1 Wednesday, 31 October 2012
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
6 JUDGE KWON: Good morning, everyone.
7 Mr. Robinson or Mr. Karadzic, I take it there's a slight change
8 in the witness schedule?
9 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President, thank you. The witness who
10 was scheduled to testify KW-109 has refused to testify without protective
11 measures and this morning we have filed a motion for those protective
12 measures and we're going to try to reschedule that witness for the 15th
13 of January.
14 JUDGE KWON: Shall we go back to -- go into private session
16 [Private session]
23 [Open session]
24 JUDGE KWON: Sorry, I apologise for the inconvenience,
25 Dr. Allsop. Could you take the solemn declaration, please.
1 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
2 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
3 WITNESS: DEREK ALLSOP
4 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Please make yourself comfortable.
5 MR. ROBINSON: Mr. President, before we actually begin we would
6 like to make a motion for allowing us to add one document to the 65 ter
7 list. Dr. Allsop brought with him an updated CV which we have given to
8 the Prosecution and uploaded into e-court as 1D06102, and if we could
9 bring that up Dr. Karadzic will be dealing with that at the beginning of
10 the testimony, but before he did I wanted to request that it be added to
11 our 65 ter list.
12 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Gaynor.
13 MR. GAYNOR: No objection, Mr. President.
14 JUDGE KWON: Yes, the request is granted.
15 Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Excellencies.
17 Good morning to everybody.
18 Examination by Mr. Karadzic:
19 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Dr. Allsop.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to call up the
21 document which has just been mentioned by Mr. Robinson, 1D06102.
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Dr. Allsop, do you see the document before you? Is this your CV
24 which you have kindly brought us?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Thank you. Would you kindly tell the Trial Chamber something
2 about your education and about your career path as well as about your
3 educational background. First of all, tell us something about your
5 A. I started my formal education as a mechanical engineer at the age
6 of 16. I actually served an apprenticeship as a craft engineer, and I
7 then went to evening class. I did well at evening classes and they moved
8 me to -- into the next level of apprenticeship. I continued my education
9 at that technical college, gaining an ordinary national certificate, then
10 a higher national certificate, in mechanical engineering. I then went on
11 to take a college diploma, which is the level of a first degree,
12 bachelor's degree. This gave me the academic exemption to become a
13 chartered engineer.
14 I then studied for a master's degree in thermodynamics and fluid
15 mechanics at the City University in London. This was followed by a
16 period of research at the British Non-Ferrous Metals Research
17 Association, where I registered my research for a Ph.D. in thermodynamics
18 and fluid mechanics. In 1989 I was then elected a fellow at the
19 Institute of Mechanical Engineers. So my current career in the area of
20 weapons systems began in 1987, 25 years ago, when I joined what was then
21 the Royal Military College of Science, and in 1984 the Royal Military
22 College of Science was actually privatised so that that meant that the
23 teaching that the normally being carried out by civilian staff, then that
24 teaching was taken on by Cranfield University. So when I joined the
25 Royal Military College of Science, I joined as a member of staff of
1 Cranfield University, and I joined there as an assistant director of the
2 weapons systems assessment and technical support unit, where we supplied
3 technical advice and technical support to the Ministry of Defence on
4 matters concerning small and medium calibre weapons systems.
5 After a number of years in that department, I soon moved over and
6 became a member of the lecturing staff, and so I took on the
7 responsibility for teaching at the undergraduate level, post-graduate
8 level, and the supervision of PhD students in research. And the areas
9 that I specialised in, again for small/medium-calibre weapons, basically
10 weapons which are man-portable, and their weapon design, ammunition
11 design, and their ballistics. I actually retired four weeks ago from
12 Cranfield university. So my CV tells you that I am a member of staff at
13 Cranfield University. I'm not. I actually retired from there four weeks
14 ago. I was when the CV was presented. I still lecture there and also
15 provide advice on technical matters.
16 Q. Thank you, Dr. Allsop. Is it correct that, inter alia, during
17 your career you yourself gained knowledge in forensic ballistics, as it
18 is stated on page 1, and that that was accepted at the university and
19 that you also lectured in that area?
20 A. Yes. In -- it would be 15 years ago, then the
21 Cranfield University started a course in forensic engineering and
22 science, and I was asked to provide the lecturing content on that course
23 on the -- those aspects regarding fire-arms and ballistics. Then five
24 years ago then that course was considerably expanded and so we actually
25 started a number of M.Sc. courses in forensics, one of which was
1 specifically forensic ballistics. I was responsible for the academic
2 input to that and so that I taught and researched in the subject of
3 forensic ballistics.
4 Q. Thank you. Is it also correct that on page 1 there begins a list
5 of your papers and areas that you were involved in.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we go to the following page,
7 please. Since we are going to tender this document into evidence, can we
8 go through all the pages up to page 5.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Dr. Allsop, you have also authored three books. For two of them
11 you were the team leader with co-authors and the third was authored by
12 you yourself, and we can see all of them under the title "books written."
13 Is that correct?
14 A. That is correct. I wrote these textbooks which are actually used
15 by the Cranfield University as the course books on our masters degrees.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellencies, may I tender
18 this CV into evidence?
19 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Next Defence exhibit number.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour, 65 ter number 1D06102 will be
21 Exhibit D2369.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. And now I would like to
23 call up 1D05015. This is Dr. Allsop's report.
24 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. While we are waiting, Dr. Allsop, while you were studying all
1 those weapons, did you also learn about the 120-millimetre mortar?
2 A. The 120-millimetre mortar is not actually a weapon I did work on,
3 although I did study it as part of gaining knowledge on mortar systems,
4 then I only studied it from the point of view of its design and the
5 design of its ammunition. At the college where I work, then we have a
6 very extensive weapons collection and a very extensive ammunition
7 collection, and we have a 120-millimetre mortar in our weapons collection
8 and we have the ammunition in our weapons collection as well. The actual
9 mortar and the ammunition are not the same as the one which was actually
10 used in this particular incident.
11 Q. Thank you. When it comes to ballistics principles, i.e., the
12 aerodynamic ballistic principles, are you familiar with those also for
13 the 120-millimetre mortar system?
14 A. I am. The actual principles are not really dependent upon the
15 calibre. We use exactly the same laws of physics and the same laws of
16 thermodynamics and fluid mechanics as we would for any mortar system.
17 And in fact, I actually designed our own 60-millimetre spigot mortar
18 firing an inert projectile which we actually take out onto our explosive
19 range and we fire it, and we use that to demonstrate the principles of
20 mortar ballistics to our students, and we actually get them to write up
21 an assignment that I set for them based upon those firings so that they
22 can actually predict the performance, the theoretical performance, and
23 then they go out and they test the mortar and they see how their
24 predictions stand up to the practical results.
25 Q. Thank you. Were you asked to provide your opinion as to whether
1 one can determine the distance from which the 120-millimetre mortar was
2 fired at the Markale Market in 1994?
3 A. I was asked to do that and I actually undertook the study and
4 produced a report on my findings and on -- based upon the information
5 that was submitted to me.
6 Q. Thank you. Was the gist of that task to demonstrate whether
7 based on what penetrated into the ground one could determine the distance
8 from which the shell was fired?
9 A. That is correct. The -- the gist of what I was asked to do was
10 to say if it was possible from the tail fin of the mortar embedded in the
11 ground, whether it was possible to predict the impact velocity of the
12 mortar and also the impact angle of the mortar, with a view to predicting
13 back to see how -- where the mortar may have been fired from.
14 Q. Thank you. What was your opinion?
15 A. My opinion was that from that information alone, from the
16 information given from the tail fin embedded in the asphalt, that it was
17 not possible to predict either the impact velocity or the impact angle.
18 Q. Thank you. With this regard I would kindly ask you to look at
19 your report together with us to see how you arrived at that conclusion.
20 Can you tell the Trial Chamber from bullet point 2.1 about the impact
21 centre which has to be behind the gravitation centre while the mortar is
22 flying. Can you try and explain the Trial Chamber the importance of
24 A. When we fire projectiles, then in order to maximise their
25 performance then they are normally much longer -- the dimension in their
1 length is greater than the dimension in their diameter, so that that
2 means this gives us all sorts of advantages. It reduces the aerodynamic
3 drag, it allows us to maximise the payload for a particular calibre, but
4 it does introduce problems of stability. What we need to do is to ensure
5 that the projectile is stable; in other words, we have to ensure that the
6 axis of the projectile is always aligned with its trajectory. In order
7 to do that, we have to have some form of actually stabilising the
9 With mortars, for various reasons which I can go into if you
10 wish, but with mortars then we fin stabilise them. What this means is
11 that we have a stabilising boom which is attached to the back of the
12 bomb, and the purpose of this is to ensure that the centre of pressure
13 acting upon the mortar while it's in flight is actually behind the centre
14 of gravity. The reason for this is that if we have any perturbance, and
15 we do have a number of perturbances to our projectiles when we fire them,
16 when we launch them, for instance, then we have a perturbance because as
17 the projectile leaves the end of the barrel then the gases flow around
18 the back of it and it's actually in a field of reverse flow, and of
19 course it's not designed to fly in a field of reverse flow. So it tries
20 to stabilise itself flying in that direction. Luckily this only lasts
21 for a short period of time, but it does introduce yaw to -- the
22 projectile starts to try and swing around and so it introduces yaw.
23 Now if the centre of pressure is actually in front of the centre
24 of gravity, then that yaw will increase; if it's behind, then it will
25 decrease. Because basically what's happening is that you have a positive
1 overturning moment when the centre of pressure is in front of the centre
2 of gravity and so that that means that it will actually try to rotate by
3 the centre of gravity. When it's behind it, it will do the exact
4 opposite, it would try and step back into the -- to be in line with the
5 axis, so the axis is in line with the trajectory. Unfortunately, what it
6 does it overcorrects and so that now we have yaw in the other direction,
7 and so we have a series of oscillations during -- during that period
8 which are then dampen-type and then the projectile after a time or a
9 certain time will fly in a reasonably stable condition.
10 So our projectiles are therefore designed to be actually
12 Q. Thank you. You have mentioned that it is lucky that it doesn't
13 last long. When it comes to those oscillations, are they higher in
14 longer shell trajectories?
15 A. It's all dependent upon the distance between the centre of
16 gravity and the centre of pressure. And so typically we like to actually
17 have one calibre's distance between the centre of pressure and the centre
18 of gravity. For instance, with a 120-millimetre, then we try to make the
19 centre of pressure about 120 millimetres back from that. If it's
20 close -- if it's actually less than that, then the oscillations tend to
21 be greater because the correcting couple is too -- is actually quite
22 large. If we make it any greater than that so it's a very stable
23 projectile, then we end up with a very long tail -- tail boom, tail fin,
24 which adds to the weight, adds to the cost, and so on. So we look for a
1 Q. Thank you. In that sense, whether conditions and other physical
2 conditions, are they important when it comes to the updating of the
3 system, and why are meteorological and other conditions important?
4 A. The weather conditions can have some considerable effect upon the
5 trajectory of the projectile. The obvious ones that you are probably
6 aware of are that the wind -- if we have a tail wind so that the wind is
7 blowing in the same direction, then the projectile will travel farther,
8 if we have one blowing towards you, it will travel less far. If it's
9 firing -- if it's -- the wind is blowing from left, it will actually push
10 the projectile to the right and vice versa.
11 Those are the obvious ones, but there are other conditions as
12 well. One is the temperature itself. These projectiles, they're
13 launched by burning a propellant in -- basically in the tube, the mortar
14 itself, and the burning rate of the propellant, and therefore the
15 pressures which you develop and therefore the velocity at which the
16 projectile is launched is affected by the temperature, so that the higher
17 the temperature then the greater will be the muzzle velocity of the
19 And typically -- I'm used to doing tests and trials for NATO, and
20 the NATO requirement is that we must know what the effect of conditions
21 from minus 40 to plus 70 degrees centigrade. And as an example, we
22 normally design our projectiles and our charges to operate at ambient
23 conditions, which is about 21 degrees centigrade. If you actually
24 increase the temperature up to 70 degrees centigrade -- 70 degrees
25 centigrade is a high temperature. You wouldn't expect the actual air
1 temperature to be 70 degrees, but under certain conditions when you store
2 the ammunition, then the direct sunlight on the storage system can
3 actually increase the temperature of the munition up to 70 degrees
4 centigrade. What that does, that actually increases the muzzle velocity
5 by 10 per cent. That gives you some idea of the effect that temperature
6 has on our charge system.
7 In addition to that, then the aerodynamic drag on any projectile
8 is dependent upon the actual pressure of the air, the density of the air,
9 and so that the aerodynamic drag is less, with less dense air, and is
10 greater with more dense air.
11 But to put this into context, then mortars are slow-moving
12 projectiles compared to other munitions. They are typically subsonic,
13 they typically operate maximum velocity about 300 metres per second.
14 Artillery will actually be working at three times that velocity. And as
15 aerodynamic drag is a function of velocity squared, you can see that the
16 actual drag forces on mortars is not very high so that in other words
17 these other conditions, these conditions that affect the drag
18 coefficient, the drag characteristics of the mortar, are actually less
19 affected than they are on other munitions.
20 Q. Thank you. I hope the interpreter will have time. We don't have
21 the interpretation in Serbian.
22 In chapter 2 you said that the tubes in the case of indirect
23 weapons could fire between temperatures of 45 and 85 degrees. What would
24 happen if one fired at a temperature of 40 or 89 degrees, for example,
25 from these barrels?
1 A. I think you mean angles, not temperature. So I will answer my
2 question -- your question assuming that I'm talking about angles rather
3 than temperature, degrees in angle rather than degrees in temperature.
4 The -- a mortar is a very simple system, and the -- they fire
5 very heavy projectiles for their size and their weight. That means the
6 recoil is very, very, very, very great. It gives you some idea then the
7 81-millimetre mortars I normally work on on full charge, then the recoil
8 force is 45 tonnes, and so that you can see that the only way we can
9 manage that, those sort of forces, is by directing the recoil force
10 directly into the ground. And we do this via a base plate. We actually
11 mount the mortar on the base plate so that our minimum angle is set
12 because of these very high forces and so that our -- when we -- when we
13 are firing at 45 degrees, that gives us our maximum angle -- that gives
14 us typically our maximum distance, not maximum angle. And so that if we
15 wanted to fire at 40 degrees, for instance, then it would go less far and
16 it would go actually about the same distance as if we were firing at 50
17 degrees. So we reach a stage where firing at lower angles reduces the
18 range. If we start off at high angle, as we reduce that angle, the range
19 increases until we get to about 45 degrees, and after that it starts
20 decreasing it. So there is no advantage in going to 40 degrees so far as
21 the range is concerned.
22 The disadvantage is that what's happening is that we're getting
23 an increasingly large component of recoil parallel to the ground, and so
24 that that will then start pushing the base -- the base plate along the
25 ground rather than into the ground. So this is why we restrict our
1 minimum angle to 45 degrees.
2 When it comes to firing at higher angles, we normally limit it to
3 85 degrees for a number of reasons. The maximum range of a mortar --
4 supposing we have the maximum range of a mortar is say 6 kilometres. The
5 minimum range going from 45 to 89 actually reduces that to about
6 one-third, so that it's going from 6 kilometres at 45 degrees, as we
7 elevate it to 85 degrees it will reduce that to approximately, this is
8 only approximately figures, to about 2 kilometres. The problem is that
9 when we get to these high angles, then a small -- a small variation in
10 angle has a large effect upon its range at these very short ranges. And
11 so that the projectile's in the air for a very long time, so that if we
12 have a wind blowing, for instance, especially if it's blowing from in
13 front of you, it can actually blow the projectile back so that it will
14 actually fall on top of you, which is -- which would be inconvenient.
15 But the main reason is that it's because of this sensitivity in
16 the range increments for small changes in the angle itself. And so the
17 way that we actually reduce the -- go to shorter ranges is by actually
18 reducing the velocity by going to different charge system.
19 Q. Thank you, Doctor. As for the forces acting in a direction
20 contrary to the direction in which the shell is fired, do these forces
21 leave any traces on the ground; and if so, what sort of form do these
22 traces take -- or rather, I don't mean the point of impact. I mean the
23 point from which the shell was actually fired.
24 A. It's extremely important that the mortar is actually mounted on a
25 very solid base. That's one of the problems that is encountered when
1 using mortars, and quite often it's necessary to actually bed the mortar
2 in. The UK procedure normally is that bedding -- the bedding procedure
3 can take up to six shots. Each time the mortar is actually fired, then
4 if it's not bedded incorrectly, then the mortar will actually move during
5 firing. And so typically it will actually bed itself in, and the angle
6 will actually increase slightly and it will actually fall short and so
7 that although you've set it up to fire at one particular angle, then it's
8 actually launching at a slightly different angle. And so consequently
9 it's important, therefore, that you actually bed the actual base plate in
10 on to a very firm footing. And so that if it was soft ground, for
11 instance, then the mortar can actually end up by driving the base plate
12 to a substantial depth into the ground.
13 It is a major problem and it's particularly a problem in snow,
14 and I have a colleague that -- who actually designed as a whole system
15 whereby that certain bags are used to spread the load as wide as possible
16 so that they can actually be fired -- the mortars can actually be fired
17 in the snow. But on soft ground then it is a problem, and you will leave
18 a -- quite a large imprint of the base plate in the ground. But you try
19 to avoid that situation. You try to find somewhere where, in fact, it
20 will be on a more solid ground. For instance, if you were firing on
21 concrete, asphalt, and so on, you may on asphalt, because asphalt is
22 quite soft, then you may leave the impression of the underneath of the
23 base plate.
24 The base plate typically has some projections on them so that
25 they actually grip the surface because you still get the component of
1 force acting parallel to the ground at 45 degrees, so it will still slide
2 forward unless you actually have something to stop them driving
3 themselves backwards. This is why you typically underneath the base
4 plate, then do you have sort of protrusions which actually try to prevent
5 from doing that. So you may see the mark of those protrusions on some
6 surfaces. On concrete, then, you probably wouldn't see that -- see those
8 Q. Thank you.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we have a look at the next
10 page, please.
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. In chapter 3 of your report you speak about predicting distances,
13 assessing distances. Could you tell us what has to be done in order to
14 determine the distance from which a shell was fired at the site of impact
15 or on the basis of the site of impact.
16 A. If we want to predict where a projectile was fired from, from the
17 evidence at the impact site, then what we need to know is the impact
18 velocity and the impact angle. And so that we could then work backwards
19 from trajectory calculations or range tables, the position from where the
20 shell was fired from. But those are the two -- those are the two
21 characteristics that we need to know. The other thing of course that we
22 need to know is all of those -- it depends how accurately you need to
23 know this. For instance, your calculations when you predict backwards,
24 then they will probably be based initially on ambient conditions, still
25 air. You really need to know for reasonable accuracy the temperature so
1 that you can do any temperature corrections for the charge. It would be
2 an advantage to know the wind conditions at the time, the height of the
3 mortar relative to the impact site, whether it was above, below, or at
4 the same level, because they will all affect the range. But providing
5 you know these and providing you have information on these, then you can,
6 in fact, project back from the point of impact to the point of launch
7 just using those two values.
8 And in fact, manufacturers, when they produce their range tables,
9 then what they have to do is that they produce their range tables for
10 ambient conditions and for a number of different charges and so on. But
11 of course if we actually need to provide information so that we can
12 actually correct for such things as charge temperatures and so on, then
13 we cannot fire vast numbers of bombs in order to find that information.
14 Then typically what we do is that we will actually predict using computer
15 programmes what the effect will be. We have to validate those and so
16 that we actually measure the impact velocity and the impact angles and so
17 that we can then compare them with our predictions. That's part of the
18 validation process.
19 Q. Thank you. When it comes to accuracy and the precision, which
20 element is the most important one. What is the significance of the angle
21 of impact for the precision with which one can determine the angle, and
22 how do these variations affect the site from which the shell was fired?
23 A. If we consider the trajectory of a mortar, then if we launched it
24 at 45 degrees, its maximum angle, then if there was no aerodynamic drag
25 then the impact angle -- if of course the impact -- the launch site and
1 the impact site were on the same level, then it would actually impact at
2 the same angle. We've got aerodynamic drag which is actually slowing the
3 projectile throughout its trajectory, so that means it will typically
4 impact, again in rough figures, about 5 degrees steeper angle than this.
5 And the -- interestingly, the steeper the angle of the impact, then
6 the -- this means that the steeper will be the impact at launch. But as
7 I've already said, when it comes to the sensitivity of range with angle,
8 it's more sensitive at the high angles than it is at the low angles, so
9 that - in other words - if you were trying to predict to a reasonable
10 degree of accuracy the range at which the bomb was launched and the
11 impact angle was a low angle, then your predictions would be actually
12 more accurate than if they were a high angle purely because very small
13 variations in angle at high elevation have a greater effect on range.
14 Q. Thank you. In item 3 you say that when one predicts where the
15 shell was launched from, one does that on the basis of the impact
16 velocity. How is the impact velocity determined? In fact, how does one
17 assess that impact velocity?
18 A. If we were producing range tables, then of course what we would
19 do is we would actually measure the impact velocity using a Doppler
20 radar. But in the case that we are talking about here, then if we want
21 to calculate what the impact velocity is -- if we want to calculate what
22 that is from the evidence of -- at the actual site of the impact of the
23 bomb, then that's extremely difficult to do. It depends upon the sort of
24 evidence that there is at the impact site. In the case that we have
25 here, then the evidence was the stabilising fin buried in the ground.
1 That essentially is the only information from which we can try to
2 calculate what the impact velocity was, and so that the tail fin is
3 ejected from the bomb upon impact. Upon impact what happens is that the
4 fuse will initiate the detonator. We will get a detonation wave which
5 runs from the front of the bomb through to the rear. And as this
6 detonation wave travels through the explosive, it will actually start
7 breaking up the shell body, and then the gases behind it will eject the
8 broken components side as fragments. When it gets to the rear of the
9 bomb then we will again -- we will get exactly the same thing happening
10 and the ejection -- the tail fin will be ejected back in the opposite
11 direction from where it was -- along the -- in the opposite direction
12 from which it impacted. So if we know what the velocity the tail boom is
13 ejected from the back from the bomb, then that can give us some
14 information on what the impact velocity of the bomb may have been.
15 For example, if the impact velocity of the bomb was, say, 200
16 metres per second, and the ejection velocity of the tail fin was 200
17 metres per second, then we would expect that the tail fin would almost
18 stop; and therefore, we actually find it very, very close to the impact
19 site. If, in fact, the ejection velocity of the tail fin was, for
20 instance, 150 metres per second, it means that we would get a net
21 rearward velocity of 50 metres per second.
22 To put this into context, 50 metres per second doesn't sound very
23 fast, but we can actually calculate approximately how far that will
24 actually travel at 45 degrees, for instance, its maximum angle. It's a
25 very, very simple equation. It's just that the range equals the velocity
1 squared divided by G, the acceleration due to gravity. So it's 30 metres
2 per second, for instance, 30 metres per second squared is -- 30 times 30
3 is 900 divided by our acceleration due to gravity, which is approximately
4 10 - 9.81 - so you see it will be ejected backwards by about 90 metres,
5 to about 90 metres.
6 If, in fact, it's the other way around so that -- so that, in
7 fact -- I've got that -- I'm sorry, can I just read what I said. I think
8 I might be saying this the wrong way around.
9 JUDGE KWON: Please do so.
10 THE WITNESS: Yes.
11 JUDGE KWON: You can read the transcript if you like.
12 THE WITNESS: Yes, it's just one so I -- I -- suddenly --
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we see page 3 in the e-court
14 system, please.
15 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
16 THE WITNESS: I just want to make sure I'm -- I must admit I'm
17 more nervous than I'd like to admit.
18 JUDGE KWON: No, no. I would ask nobody speak from now on.
19 Doctor, you can read it.
20 THE WITNESS: Okay. Yes.
21 No, in fact, if we have the mortar bomb coming in at 200 metres
22 per second, the ejection velocity is 150 metres per second, it will carry
23 on at 50 metres per second. If the ejection velocity was 250 metres per
24 second, the tail fin is ejected by -- at 250 metres per second, it would
25 actually be ejected rearwards at a velocity of 50 metres per second. And
1 so that if we -- you see, I then said 30 metres per second -- and so
2 there's 50 metres per second - 50 metres per second - 50 times 50 is
3 2.500, so divided by 10, 250 metres. So at 50 metres per second it will
4 actually be ejected back by 250 metres.
5 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters would be grateful if
6 Mr. Allsop could slow down for the benefit of the interpreters in the
7 B/C/S booth I thank you.
8 THE WITNESS: I talk fast the more nervous I get, I'm afraid.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Thank you. Doctor, could you now tell us whether we have
11 understood this correctly. After the explosion, two extremes of the
12 shell behave differently in terms of velocity. At one end we have an
13 acceleration and at the other end, that part in fact slows down. Which
14 end is subject to acceleration and which end slows down, decelerates?
15 A. I think you're referring to the fuse and the tail fin so that, in
16 fact, if the -- what will happen is that when the bomb detonates, then
17 the fuse will be ejected forward, so that means the velocity will
18 actually be added to the impact velocity. So if it's ejected forward at
19 a hundred metres per second, it impacts at 200 metres per second, then it
20 will actually be ejected forward at 300 metres per second; whereas, if
21 the bomb impacts and we consider the ejection velocity of the tail fin,
22 the ejection velocity of the tail fin is subtracted from the -- from the
23 forward part -- velocity of the bomb. So in one case we add the ejection
24 velocity to the impact velocity, in the other case we subtract it.
25 JUDGE MORRISON: Dr. Allsop, just putting it for myself in as
1 simple term as possible: The faster the mortar bomb is falling, i.e.,
2 the greater the altitude that the projectile reached before it starts to
3 fall back to earth, the more likely it is that the tail boom will be
4 found embedded in the ground rather than ejected behind the bomb by any
6 THE WITNESS: Correct.
7 JUDGE MORRISON: So really, when you find a tail fin assembly
8 embedded in the ground the -- from a layman's point of view, the -- it is
9 likely that the mortar has fallen a considerable distance and therefore
10 obtained a high terminal velocity?
11 THE WITNESS: That really depends upon the ejection velocity of
12 the tail fin. If the ejection velocity of the tail fin is very low, for
13 instance, on our 81-millimetre mortar, then the tail fin ejection
14 velocity appears to be very low, and so consequently it's always ejected
15 away from the site. It's very rare that we actually find a tail fin
16 anywhere near the site with our 81-millimetre mortars. So under those
17 conditions and then for that particular munition, then we cannot say
19 But for a system whereby the ejection velocity is higher, then
20 you're correct, yes.
21 JUDGE MORRISON: And I don't want to confuse anyone else, and I
22 certainly don't want to confuse myself. When the fuse is ejected
23 forward, the resultant force going backwards, that must also assist in
24 ejecting the tail boom in the opposite direction to the travel or am I
25 making an elementary physics mistake?
1 THE WITNESS: I think you're making an elementary physics
3 JUDGE MORRISON: Well, that's why I wanted to check. Thank you
4 very much.
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Doctor, do you need -- do you feel the need to go on talking
7 about that or shall we move on to something else?
8 A. I would like to say something about the ejection velocity of the
9 tail boom. I know of no method that can actually accurately predict
10 this, so there we actually have a problem. The only way that we can
11 really get data on the ejection velocity of the tail boom is from
12 actually carrying out trials and actually measuring them. The
13 fragmentation process is a very, very complex process, and we have some
14 techniques which have stood as reasonable stead over the years which can
15 actually predict the ejection velocity of fragments from very simple
16 geometries, but the tail boom is not a simple geometry. It's a very
17 complex geometry. These prediction techniques, then they have severe
18 restrictions, and to try and apply these methods to calculating that
19 ejection velocity is fraught with hazard. I know of no way that you can
20 actually do this and get an answer which is anywhere near the correct
22 There is another thing which we have to consider, and that is the
23 question of dispersion, the dispersion of results. And when we talk
24 about the range of a mortar, then we talk about the mean range. So
25 suppose we talk about the maximum range of a mortar being 6 kilometres,
1 then typically the dispersion of a mortar in terms of its projectiles
2 about the point of impact is about 1 per cent of its range. In azimuth
3 it's about half a per cent. So in other words, the impact at 6
4 kilometres, that will have a variation of 1 per cent, 60 metres forward,
5 60 metres backwards. So in other words, we could expect normally that it
6 would actually fall between those two points, between 660 metres and
7 6.060 metres and 5.940 metres. But when we talk of dispersions, then
8 what we're talking about are standard deviations, and so that one
9 standard deviation actually equates to a 68 per cent probability that
10 they will actually -- that that will actually occur, so that when we talk
11 about measuring, for instance, the ejection velocity of our tail boom,
12 and we do that experimentally, then there will be variations on a
13 round-to-round basis. So that supposing we fired a hundred rounds, then
14 we would fire -- we can actually calculate what the mean would be. We
15 can also calculate the standard deviation. What that will tell us is
16 what the variation in that ejection velocity is.
17 So when we talk about a mortar having an ejection velocity of
18 plus or minus 20 metres per second, then what this can only mean is that
19 it actually has a standard deviation of 20 metres per second, so that
20 supposing that the ejection velocity was 600 -- 200 metres per second,
21 plus or minus 10 metres per second, then it means that -- it does not
22 mean that 100 per cent of the tail booms would actually be ejected
23 backwards between the velocities of 190 and 210; it means 68 per cent of
24 them will be. And so that we have to take into account that when we do
25 any calculation on what the ejection velocity will be, then we can
1 calculate the mean -- if we had a method we would calculate the mean - I
2 don't think we have a method where we can calculate the mean - but we
3 cannot calculate what the standard deviation would be. We can only
4 measure that from experimental results.
5 Q. Thank you. Before we move on to page 4, I would like to ask you
6 about velocities. The fuse tunnel, can it be the stabiliser if the fuse
7 disperses and remains on the surface? Can a fuse tunnel be anything else
8 but a fuse? Can it produce anything else but a fuse?
9 A. By that I think you're asking that if the tail fin does not
10 travel forward and strike the ground in the area of the -- where the fuse
11 is actually pushed into the ground, if that does not happen, is there
12 anything else that could be ejected forward to enter the impact crater
13 made by the fuse. I can't see that there would be anything else that
14 would actually -- could actually be buried along with the fuse. The only
15 thing that could happen is that -- you will have a fuse tunnel, you would
16 have a hole in which the fuse is actually pushed into the ground, and
17 then -- it would -- almost certainly what would happen is that the loose
18 soil would then collapse and would also fill -- tend to fill that hole,
19 and it really depends upon the cohesive strength of the ground in which
20 indeed that's actually buried as to what extent that would actually
22 Q. Thank you. Why do we refer to that thing, a fuse tunnel? Can
23 any other part of the shell do the same if a fuse tunnel did not create a
24 tunnel? If I told you that the fuse was not embedded, that it was
25 dispersed and it remained on the ground, and we found the stabiliser 25
1 centimetres embedded in the ground, how would you interpret that? What
2 would you make of that?
3 A. If for some reason the fuse completely disintegrated and was
4 dispersed somehow sideways so that it did not -- so that no part actually
5 impacted directly in front of it, then -- and if the stabilising boom was
6 actually found in the ground, it can only be because the forward velocity
7 of the stabiliser boom at impact was actually greater than its ejection
9 Q. How often would that occur?
10 A. We would know -- have to know what the impact velocities were and
11 we would have to compare them with the known ejection velocities. At the
12 moment we know what the impact velocity will be. Typically, the impact
13 velocities will be slightly less on level -- providing we're talking here
14 of the launch height being the same as the impact height. Then the
15 impact velocity will be slightly less than the launch velocity. So we
16 have a knowledge of that. What we don't have is a knowledge of the true
17 ejection velocity. So afraid I'm not able to answer that question.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we go to page 4, bullet point
21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. I'm particularly interested about deviation. You have noticed
23 yourself that the damage on the connection between the stabiliser boom
24 and the body of the bomb is -- that that damage is asymmetrical. Just a
25 while ago you were talking about deviation or - if I may put it that
1 way - meandering of the bomb in flight. Can that meandering also appear
2 in the ground itself? How do you account for the asymmetrical nature of
3 the damage?
4 A. The front of the damage done stabiliser boom, you could see in
5 figure 2 that it's clearly a point of almost 45 degrees. This indicates
6 it's actually failed in shear as opposed to in compressional tension,
7 which has no specific meaning. But the fact that it's not on the axis
8 indicates that there's some asymmetry in the system, and I've given that
9 some considerable thought as to what that could be and why that's
10 actually happened, and we -- the immediate reaction would be that what we
11 have is we have an asymmetric pressure which is acting on the inside of
12 the bomb itself, so how could that occur? If the inside of the bomb was
13 symmetric, then we would expect the force from the pressure to be
14 symmetric as well, and therefore the failure to be symmetric and
15 therefore the point to be on the central line of the axis.
16 It may be that the -- that the inside of the bomb was not, in
17 fact, symmetric. The -- in my -- the early part of my report then I said
18 that the bomb body, for instance, was made of a casting. Now, this is
19 what the -- this is what the literature that I reviewed told me, but in
20 fact I since learnt that that may well have -- would probably have been
21 not from a casting but from a forging. A casting is not made very
22 accurately, so if it had have been a casting, that would -- could have
23 been one of the reasons why that occurred, because castings are not
24 usually used because they cannot be made sufficiently accurate. Also,
25 their mechanical properties aren't good enough. But it would appear that
1 subsequent to my review of the literature I found that it's almost
2 certainly actually a forging, so that probably rules that out.
3 There could be another reason and that is that these shell
4 bodies, they fragment naturally, so that in other words we have a smooth
5 surface and we have this detonation wave running up there and so that we
6 get a whole variety of fragments, large, small, some are too large and
7 some are too small, and so on. So we can actually control the size of
8 the fragments and the way that we do that is my machining grooves on the
9 inside. And the reason we do that is because when the detonation wave is
10 actually running around the inside of the body, it will actually reflect
11 from these -- part of the wave will actually reflect from that groove and
12 so that that will magnify the force acting on the shell body at that
13 point and it will actually fracture along those -- along those control
15 What may have happened is that during the manufacturing process
16 then there could have been a small defect at that particular point. We
17 would have had a reflection from the shell body of part of the detonation
18 wave that would magnify at that place. We would have preferential
19 failure on one side of the shell body rather than the other. That would
20 then vent the gases more from one side than the other, and so that would
21 cause the -- the tail fin to actually rotate about its centre of gravity
22 and to actually cause it to yaw. That's one particular possibility.
23 I find that difficult to believe as well because the -- they're
24 normally inspected very, very carefully, because if you do -- one of the
25 reasons we don't use notches very often in practice is because they can
1 trap air and TNT, which is the explosive used for this, TNT is actually
2 cast, and so we can get air entrapped within the TNT because of these
3 grooves and you get adiabatic heating due to the compression of those air
4 bubbles and you can get in-bore explosions, which again is not very
5 popular. So we tend to avoid that and normally pay very close attention
6 to any defects that may be in the body of the shell because of that.
7 The only other conclusion I can come to is that if it was a
8 forging, then it would have been heat treated in order to obtain the
9 correct properties of the shell body. And a heat treatment processes,
10 they are notoriously difficult to control and it could have been an
11 uneven heat treatment which had caused it to burst on one side before the
12 other. And I think that's probably the most -- the most logical reason
13 for that. But whatever did it, then it would cause an asymmetric force
14 acting upon that fin and would have caused it to yaw immediately had that
16 Q. Thank you. Can we now go to page 8. It is from that point of
17 view that I am interested in the following: To what extent can this
18 impact on the axial position of the stabilising boom, i.e., to what
19 extent can this influence the way the angle is measured? I apologise, it
20 must be page 7, and we will look at page 8 later. Page 7 where we see a
22 A. Can I just read the text so that I can understand the question
23 more easily. Okay. I think what you're asking is how does this affect
24 the angle of the -- the axial angle of the tail boom in the ground.
25 Well, clearly if the -- if you have an asymmetric force acting on the
1 projectile causing it to rotate it about its centre of gravity, then what
2 will happen is that the impact angle will be different to the trajectory
3 angle and -- but that will be by -- it will vary by an unknown amount
4 because we don't know the extent of the symmetry of the force and the
5 effect it will actually have on the rotation, it could be great or it
6 could be small.
7 Q. Thank you. And now let's talk about the specific case. Were you
8 in a position to make a conclusion about the angle, i.e., whether the
9 angle of the tail boom which was embedded in the crater at Markale was
10 the correct indicator of the impact angle at the moment when the
11 projectile touched the ground? What was your conclusion? Was it
12 possible to arrive at the right conclusion with regard to the angle,
13 first of all; and second of all with regard to the distance from which
14 the projectile was fired?
15 A. In answer to your first question about the angle of impact, then
16 there are other factors at work here in addition to the axial rotation
17 due to this asymmetric force acting upon the tail boom due to the -- due
18 to the explosive charge. There is the -- the question that at the
19 beginning of me giving evidence, then I described how we need to get the
20 geometry of our projectile correct in order to ensure it's stable; in
21 other words, we have to get our centre of pressure behind the centre of
22 gravity. What we now have, we have a projectile consisting of just the
23 part of the tail boom, not even all of the tail boom, just part of the
24 tail boom. And so we have a projectile which is a completely different
25 configuration to the one that we were first considering. So we still
1 have stabilising fins, but now we've lost all of this mass at the front
2 so that we've lost -- so that means the centre of gravity has drastically
3 moved rearwards, but so has the centre of pressure because the centre of
4 pressure is not just made up of the forces acting on the tail fins there,
5 it's also made up from the forces acting on the front of the projectile,
6 on that front diameter, on that nose part, and so we've lost that. So
7 that in other words, what we've got is we've got the movement rearwards
8 of the centre of pressure and we've also got the movement rearwards of
9 the centre of gravity.
10 What we do have now is the situation where the centre of gravity
11 and the centre of pressure are much, much closer together so that I think
12 looking at it, you probably have to do the sums, but it looks as if it
13 would probably still be stable, inasmuch that the centre of pressure is
14 still probably just about behind the centre of gravity. But it does mean
15 that very small changes in that centre of pressure can have quite a large
16 effect on the rotation of the tail boom about its centre of gravity.
17 What we have to remember is that when this continues its flight from the
18 moment that it's separated from the main body of the bomb, that main body
19 disintegrates, moves out radially. This then flies through the remnants
20 of the explosion. Now, those remnants will be there -- if we look at
21 the -- a typical pressure time curve, what will happen is that the
22 pressure inside the shell body rises almost instantaneously, not quite
23 instantaneously, but almost instantaneously. The detonation wave
24 actually moves at a velocity of about 6.9 kilometres per second, so that
25 what we're getting is that we're getting a pretty sharp rise in pressure
1 to a very, very high level.
2 Then once the detonation waves pass and we've converted all of
3 our explosive behind it into an explosive gas, that will then start to
4 expand and the pressure will start to decay. But the -- those gases will
5 be expanding at very, very high velocity. We're talking of kilometres --
6 many kilometres per second, and so that they will be flowing over the --
7 over this tail fin as it's passing through the air. You've got an
8 asymmetric nose on it now, so that will develop lift and push it about
9 its centre of gravity. Now, what can happen is that that can -- that
10 could actually push it back and actually correct for the movement or it
11 could actually add to it, so that you can see you've got a lot of things
12 going on there. And so that the final velocity when it -- the final
13 angle, I beg your pardon, when it hits the ground, then that will be
14 very -- that will vary from round-to-round fire.
15 And for this particular one, then it will depend upon the
16 direction of those two forces. The first one that destabilise -- that
17 actually started to rotate due to the asymmetric force and the other one
18 due to the lift which is actually being generated due to the
19 high-velocity gases flowing over it and the relative magnitude of those
20 forces. So if the rotation -- if the original rotation was small
21 compared to the other one, then you might get no interaction between
23 You can see that it's impossible to actually quantify that, those
24 values. That's why I say, it's really impossible to actually say
25 whether, in fact, the tail boom is actually aligned with the actual
1 trajectory -- the impact trajectory.
2 Q. Thank you. We don't have time to deal with the abrasions that
3 you noticed. I would like to go to page 9. Let's just look at your
4 conclusions --
5 JUDGE KWON: Shall we take a break, Mr. Karadzic, before you move
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. I need not more than 10 or
8 perhaps 15 minutes altogether after the break.
9 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. We shall have a break for half an hour
10 and resume at 11.00.
11 --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.
12 --- On resuming at 11.03 a.m.
13 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, please continue.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 Could we now have a look at page 8, please.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Dr. Allsop, could you please tell us what it means if there is no
18 traces of abrasion on the boom and on the tail fins. What sort of
19 conclusions could you draw on the basis of the lack of such abrasive
21 JUDGE KWON: Before we move on, Mr. Karadzic, why don't you ask
22 the Doctor to explain to us in more simple terms figure 3 which appears
23 on page 3. If necessary, he may use a pen to mark the drawing so that we
24 understand a bit more easily.
25 Shall we upload that figure 3 on page 7.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could the usher please help
2 Dr. Allsop and show him how to use the pen.
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Dr. Allsop, is there anything you could add to this drawing that
5 would help us to understand various elements that are depicted here?
6 A. What we see is a diagrammatic representation. Obviously the
7 yellowy-orange component, that's the stabilising tail boom. The dark
8 blue, that's the remnants of the fuse which are -- has entered the
9 ground. And then what we have is we've got the -- we have the --
10 JUDGE KWON: You can delete it if you like.
11 THE WITNESS: Okay.
12 What we have is that -- we then have the right, that represents
13 a -- the hole through the soil which is created by the fuse, and you can
14 see that the tail boom has entered this preformed -- this hole which is
15 actually formed by the remnants of the fuse, and so that what I'm saying
16 is that -- I'm trying to describe approximately what would have happened
17 at the impact site. So that we have a fuse trough, but that's partially
18 masked by the fact that the fins are 120-millimetre wide, they're the
19 same diameter as the projectile, whereas the fuse would have been
20 smaller, although upon impact and also due to the explosion, then you
21 would have expected the fuse to -- components would break up, could be
22 broken from the actual fuse body itself, and you would expect the fuse to
23 be distorted and it could in fact be flattened and so that the actual
24 diameter as a whole may in fact be greater than the original diameter of
25 the fuse. But nevertheless, I would expect that it wouldn't expand to
1 120-millimetres. And so that we can see that the front part of the tail
2 boom actually enters a hole which is -- already exists. And so
3 consequently, the actual depth of penetration is -- of the tail boom is
4 significantly influenced by the actual hole which is actually formed by
5 the fuse itself.
6 In addition to that, you can see that the body -- I've drawn
7 it -- and again this has got to be a diagrammatic because it's impossible
8 to tell exactly what the shape of the hole was in particular relative
9 sizes to one another. But if we actually look at the striations on the
10 tail fin, then there are none on the small diametre. This -- there are
11 no striations, either -- expected striations to be on this part of the
12 body if that was actually penetrating into soil itself.
13 Now why I would expect it to be like that is because for the last
14 two years I have actually been firing trials where I've been firing
15 projectiles into the ground at these sort of velocities, and the reason
16 I've been doing that is I've been looking to develop disrupters for
17 disrupting improvised explosive devices which are actually buried in the
18 ground, and I've also been firing something which is significantly bigger
19 than this and looking at using a gun as a pile driver for driving piles
20 into the ground. And one of the things I've noticed is that even for
21 quite small projectiles travelling a relatively small distance through
22 the soil, then because of the material that they're actually passing
23 through, then you end up with considerable abrasion -- abrasive marks,
24 especially on the points, especially on this area here where that's
25 forcing itself through the ground, and there are none -- none at all on
1 this tail fin. You've got some abrasive marks on here, on the fins, as
2 shown in the photograph. And so that's how I came to the conclusion that
3 something very similar to this must have actually happened.
4 JUDGE KWON: So, Doctor, what you are saying is that this trough
5 was made by the fuse and we or they found the remnants of fuse in this
7 THE WITNESS: They found some of the remnants of the fuse. I
8 don't think that they were actually attempted to recover this part of the
9 fuse down here. What they found were, in fact, up here, on the surface
10 here they found components of the fuse which -- this fuse would have
11 actually have been bigger than this and it may not, in fact, have been as
12 complete as this in the ground, so it leaves of the some components from
13 the fuse itself and also part of the body back here that -- which were
14 probably found on the -- in these areas up here.
15 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
16 Could you kindly date and put your signature on this --
17 THE WITNESS: Okay.
18 JUDGE KWON: -- marked diagram.
19 THE WITNESS: So that's --
20 JUDGE KWON: Today is 31st of October.
21 THE WITNESS: 31st October, and it's 2012.
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll keep this as next Defence exhibit.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D2370, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic, please continue.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we very briefly have a look
1 at the photograph on page 8, the photograph of the stabiliser that shows
2 what Dr. Allsop has just been drawing. It's the next page in this same
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Are these the abrasion marks on the fin that we can't see on the
6 tail boom; is that correct?
7 A. That is correct. You can see -- I can draw over the top of them
8 if you wish so that -- oh, this is not --
9 JUDGE KWON: Could you wait. Yes.
10 THE WITNESS: I --
11 JUDGE KWON: Doctor, you would like to mark it -- yes.
12 THE WITNESS: These are the abrasion marks here where it blast
13 into the ground. You've got to remember that it's actually only past
14 that sort of distance from there to there so that the amount they -- the
15 actual soil would have been is about there, so I suppose the actual depth
16 will actually be to that point there, whereas this is actually -- the
17 front end of this is actually past that depth into the ground and yet we
18 can see that there are no abrasion marks on any of that. And in fact,
19 I --
20 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. For future reference, could you
21 write down "soil" where you drew a vertical line there.
22 THE WITNESS: So that's --
23 JUDGE KWON: Soil, yes.
24 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
25 JUDGE KWON: And could you put number 1 and number 2 to
1 distinguish the distance from the surface into the ground.
2 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
3 JUDGE KWON: Yes, number 1.
4 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
5 JUDGE KWON: Number 1 refers to what, Doctor?
6 THE WITNESS: This is --
7 JUDGE KWON: You can tell us.
8 THE WITNESS: Oh. That's the depth of penetration of the -- just
9 the fins, and number 2 represents the depth -- total depth of penetration
10 of the front part of the stabilising boom.
11 JUDGE KWON: And you circled the front part of that fin.
12 THE WITNESS: Yes.
13 JUDGE KWON: Why --
14 THE WITNESS: Of the stabiliser boom.
15 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
16 THE WITNESS: This -- then that is -- in fact that's the area
17 that I would have expected to have seen abrasion marks if that had been
18 penetrating into soil.
19 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Could you date and sign this as well.
20 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
21 JUDGE KWON: This will be Exhibit D2371.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Could we see item 11
23 now. It's page 9 and this item refers to the conclusions.
24 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Dr. Allsop, what is the significance of the composition of the
1 soil? What effect does it have to the determination of the angle of
2 impact and to the position of the tail boom itself?
3 A. The composition of the soil would have affected the actual depth
4 of the penetration of the -- of the fin. If we consider if there had
5 been no preformed hole in the ground that the tail boom entered into,
6 then it would have gone through different layers of soil, different types
7 of soil. The reports that I have read tell us that it would have gone --
8 that we had asphalt to start off with, and then we have the -- a layer of
9 sand and gravel, sand and gravel are particularly abrasive. I'm not sure
10 if there was a third layer from the reports, and I'm not sure whether in
11 fact the soil in that area was in fact sand and gravel or whether there
12 was a layer of sand and gravel that was laid down underneath the asphalt.
13 That's unclear from what I've seen.
14 But it is, nevertheless, it's a multi-layer of different
15 materials. And any method trying to calculate the depth of penetration
16 for different velocities would be very, very difficult. I have to do it
17 for all the trials that I'm doing, and there I'm -- I deliberately use
18 different types of soil all the same different types so that I'm -- I'm
19 trying to simulate penetration into pure sand, pure gravel, a mixture of
20 the two, but I make sure that they're all homogeneous. And I'm having
21 great difficulty even under those circumstances in tying up the
22 relationship between penetration depth and the impact velocity for these
23 different soils.
24 What I have found as well is that - and the literature tells us
25 this - that the depth of penetration is significantly affected by two
1 other factors, and that is it's affected by the moisture content of the
2 soil. The thing which is the largest -- has the largest effect on the
3 depth of penetration is the friction, is the friction between the
4 projectile and the soil itself. And to actually reduce that friction,
5 then we can do a number of things. But one of the most important ones is
6 the soil content because water acts as a lubricant. And, in fact, you
7 notice that the civil engineering industry, when it's piling -- when it's
8 pushing piles into the ground, the resistance to those piles is mostly
9 the -- due to the friction. So what they do is that they water the area
10 and that significantly reduces the resistance to the piles.
11 The other thing is the yaw angle, because what's happening is if
12 the projectile has any yaw at all - in other words, if the angle is -- of
13 the projectile is different to the angle of the trajectory - then we have
14 the sides of the projectile which is now in greater contact with the
15 soil, and so we again have a significant effect upon the penetration
16 depth. And you only have to go for 2 or 3 degrees, it's very little, and
17 it has a massive effect on the penetration. I was amazed just how big
18 that effect is. So in my conclusion I find it very difficult -- it would
19 be almost impossible to predict from the depth of the mortar what the
20 impact velocity of the projectile -- of the tail boom would have actually
21 have been because of these different factors.
22 Q. Thank you, Dr. Allsop. When the stabiliser is taken out and then
23 re-inserted, did this have any additional effect? Given what you have
24 said, it seems that it's difficult to draw any conclusions even when the
25 stabiliser isn't moved. If the stabiliser boom is taken out and then
1 re-inserted, in what way does this affect the possibility one has of
2 drawing relevant conclusions?
3 A. The hole made by the -- both the fuse and the -- and then
4 modified by the tail boom, the fins on the tail boom, that is through a
5 material which has very little cohesive strength. And so that the
6 removal -- actually, when you removed it, the tail boom, from the hole,
7 then it is almost certain that you would have had sand and gravel which
8 would have actually have been dislodged from the walls of the hole and
9 which would have then fallen into the bottom of the hole. The fact that
10 it was possible to re-insert the tail boom to the same depth, especially
11 when you actually then go to push it back in, you're going to disturb
12 even more soil, so you would expect therefore the hole to be at a less --
13 the hole to be not as deep as it originally was due to this additional
14 material which is now in the hole.
15 But from the video that I've seen of before and after, it seems
16 as if it was -- the tail boom was actually inserted to a very similar
17 depth in a similar position. So I can -- again, that's what leads me to
18 believe that, in fact, the fuse was at greater depth than the tail boom
19 so that it could actually accommodate this extra material which must have
20 been dislodged. Anybody that's had anything to do with removing a rod of
21 any sort from the soil will know that the hole tends to fill up from the
22 material dislodged from the walls of it. As I say, I've been firing
23 trials into different materials over the last two years, and it's very,
24 very apparent on some occasions then just through removal of the
25 projectile almost completely fills the hole, and I would find it almost
1 impossible to actually push it back into its original position.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have no further questions for the
4 witness at this point in time, Your Excellencies. Could I tender this
5 statement into evidence?
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Gaynor.
7 MR. GAYNOR: No objection, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
9 This will be admitted as next exhibit.
10 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter number 1D5015 will be Exhibit D2372.
11 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
12 Mr. Gaynor, please.
13 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Mr. President.
14 Cross-examination by Mr. Gaynor:
15 Q. Hello, Dr. Allsop. We -- we'll be speaking the same language
16 here and the interpreters are simultaneously translating what we're
17 saying to each other. Added to that, some of the terminology both of us
18 will be using is relatively unfamiliar, so I think all things considered
19 we can afford to go fairly slowly.
20 A. Okay.
21 Q. Now, Dr. Allsop, I just want to confirm with you that you agreed
22 to meet two of my colleagues and me on Monday in the presence of
23 Mr. Robinson for the Defence?
24 A. Yes, I confirm that.
25 Q. That's right. Now, thank you for attending that meeting.
1 At that meeting you referred to a document which had been
2 provided to the Defence by the Prosecution which had been drafted by
3 Dr. Berko Zecevic in which he made some observations about your report;
4 is that right?
5 A. That is correct, yes.
6 Q. Now, I'll be asking you a few questions about your report, about
7 your testimony today, and about some of the figures which appear in
8 Dr. Zecevic's report. First of all, I'd like to clarify the nature of
9 your expertise. It appears from your CV, that's D2369, that you do have
10 considerable experience in small arms; isn't that right?
11 A. That is correct.
12 Q. Now, you've listed in your CV a total of 44 items of research and
13 consultancy work. Now, in those 44 entries we see a reference to mortars
14 in one of them, that's number 24, which refers to an 82-millimetre
15 mortar. Would it be fair to say that mortars have not formed the central
16 part of your professional career?
17 A. That is correct. I should point out that I have, in fact,
18 carried out considerably more work than in my CV. What I've tried to do
19 is draw on the main parts of where I've actually concentrated my efforts
20 over the years, purely because those are the larger contracts that I've
21 actually worked on. But I've actually provided considerable assistance
22 to our firing range. We have our own firing range down on
23 Salisbury Plain in which we carry out trials, and part of my duties was
24 to advise on the setting up of firing trials and actually carry out the
25 analysis of such -- or advise on how to carry out the analysis on many of
1 those trials. And many of those trials actually covered the
2 fragmentation analysis of different mortars. I've actually been working
3 on -- if you notice the -- on that last page of my CV, then I've been
4 working on the 60-millimetre mortar, and what that consists of is that
5 the UK has recently introduced a 60-millimetre mortar into service but it
6 has no training rounds, so that I've been doing all of the analysis of
7 the ballistics of the 60-millimetre mortar in order to design and produce
8 a training round, an inert training round.
9 Q. Okay. Is it fair to say that you did not have familiarity with
10 the 120-millimetre mortar system used by the Bosnian Serb forces?
11 A. That is correct, I didn't -- I didn't have familiarisation.
12 Q. Okay. Now, I just want to ask you a couple of questions
13 following up on what you said about firing ranges. Now, the main purpose
14 of the 120-millimetre mortar is to kill personnel in the open?
15 A. That is correct, yes.
16 Q. It's not predominantly used to destroy buildings, for example?
17 A. Predominantly no. In fact, they have produced -- and I believe
18 they have with the 120-millimetre, the latest barometric warhead which,
19 in fact, produces -- enhances the blast. They mix aluminium with the
20 explosive and this increases the impulse, and it's used specifically for
21 destroying buildings and so -- so that I don't know whether it's
22 available in the 120-millimetre. I know it's available in the
23 182-millimetre because I did the trials on it.
24 Q. Okay. Now, we'll come back to firing ranges a little bit later
25 on. For the moment I want to address two questions that we discussed on
1 Monday. The first is a theory concerning the Markale I incident. Now,
2 the Judges have heard a witness refer to a theory that that incident was
3 caused by a roof-top delivery of a 120-millimetre projectile from a
4 building of five or more storeys into the market-place down below. Do
5 you accept that theory?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Could you explain why you do not?
8 A. There are a number of reasons. The first reason is that all of
9 these projectiles, then they have a fuse for a very good reason. One is,
10 of course, to initiate the explosive when it impacts the target, but an
11 important feature is for it to be safe in storage and so that the -- when
12 the projectile is actually -- before it's fired, if you dropped it, it
13 would not initiate it because the fuse prevents it from doing so. And so
14 that when the projectile is fired, it arms the fuse and it does this by
15 the setback forces. The acceleration is thousands of G, you know, so
16 that the actual setback forces on the fuse is extremely high. And so
17 it's those setback fuses that actually arm the fuse. And you have to
18 somehow -- if you had a conventional -- if you just had a 120-millimetre
19 mortar bomb, then you would have to find some way -- if you were going to
20 drop it from a building, you would have to have some way of arming the
21 fuse. And the -- just -- I think you might be able to do it if you hit
22 the back of it with a sledge hammer, but if you did that, that might mark
23 the back of the fins and you would see that on the subsequent fin. So
24 that's one of the reasons.
25 The other reason is no matter how you threw it, if you threw it,
1 dropped it, or whatever, it would almost certainly drop vertically, and
2 so that means the pattern on the ground of the fragments would, in fact,
3 be almost perfectly symmetrical. Although it's actually difficult to see
4 the fragmentation pattern of the 120-millimetre mortar on the ground, the
5 one that was actually fired, it does actually show that, in fact, it
6 was -- it did impact at an angle. So those are my main reasons for
7 discounting that theory.
8 Q. Just pausing for a moment for the interpreters there.
9 Now, you know that a 120-millimetre mortar projectile weighs a
10 little over 12 kilogrammes?
11 A. I do, yes.
12 Q. Now, in the scenario that's been raised before the Court, the
13 projectile was thrown from the top of a building of about 15 and a half
14 metres in height so that it landed on the ground a minimum distance of
15 11.1 metres away from the base of that building I've just described. Do
16 you accept that as a likely trajectory, if I may say so, or a likely
17 scenario for the Markale I incident?
18 A. No, no. I -- as I explained at our meeting, then I don't think
19 it would be physically possible to throw a 12 and a half kilogramme
20 projectile 11 metres.
21 Q. It's further been suggested that someone ran out after the
22 explosion in the midst of the dead and dying victims and plugged the
23 stabiliser into the ground before the arrival of UNPROFOR officials or
24 any Bosnian police officials. Do you accept that this is a possible
1 A. I find that highly unlikely. I've already been talking about the
2 fuse trough and this actually entering into a preformed hole formed by
3 a -- a fuse falling directly behind the fuse. The appearance in the
4 video then -- that's exactly what I would expect, that it has all of the
5 characteristics of a 120-millimetre mortar bomb strike.
6 Q. Now, it's further been suggested that the Markale I incident
7 might have been a static explosion, that it occurred on the ground. The
8 citation for that is page 12357. Dr. Allsop, do you accept the
9 possibility that -- or do you accept that it's a likely explanation that
10 this was a static explosion?
11 A. I would not accept it as a likely one.
12 Q. Do you accept it's even possible?
13 A. Possible? I -- for the same reasons, one, you've got to arm
14 this. How did the fin actually get into the hole? The only way that the
15 fin could have got into the hole is because it was actually moving
16 through the air at a higher velocity -- the projectile was moving through
17 the air at a higher velocity than the ejection velocity of the tail fin.
18 So I cannot see how the tail fin would have ended up in the hole from a
19 static explosion.
20 Q. Right. And I'll raise one final scenario for your consideration,
21 and that is the possibility of a 120-millimetre mortar projectile being
22 buried under the surface of the asphalt. Do you accept that is in any
23 way a likely scenario?
24 A. That's not possible. You would not have had that characteristic.
25 The asphalt's hardly been disturbed. You would expect quite a massive --
1 quite a massive crater formed by such an explosion.
2 Q. All right. Now, Dr. Allsop, I want to change the subject
3 slightly to a comment that you made and it concerns the safe use of
4 mortar systems. And the point of -- when I say "safe," I mean safe for
5 the crew which is firing the mortar. You said at page 13 today:
6 "The way that we go to shorter ranges is by actually reducing the
7 velocity, by going to a different charge system."
8 Now, you were talking about the scenario of a very high
9 trajectory --
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. -- at a very short distance from the intended target, where
12 there's a possibility that the wind will blow the round back and it will
13 land on your mortar crew?
14 A. That is correct, yes.
15 Q. Can you just explain to Their Honours, perhaps, a little more
16 about that. If you are relatively close to the intended target, is it at
17 all wise to use a high number of charges?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Just explain a little further why that is.
20 A. Because you would have to -- if you're close -- if you're close
21 to the target and you're -- you launch it with a large number of
22 charges - in other words, at high, high velocity - it means that you've
23 got to launch it at a very steep angle in order to achieve that short
24 range. And so that there are -- you have two problems with that. The
25 first, of course, to do with the possible danger to the crew because the
1 projectile is going to be in the air for a considerable length of time,
2 and therefore has the -- any -- providing wind acting on it for a long
4 I've also explained that when you get up to the steep angles,
5 small variations in angle actually has quite a large effect upon the
6 range. And so consequently, you have to be very, very certain that
7 you've got the thing aimed at the correct angle to actually ensure you're
8 going to hit the target.
9 Q. I want to move on to an assertion you make at paragraph 5.3 on
10 page 3 of your statement, and it was an issue which was taken up by
11 Judge Morrison and I'd like to ask a few more questions about it.
12 JUDGE KWON: Before that.
13 Doctor, do you have your report in front of you?
14 THE WITNESS: It's not on the screen.
15 JUDGE KWON: Would you like to have one in hard copy?
16 THE WITNESS: I have one in hard copy --
17 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
18 THE WITNESS: -- in my --
19 JUDGE KWON: Yes, you may consult your report at any time.
20 THE WITNESS: Okay.
21 MR. GAYNOR:
22 Q. Now --
23 A. I'll use the one on the screen for now.
24 Q. Yes. Very well. Just the -- I'm basically referring to the
25 entirety of paragraph 5.3 in which you explain the essential relationship
1 between the velocity at which the stabilising tail boom penetrated into
2 the earth in comparison to the ejection velocity. And you've explained
3 it very well there at paragraph 5.3. And I want to just ask you a few
4 questions about some ideas which flow from that paragraph.
5 A. Mm-hmm.
6 Q. Now, first of all, you confirm that that paragraph applies to the
7 situation at the Markale I incident site?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Now, the rearward velocity or the ejection velocity, as you wish,
10 will be the same regardless of the impact velocity of the projectile; is
11 that right?
12 A. The impact -- I would put it this way: The impact velocity would
13 not affect the ejection velocity.
14 Q. Right.
15 A. Although it, as I've already tried to explain, then there is a
16 variation from round to round in all of these things, in the launch
17 velocities, in the rearward ejection velocity, and so on. And so when
18 you say it would be the same, it would be -- that's why I put it in those
19 terms --
20 Q. Yes --
21 A. -- that the impact velocity does not affect the ejection
23 Q. Right. I've noticed that you rely a great deal on extreme levels
24 of precision - and that's not a criticism. When I say "the same," I mean
25 roughly the same.
1 A. Okay.
2 Q. Now, just moving on. The density of the surface on which the
3 detonates does not affect the rearward ejection velocity, does it?
4 A. That is correct.
5 Q. The angle of the projectile, the point of impact, it does not
6 affect the ejection velocity either, does it?
7 A. That is correct.
8 Q. Now, I would like to consider three scenarios --
9 JUDGE KWON: Slow down, please. Put a pause between the question
10 and answer.
11 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you for that reminder, Mr. President.
12 Q. I'm now going to turn to three scenarios. In the first scenario
13 the impact velocity is greater than the ejection velocity, so the
14 stabilising tail boom will be driven forth, towards the surface; correct?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. In the second scenario, the impact velocity is about the same as
17 the ejection velocity, so the tail boom will be retrieved in the general
18 vicinity of the impact point?
19 A. That is correct.
20 Q. And the third scenario, the impact velocity is considerably less
21 than the ejection velocity, so the tail boom might be found a
22 considerable distance, you mentioned 250 metres, from the impact site?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. Now, it follows that in the first scenario the impact velocity is
25 greater than the impact velocity in the second scenario, which is in turn
1 greater than the impact velocity in the third scenario?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. I'd now like you to consider the question of charges. The
4 Trial Chamber has received evidence that this was a 120-millimetre M62P3
5 mortar projectile. Now, we can bring up, please, 65 ter 23723B.
6 Dr. Allsop, this is an extract from the firing tables for the --
7 for this family of 120-millimetre mortars, the M74, 122-millimetre [sic]
8 mortar. I'd just like to draw your attention to the first two sentences
9 of paragraph 56 which appear on the right-hand side of that. If you
10 could read those, please. Now, can we confirm that this system is not
11 designed to be fired with zero charges?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Some mortar systems can be fired with zero charges, can't they?
14 A. Most of them, yes.
15 Q. But this particular one, no?
16 A. From that, that's correct, yes.
17 Q. Very well. Now, there are six possible charges which can be used
18 with this particular mortar system; do you accept that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Very well. Now, the velocity for -- the velocity at the moment
21 of firing increases depending on how many charges you have on it; isn't
22 that right?
23 A. That is correct.
24 Q. The more charges, the higher the firing velocity?
25 A. That is correct.
1 MR. GAYNOR: Now, perhaps I can tender that at this stage,
2 Mr. President? It's part of the firing tables. It's simply to confirm
3 that it cannot be fired on zero charges.
4 JUDGE KWON: No objections?
5 MR. ROBINSON: That's correct.
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes, this will be admitted as next Prosecution
8 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P5946, Your Honours.
9 MR. GAYNOR: I'd now like to turn to the relationship between
10 firing velocity and impact velocity.
11 Q. Now, again I'm going to invite you to consider three scenarios,
12 and in this situation I would like you to assume that the firing location
13 and the impact location are at the same altitude.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. I'd also like you to assume that the angle of impact in each of
16 these three scenarios is identical.
17 A. You say the impact, not the launch?
18 Q. The angle of impact, correct, yes. The angle of descent at the
19 moment of detonation, if you like.
20 A. The angle of descent is the same, yes.
21 Q. Yes. Now, in the first scenario --
22 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Sorry to interrupt you.
23 MR. GAYNOR: Sorry.
24 JUDGE KWON: I wanted to put this question at the last moment,
25 but it -- because this was raised. We heard two times. On my part I'm
1 confused about it. We heard "angle of descent" and "angle of impact."
2 Are they referring to the same thing or are they a different notion?
3 THE WITNESS: They are the same.
4 JUDGE KWON: They are the same?
5 THE WITNESS: Yes.
6 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
7 Please continue, Mr. -- I'm sorry.
8 So then you also mentioned, Dr. Allsop, the angle of projectile
9 and angle of trajectory.
10 THE WITNESS: That is correct.
11 JUDGE KWON: That -- is that similar -- identical to angle of
12 impact or angle of descent?
13 THE WITNESS: No. The -- what happens is that when we launch a
14 projectile into the air, it will follow a trajectory. The check -- the
15 definition of the trajectory is the line traced out by the centre of
16 gravity of the projectile through the air. So that means that the angle
17 of the trajectory is always changing. So it will start off with, say,
18 for instance, approximately 45 degrees in this direction and end up at 45
19 degrees in that direction, so you can see it's always changing --
20 JUDGE KWON: But the last angle of trajectory is identical to the
21 angle of impact?
22 THE WITNESS: The -- that's correct. But the angle of the
23 projectile does not necessarily match the angle of the trajectory. Under
24 such circumstances it's because the projectile is yawing. It's the --
25 the projectile is designed so that it should -- the angle of the
1 projectile should follow the angle of the trajectory. But under certain
2 circumstances, then it will not, so that means that it will actually be
3 yawing, the angle will be different. So then consequently it will be
4 yawing and the stabilisation system will eventually push it back so that
5 you will actually be following the same angle.
6 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Doctor.
7 Yes, Mr. Gaynor, please continue.
8 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Mr. President.
9 Q. Going back to the three situations -- the scenario I raised
10 earlier. I'd like you to consider where the impact velocity of the
11 projectile -- sorry. We were on the relationship between the firing
12 velocity and the impact velocity. Could you give the Court an idea of
13 the relationship between those two on a level playing field where the
14 firing location and the impact location are level?
15 A. The relationship between the launch angle and the impact angle?
16 Q. No, the velocity --
17 A. Okay, I'm sorry.
18 Q. Launch velocity and the impact velocity.
19 A. I'm sorry. The launch velocity and the impact velocity, the
20 relationship between those two.
21 Q. Right.
22 A. In the circumstances where there was no drag, they would be the
23 same, no aerodynamic drag. If it was in a vacuum, it would be -- but the
24 fact that it's actually passing through the air, it means there will be a
25 loss in velocity. And -- but that loss is quite small because these
1 projectiles are moving relatively slow compared to most military
2 projectiles, and so that means the aerodynamic drag is relatively small.
3 But they will be similar but always will be -- under these circumstances
4 it will always be lower.
5 Q. Okay. Now, I want you to consider just briefly - I'm sorry to
6 take you through these, but I think it's vital for us all to follow - the
7 first scenario, the impact velocity of the projectile is considerably
8 less than the ejection velocity. Now, it's likely that this projectile
9 was fired on a relatively low number of charges, isn't it?
10 A. So the impact velocity is -- could you -- I'm sorry --
11 Q. The impact velocity is considerably less than the ejection
12 velocity, so the tail boom is kicked back at -- a long way.
13 A. Not necessarily.
14 Q. Well -- that is -- I'm just going back to the equation that you
15 gave us earlier, where the impact velocity is -- of the projectile -- or
16 if you prefer of the tail boom --
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. -- at the moment of detonation is considerably less than the
19 ejection velocity, then we're going to get a kick back?
20 A. We're going to get a kick back, yes.
21 Q. Right. So the tail boom will be found, as you said, up to 250
23 A. Yes, we've agreed that part. Yes.
24 Q. Right. Now, in that scenario it's likely, all things -- I'd like
25 you to consider that this was fired on X number of charges, all right.
1 A. Yeah.
2 Q. Fair enough. Now, let's move on to the second scenario. The
3 impact velocity is about the same as the ejection velocity?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. So as we said earlier, the tail boom will be found in the general
6 vicinity of the impact location?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. So it's likely to have been fired with a higher set of charges
9 than the first scenario?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. Now, in the third scenario, the impact velocity is greater than
12 the ejection velocity?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. So the tail boom is driven into the ground?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. It's likely that in this scenario the stabiliser -- correction,
17 the projectile was fired on an even higher set of charges than in the
18 first or second scenarios?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now, we must turn now to the influence of altitude on the impact
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Now, I want you -- I want to ask you about this. Do you accept
24 as a general rule when you're firing a projectile from an elevated
25 location towards a target which is located at a lower elevation, that the
1 velocity is increased and indeed the range is increased than if you're
2 firing at a target which is located at exactly the same elevation as the
3 firing location?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Now, I want you to consider a scenario where the land rises as
6 you move away from the target. The land is rising -- I'm not suggesting
7 it's rising uniformly, but it's rising into hills?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. It goes from 400 metres and carries on to about 700 metres,
10 perhaps 6 kilometres away, so that around 7-, 750 metres. So around 6
11 kilometres away the firing location is around 700 metres higher than the
12 impact location?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now, I'd like to go back to our three scenarios again, and again
15 I would like you to assume that the angle of the projectile at the moment
16 of impact in each of these three scenarios is identical.
17 A. Okay, yes.
18 Q. Now, on the first the impact velocity of the projectile is
19 considerably less than the ejection velocity?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. So it has been fired on X number of charges?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. In the second, the impact velocity is about the same as the
24 ejection velocity?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. The tail boom is found in the general environment --
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. -- of the impact location?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. It's likely to have been fired on a higher set of charges than in
6 the first scenario?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Now in the third scenario, the impact velocity is greater than
9 the ejection velocity.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. The tail boom is driven into the ground.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. It's likely to have been fired on an even higher set of charges
14 than the first scenario or the second scenario?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Now let's just examine more closely the influence of altitude.
17 If, for the sake of argument, you were to fire a projectile at a target
18 located around 6 kilometres away at a charge 6, and you were located
19 around 750 metres above the altitude of the target, the effect of
20 altitude would be some acceleration and some greater range?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Yes. Now, if you were to fire the projectile from much closer to
23 the target where the altitude difference is less than the effect on
24 acceleration and range would be less than in the first scenario I've
25 just mentioned?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Okay. So that is to say the acceleration due to the difference
3 in altitude would be more pronounced in the case of a projectile fired
4 from 6 kilometres away than in the case of a projectile fired from a
5 firing location closer to the target?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. So I'm going to invite you to consider that assuming that the
8 angle of a projectile at the moment of detonation is identical and you're
9 firing on charges 1 through to 6 in the scenario I've just mentioned, for
10 the tail fin to be embedded into the ground at the impact location, it is
11 more likely that it was fired on a higher set of charges than on a medium
12 set of charges or a low set of charges?
13 A. I'm not sure that's the case. I can see that -- I can see your
14 argument leading up to this because what you're saying is that -- the
15 thing which I'm having difficulty with is this high, medium, and low. In
16 other words, what you're implying is that it will be charge 6, charge 3,
17 and charge 1. I could imagine a set of circumstances where it would be
18 charge 1, 2, and 3.
19 Q. Well, let's take it that we at least agree that for the tail fin
20 to be embedded in the ground, it must have been higher than for the tail
21 fin to be found in the general vicinity of the impact location and in
22 turn higher than for the tail fin to have been found 250 metres away?
23 A. Those impact velocities, yeah, that is correct, yes.
24 Q. So we can agree on that essential scenario, can we?
25 A. Yes, there -- I have some concerns with -- you're using the words
1 "likely" and you're using exact figures. The trouble is that ballistics
2 isn't like this. In other words, your -- you have a range of ejection
3 velocities. If you took your tail fin -- if you took the whole -- if you
4 took ten mortar bombs onto a firing range and you fired it statically,
5 though those ten, what you would find is you would have a range of
6 ejection velocities. You have a dispersion. If you did a calculation
7 and you sat down and you said: I'm now going to calculate what the
8 ejection velocity was and it was possible to do that -- but nevertheless,
9 let's assume it was possible to do that, you would come up with an
10 ejection velocity of 200 metres per second. Theoretically, every one of
11 those projectiles that you detonated would have an ejection velocity of
12 200 metres per second. That's not the case. If you carried out your
13 test you would find that there is a dispersion of velocities, and that
14 dispersion would have a standard deviation --
15 Q. Okay. Can I just interrupt you there. We'll get on to ejection
16 velocities in a second. Just give us a percentage indication of the
17 approximate dispersion in the ejection velocity using, you know, fairly
18 well-produced 120-millimetre mortar systems?
19 A. That's the problem. We don't have that data. The only place
20 that you can get that data is from firing trials and nobody's carried out
21 those firing trials.
22 Q. Right. Now, you accept that the former Yugoslavia had a highly
23 advanced weapons manufacturing industry before the war?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. They had very advanced testing systems as well as factories?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now, it's fairly likely, I put it to you, that one 120-millimetre
3 mortar round produced by that industry is likely to have approximately
4 the same performance properties as another round of the same model
5 produced in the former Yugoslavia?
6 A. I'd -- this is where I would disagree with you because, in fact,
7 in my experience I'm amazed -- you would say my experience is not of the
8 former Yugoslavia-produced mortar bombs. Mine -- my experience is
9 testing 81-millimetre mortars and 60-millimetre mortars and produced in
10 Germany and produced in the UK. And what I'm always surprised about is
11 the big variation in the performance of the fragmentation from the --
12 from round to round. And it's a major problem for me because I have to
13 do the -- I actually have to do the lethality calculations afterwards.
14 And so that I have to put these large tolerances on, which is not like
15 the [indiscernible] by the analysis, but nevertheless they -- they are
16 much greater than you would think they are.
17 Q. Okay. Now, I'm -- just want to take you up on ejection velocity.
18 In your evidence in chief at the end of page 20 you said if the ejection
19 velocity of the tail fin is very low, for instance, on our 81-millimetre
20 mortar, then the tail fin ejection velocity appears to be very low, you
21 recall that evidence?
22 A. I certainly do, yes.
23 Q. And you went on to say that it's very rare that you find a tail
24 fin near the site of 81-millimetre mortars?
25 A. Correct.
1 Q. Now, when you said the ejection velocity of the 81-millimetre
2 system is low, are you -- what are you comparing that against?
3 A. The other fragments which are actually produced. Basically when
4 we test a munition, we test it -- we test it for fragment distribution,
5 fragment size, and fragment velocity. And so we get a range of
6 velocities. One of the -- one of the things which we notice is that
7 the -- the fuse is normally ejected at reasonably high velocities, sort
8 of --
9 Q. Sorry, when you --
10 A. -- hundreds of metres per second --
11 Q. So when you were talking of ejection velocity in that scenario,
12 you were talking ejection velocity of the shrapnel, not of the --
13 A. No, no, the tail fin.
14 Q. It's the tail fin. Well then --
15 JUDGE KWON: Just pause.
16 MR. GAYNOR: All right.
17 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please continue.
18 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Mr. President.
19 Q. Could you -- do you happen to know whether the tail fin ejection
20 velocity, which you describe as very low in the 81-millimetre mortar
21 system, is higher in the 120-millimetre mortar system? Do you happen to
22 know the answer to that?
23 A. I don't know the answer to that. I don't know what the ejection
24 velocity is on the 120-millimetre mortar, but I know that the ejection
25 velocity on the 81-millimetre mortar we're talking about between 40 or 50
1 metres per second.
2 Q. Do you accept that the 120-millimetre mortar system's likely to
3 have a higher ejection velocity?
4 A. It is likely to have a higher ejection velocity than that, yes.
5 Q. Right. Now, I'd like to move back to the question of firing
6 ranges. You visited test firing site, I think you mentioned one in the
8 A. Yes, yes.
9 Q. Have you visited test firing sites in other countries?
10 A. Not in other countries. I've visited several test firing sites
11 in the UK.
12 Q. These are military test firing sites?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Right. Now, is it fair to say that in order to safely test
15 mortars and artillery, you need a very large piece of land in order that
16 you don't hit anyone, hit any civilians?
17 A. Yes, we use Salisbury Plain.
18 Q. Right. And these are other test firing sites or in locations
19 where they are clearly warned to the public to stay away?
20 A. Yes, right.
21 Q. So you can bring a mortar crew there and you can fire around 3 or
22 4 kilometres and you're quite sure that nobody's going to be injured?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Right. Now these are -- these test firing sites are usually
25 located in areas such as grasslands, hilly areas, boggy areas, that kind
1 of environment; is that true?
2 A. There that -- yes. There are exceptions to that.
3 Salisbury Plain and then in certain areas where we actually do our firing
4 is quite flat actually and it's quite well kept and it's -- yes.
5 Q. Now, the 120-millimetre mortar system or any anti-personnel
6 mortar system is not designed to be used in an urban environment, is it?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. So when you're training your armed forces to fire these systems,
9 you bring them to one of these firing ranges and you let them fire, then
10 no doubt mortar crews are trained in crater inspection; do you agree with
12 A. No, they often -- they don't get the opportunity of seeing the
14 Q. Well, insofar as a mortar crew does get training in crater
15 analysis, it would take place in this sort of soft surface environment;
16 do you accept that?
17 A. If -- yes, but as I say, mortar crews wouldn't actually inspect
18 the -- would not inspect the crater. The reason being that when they're
19 firing high explosive rounds, then some of them do not go off, they're
20 called blinds. And so what you have, you have an impact area, and they
21 don't allow people in there to look at these things purely because of the
22 danger of unexploded bombs.
23 Q. Okay. Well, do you accept that certain armed forces, including
24 the Australian armed forces, the American, and I believe the British, do
25 train personnel - possibly not the mortar crews - in the art of crater
2 A. That's correct. That's almost certainly likely to be the -- the
3 ammunition technical officers, the ATOs, the bomb disposal, and
4 specialist people like that who have to go along and inspect incidents
5 rather than being part of the army which is actually trained for using
6 the weapons.
7 Q. Very well, Doctor. You accept that this training takes place
8 largely in a soft surface environment?
9 A. It would be that type of range, yes.
10 MR. GAYNOR: Can I ask the Registrar please for 23960F.
11 Q. Now, this is -- these some photographs taken from Eagle River
12 Flats in 2007 by the United States army corps of engineers, I believe.
13 Now, these are obviously photographs of soft surface craters, do you
15 A. I would agree.
16 Q. Now, they're fairly messy?
17 A. I would agree.
18 Q. The shrapnel pattern is far less defined than you find in a hard
19 surface environment?
20 A. I would have thought so, yes.
21 MR. GAYNOR: I'd just like to tender that --
22 THE WITNESS: Could I just mention that, in fact, what you see is
23 blast damage here. You're -- being pedantic as you noticed. This is due
24 to the blast damage. And in fact, you'd expect the fragment damage to be
25 farther out from -- and this is what you would be more interested in.
1 But nevertheless, because it is grassland, then it's very difficult to
2 actually see the actual fragment impact area.
3 Q. Very well.
4 A. But for a different reason for from what you've said.
5 Q. Very well. And I think we've agreed that the shrapnel pattern is
6 much clearer in a hard surface impact than a soft service impact?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Right. Now if one were to take army personnel and to train them
9 in fuse furrow analysis, it would take place in craters possibly looking
10 a bit like this; do you accept that?
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. GAYNOR: Could I tender that, please, Mr. President?
13 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P5947, Your Honours.
15 MR. GAYNOR:
16 Q. I'd like to turn now to --
17 JUDGE KWON: Shall we take a break, now?
18 MR. GAYNOR: Any time Your Honours wish. I'm happy to break now,
20 JUDGE KWON: Oh, I'm sorry, I was mistaken. Yes. We have 15
21 minutes more.
22 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
23 Q. Now I want to turn to some data that we discussed on Monday.
24 MR. GAYNOR: Could I ask the Registrar, please, to bring up
25 65 ter 23960D.
1 Q. Now, this is taken from a 1955 American study entitled:
2 "Fragmentation of Brandt 120-millimetre mortar ammunition." Are you
3 familiar with the Brandt or Thompson Brandt 120-millimetre mortar system?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Do you accept - I can give you the facts, if you wish - do you
6 accept that it is very similar in terms of the mass of the body without
7 the stabiliser, the mass of the stabiliser, the mass of the TNT in it,
8 the mass of the fuse, and the length of the body, it's very similar to
9 the M62, 120-millimetre mortar system from the Yugoslavia arms industry?
10 A. The general characteristics appear to be very similar, yes.
11 Q. Very good. Now, at the bottom of the photograph.
12 MR. GAYNOR: Perhaps we can zoom in on the bottom part which is
13 coloured -- yes, that's perfect. Thank you very much.
14 Q. Now, just under the dotted red line we see Fuse Frags and it
15 seems to say 127 pieces. Do you see that?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Now, this suggests that the fuse has fragmented upon or in the
18 milliseconds or microseconds after detonation into 127 pieces?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now, below that we see the tail fragments and of interest far to
21 the right is the stabilising tail boom which appears to be intact. Do
22 you accept that?
23 A. I accept that, yes.
24 Q. So the stabilising tail boom is perfectly intact and the fuse has
25 been blown to smithereens, to use an Irish expression.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Do you observe that?
3 A. Yes.
4 MR. GAYNOR: Could I tender that, please, Mr. President.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P5948, Your Honours.
6 MR. GAYNOR: Now I'd like to take us to 65 ter 23960E.
7 Q. This is test data from five test firings of the 120-millimetre
8 Brandt mortar system. And if we again focus on the right-hand side where
9 the red and the green are, we see there -- if you're having trouble
10 reading it, let me know, Dr. Allsop, but we see the Fuse Frags total, and
11 underneath we see the weight and -- that's in the left-hand column, and
12 on the right we see the number. Do you see that?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now, in the first test firing there are 90 fuse fragments, in the
15 second there are 82, in the third there are 88, in the fourth there are
16 127, and in the fifth there are 107 fuse fragments?
17 A. Yeah.
18 Q. Do you accept that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now, below that we see the figure 1, 1, 1, 1, 1. Do you see
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Now perhaps the Registrar can just move to the left. And we see
24 that those figures refer to the tail?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. So in all five of these test firings, the tail is intact and the
2 fuse has been fragmented in many pieces?
3 A. Yes.
4 MR. GAYNOR: I'd like to tender that, please, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P5949, Your Honours.
7 MR. GAYNOR:
8 Q. Now, do you agree that as a general matter aluminium is softer
9 than steel?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Do you agree as a general matter that an aluminium fuse is more
12 likely to be broken into fragments upon impact than a steel fuse, for
14 A. No, I would accept the opposite.
15 Q. Well, perhaps -- you remember we did discuss this on Monday?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Now, is that what you told me on Monday?
18 A. We were discussing this and I -- I explained that the aluminium
19 is more malleable --
20 Q. Yes. Malleability may well be higher, but do you accept that
21 steel is harder?
22 A. Yes, but hardness is not an issue as far as the ability to
23 actually fragment. I would accept that the aluminium would be more
24 likely to be distorted --
25 Q. Okay.
1 A. -- but to actually break into fragments, you've only got to look
2 at the work of Mott, which was about the same time as Gurney, and he
3 explains that the size of the fragments and the amount of fragmentation
4 is dependent upon the brittleness or the opposite, the ductility. Also
5 on the relationship between stress and strain, which is the
6 Young's modulus, so that the lower strung -- strain, Young's modulus,
7 then the less likely is to fragment. The aluminium has got about
8 one-fifth the size of a -- and so on. So that as far as fragmentation is
9 concerned, then steel is probably likely to fragment more than aluminium.
10 Q. Okay. Now, let's move from the general to the specific, and I
11 want to just inform you that the Trial Chamber has received a file of
12 photo documentation taken by a crime scene detective who visited the
13 Markale I incident site, took remnants from that site, cleaned, in fact,
14 the impact site, and took photographs of remnants which were taken from
15 the area around the impact location.
16 A. Mm-hmm.
17 MR. GAYNOR: Those, for the record, the photographs taken are
18 P1709, higher definition versions of those photographs have been admitted
19 as P1970.
20 Q. Now, I'm going to bring up a photograph which is based on one of
21 the photographs which has been admitted.
22 MR. GAYNOR: So I'd like to call for 65 ter 23960C, please.
23 Q. Now, you'll recall that we discussed this photograph on Monday?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Now, those markings, I think it's fair to say, were put there by
1 Dr. Zecevic and not by you; is that correct?
2 A. That's correct, yes.
3 Q. Now, do you have any reason to doubt Dr. Zecevic's identification
4 of what he appears to believe are remnants of the fuse?
5 A. I think that the tip of fuse, that's fairly self-evident. The --
6 yes, it looks logical, yeah.
7 Q. Now, do you also accept that this -- we've already seen it in the
8 American photograph, and you know for your experience in this field, I
9 believe, but do you accept that this is merely a very small number of the
10 total fragments which resulted from the detonation of the Markale I
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Do you accept that you cannot see any intact fuse in this
15 A. That is correct. These were collected from the surface --
16 Q. Yes --
17 A. -- or from under the surface?
18 Q. These were collected before removal of the --
19 A. Fine, yeah.
20 Q. -- projectile is my understanding.
21 A. Yeah.
22 MR. GAYNOR: I'd like to tender that, Mr. President.
23 JUDGE KWON: But just for the record, this is part of what
24 exhibit and page what?
25 MR. GAYNOR: This is the photograph of the remnants of the
1 Markale I projectile appear in the photo book relating to the Markale I
2 incident which has been admitted as P1709. Now, because that photo book,
3 especially when displayed on e-court, is somewhat indistinct, we also
4 tendered high-definition versions of these photos which the crime scene
5 detective Sead Besic brought with him here to The Hague. Those were
6 admitted as P1970.
7 JUDGE KWON: Yes, I just checked the P1970 which consists of only
8 nine pages, and I didn't see this photo, but if there's no objection from
9 the Defence there's no difficulty admitting it.
10 MR. ROBINSON: We don't have any objection, Mr. President.
11 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
12 MR. GAYNOR: Actually, Mr. President, you might be right. These
13 probably appear in P1709 not P1970.
14 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
15 This will be admitted.
16 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P5950, Your Honours.
17 MR. GAYNOR:
18 Q. Now, do you accept on the basis of this photograph - and I think
19 you referred to it in your testimony earlier, I can bring it to you after
20 the break - that it is at least possible if not very likely that the
21 Markale I fuse fragmented into several pieces upon impact with the
22 asphalt surface?
23 A. Yes.
24 MR. GAYNOR: Perhaps we can break there for the moment,
25 Mr. President.
1 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
2 We'll break for 45 minutes and resume at 10 past 1.00.
3 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.25 p.m.
4 --- On resuming at 1.18 p.m.
5 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Gaynor, please continue.
6 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Mr. President. I'll note for the record
7 that the photograph which has been admitted as Exhibit P5950 is an
8 annotated copy of the photograph which appears at page 16 in the B/C/S
9 version of P1709.
10 Q. Now, Dr. Allsop, we were on the question of the fuse at the
11 Markale I impact site. You're aware that several people personally
12 inspected the interior of the hole which was created after the stabiliser
13 was removed?
14 A. I was not.
15 Q. Are you -- would you agree that finding an intact fuse at the
16 impact site would have been of some assistance to the investigative teams
17 investigating this incident?
18 A. I wouldn't expect an intact fuse, but certainly large components
19 of that fuse, yes.
20 MR. GAYNOR: Now could we call up please D2370.
21 Q. This is the diagram which you marked during your evidence in
22 chief. Now in this diagram you've marked an intact fuse; isn't that
24 A. I marked an intact fuse to show the extra components that I would
25 expect on there and from which fragments would have been left at the top,
1 if you see what I mean.
2 Q. Yes. Now, in your earlier evidence today you said:
3 "If for some reason the fuse completely disintegrated and was
4 dispersed somehow sideways so that it did not -- so that no part actually
5 impacted directly in front of it, then -- and if the stabilising tail --
6 stabilising boom was actually found in the ground, it can only be because
7 the forward velocity of the stabiliser boom at impact was actually
8 greater than its ejection velocity."
9 You recall that evidence?
10 A. Yes. In what context was that?
11 Q. You said it earlier on during your evidence in chief.
12 A. Is that when we were discussing different scenarios?
13 Q. It was --
14 JUDGE KWON: Would it be possible to show the part of that
15 transcript to Doctor.
16 MR. GAYNOR: Yes.
17 JUDGE KWON: By -- can we use Sanction or can we use e-court.
18 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, it's page 24.
19 Q. This was not in response to a question from me. It was in -- I
20 believe we'll have a look at it. Do you see it in the middle at line 10.
21 A. I'm just looking at in what context. Here we said: Thank you.
22 Why do we refer to that -- thank you. Why do we refer to that --
23 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters kindly ask the witness to
24 speak to the microphone. Thank you very much.
25 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. It's where I'm leaning forward to see
1 the screen. Unfortunately, wearing glasses I difficulty in actually
2 seeing the screen without leaning forward. Can I just see if I can --
3 there, that's better.
4 MR. GAYNOR:
5 Q. Dr. Allsop, perhaps I can --
6 JUDGE KWON: Take your time, Doctor --
7 THE WITNESS: I --
8 JUDGE KWON: You can answer the question after having read them
10 THE WITNESS: I'm reading what leads up to this question because
11 I'm trying to see in what context the question was asked. Okay. Yeah.
12 MR. GAYNOR:
13 Q. Now, are you aware that in the Markale I incident there's been no
14 evidence admitted so far that an intact fuse was recovered from the hole
16 A. I am aware of that. I'm not -- I wasn't aware that anybody'd
17 searched for it.
18 Q. Now, you had a look at the photograph before the break and you
19 accepted the possibility, if not the likelihood, that the fuse in this
20 incident disintegrated upon impact with the asphalt surface?
21 A. By "disintegrated," you mean completely -- I accept it would have
22 broken up.
23 Q. It fragmented?
24 A. It -- yes. I normally -- we normally refer to "fragmented" as
25 the action of the explosive. What you're talking about here is the
1 action of the impact. So that it broke up into parts.
2 Q. Yes.
3 A. Yes. And -- yes, I accept that it may have broken up in -- well,
4 it obviously did break up into some component parts because apparently
5 some of them were actually found on the surface.
6 Q. And you accept that upon break up into those component parts and
7 upon impact with the surface, those component parts would be likely to
8 move in a lateral direction; that's what you alluded to in your earlier
10 A. A lateral --
11 Q. Yes --
12 A. Sideways --
13 Q. Yes --
14 A. The other component parts that were --
15 Q. The fragments of the fuse.
16 A. The fragments of the fuse as opposed to those that were actually
17 embedded in the ground?
18 Q. Well, we don't know that there were any embedded in the ground,
19 do we?
20 A. I think we're talking at cross-purposes here.
21 Q. Mr. -- or Dr. Allsop, rather, on the basis of the photographs
22 you've seen --
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. -- of the fragments of the Markale I fuse, do you accept that
25 there was, in fact, no fuse furrow created in the Markale I incident?
1 A. No, I think that it would appear that we had the fuse -- part of
2 the fuse break up and was therefore dispersed on the surface, and that
3 the remainder of the fuse was actually driven into the ground.
4 Q. Certainly there was no hole created by an intact fuse, was there?
5 A. By a -- not by an intact fuse, no.
6 Q. Now, I would like to move to question of reference which has been
7 made. You've said in paragraph 9.1 of your report that:
8 "Investigators have mentioned that this produces a hole (known as
9 the fuse trough or fuse furrow) that is often sufficiently intact in
10 shape to allow the angle of impact and the heading of the mortar bomb to
11 be calculated from the ovoidal shape of the mouth of the hole."
12 You can check your report if you wish.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. It's common ground, I think, that several of the people who
15 looked at the hole at the Markale incident have used terms like "fuse"
16 "funnel" or "fuse furrow."
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. That's agreed. Now, I'm going to put it to you that the hole
19 created in the Markale I incident was relatively well defined. Do you
20 accept that?
21 A. It was fairly well defined because of the penetration of the
22 boom -- stabilising boom into the ground, correct.
23 Q. Now, if we accept the speed of the penetration of the boom, do we
24 accept that there was some compression of the material around which the
25 boom was embedded?
1 A. Yes, because as it -- as it penetrates, that material's got to go
2 to go somewhere, and so the only way is to actually move out radially and
3 that would compress the soil radially, yes.
4 Q. And Their Honours have heard evidence from Dr. Zecevic who
5 replaced the tail boom into that hole and from others who carried out
6 fuse furrow methods on that hole. I'm simply letting you know that.
7 A. Okay, yes.
8 Q. Now, I'm going to put it to you those who have used the term
9 "fuse furrow" or "fuse tunnel" to refer to that hole were, in fact,
10 referring to a hole which had been created by the impact of the
12 A. In this instance that may well be the case, yes.
13 Q. Now, I'd like to move at this stage to the question of asymmetric
14 damage at the front end of the stabilising tail fin.
15 A. Yes.
16 JUDGE KWON: Before going further I wanted to make this
17 statement. For the record, the paragraph 9.1 referred to was the one
18 appearing on page 7, not on page 8, because we have two 9.1.
19 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you.
20 Q. Now, we can agree, I believe, that the front part of the tail
21 boom shows damage which is of an asymmetric nature?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Now, you have concluded that -- I'm looking at paragraph 5.5 on
24 page 4, and there you talk about the failed surfaces forming a point
25 which is offset from the centre of the longitudinal axis, you're
1 essentially talking about the asymmetric damage, aren't you?
2 A. I am.
3 Q. And then you say:
4 "This can only be because the shear forces were asymmetric which
5 would have caused the stabilising tail boom to rotate about its centre of
6 gravity by an unknown amount."
7 Is that still your evidence?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Now, I put it to you that there are two potential causes for an
10 uneven break in materials. First an uneven force is applied to the
11 object, such as you have posited; or second, there is an uneven natural
12 breaking point in the material itself so the force applied may be totally
13 symmetric but that the object will break in an asymmetric fashion. Do
14 you accept that?
15 A. The force the time of failure would have been symmetric, but the
16 force acting on the tail boom goes beyond the force acting at that time.
17 What will happen is that the failure would have been asymmetric;
18 therefore, the gases flowing from the explosion -- explosive products,
19 they would have been asymmetric, and so that the forces exerted on the
20 tail boom would have also have been asymmetric.
21 Q. Now, can I put it to you that in that answer and -- well, no,
22 let's set aside that answer. Let's be reasonable here. In your report
23 you have made these assertions about fairly difficult ballistic
24 properties without citation to any academic articles or any testing data
25 whatsoever. Is that fair to say?
1 A. That's fair to say, yes.
2 Q. And, in fact, in your entire report I believe you have referred
3 to one item outside a number of exhibits and transcripts provided to you
4 by the Defence and that one item is a thesis for a Ph.D. by a student
5 acting under your supervision; is that correct?
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. Okay. Now, I want to move on to the question of the journey of
8 the stabiliser from the moment of detonation until the moment it
9 terminated its journey in the ground. Okay.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Now, that distance is approximately 50 centimetres. Do you
12 accept that?
13 A. Yes -- I'm sorry, I'm using to working in millimetres, yes.
14 Q. 500 millimetres.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Now, in your report you refer to the potential effect of the
17 remnants of the expanding gases during that trip?
18 A. I do.
19 Q. Now, you've given us some helpful indication of the relationship
20 between the velocity of the outward blast compared to the velocity of the
21 projectile. I believe that today you referred to a speed of 6.9
22 kilometres per second --
23 A. That's the detonation wave.
24 Q. That's the detonation wave. Could you give us an idea -- a rough
25 approximation of the speed of the shrapnel and gas moving outward just in
1 those microseconds after detonation?
2 A. The speed of the fragments from the shell body, they would have
3 been between 1- and 2000 metres per second, typically -- well, those are
4 the typical fragment velocities for this type of munition. And the gases
5 themselves, then they are likely to be at least twice that, two or three
6 times that, where they actually vent past and expand into the atmosphere.
7 Q. So it's fair to say that the outward movement of the gas and
8 shrapnel is very much higher than the inward movement of the projectile?
9 A. It certainly is, yes.
10 Q. Now, do you accept the basic contention that gas tends to expand
11 in a uniform manner?
12 A. We've had this argument before I think. What do you mean by
13 "uniform manner"?
14 Q. Well, just to bring everyone else up-to-date, on Monday during
15 our meeting I took down those words and those were the words which you
16 yourself said in your discussion to me. All other things being equal,
17 gas expands in a uniform manner where there is a very high pressure
18 environment, heading outwards to atmospheric pressure on all sides.
19 A. In uniform what we have is that we have a pocket of gas and so
20 that that would have -- that would have expanded out in a uniform manner
21 inasmuch as that it would have been perfectly symmetrical about that --
22 about the centre of the actual gas ball itself.
23 Q. You said perfectly symmetrical?
24 A. Perfectly symmetrical, there would be some modifications to that
25 purely because at the moment that the -- that you -- at the moment that
1 you have interruption by -- from fragments, et cetera, that gas -- we
2 have this ball of gas and we have these -- we have the -- and we have --
3 which are expanding outwards, we have the fragments which are expanding
4 outwards, obviously the fragments are getting farther and farther from
5 the centre of the explosion, so that that will be perfectly spherical at
6 that point. A point will be reached where the gasses will actually hit
7 the surface of the ground in one instance and that will start modifying
8 the actual gas flow, but it will be actually symmetrical, yes.
9 Q. The purpose of the tail fins on a stabiliser are to maintain
10 stability of the projectile while it travels through the atmosphere?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. So extrapolating slightly from that, the purpose of tail fins is
13 to maintain stability while the object is passing through a cloud of gas?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. Okay. Now, I want to move to the question of the potential
16 impact of moisture on the impact location. Now I think you pointed out,
17 and I think it's common sense, that if one sticks a spade into soft soil,
18 the spade will go in fairly easily?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. If you stick a spade into very hard soil, it will be much harder?
21 A. It will, yes.
22 Q. So there's no question that moisture plays a role --
23 A. Now you're assuming that the hardness of the ground is due to the
24 presence of moisture.
25 Q. Yes, absolutely. Thank you for that clarification. Now, you're
1 aware that the Markale Market surface was asphalt?
2 A. I am.
3 Q. Which is also known as Tarmac essentially?
4 A. It is, yeah.
5 Q. And that is a waterproof substance. Water will form in puddles
6 on a flat Tarmac road, won't they?
7 A. It will, but it also -- it will actually seep through the Tarmac
8 as well.
9 Q. Is --
10 THE INTERPRETER: Kindly make a pause between question and
11 answer. Thank you.
12 MR. GAYNOR:
13 Q. It is essentially designed to be non-porous?
14 A. It is, yes. It's designed to actually shed water off of the
16 Q. There is no evidence, in fact, that it was a rainy day on the day
17 of the event in question. I'm putting that to you. Do you have any
18 reason to disbelieve that?
19 A. No, I have no reason to disbelieve that.
20 Q. Well, I put it to you that the subsurface material probably did
21 not have any moisture content which could have really affected these
22 measurements to any great extent?
23 A. I find that very surprising. Water does not just get into soil
24 from rain in the atmosphere. It gets into the soil from a variety of
25 areas. It depends upon the level of the water table. And water also,
1 because of its capillary action, will actually move sideways so that I
2 would find -- I would be staggered if, in fact, the material underneath
3 the Tarmac was actually dry.
4 Q. I'll move on now.
5 MR. GAYNOR: I would like the Registrar to bring up P1970,
6 starting at page 5.
7 Q. We're going to look at some photographs of the Markale I impact
8 location, both prior to its cleaning and after its cleaning and indeed
9 prior to the -- putting up some chalk marks around the shrapnel damage.
10 You'll see all that in a moment. Their Honours have received evidence
11 about this. Essentially towards the top of this photograph,
12 approximately where the horizontal metal bar meets the vertical metal bar
13 is the impact location.
14 A. Mm-hmm.
15 MR. GAYNOR: If we could move to the next photograph, please.
16 Could we move to -- if that was photograph 5, I'd like the one prior to
17 the last photograph, please.
18 Q. Now, there we see the impact location again. As you can see,
19 there hasn't been any cleanup and you can't even see the top of the
20 stabiliser fin. Do you agree with that?
21 A. I agree with that, yes.
22 MR. GAYNOR: Perhaps we could move one back again.
23 Q. Now here we -- you can see the top of the stabiliser fin; do you
24 agree with that?
25 A. I agree with that, yes.
1 Q. Okay. Now perhaps we could look at some other photographs. I'd
2 like to call up, please, 65 ter 23063 and go to photograph number 4.
3 This was taken on the following day. You can see that chalk has
4 been marked around the impact location; do you see that?
5 A. I can see that, yes.
6 MR. GAYNOR: Can we have the next photograph, please.
7 Q. You see again that chalk has been marked around the impact
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Now, if you see the upside down figure 18, that represents the
11 azimuth that was measured at the site.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Now, as you're aware, Dr. Zecevic measured the angle of impact
14 based on the stabiliser which he re-inserted into the hole on the day
15 after the impact. You're aware of that?
16 A. I am aware of that.
17 Q. Now, he measured it to be 60 degrees, and he himself adds a
18 margin of error of 5 degrees to either side, which is to say from 55 to
19 65 degrees.
20 A. I know he quoted this 5 degrees and I don't know how he came to
21 that figure.
22 Q. In his evidence I think he used the word out of modesty, but in
23 any event we can accept that it's a margin of error of 10 degrees. Do
24 you accept that 55 to 65 is 10 degrees. We agree on that?
25 A. Well, I don't what that --
1 Q. Well, I'm simply asking you to confirm. The margin of error was
2 from -- is 10 degrees, right?
3 A. I cannot confirm that that was the -- that that was the -- that
4 that was the error --
5 Q. Right. I'll put it a different way. That is the margin of error
6 which was applied by Dr. Zecevic and which Their Honours are -- have
7 received in evidence. All right. I'm simply letting you know.
8 Now, you referred in your earlier evidence to the minimum and
9 maximum angles of fire. Do you remember that?
10 A. The 45 and 85 degrees.
11 Q. Very good, yeah. And could you give the Court an idea of the
12 minimum and maximum angles of impact of this mortar system?
13 A. That would be at approximately -- approximately 5 degrees more in
14 both instances. That would probably be about 50 degrees and approaching
15 90 degrees.
16 Q. Well, let's just talk about 90 degrees for a moment. In what
17 kind of combat environment would a 90-degree impact angle occur?
18 A. When you were firing at 85 degrees, then it would come down
19 almost vertically.
20 Q. Okay. Let's just have a think about the wisdom of that form of
21 operation. Is it the kind of mortar attack that any sane mortar crew
22 would undertake?
23 A. Because it's coming down at 90 degrees it doesn't mean it's
24 coming down directly on top of you. It will actually have moved out and
25 then be coming down at 90 degrees.
1 Q. Very well. And just so I'm clear on this myself: What's the
2 distance between firing location and impact location in that scenario?
3 A. You would -- most mortars are not used under any circumstance
4 that will actually impact closer than 500 metres to the crew.
5 Q. I think we discussed this a little earlier, but essentially
6 because of the possible impact and wind, et cetera --
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. -- it would be incredibly unwise to use that
9 [overlapping speakers] situation?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. So let's go back to your minimum and maximum rational angles. We
12 would start with 50 and what would you say is the top end?
13 A. Around 85.
14 Q. Around 85 . So that's 35 degrees?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. Now, Dr. Zecevic in the evidence which he provided to the Chamber
17 has included a margin of error of 10 degrees out of a possible range that
18 you've identified of 35 degrees. So he's approaching a margin of error
19 of around -- I'm trying to do the calculation. It's certainly around 33
20 per cent. Do you accept that?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now, that is a fairly generous margin of error; can we agree on
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Now, if -- even if one were to accept any of the issues which
1 you've raised in your report, I put it to you that the possible impact on
2 the trajectory of the projectile caused by any of those issues during
3 those 50 centimetres that it travelled at high speed before being lodged
4 into the ground was more than adequately taken into account by a margin
5 of error of over 33 per cent?
6 A. Can I just read what you've just said because I'd --
7 Q. Please, take your time.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Right. Now, I want to ask you -- you might want to clarify one
10 of the assertions you make in your report which is at paragraph 11.1.
11 I'll read it out. You say:
12 "There was very little evidence on which to base a forensic
13 investigation into where the mortar was fired from."
14 You recall that?
15 A. I do.
16 Q. Now, we'll get to precision in a moment, but for the moment I just
17 want to understand the nature of the forensic evidence that you had at
18 your disposal before you reached that conclusion. Could you give the
19 Court a brief description of what the Defence provided to you relating to
20 the Markale I incident?
21 A. Yes. I -- I don't think I've got a list -- they actually sent me
22 a number of reports and transcripts from previous trials. I should have
23 brought the list with me; I'm sorry I didn't.
24 JUDGE KWON: Did you look into other documents which is cited in
25 your report?
1 THE WITNESS: That would be the one. Can I --
2 JUDGE KWON: It's page 10 of your report.
3 THE WITNESS: Let me just have a look.
4 There were -- there was other material other than that that was
5 sent me because the -- these -- yes. I received probably twice as
6 many -- I think about twice as many reports and transcripts of that.
7 MR. GAYNOR:
8 Q. All right. Now, I just want to clarify some other points. You
9 have never visited the Markale Market yourself?
10 A. I have not.
11 Q. Since you were never there, you have, I presume, no basis for
12 disputing the observations of those who were directly at the scene and
13 who saw it firsthand?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Specifically the observations of those who saw the impact
16 location and cleaned around it?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. Those who inspected the hole prior to putting the stabiliser back
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. You did not participate in the gathering of any remnants from the
23 A. I did not.
24 Q. Now, you did not have the opportunity to visually inspect the
25 buildings around the area --
1 A. I did not --
2 Q. -- to assist you -- thank you -- in the determination of the
4 A. I did not.
5 Q. So you accept that you've been provided by the Defence with a
6 very partial view of the evidence relating to this incident? Or do you
7 accept that -- maybe put it another way. Do you accept that you might
8 not have been provided with all the evidence that the Trial Chamber has
9 before it?
10 A. I accept I have not been provided with all the evidence, but
11 whether there is any other evidence which is relevant I don't know.
12 Q. Well, I put it to you that you're not particularly well-placed to
13 state that there was very little evidence on which to base a forensic
14 investigation into where the mortar was fired from?
15 A. In the reports, then the reports concentrated on calculating the
16 velocity of impact and the angle of impact, and the position from which
17 the mortar was fired from was calculated from these two factors alone.
18 And therefore I had all of the information on how they were determined.
19 Q. Very well. At this point I'll get to my final point in a moment.
20 MR. GAYNOR: Could I tender those photographs. They were
21 taken -- they were provided to the Prosecution by Sead Besic and they are
22 not already in evidence.
23 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President, we're going to object to that
24 because of a lack of foundation through this witness.
25 MR. GAYNOR: Well --
1 JUDGE KWON: I don't see the point. This -- we are talking about
2 23063, page 4?
3 MR. GAYNOR: Yes --
4 JUDGE KWON: The picture we had --
5 MR. GAYNOR: 23063, page 4, and the preceding couple of
6 photographs which I showed to the witness.
7 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Robinson.
8 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President. While the witness has been
9 asked to make comments on these photographs but there has been no real
10 provenance other than what Mr. Gaynor has indicated about the
11 photographs, who took them and when they were taken, et cetera.
12 MR. GAYNOR: Is the Defence disputing the authenticity of these
13 photographs? Do I understand that?
14 MR. ROBINSON: I have no dispute with it. I have no way of
15 knowing, actually, but I take the Prosecution's word that they are
16 genuine photographs, but Mr. Besic was here and could have been asked if
17 they were useful.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE BAIRD: Mr. Robinson, the Defence is not challenging the
20 authenticity of the document, is it?
21 MR. ROBINSON: No.
22 JUDGE BAIRD: So what then is the main thrust of your objection?
23 MR. ROBINSON: That there's no foundation for the -- for the
24 photographs being admitted through this witness.
25 JUDGE BAIRD: No legal foundation?
1 MR. ROBINSON: Right. The witness has not really been able to
2 comment on these photographs with the knowledge of exactly where they're
3 from or at what time they were taken.
4 JUDGE BAIRD: Thank you.
5 MR. GAYNOR: Mr. President, if I may respond.
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Gaynor.
7 MR. GAYNOR: First of all, the witness -- I don't believe the
8 witness is disputing or has in any way disputed that these are
9 photographs of the Markale I incident site. These documents go directly
10 to the assertions by the witness concerning the distance which the
11 projectile travelled before impact, his assertions concerning the
12 accuracy of the measurements which could be made at the incident site,
13 his assertions concerning the depth to which the projectile -- the
14 projectile's tail fin travelled before coming to rest, and they are also
15 relevant - apart from their relevance to understanding his evidence - to
16 assessing the credibility of the witness on these specific points.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE KWON: The Chamber thinks there's a basis to admit this
19 picture, but could you identify the page numbers that were shown to the
20 witness. There are five photos, I take it.
21 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, just one moment, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE KWON: Is this not the only one?
23 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
24 JUDGE KWON: I was told that page 4 and 5 --
25 MS. GUSTAFSON: That's my understanding, Mr. President.
1 JUDGE KWON: -- were shown. They will be admitted as the next
2 Prosecution exhibit.
3 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P5951, Your Honours.
4 MR. GAYNOR: I'm grateful, Mr. President.
5 Q. Dr. Allsop, I'd like to deal now with the question of accuracy of
6 data, and you have quite properly emphasized many times in your testimony
7 how important it is to have very accurate data. Now, I want you to
8 consider for a moment a scenario where you and I are a mortar crew and we
9 are coming under fire and we wish to return fire.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Now, in order for us to return fire, we must know the precise
12 location of the gun which is firing upon us. Do you agree with that?
13 A. No.
14 Q. All right.
15 A. If you are returning fire, is the purpose of this in order to
16 intimidate or to actually hit the target? It may be that you don't know
17 where the -- in military terms, and quite often you don't know where the
18 gun is being fired from, but fire is actually returned in the general
19 direction to intimidate, to let the -- let the opposing side know you are
20 there and that you're -- if they do actually find out where you are, to
21 actually -- to actually engage you.
22 Q. Very well. Now, let's consider a couple of the scenarios you've
23 raised. Now, if we wish to hit a precise gun, then we must take all the
24 relevant factors into account, including the angle of impact of, let's
25 say, a crater that we're inspecting, including the possible speed of the
1 projectile, including the weather conditions, you have to take all of
2 that data into account very carefully, don't we?
3 A. I'm sorry. Can I just read that?
4 So let's consider a couple of scenarios. If we wish to hit a
5 precise gun, then we must take all of the relevant factors into account,
6 including the angle of impact of let's say a crater that -- including the
7 weather conditions --
8 Q. Let me start again, Dr. Allsop.
9 I want you to consider that you're analysing a crater with a view
10 to returning fire at the gun which created that crater?
11 A. You're going to shoot back?
12 Q. Yes. I want you to just consider that for a moment.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. With the aim of not harassing fire, but of obliterating that gun?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Then you must have incredibly precise data to figure out where
17 that gun is?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Now if you're trying to hit harassing fire within a hundred metre
20 radius of that gun, then the data can afford to be a little less
21 accurate. Do you agree with that?
22 A. As I've already said, that the -- within a hundred metres, I --
23 Q. I'm not tying you to the figure of a hundred metres. What I mean
24 is if you go from trying to hit a precise target located many kilometres
25 away to hitting an area many kilometres away, the degree of precision of
1 the data that you need to know goes down?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. Now, if you're trying to hit not only the area around that gun
4 but a much larger area, the precision of the data you need goes down much
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Now, if you are trying to determine whether you have come under
8 fire from a location which is over 2.800 metres away in approximate
9 direction of fire or under 2.800 metres away, then again the amount of
10 data you need is less. Do you accept that?
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. GAYNOR: Mr. President, I have no further questions.
13 JUDGE KWON: Now the translation has been completed.
14 Yes, Mr. Karadzic, do you have any re-examination?
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Excellency, a few
17 Could Dr. Allsop please have a look at photograph number 5.
18 9949, I believe, which is in the e-court system at the moment. Could he
19 have another look at the photograph.
20 Re-examination by Mr. Karadzic:
21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Can you see that photograph, Doctor?
23 A. This is the one that's on the screen at the moment? Yes, I can
24 see that.
25 Q. Please have a look at this butterfly, this drawing, would you
1 have drawn the central line that represents the direction from which the
2 shell came or would you have drawn it a little to the left or a little to
3 the right?
4 A. This one is very difficult because you can see that in an ideal
5 world that this should be perfectly symmetrical, this shape, and so that
6 that would then be very -- very, very straightforward to actually align
7 the axis along the line of symmetry. Unfortunately, as I was saying
8 earlier, the fragmentation pattern is more erratic than that. And you
9 can see in this particular case that the person did this, then he did the
10 correct thing, he chalked around the area surrounding those fragments,
11 and you can see that there are actually gaps in the fragment pattern. So
12 it's then a matter of judgement as to how you actually align that axis.
13 I must admit that the person that did that probably has more
14 experience at doing these things than me, and so that -- I don't really
15 think that I could improve upon that.
16 Q. Thank you. Do you agree that to the left of this axis there's a
17 wider area than to the other side, and if it were moved further to the
18 left, less than 18 degrees of the azimuth, would this be erroneous?
19 A. As I've already said that in an ideal world this would have been
20 perfectly symmetrical, but it's not. I think that there's a degree of
21 error. I think that the person who actually drew that was drawing upon
22 his experience, and would probably say that that is where he thinks it
23 is. And I think you could make an argument that there is some degree of
24 area associated with that, but I don't think that I have the -- I have
25 the expert knowledge in order to comment further on that.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we have a look at the
3 previous photograph. Could we zoom in to the central part where we can
4 see the stabilising boom.
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Dr. Allsop, what is your opinion of these pebbles or rocks that
7 we can see between the fins? How'd they get there and when? What is
8 your opinion? Or was this perhaps fastened in this manner? Were the
9 fins perhaps fastened in this manner?
10 A. The reports indicate that the actual surface was sand and gravel,
11 so that I assume that those stones that you see come from the actual
12 gravel and this is the sort of thing you'd expect. I expect the reason
13 that they're between the fins in that manner is that during the
14 penetration into the ground then they -- in order -- as it was
15 penetrating, it probably deflected on -- to the part of least resistance
16 and so that they would have probably ended up in that manner. They may
17 have also -- or you may have some of them which have actually fallen in
18 from the top of the -- because we know that this was actually covered
19 with fine layers of -- fine layer of asphalt almost dust. And so
20 consequently it could -- I just don't know. I can't offer any other
21 explanation than that.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we have a look at a different
24 photograph, 9947, a photograph we saw earlier on.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Dr. Allsop, would you agree that the soil in this photograph
2 doesn't seem to be dry? One would sooner say that the soil was moist?
3 A. It's actually very difficult to tell from the photograph by -- it
4 does look as if it is moist.
5 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness speak into the microphone,
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Thank you --
9 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
10 Yes, Doctor, did you complete your answer?
11 THE WITNESS: I think so. It does appear to be moist, but I am
12 looking at a photograph.
13 JUDGE KWON: Yes, your answer didn't -- wasn't fully reflected in
14 the transcript.
15 THE WITNESS: Okay.
16 JUDGE KWON: You said it looks as if it --
17 THE WITNESS: It looks as if then the surface is wet, but this is
18 only an appearance that -- I'm commenting on an appearance in a
20 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Gaynor, do you know when this picture was taken?
21 MR. GAYNOR: I believe it was the day after the incident,
22 Mr. President.
23 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
24 Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Dr. Allsop, do we agree that this photograph was taken after the
2 stabiliser boom was re-inserted?
3 MR. GAYNOR: Mr. Karadzic is formulating his questions in a
4 somewhat leading fashion I suggest.
5 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. In that case, Dr. Allsop, do you know when the stabiliser boom
9 was removed and do you know when it was re-inserted into the tunnel?
10 A. I can't -- I cannot tell from these photographs whether this was
11 before or after. When I did my analysis, then I had a copy of the video,
12 and what I did then I -- the video clearly showed the stabiliser boom in
13 the ground, which was actually being uncovered from the asphalt. And
14 then it clearly showed the stabiliser boom after it had been re-inserted.
15 I didn't see on the video it being taken out or re-inserted. But from
16 these photographs, I can't tell whether this was before or after.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we have this photograph, just
19 this part that shows the stabiliser boom, to the left part of the screen;
20 and could we have photograph number 48 shown on the right part of the
21 screen. Could we have the next photograph shown on the right part of the
22 screen. Could we zoom in the photograph to the right, the central part
23 of that photograph.
24 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, would you like us to rotate the
25 picture on the right side?
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. That would be better.
2 Then we can see whether there is any difference. By 180 degrees. Yes,
3 that's fine.
4 THE WITNESS: They appear to be the same picture.
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Very well. It looks different from that other perspective.
7 Thank you.
8 Dr. Allsop, may I ask you the following. If this photograph was
9 taken on the following day and after the stabiliser boom had been removed
10 and then re-inserted, in that case what would you say about these small
11 rocks, what is their purpose, and how is it that they are in the position
12 that they are in?
13 A. There's no -- there is no reason whatsoever for re-inserting the
14 pebbles between the fins. To me, they appear to be almost the same
15 photograph. I can't see any difference -- I'm trying to actually -- I'm
16 comparing different features and I can't see -- I can't see any real
17 differences. Even to -- if we take the stone which is in the 4.00
18 position, you can see that that's actually lodged on the top and it seems
19 to be the same stone. So it looks to me as though it's the same --
20 almost the same photograph.
21 Q. Thank you, Dr. Allsop. Yes, you can see it's the same -- the
22 perspective was different, but what I'm interested in is the following.
23 If these rock appeared there after the stabiliser boom was re-inserted
24 into the tunnel, well, what was the purpose of doing this? Does this
25 help one when an analysis is being conducted or does it make that
1 analysis more difficult?
2 A. I can't see the reason for doing it, to actually place the rocks
3 back in exactly the same position, because the -- for instance, the one
4 that I was referring to, the boom must have actually been placed in there
5 and then the rock placed on top of it. Why I do that, I have no idea.
6 Q. Thank you.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we have a look at P1970 and
8 then photograph number 7.
9 JUDGE KWON: Before doing that, shall we add photo number 3 to
10 the Exhibit P5951?
11 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President. Thank you.
12 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, no objection. Thank you.
13 JUDGE KWON: Yes, that will be done.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Photograph number 7.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. When you have a look at this photograph, is your impression that
17 the soil is wet? The date is the 5th of February.
18 A. Yes. On this lower right-hand quadrant, then that appears to be
19 almost a mixture of water and soil there.
20 Q. Thank you. When you were asked about trials at the firing range
21 in Great Britain, trials conducted only with one type of soil or various
22 types of soils used when these trials are conducted? I'm referring to
23 page 62 of today's transcript.
24 A. The firing trials that I carried out in the UK, then they were
25 against a wide range of soils to see the effect on penetration because we
1 were primarily looking at developing a disrupting device for buried,
2 improvised explosive devices. And although it was going to be used in
3 the current conflict in Afghanistan, it was also going to be used in a
4 wider context than that. And so we wanted to actually look at soils
5 other than those commonly encountered in Afghanistan. So we looked at
6 loam, sand, gravel, and so on.
7 Q. Thank you. On page 66 mention was made of the possibility of the
8 entire fuse having fragmented, of all the parts remaining on the surface.
9 In such an event, what would the fuse tunnel look like and what would the
10 surface of the stabiliser boom look like?
11 A. If the fuse has completely disintegrated and was lying on the
12 surface of the ground, then there would not be a fuse tunnel. And the
13 surface of the stabiliser, it really depends where the
14 fragments whether -- as to whether they actually interacted with the --
15 with the stabiliser as it impacted the ground. So I'm not sure.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we have a look at
18 P947 [as interpreted].
19 JUDGE KWON: Could you check the number again, Mr. Karadzic.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I believe it is a photo, 5947, a
21 photo of an area or some grounds in the UK. P947, P947 [as interpreted].
22 [In English] P5, P5, P5947.
23 [Interpretation] Yes.
24 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Dr. Allsop, look at the photo and tell us something about the
1 sticks that you can see here. What do they mark? What do they denote?
2 A. Typically these would be used as reference points. The one with
3 the red top on it, that appears -- the -- that appears to be close to the
4 fuse funnel. And I -- typically I think that that would be used to
5 actually align -- a rod to actually measure the actual angle of the fuse
7 Q. Thank you. What about impact angle, would a stick or a rod point
8 to that as well?
9 A. I'm assuming that in this photograph that a rod or a stick could
10 actually be aligned with the fuse funnel and somehow marked on this stick
11 in order to calculate the angle of impact of the projectile. But
12 these -- I don't think these were actually fired in the UK, were they? I
13 these were actually fired in America.
14 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, these are photographs from Eagle River Flats in
15 the United States.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Well, in any case it seems that the impact or the angle of the
19 impact was almost vertical; right?
20 A. Looking at the actual shape of the impact crater, I would assume
21 that the -- it's actually aligned as we -- slightly to the left, a line
22 probably pointing at 11.00, and it looks as if it was actually an impact
23 that -- actually a fairly shallow angle.
24 Q. Thank you. When it comes to mortars and other weapons for
25 indirect fire, can they produce horizontal fire? Can they fire a
1 horizontal projectile?
2 A. If you fire the projectile horizontally, then you would have
3 nothing to absorb the recoil. And I should imagine that the mortar would
4 actually recoil back very violently. The other thing with a
5 120-millimetre mortar, then it does have a -- it can be fired with a
6 lanyard so that you can actually drop the mortar bomb down the barrel and
7 it won't fire, and then you can actually fire it with a firing mechanism.
8 You can use that fixed firing pin so that when it drops down, it is --
9 then the fixed firing pin actually fires the mortar. And typically in
10 the UK we always use the type with a fixed firing pin, so you couldn't do
11 that with a fixed firing pin but you can with a lanyard. You could
12 actually fire horizontally. I've actually used a 51-millimetre mortar
13 for actually firing 51-millimetre projectiles in an indoor firing range
14 because we were doing some impact trials, but the recoil was horrendous.
15 Q. Thank you. Dr. Allsop, if the shell that fell on Markale had
16 been fired from a distance of 4 kilometres, where would you expect the
17 apex of that trajectory to have been?
18 A. The apex of the trajectory is usually just beyond the midpoint.
19 I would have expected it to be something like 2.2 kilometres, that order,
20 2.2, 2.3 kilometres from the firing point for -- over the distance of 4
22 Q. And what about height of that apex? Where would you expect that
23 to be?
24 A. If we're firing at -- it really depends upon which charge we're
25 using and at what angle we're actually firing it. So that if we were on
1 top charge but firing at high angle, then typically the maximum height
2 that a projectile can be fired is normally about 80 per cent of its
3 maximum range. So if we were firing at very high angle, then the -- then
4 the height of the apex would be 5 kilometres. These things go very high
5 into the air.
6 Q. Thank you. Would you expect a shell that travels so far would
7 also produce some sort of a noise, a sound?
8 A. Mortars are much quieter than artillery shells. The -- one of
9 the reasons that the infantry did not like mortars is because they take
10 them by surprise. They don't hear them coming, usually, and so they
11 don't have time to take cover. The noise that you hear from an artillery
12 shell is due to its rotation, very high rates of rotation, and you can
13 hear them as they pass over you. On our firing ranges, then often they
14 will fire from one side of the Salisbury Plain to the other and you will
15 be doing trials in the middle, and so you hope that the gunner has got
16 his calculations right. But the shells will be passing over the top of
17 you to a -- probably at a height of 2 kilometres. And you can definitely
18 hear them. But that's due to the rotation of the shell.
19 And -- but mortars are -- once they're in the air, then they are
20 very, very quiet. They have a very low drag, so that means that they
21 have very little disturbance of the air, they're subsonic, so they don't
22 produce a sonic boom, and because they come down steeply, as well, steep
23 angles, they come down from a height and they are difficult to hear.
24 Q. Thank you. Does it sometime happen that a stabilising boom with
25 zero charge plus 1, that the surface burns and that there are the traces
1 of that burn?
2 MR. GAYNOR: Objection, that's a leading question.
3 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Does the temperature - and how often - leave the traces of
6 burning on the surface of the stabilising boom and does the number of
7 charges have an impact on that?
8 MR. GAYNOR: Objection, that's another leading question. Second,
9 I'm not sure that this arises out of the cross-examination.
10 JUDGE KWON: I didn't follow what the second question was about.
11 But in any event, could you reformulate your question,
12 Mr. Karadzic.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. This has not been
14 interpreted correctly. I said whether it happens and how often.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Does the burning of the charge and how often, if it does, leave
17 the traces of burning on the surface of the stabilising boom? I believe
18 that my question is not leading. I don't know how else to formulate it.
19 JUDGE KWON: Could you explain to us how it arises from the
20 cross-examination of Mr. Gaynor?
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellency, there was a
22 reference to the traces, mechanical traces and others, on the surface of
23 the stabilising boom. We were talking about the surface of the
24 stabilising boom and that's why I'm interested in the traces and marks
25 left by burning and whether the number of charges have -- has an impact
1 on those traces.
2 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Gaynor.
3 MR. GAYNOR: Mr. President, there has not been any evidence given
4 about traces of burning due to charges on the surface of the stabilising
5 tail boom given today -- or certainly not in my cross-examination or I
6 believe in the direct.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We did discuss traces, but those
8 were mechanical traces, and now my question is whether the burning of the
9 propellant leaves marks and traces as well. But it's up to you.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE KWON: The Chamber will allow that question to be put.
12 But do you remember the question, Doctor?
13 THE WITNESS: I think so.
14 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
15 THE WITNESS: The only marks that are normally left on the
16 stabilising boom actually comes from the primary charge. If we think
17 that the boom, it actually has -- it's actually hollow, and you have the
18 vent holes which are drilled into the side, and so that when the weapon
19 is fired then the propellant burns inside the tail boom itself. They
20 vent sideways to ignite the augmenting charges, but the hot-burning
21 propellant, as it burns through those holes, then they tend to erode the
22 surfaces. And if you actually look at the stabilise -- a photograph of
23 the stabilising boom, you'll notice that the holes are actually oval and
24 that's where they've actually been eroded by the propellant gases. Those
25 are the only marks that you get from the propellant and -- on the tail
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Thank you. My last question, Dr. Allsop. From everything that
4 you saw, from everything that you studied, and based on all that, can you
5 conclude that it -- there is every reason to doubt that the Serbs had
6 fired the shell that hit Markale in 1994?
7 JUDGE KWON: I don't think it is for the Doctor to answer that
9 MR. GAYNOR: Mr. President, could I seek leave to put to the
10 witness one question which arises from the redirect?
11 JUDGE KWON: And what's the question you'd like to put,
12 Mr. Gaynor?
13 MR. GAYNOR: The question concerns the --
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I did not finish. If there is no
15 answer to my previous question, then I intend to rephrase it, to
16 reformulate it.
17 JUDGE KWON: I don't think that's the kind of question
18 appropriate to be put to the witness, but that was the last question. Do
19 you have any other question, Mr. Karadzic?
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would ask the witness whether
21 today after having prepared his report and after having studied the case,
22 whether he would still adhere to that report.
23 THE WITNESS: Yes.
24 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Gaynor.
25 MR. GAYNOR: Mr. President, my question concerns the witness's
1 identification of some water and soil he said on photograph next to --
2 could I ask the Registrar, please -- thank you, Mr. President.
3 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please proceed.
4 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Mr. President. Could I ask the
5 Registrar, please, to bring up P1970, photo 7.
6 Further Cross-examination by Mr. Gaynor:
7 Q. While he's doing that, I'll remind you, Dr. Allsop, of what the
8 evidence is. Dr. Karadzic asked you:
9 "When you have a look at this photograph, is your impression that
10 the soil is wet? The date is the 5th of February."
11 Your answer was this:
12 "Yes, on this lower right-hand quadrant and that appears to be
13 almost a mixture of water and soil there."
14 Now, Dr. Allsop, I simply want to put to you two sentences from
15 the statement of the person who took this photograph and who cleaned that
16 area. This is from P1966, the amalgamated witness statement of
17 Sead Besic. At page 9, this is a transcript from a previous trial at
18 this Tribunal, Dr. Allsop, the witness was asked:
19 "You referred to trying to find the place where the projectile
20 fell. Did you find that place?"
21 The witness answered:
22 "Yes, we did. We located it and we started to record the scene
23 of the crime because the actual location there were -- there was lots of
24 human tissue, lots of blood, a lot of items. I personally proceeded to
25 clean this area so that we could see as much as possible the actual
1 projectile and the way the projectile landed."
2 My question to you is this: Is the area to the bottom right
3 quadrant of the screen consistent with an area from which a lot of blood
4 and human tissue has previous -- has recently been cleaned?
5 A. I don't think I'm really able to answer that. It looks as if it
6 has been cleaned, yes. But whether it's been cleaned from blood and
7 tissue, I don't know, because they've been cleaned away.
8 Q. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Allsop.
9 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Gaynor.
11 Yes, Judge Morrison has a question for you.
12 Questioned by the Court:
13 JUDGE MORRISON: Dr. Allsop, if I recall correctly, you said at
14 one stage in your evidence that one of the areas that you've investigated
15 as part of your professional work has been the issue of the lethality of
16 rounds. Is that correct?
17 A. That is correct.
18 JUDGE MORRISON: And it's a slightly awkward noun, but we all
19 know what it means. A lay view might be this, that the -- there is a
20 radius of lethality which will depend upon the power of the explosion and
21 the amount of fragments which are discharged above the ground. Is that a
22 fair proposition?
23 A. That's a fair proposition, but the blast has a much less range
24 than the fragments. It's typically -- it's like 10:1 so that if you had
25 a lethal radius, for instance, of 20 metres, you'd expect that the blast
1 radius would only be lethal to about 2 metres and the fragment site at 20
3 JUDGE MORRISON: Yes. And the lethality of a fragment will
4 depend on its mass and its velocity presumably.
5 A. That is correct.
6 JUDGE MORRISON: And whether or not it's lethal given any
7 particular target will depend upon whether, for instance, that person was
8 wearing protective clothing or whereabouts on the -- his or her physique
9 the actual -- the piece of shrapnel penetrated.
10 A. That is correct. When we do the lethality studies, then what we
11 do is we do it statistically, and so, for instance, the body is reckoned
12 to have a lethal area of 17 per cent of its actual area. But although we
13 talk about lethality, then what we're really looking at is
14 incapacitation, not lethality itself, and in fact all of the studies are
15 based towards incapacitation rather than lethality.
16 JUDGE MORRISON: So the number of people who might be injured, if
17 not killed, really depends on the number of people who are within the
18 lethal radius of the shrapnel?
19 A. Correct.
20 JUDGE MORRISON: Thank you.
21 JUDGE KWON: Before we adjourn, I have one further question,
22 Doctor, I would like you to assist the Chamber again.
23 You told us the angle of descent and angle of impact are the one
24 and the same concept?
25 A. Right.
1 JUDGE KWON: But I'm of the impression -- but some witnesses are
2 using those terms interchangeably but some witnesses seem to try to
3 distinguish them. So can I show you one witness statement.
4 Can we upload Exhibit P1276. This is a witness statement of
5 Ekrem Suljevic who was a part of the MUP of Bosnia and who participated
6 in the investigation of Markale I shelling. Page 4, paragraph 15. Yes.
7 If you could read the paragraph.
8 A. Paragraph 15?
9 JUDGE KWON: Yes. He says:
10 "I am familiar with the concepts of direction of fire, angle of
11 fire ... range ... angle of descent ... and the angle of impact ..."
12 So -- but if you read the words -- phrases in the parenthesis, he
13 explains the angle of descent as "the angle at which the projectile
14 descends, which changes during the flight of the projectile," which is
15 similar to the angle of projectile you explained to us earlier on.
16 A. Again, he's talking about the same thing. The angle of descent
17 is quite correct, that the angle of descent it will -- the projectile is
18 fired into the air so that it is ascending. It will then -- it will then
19 start descending so that that angle -- obviously it's horizontal at that
20 stage. By the time it actually impacts onto the ground it's at the angle
21 of impact.
22 JUDGE KWON: So at the moment of impact, angle of descent, angle
23 of impact, angle of projectile, angle of trajectory, all should be the
25 A. Should be the same.
1 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellencies, may I be allowed
3 to put just one short question to the witness that arises from the
4 questions of His Excellency Judge Morrison?
5 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
6 Further Re-examination by Mr. Karadzic:
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Dr. Allsop, when it comes to fatality, how would the obstacles
9 impact the lethal properties of a certain weapon, do they increase it or
10 decrease it?
11 A. It really depends upon the -- upon what these are. If we take
12 something like plywood, I'll say 10-millimetres' thickness, and you're
13 fairly close to it, then this projectile would go straight through, it
14 won't -- they'd -- it'd make a very little -- have a very little effect
15 on their velocity and the direction. But what can happen is that they
16 can actually produce secondary projectiles, and so that means that you
17 can create lethal and injurious splinters so that you have a number of
18 different effects, so that if you have something which is more robust
19 they can actually stop, stop some of the projectiles.
20 What we have to remember is we saw on one of the photographs
21 that -- or one of the pictures that the Prosecution showed us and it
22 showed to the distribution to the sizes of the fragments, and some of
23 them are extremely small, they're very, very small indeed. In fact, they
24 make up the majority of the fragments, and these are much more easily
25 stopped but they -- by such things as, you know, 20-millimetre-thick
1 plywood, for instance. And then we have some of the large projectiles,
2 they would go a long way and they would do an awful lot of damage. They
3 would actually -- some of them would pass through two or more people. In
4 fact, we did some work on the -- a reconstruction of a suicide bomb which
5 had 6-millimetre ball bearings and they were travelling at 1.800 metres
6 per second, and they went through the equivalent of three people, and act
7 at 25 metres. So you can see that it really depends upon the
8 characteristics of the fragments and the actual -- and also the actual
9 barriers to them. So I'm afraid all I've told you is that there are a
10 lot of different -- a lot of different effects.
11 Q. Unfortunately the interpretation was not good. I was
12 particularly interested in obstacles such as the stalls at the market.
13 Did they increase or decrease the number of casualties?
14 A. The stalls at the market, I would say that they probably
15 decreased the number of lethal effects, purely because -- as I say that
16 the majority of the fragments are, in fact, very small and are more
17 easily stopped. Their velocity degradation is very high so they don't
18 travel as far, so that as soon as you start getting much beyond by 5, 10
19 metres, then I think the stalls would have easily stopped those -- those
20 small fragments. So the answer is they probably reduced the number of
22 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Doctor. That's it. And that concludes
23 your evidence. On behalf of the Chamber I would like to thank you,
24 Doctor, for your coming to The Hague to give it, and now you're free to
1 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
2 JUDGE KWON: But we all rise together.
3 The hearing is adjourned.
4 [The witness withdrew]
5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.54 p.m.,
6 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 1st day of
7 November, 2012, at 9.00 a.m.