident, and did you take them into

24     consideration when drawing your conclusions?

25        A.   I cannot recall, since I have in longer access to those medical

Page 7101

 1     records.

 2        Q.   May I ask you to mark the place on the pavement from which one

 3     stepped onto the pedestrian crossing on Franjo Racki Street.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Does the Chamber need this, or what

 5     we have in the transcript sufficient?

 6             JUDGE KWON:  I think we can move.  We can do without.

 7             MR. GAYNOR:  I agree, Mr. President.

 8             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Mr. Van der Weijden, do you believe that this spot where these

10     three casualties took place is important for the shooter to aim at this

11     particular spot if he is located in the Metalka building?

12        A.   Which spot, the zebra crossing?

13        Q.   No, no.  As stated in the original statement, it was said that it

14     happened before they stepped on the zebra crossing, that they were

15     wounded on the pavement.  Do you think that is relevant and important?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   So the shooter would have had a very short time to aim; isn't

18     that right?

19        A.   That is right.

20        Q.   Thank you.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We can't go on.  I think that we

22     have examined this incident enough.  We have to go through other

23     incidents as well.  I would kindly ask the Chamber to give me two or

24     three sessions.  So that would be very important for the dignity of this

25     trial.

Page 7102

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Karadzic, you have had almost six hours and half

 2     an hour, two hours and a half in excess of the original time given to

 3     you.  It is for you to plan how to cross-examine the witness.  If

 4     there's -- if there remains some place which you couldn't cover, it is --

 5     it is your responsibility.  Tomorrow you will have a half an hour to

 6     conclude.  That will be it.  But tomorrow we'll be sitting in the

 7     afternoon, 2.15.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] By your leave, this is 13 and a

 9     half hours less than what I requested for this witness, so I was

10     allocated only one-third of the time that I asked for.

11             JUDGE KWON:  This is our final ruling, Mr. Karadzic.  Otherwise,

12     we can go forever if you wish.  Half an hour tomorrow.

13             2.15 tomorrow afternoon.

14                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m.,

15                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 29th day

16                           of September, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.