Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 5384

 1                           Thursday, 12 March 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 2.15 p.m.

 5             JUDGE ROBINSON:  The Chamber -- [French on English channel] -- be

 6     doing that tomorrow.

 7             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, there's actually a mix-up.  We can't

 8     hear you.  There's a mix-up, a technical problem.

 9             JUDGE ROBINSON:  You're not hearing me?

10             MR. GROOME:  We're getting French on the English channel.

11             JUDGE ROBINSON:  I see.  Maybe that's telling you something,

12     Mr. Groome.

13             Okay.  I'll repeat it.  I was saying the Chamber issued an order

14     today, and I believe you'll all have received it.  Tomorrow we will have

15     a discussion on it.  I don't want any discussion on it at this time.

16             Mr. Cepic.

17             MR. CEPIC:  Your Honour, with your leave I would like to raise

18     some different issue.

19             JUDGE ROBINSON:  A different issue.

20             MR. CEPIC:  Absolutely different issue.

21             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Okay.  And I am to say that in the absence of

22     Judge Van Den Wyngaert, Judge David and I sit pursuant to the provisions

23     of Rule 15 bis.

24             Yes, Mr. Cepic.

25             MR. CEPIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  During the cross-examination

Page 5385

 1     of some of OTP witnesses, both parties use OTP 65 ter Exhibit Number

 2     177.12, which is the map of Visegrad area.  So I kindly ask admission of

 3     that -- of that exhibit entire -- as entire map.  And I spoke to

 4     Mr. Groome and to Mr. Alarid, there is no objection in that way.

 5             JUDGE ROBINSON:  We'll admit it then.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  That's Exhibit 2D59, Your Honours.

 7             JUDGE ROBINSON:  The next witness, Mr. Alarid.

 8             MR. ALARID:  Your Honour, today we bring the witness we have

 9     available today is Stephen Patrick O'Donnell.

10                           [The witness entered court]

11                           WITNESS:  STEPHEN PATRICK O'DONNELL

12             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Let the witness make the declaration.

13             THE WITNESS:  I solemnly declare to speak the truth, the whole

14     truth, and nothing but the truth.

15             JUDGE ROBINSON:  You may sit.

16             And you may begin, Mr. Alarid.

17             MR. ALARID:  Thank you, Your Honour.

18                           Examination by Mr. Alarid:

19        Q.   Good afternoon, Mr. O'Donnell.

20        A.   Good afternoon.

21        Q.   How are you doing this afternoon?

22        A.   Fine.

23        Q.   Could you please state your -- excuse me.  Could you please state

24     your full name for the record, please, spelling it as well.

25        A.   Stephen Patrick O'Donnell, S-t-e-p-h-e-n P-a-t-r-i-c-k

Page 5386

 1     O'D-o-n-n-e-l-l.

 2        Q.   And please tell the Court where and when were you born.

 3        A.   Chicago Illinois, 1973.

 4        Q.   And where do you now reside?

 5        A.   Albuquerque, New Mexico.

 6        Q.   And are you married?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   And do you have any children?

 9        A.   Yes, three.  Two girls and a boy.

10        Q.   What are their ages?

11        A.   13, 7, and we have a brand new baby boy of 2 months.

12        Q.   And please tell us about your education starting with high

13     school.

14        A.   I graduated from Grayslake High School in a northern suburb of

15     Chicago, and went away to the Marine Corps for -- on active duty for four

16     years.  And when I got done with the Marine Corps, I went back to

17     Chicago.  I went to college for a year.

18        Q.   So in post-secondary school where did you go to college?

19        A.   Western Illinois University.  It's in Macomb, Illinois, which is

20     near the Mississippi river.

21        Q.   And any other post-secondary or speciality education?

22        A.   Other than the military schools that I've gone through, no.

23        Q.   Okay.  We'll go through that in a second.  Let's first talk about

24     your service.  Tell us about when you served for the United States Marine

25     Corps.

Page 5387

 1        A.   I served from September of 1991 to September of 1995 on active

 2     duty, and from 1995 to 1996 in a reserve unit.

 3        Q.   And where did you serve?

 4        A.   For the Marine Corps I went through boot camp in MCRD in

 5     San Diego and then was stationed just outside Memphis, Tennessee for NA

 6     school, which was my primary job in the Marine Corps, which was on the

 7     aviation side of the house, cryogenics, ground support equipment in

 8     cryogenics.  And then from there I was stationed at Cherry Point,

 9     North Carolina for an advanced school, and then, finally, in Hawaii, and

10     later at Camp Pendleton in California.

11        Q.   That was what advanced school?

12        A.   It was the systematic breakdown of the -- basically the LOX vans

13     that we used which produced liquid nitrogen and liquid oxygen for the

14     aircraft.

15        Q.   And any other specialised training that you received during the

16     Marine Corps?

17        A.   My last two years on active duty I was a primary marksmanship

18     instructor for the marine Corps.  I basically taught other marines how to

19     shoot the pistol and the rifle.

20        Q.   And what was a rank or position did you achieve in the Marine

21     Corps?

22        A.   I was a corporal which is Enlisted 4.

23        Q.   And what clearance level, if any, did you hold as a marine?

24        A.   As a marine I held a secret security clearance.

25        Q.   And why did -- does every marine hold a secret security

Page 5388

 1     clearance?

 2        A.   Not every member of the US military forces hold a clearance; it

 3     depends on what occupational speciality you're in and depending on the

 4     classification that dictates to which level of clearance you hold.

 5             THE INTERPRETER:  Please slow down for the sake of

 6     interpretation.  Thank you.

 7             MR. ALARID:

 8        Q.   Did you ever see combat or hostile fire during your tenure in the

 9     Marine Corps?

10        A.   No, I did not.

11        Q.   And tell us about the reserve marines.  I believe it was 1995,

12     1996.

13        A.   Yes, during that time-frame.  That was a reserve unit which was

14     located in a suburb of northern Chicago.

15        Q.   And any -- what were your duties during that time period?

16        A.   I was basically a -- my MOS was not held at that unit so I was

17     being kind of cross-trained, not going basically to the school, military

18     school for a specific job.  I was not required to do that time.  It was

19     inactive service time, but I chose to do it.  After a year because of

20     civilian occupation I chose to leave.

21        Q.   And did you get any additional training?

22        A.   At the reserve centre, no.

23        Q.   Okay.  Any change in rank or position?

24        A.   No.

25        Q.   And how and why did you leave the US Marine Corps?

Page 5389

 1        A.   I performed my contract which was four years active duty, four

 2     years inactive duty time.  I was up for re-enlistment.  The fields, the

 3     field that I belonged to, the job that I belonged to, there was basically

 4     the -- the promotions had been frozen due to what we classify as retreads

 5     from other MOSs coming into our job field after --

 6        Q.   Just a moment.  What is an MOS?  You said that twice.

 7        A.   I'm sorry.  It's a military occupational specialty, is what MOS

 8     stands for.

 9        Q.   And just for those of us that aren't used to the acronyms, would

10     you please tell us at least once what they mean.

11        A.   Sure.

12        Q.   And did you receive an honourable or dishonourable discharge?

13        A.   I an honourable discharge.

14        Q.   What is an honourable discharge?

15        A.   An honourable discharge is you've provided -- or gone through

16     your time and provided good conduct for the -- for the time that you're

17     in the military.

18        Q.   Did you receive a positive or negative appraisal of your service?

19        A.   Positive appraisal.

20        Q.   And why did you leave?

21        A.   Again it was -- times were different.  The hierarchy of the

22     Presidency, you know, who was in office.  We were under a democratic

23     ruling which is not favourable to people in the military, so I chose to

24     leave at that time and try new avenues back home.

25        Q.   And when did you -- in between returning to the military, what

Page 5390

 1     did you do?

 2        A.   Worked several jobs.  I was a head hunter for a company that

 3     provides positions with corporations for prior service individuals, and I

 4     worked construction my last year.  Between the break in service of the

 5     three year time-frame, I went to college.

 6        Q.   And tell us about your return to the military.

 7        A.   After two semesters at Western Illinois University, I struck out

 8     and sought the advice and the help of a recruiter and decided to enlist

 9     in the United States Arm specifically for the EOD programme which is

10     explosive ordnance disposal.

11             MR. ALARID:  And, Your Honour, at this time I would like the

12     Court's assistance with 1D22-0611.

13        Q.   And what I'm just bringing up here on the screen here,

14     Mr. O'Donnell, is a copy of your latest resume.  I believe we tendered

15     with our notice your next to most recent, and we can have it on the

16     screen to follow or refer to as needed.

17             MR. ALARID:  We still have a technical difficulty, but we'll keep

18     moving here.  What I would like to do is possibly with the Court's

19     assistance briefly as we talk about the military, can we have the

20     court usher put something on the ELMO for us.

21             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, I haven't seen these before.  Is there

22     a copy we can have to --

23             MR. ALARID:  It's going to be just for demonstrative purposes

24     only.  It's only meant to make a point.  It will take two to three

25     questions.  We can e-mail them to you, though, immediately.

Page 5391

 1        Q.   Now, we -- we kind of looked at this a little bit earlier during

 2     our preparations, but just generally speaking, what are the things on the

 3     screen here as you know them from your military experience?

 4        A.   They are representation of military unit or specifically several

 5     Marine Corps unit patches, insignia patches.

 6        Q.   And did you have opportunity during your time in the military to

 7     see these particular patches?

 8        A.   Yes.  Actually, I've seen them.  The two in the centre with VF-84

 9     and the VF-103, I've actually seen those on the aircraft.

10        Q.   And what about the 4th Reconnaissance Battalion?

11        A.   They're currently a reserve component of -- the 4th

12     Reconnaissance Battalion is currently residing in Albuquerque,

13     New Mexico.

14        Q.   And specifically speaking, is it uncommon for the skull and

15     crossbones or the Jolly Roger to be used in military insignias around the

16     world?

17        A.   No, it's not.

18        Q.   And do you recognise on here patches from military outside the

19     United States?

20        A.   Yes.  I believe the bottom -- well, the bottom left Queen's Royal

21     Lancers is a representation of, I believe, a British unit.

22        Q.   Okay.  And --

23             MR. ALARID:  We have no further use of that one.  Thank you.

24     Thank you.

25        Q.   Now, let's talk about EOD and your time in the army.  Let's take

Page 5392

 1     it from the beginning, please.

 2        A.   Okay.

 3             MR. ALARID:  And, Your Honour, unless there's an objection from

 4     the Prosecution because we just were tinkering with that last night,

 5     Your Honour, could we tender the sheet into evidence as representative of

 6     patches?

 7             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Mr. Groome, anything on that?

 8             MR. ALARID:  Your Honour, despite never having seen them before

 9     just a few seconds ago, I will not object to --

10             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes, we admit it.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1D132, Your Honours.

12             MR. ALARID:

13        Q.   Okay.  Take us back to 1999 and tell us what -- what you were

14     doing and why.

15        A.   I just recently left college after being in the military, and I

16     guess you could say being in the outside world working for the

17     government, Department Of Defence.  At the age of 26 I got kind of put

18     off from people sitting behind a desk that hadn't really been out in the

19     world in 20 years trying to tell me how it was like in the studies and

20     course of studies I was going through.  So I left to go back in the

21     military and enlisted in the army and left on August 17th, 1999, for

22     Fort Jackson, South Carolina.  Basically spent ten days processing

23     paperwork and receiving uniforms.  Because I was a marine from a prior

24     service and went through the Marine Corps boot camp, I did not have to go

25     through army boot camp.  After that I was basically sent down to Eglin

Page 5393

 1     Air Force Base where Nav school EOD, which is the navy school of

 2     explosive ordnance disposal is run on Eglin Air Force Base, and that's in

 3     Florida.

 4        Q.   Now, just before we get there, why not go back into the marines?

 5     Why choose the army?

 6        A.   Specifically it had everything to do with rank structure.  I left

 7     the Marine Corps under good standing and held the rank of corporal, but I

 8     would have lost rank going back in and then been put at the bottom of the

 9     list for promotion, because it's unfair for me to come in after not

10     working for three years and put me at the top of the list where all the

11     guys have been working that are on that promotion list.

12        Q.   And so with regards to going into the army, how did you get

13     focussed on EOD?

14        A.   I'd actually run into an engineer, a former guy -- a guy

15     basically from the military who was in the civilian sector like myself,

16     and he mentioned the EOD military speciality, the job.  And when I sought

17     the advice of the recruiter, I went forth and retested for -- to provide

18     higher scores for jobs and was offered the EOD MOS and took it.

19        Q.   Okay.  And I believe 1D22-0611 has been released.

20             And so tell us about going into EOD, what training you received,

21     et cetera.

22        A.   It's roughly a nine -- a nine-month course.  But due to

23     academics, medical, it can take longer.  I arrived in September of 1999.

24     I didn't graduate until February of 2001.  I spent six months upon

25     arrival at the school waiting for the army and the Marine Corps to decide

Page 5394

 1     what security clearance they were going give me because I still held a

 2     secret from the Marine Corps, but the army had started the -- basically

 3     the paperwork to grant me another clearance.  So while that paperwork was

 4     trying to get ciphered through, I sat at the school basically just

 5     twiddling thumbs for six months.

 6             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Mr. Alarid, did he say what EOD meant?

 7             MR. ALARID:  He did, Your Honour.

 8        Q.   But please repeat to the Court, please?

 9        A.   The acronym EOD stands for -- the acronym EOD stands for

10     explosive ordnance disposal.

11             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Thanks.

12             MR. ALARID:

13        Q.   Well, let's talk about the explosive ordnance disposal specialist

14     course from February 2001.  What specifically is the subject matter of

15     the course?

16        A.   The subject matter of the course is the understanding and the

17     learning of the rendering safe of conventional military munitions which

18     are your regular basically explosive devices, chemical munitions, nuclear

19     munitions, and also improvised explosive devices.

20        Q.   Now, where -- and again, where was this course held?

21        A.   It's at the Nav school EOD, which is the -- that acronym stands

22     for navy school explosive ordnance disposal, which resides at Eglin Air

23     Force Base in Fort Walton Beach, Florida.  It's in the panhandle of the

24     State.

25        Q.   And what kind of -- what kind of instructors were there for you?

Page 5395

 1        A.   The instructors were -- they're military EOD technicians that

 2     held the rank of master badges.  Basically that means that they'd been in

 3     the service working the job for over eight years.  Senior NCOs, officers,

 4     basically the individuals had performed their duties for that job and had

 5     gone back to the schoolhouse to train the next generation coming in.

 6        Q.   And specifically -- specifically, but briefly, take us through

 7     the training you received.

 8        A.   It was broken down.  The school itself, the curriculum was broken

 9     down into several different phases.  Ordnance recognition by colour

10     codes, bar codes, understanding the different types of ordnance that

11     exist in the world.  Your projected ordnance, your placed ordnance which

12     would be your land-mines, being able to positively identify a grenade

13     from an artillery piece.  From there we went into the actual breakdown of

14     different types of ordnance from -- there was a ground phase which dealt

15     with everything that was -- you deal in type of a land war, land-mines,

16     projectiles, rockets, grenades.  We moved to air and there was two phases

17     of that, which basically anything that's delivered by an aircraft or shot

18     from some type of a vehicle or emplacement which would be your guided

19     missiles, you know, large-base ordnance items.  We dealt with

20     surface-to-surface, air-to-air type of pieces of ordnance.  We moved into

21     another phase which had dealt nothing but chemical warfare, learning

22     the -- learning what happens to individuals that are exposed to certain

23     chemicals, how they affect you, proper procedures in approaching a piece

24     of ordnance that is a suspected chemical, you know, how to dress up

25     properly, decon, all that stuff.  We moved into improvised explosive

Page 5396

 1     devices, and then the last phase was nuclear devices.

 2        Q.   And what specifically did you learn about post-blast

 3     exploitation?

 4        A.   At the schoolhouse, nothing.

 5        Q.   Okay.  But what is post-blast exploitation?

 6        A.   Post-blast exploitation is arriving on site after a detonation

 7     has occurred, some type of an explosive ambush has occurred; being able

 8     to cipher through all the material that's there and through

 9     fragmentation; being able to, you know, see the emplacement, how they

10     went about initiating the device, impacts, damage done to whatever the

11     target was.  You can move forward and systematically make an assumption,

12     technical assumption as far as what type of a device was use.

13        Q.   Okay.  And could the -- did you receive a certificate or degree,

14     and did you complete the course?

15        A.   Yes.  I was -- I graduated on February 6 of 2001 and received the

16     basic EOD badge which is a -- it's a badge that we wear on active duty on

17     our uniforms, combat uniforms, and also our dress uniforms, and was

18     awarded a certificate of completion of that course.

19             MR. ALARID:  And specifically with the Court's assistance could

20     we call up 1D22-0598.

21        Q.   Okay.  And can you identify this document, please.

22        A.   This is my graduation certificate from Nav school EOD awarding me

23     the -- the EOD badge, basic badge, and basically allowing me to provide

24     services as an EOD technician for the United States Army.

25        Q.   Okay.

Page 5397

 1             MR. ALARID:  Your Honour, I would tender this certificate into

 2     evidence, please.

 3             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1D133, Your Honours.

 5             MR. ALARID:  And could we bring back the resume for reference

 6     1D22-0611.

 7        Q.   Now, I'm just looking at your resume, and we can follow along.  I

 8     note -- I note that you had other training courses in the army, notably a

 9     platoon leadership development course.

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Tell us about that.

12        A.   As you can -- I don't know if you noticed, but on the certificate

13     it said SPC Stephen Patrick O'Donnell.  The SPC stands for specialist,

14     that's an E4, which is the equivalent of a corporal in the United States

15     Marine Corp.  To become a sergeant on the army side of the house as a

16     soldier has nothing to do with the EOD side of the house.  But at that

17     level you have to go through a platoon leadership development course

18     PLDC, which they train you basically to -- in the responsibilities of

19     becoming the next highest rank which would be an E5 or what they consider

20     a buck sergeant.

21        Q.   And tell us about the air assault course.

22        A.   The air assault course is the army's course on how to basically

23     repel out of helicopters in tactical situations, and it was necessary for

24     me to go through that course while between deployments from Iraq and

25     Afghanistan because we were moving to Afghanistan for a tour, and in

Page 5398

 1     Afghanistan due to the -- the actual geographics of the country, driving

 2     by vehicle is not always the easiest way.  What normally could take five

 3     to ten minutes by aircraft could take 12 to 15 hours by vehicle due to

 4     the terrain.  So we needed to basically be able to work so that we could

 5     fly or move our team and equipment in helicopters from point A to point B

 6     and be able to do it in a tactical aspect.  That school provided us with

 7     the certificate and the training that allowed us to that.

 8        Q.   And I apologise with regards to the platoon leadership

 9     development course, did you complete that course?

10        A.   Yes, I did.

11        Q.   And did you --

12        A.   That was it the Fort Benning, Georgia.

13        Q.   And did you receive a certificate or something --

14        A.   Yes, I did.

15        Q.   And what about the air assault course?

16        A.   Yes.  It was a 12-day course.  I completed it through physical

17     tests and received a certificate from that as well.

18        Q.   And I note -- for reference to the court assistance page, 3 of

19     the resume is covering this, I note from the screen.

20             And what about the basic NCO course?

21        A.   The basic NCO course or what we call BNOC.  It's again -- it's an

22     army school that provides you the responsible -- the training and

23     responsibilities moving from the E5 rank or sergeant to the E6 rank and

24     staff sergeant.  It is a prerequisite because at the E6 level or staff

25     sergeant level for EOD you become the team leader of the team.  So to

Page 5399

 1     complete that course is a prerequisite to actually being able to become a

 2     team leader for -- basically for the EOD team.  That one was completed in

 3     Huntsville, Alabama, and there's numerous weeks of actual, you know, army

 4     specific NCO training and then numerous weeks of basically about half.

 5     It's split up over ten weeks, half of that is running, training scenarios

 6     as a team leader, practising your techniques and what not as far as what

 7     relates to the EOD side of the house.

 8        Q.   And taking us back to 2001, you had said something about a

 9     difference in security clearance between the Marine Corps and the army,

10     and there was a waiting period.  Tell the Court about that.

11        A.   Prior to graduating from the EOD school when I first arrived

12     there, I still held a secret clearance in -- with the Marine Corps

13     because I was still technically under my time period for my eight-year

14     contract, although I was on the inactive part of it.  The latter half was

15     inactive.  The army started paperwork on a clearance for me, and that's

16     what -- that paperwork shuffle took -- why it took so long for me to

17     actually get into a class and start the course.  The army granted me, due

18     to the job speciality with the EOD field, a top secret security

19     clearance, which means that I could provide support for the

20     Secret Service to help protect the President, vice-President, and

21     Heads of State that are deemed protection by -- by the Secret Service.

22     We assist them in clearing venues.

23        Q.   And let's talk about your deployment and where you served your

24     period in the army.  Start back after your school.  And what did you do?

25        A.   The -- I graduated in February 2001.  By April 2001 I was

Page 5400

 1     stationed at Fort Benning, Georgia.

 2             MR. ALARID:  And with the Court's assistance, could we move to

 3     page 2, please.

 4        Q.   Tell us about Fort Benning and your time there.

 5        A.   Fort Benning is basically a training facility.  They do infantry

 6     boot camp for the army.  They also have a ranger battalion there.  So a

 7     lot in dealing with infantry tactics happens at Fort Benning.

 8             As part of army -- or the United States Army EOD, we are tasked

 9     with providing UXO and IED protection for the continental land mass of

10     the United States.  So even though I was stationed at Fort Benning, our

11     jurisdiction was 56 counties in three different States.  So Georgia,

12     Florida, and Alabama, where we would help local law enforcement in

13     dealing with possible -- a scenario would be a World War II veteran

14     passes away and a wife finds something in the garage that is a piece of

15     ordnance.  They'd call us out to come take care of it.  So we provide

16     that assistance in the civilian sector on top of -- soldiers are going

17     through grenade training out on one of the ranges and they throw one and

18     it's a dud, so therefore we -- when I mean dud, it doesn't function as

19     designed.  So then we'd have to go out there and remove the explosive

20     hazard so they could complete their training.

21        Q.   And what other things did you do during your time in

22     Fort Benning?

23        A.   I assisted in training of officers and also enlisted soldiers for

24     UXO and improvised explosive device threats in combat situations.  I also

25     provided support for the United States Secret Service in protection of

Page 5401

 1     foreign dignitaries and also department of state officials.

 2        Q.   And I note six range clearances.  What's that?

 3        A.   Range clearances are impact areas where they have targets

 4     established.  And when you consistently shoot at a target with explosive

 5     ammunition, you tend to destroy the target.  So we'd have to clear the

 6     range of all explosive hazards so that the maintenance guys could bring

 7     new targets out into the range or impact area safely without causing any

 8     injury to themselves.

 9        Q.   Were you giving -- given any instructional duties?

10        A.   Can -- would you mind clarifying?

11        Q.   Were you an instructor?

12        A.   Yes, I taught UXO, which is unidentified explosive ordnance.  I

13     taught UXO safety and also awareness of UXOs and IEDs in combat

14     operations, providing that training at Fort Benning.

15        Q.   Tell us about your deployments.

16        A.   In September of 2003 we -- we deployed to Iraq from Fort Benning,

17     Georgia.  We arrived in Baghdad, flew into Baghdad International Airport

18     in Iraq, and we had six teams organic to the unit.  We had four teams

19     that were added to our company to provide EOD support for combat

20     operations in five sectors of Baghdad.  The four teams that were added to

21     our company were two army teams and then two navy teams.  We basically

22     broke it down with the ten teams to have two teams in each sector

23     providing support, and each sector was basically under a Brigade-size

24     element type of military unit.

25        Q.   Tell the Court what that is.  Explain the gradation.

Page 5402

 1        A.   A Brigade is -- you could have four battalions within a Brigade.

 2     You have four platoons within a battalion.  So you're roughly looking at

 3     several hundred men, possibly close to a thousand in a Brigade-size

 4     element.  Depends on if it's an armoured unit or an infantry unit, that

 5     dictates basically how many people they have in the units themselves.

 6        Q.   And tell the Court what kind of things you did during your time

 7     in Iraq.

 8        A.   We -- we provided basically what we were doing, the same thing we

 9     were doing in Fort Benning except we were doing it more often.  We as EOD

10     technicians provide emergency response.  When a unit is out on patrol and

11     they roll by or they notice something that's suspicious, we are called

12     out to remove any explosive hazard or render safe any improvised

13     explosive device that's established or set in that area for explosive

14     ambush and destroying Coalition Forces.

15        Q.   And tell the Court about your missions and -- and what you

16     achieved during that time.

17        A.   We basically provided support for 1st Brigade, 1st AD.  They're

18     an armoured unit based out of Germany.  They were based out of Germany;

19     they're not any longer.  We ran over 300 missions for them in a six-month

20     period, just my team alone.  The company itself in the five sectors of

21     Baghdad ran 2.469 incidents in six months.  These incidents could be UXOs

22     which are unexploded ordnance that's laying in somebody's backyard or

23     found just out in the middle of nowhere.  We're called in to remove the

24     explosive hazard.  In removing it we would make sure that everything's

25     safe for transport, provide transport to a safe disposal area and then

Page 5403

 1     dispose of the ordnance.  And we -- we provided these -- we basically ran

 2     through these missions so that the insurgents would not go along and

 3     collect this unexploded ordnance and then turn it into an improvised

 4     device and use it against the Coalition Forces.

 5        Q.   And I have from your resume the removal and destruction of over

 6     8.000 pieces of hazardous ordnance.

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Tell us about that.

 9        A.   Well, it wasn't all 8.000 at once.  We showed up -- one specific

10     mission we got called out on was a -- a unit was out on patrol and they

11     came across an area where mortar rounds, 60-millimetre and also

12     81-millimetre mortar rounds were just laying out on the ground, and they

13     gave us the grid coordinate for it and then we rolled out with our

14     security to the incident site, made sure everything was safe to

15     transport, and positively identify everything, all the ordnance and fuses

16     that were there, and then moved to the destruction of that ordnance.  And

17     that specific time we found 1.968 mortar rounds.

18        Q.   Now, did you see any actual combat in Iraq?

19        A.   Yes we were fired upon with small-arms fire and also RPGs which

20     are the rocket propelled grenades.  And we were also, my team

21     specifically, was explosively ambushed twice in our combat operations in

22     Iraq.

23        Q.   Did you have any investigative work?

24        A.   We provided support for the Brigade in the extent of a tasking

25     would come down after a unit had been ambushed, and we would go out and

Page 5404

 1     do a post-blast analysis of the incident site and provide any technical

 2     reports that we had to directly to the battalion commander or Brigade

 3     commander.

 4        Q.   And so tell us how you would conduct a post-blast analysis.

 5        A.   When we teach post-blast or response to a post-blast, when we

 6     teach that to regular soldiers, we try to tell them to keep out of the

 7     incident -- or the actual site of impact or detonation, and upon arrival

 8     at the scene, working in a systematic either clockwise or

 9     counter-clockwise way of manoeuvring, we work from the outside in,

10     towards the actual site of detonation, providing details of fragmentation

11     that we find.  We look at the actual target itself, how the impact --

12     what type of damage it did to the actual target.  That could tell us what

13     type of size or narrow down the size of the ordnance item, looking for

14     components of initiation.

15        Q.   What is that?

16        A.   Initiation components would -- would be your cell phones, your

17     cell phones, your pagers, garage door openers, your key fobs for your

18     remote entry or remote start of your vehicles.  Anything with a radio

19     frequency or remote radio frequency can be utilised to initiate an

20     explosive device with the proper electronics to explosively ambush

21     somebody.

22        Q.   And what kind of sites did you investigate post-blast?  What

23     different scenarios?

24        A.   We did several that were off route which means vehicles were

25     travelling in a certain direction and the detonation happened to either

Page 5405

 1     the right or left side of the column as it was moving in its the -- you

 2     know, moving in this direction.  We performed post-blast on -- one

 3     scenario was -- actual incident was route Pluto, which is one of the main

 4     arteries of travel in north-eastern Baghdad.  On a catwalk -- they had on

 5     the opposite side of the catwalk, they'd hung a 155 with an RF package,

 6     and as the convoy was travelling along route Pluto and one of the

 7     vehicles passed underneath the catwalk they detonated it on top of the

 8     vehicle approximately ten feet above the gunner's head.  That specific

 9     incident, there were four occupants in the vehicle.  Three perished

10     instantly.  The gunner was shoved into the vehicle, into the truck

11     itself.  When we arrived on screen the vehicle had stopped burning, but

12     the bodies were still on fire inside the vehicle.

13        Q.   And just as part of your combat experience, have you seen people

14     die by fire?

15        A.   Yes.  Yes, I have.  It's not a pretty sight.

16        Q.   Did you have any post-exploitation examinations of structures?

17        A.   Depending on where the incident sites -- the post-blasts were,

18     you could have, and there were at times, fragmentation patterns on walls

19     not necessarily inside of a structure, but the wall, pylon, et cetera,

20     became collateral damage or received impact marks from a detonation.

21        Q.   During your -- your time in -- in Baghdad or other combat

22     operations, did you have opportunity to enter structures that had been --

23     where explosives had been used?

24        A.   Yes.  To the extent of caches were held in buildings and

25     soldiers, foreign nationals on top of Americans had at one point or

Page 5406

 1     another gone into these certain areas and accidentally unknowingly set

 2     off booby-traps which detonated inside the -- the whole weapons cache

 3     detonated.

 4        Q.   And have you also been in structures that have been attacked by

 5     incendiary explosives or just simple fire?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   And as part of your regular combat operations and experience?

 8        A.   Yes.  These incidents happened overseas and in Iraq and

 9     Afghanistan.

10        Q.   Now, how long did your term in Iraq last?

11        A.   It was a six-month deployment.

12        Q.   And what did you do after that?

13        A.   We left in April of '04 and arrived back at Fort Benning.  We had

14     approximately two weeks off, and then it was an election year in '04, so

15     we -- we provided support.  For the remainder of that year, we provided

16     quite a bit of support for the Secret Service due to the elections and

17     then also completed mandatory army training schools, and then, you know,

18     I got air assault done prior to going to Afghanistan.

19        Q.   And tell us about your deployment to Afghanistan.

20        A.   Almost a year later we deployed from Fort Benning, Georgia,

21     straight into Kandahar Afghanistan.  The dynamics there were a little

22     different.  We had several -- several units in -- throughout -- spread

23     throughout the country that we provided support to.  We did not have the

24     ten teams in five sectors like we did in Baghdad.  My team -- myself and

25     my team went to provide support for one battalion, but that battalion's

Page 5407

 1     AO is the size of New Jersey.  So it's a huge area compared so what we

 2     did in Iraq.

 3        Q.   AO, that's area of operation?

 4        A.   Yes, I'm sorry.  That's area of operation.

 5        Q.   And I notice that you have the designation of team leader.  At

 6     this point in time what were your responsibilities as team leader?

 7        A.   As a team leader I was responsible for the missions completed by

 8     the team.  The -- basically the safety and livelihood of the soldiers

 9     that were underneath me was my direct responsibility to -- for us to

10     perform our missions in a combat operation setting without any harm or

11     death or destruction basically to any of our property or ourselves.

12        Q.   And did you have any opportunity for post-blast exploitation work

13     in Afghanistan?

14        A.   Yes.  On a much smaller scale.  The unit that we were providing

15     support for was an infantry unit based out of Vicenza, Italy, and they

16     would receive or get into fire fights, and I basically did post-blast on

17     wounded that came in trying to depict what type of a -- whether it was a

18     booby-trap or a grenade or, you know, what the munition was that caused

19     the inflictions that the individual had received.

20        Q.   Now, why is it important to determine the type of munitions for a

21     post-blast exploitation?

22        A.   Several reasons.  You can -- if it's a chemical device that

23     could -- that -- that steers us in a whole different kind of scheme of

24     works as far as how we treat the wounded and then also anybody going back

25     into that area, because most chemical munitions, the chemicals themselves

Page 5408

 1     are residual.  They stick around for quite a while.  We didn't have to

 2     deal with any of those.

 3             The -- if I can do a post-blast analysis on a booby-trap and I

 4     can identify key parts of the booby-trap, I can teach soldiers what to

 5     look for when they go back out into sector so that way they don't become

 6     victims of the same device again.  The same thing with the improvised

 7     explosive devices.  Much different dynamics in the building of -- of IEDs

 8     in Afghanistan compared to Iraq due to the fact that roads could be

 9     untravelled for several days to weeks.  They utilised victim-operated

10     devices basically.  And when I say that, I mean a vehicle would have to

11     go over an improvised switch and set the switch off in order to function

12     the device.

13        Q.   Okay.  As opposed to one being set off remotely?

14        A.   Right.  They wouldn't sit there for weeks on end waiting for

15     somebody to come by to -- in certain areas to actually physically hit the

16     button on a remote button on a key fob or whatever.  So they would set up

17     a devise that would go off whenever it was triggered, and that could be

18     US coalition forces in a Humvee or a bigger vehicle, or it could be a

19     local national in a truck, or it could be cattle.  There was one that was

20     set off by a cow.

21        Q.   And what security clearance did you hold at this level?

22        A.   Top secret security clearance throughout my entire time in the

23     United States Army.

24        Q.   And what commendations or medals did you receive in your service?

25        A.   I received three army commendation medals.

Page 5409

 1        Q.   And if we could go to page 3, please of the resume.

 2             MR. ALARID:  And if we could go to page 3, please, of the resume.

 3             THE WITNESS:  I received three army commendation medals, one for

 4     each tour overseas and one for the five years that I was stationed at

 5     Fort Benning for the duties that I perform there.  I received two army

 6     good conduct medals.  Those were on a -- on basically a time-frame.  If

 7     you are a good soldier for so many years, you get a good conduct medal.

 8     I received a Marine Corps good conduct medal for when I was in the Marine

 9     Corps.  The national service medal is anybody in the military service

10     that is serving during a time of war regardless if you actually go

11     overseas or not, you get a national defence ribbon.  So I received one

12     for the first Gulf War and then one or the global war on terrorism.  The

13     Afghan campaign medal is self-explanatory.  The global war on terrorism

14     expeditionary medal and the global war on terrorism service medal were

15     for the times that I was in Iraq and Afghanistan.  And the NCO

16     professional development ribbons are ribbons that are awarded with the

17     certificates after the platoon leadership development course and the

18     basic non-commissioned officer course.  And then the army service ribbon

19     is self-explanatory.  It's a ribbon given for service in the United

20     States Army.

21             MR. ALARID:

22        Q.   And after your discharge from the military what have you done

23     with yourself?

24        A.   I've been doing contact -- contract work basically for companies

25     that have department of defence contracts or US army corps of engineers

Page 5410

 1     contracts.  When I immediately left the service in September of 2007, we

 2     did -- I was hired on by a company that we went around and basically

 3     cleaned up old military installations searching the ground surface and

 4     subsurface clearance of explosive items.  I don't -- I don't believe I

 5     listed that on the resume.  I only ran two or three contracts.  They were

 6     very short.

 7             In May of 2008, I joined a company NEK and went and provided

 8     technical expertise for department of defence.  The inter-agency would

 9     have been JIEDDO, which is the joint improvised explosive device defeat

10     organisation, it's a multi-coalition force, and went overseas and

11     provided technical expertise on exploitation for United States Army units

12     in the area of north-eastern Baghdad.

13        Q.   And just backing up slightly.  What military grade at the end of

14     your last deployment, what was your correlative of rank?

15        A.   I held the rank of a GS13 for my time with NEK providing support

16     for the army units in Iraq this last time.

17        Q.   And what is a GS13?

18        A.   It's the equivalent of a captain or major as far as officers are

19     concerned in the military.

20             JUDGE ROBINSON:  It's the equivalent of a captain or major.

21     Which is it?

22             THE WITNESS:  Depending on which branch of service you're working

23     with, it's either -- your equivalent to a captain or major.  It's in a

24     grey area between the two, sir.

25             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Thanks.

Page 5411

 1             MR. ALARID:

 2        Q.   And what -- what -- who participated in the multi-coalition force

 3     under JIEDDO?

 4        A.   We worked with officers from Canada, officers from the Canadian

 5     Royal Army, from the Australian Royal Army.  I've worked with British

 6     officers and soldiers for training.  Specifically for JIEDDO was Canadian

 7     and also Australian.

 8        Q.   And at the end of your service were you teaching or training

 9     other soldiers?

10        A.   Are we referring to while I was on active duty or --

11        Q.   Yes.

12        A.   Okay.  While I was on active duty we continued to provide

13     training for soldiers that are not within our job skill-set, i.e., your

14     infantry or your mechanics or your armoured -- armoured -- you know, the

15     tanks.  We provided the same types of classes, UXO identification and

16     counter-IED and also IED recognition.  Basically providing classes for

17     them so that when they go into combat operations they know what to look

18     for and what to stay away from for their own safety.

19        Q.   And what about any instruction or training work during your time

20     at NEK?

21        A.   We were in -- I mean, we provided those types of courses for the

22     soldiers that we were assisting and embedded with in north-eastern

23     Baghdad.  My specific skill-set, I provided classes on UXO recognition to

24     soldiers that were there.  There were also air force EOD teams embedded

25     with us at the forward operating base that we were actually at.

Page 5412

 1        Q.   Okay.

 2        A.   So worked hand in hand with them to provide training for the

 3     soldiers.

 4             MR. ALARID:  At this time, Your Honour, I would tender him as an

 5     expert in explosives, explosive recognition, and post-exploitation of

 6     blast exploitation, and tender the CV into evidence, Your Honour.

 7             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Mr. Groome.

 8             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, I have no objection to the CV going

 9     into evidence, and clearly Mr. O'Donnell does have some areas of

10     expertise.  It seems to me that it's mostly related to the identification

11     of ordnance, unexploded ordnance and the identification of improvised

12     explosive devices.  Could ask that the Chamber reserve its decision on

13     whether he's an expert.  Because one of the things that I think the

14     Chamber needs to consider is whether his testimony, the opinions that he

15     gives, are within the boundaries of the expertise, because a person could

16     be an expert in one matter, but then when they stray into giving opinions

17     about another matter, they would not be considered an expert.  It may be

18     very well, Your Honour, that at the conclusion of his evidence, I will

19     not be contesting it.  But I would ask that it be reserved now, and I

20     will explore the matter further with him in my cross-examination.

21             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Mr. Alarid.

22             MR. ALARID:  Your Honour, I think from a foundational perspective

23     we've met the burden of establishing his area expertise.  I think the

24     cross-examination that Mr. Groome was talking about would go to the

25     weight to the testimony that the Court would give.

Page 5413

 1             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes, I agree.

 2             MR. ALARID:  And so, Your Honour, is he accepted as an expert in

 3     post-blast exploitation?  Explosive devices.

 4             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

 5             MR. ALARID:  Thank you.

 6        Q.   Let's talk a little bit before we talk about going to Visegrad.

 7     And let's -- take us through the standard operating procedures, if you

 8     will, for examination of a site post explosion or incident.

 9        A.   On approaching a scene, you're going to want to get witness

10     accounts of what transpired.  You're going to have photographic evidence

11     of the site.  You're going to graph off the site if -- if need be to

12     determine and chronologically basically write down where you found

13     certain components of the device.  Samples can be taken of -- for

14     explosive residue which can narrow down the type of device that was used

15     as well, and then also collateral damage to either human individuals or

16     property.  And the impact that it had on those individuals or property

17     can dictate how the device was established to attack or explosively

18     attack the target.  Basically summarise all that information in a type of

19     report with photographs to -- to help support it, and that's -- that's

20     the way we would handle it while we were on active duty.

21        Q.   And on active duty how many post-blast exploitation reports did

22     you complete or assignments?

23        A.   On active duty I did approximately 15, 14 post-blast incidents in

24     Iraq and Afghanistan.  As a GS13 this last tour over in Iraq, we

25     completed two.

Page 5414

 1        Q.   Okay.  And what kind of things in terms of -- of collateral

 2     damage to individuals or property what -- what do you mean by that?

 3     What's important to look for?

 4        A.   Basically you can have a low -- you can have a low explosive or a

 5     device that has a minimal amount of explosives, that is a high

 6     frag-producing device that can create quite a bit of damage to an

 7     individual or an area, a vehicle or property, and -- or you can have a

 8     device that has a lot of explosives in it with very little material that

 9     would produce fragmentation where the blast overpressure is going to

10     provide all the destructive power to the target.

11             MR. ALARID:  And, Your Honour, before we move too far afield --

12             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone for Mr. Alarid, please.

13             MR. ALARID:  Yes, I apologise.

14             Your Honour, we would tender into evidence the CV of

15     Mr. O'Donnell.

16             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

17             THE REGISTRAR:  That's Exhibit 1D134, Your Honours.

18             MR. ALARID:  And at this time could we pull up 1D22-0599.

19        Q.   Now -- now your -- Mr. O'Donnell, before we get into the meat and

20     bones of your investigation, tell us about fragmentation and what kind of

21     things can be considered as fragmentation as part of an explosion?

22        A.   Fragmentations is classified as any type of material that is part

23     of the device or moved by the actual explosion of the device that would

24     provide destructive power to either property or personnel.

25        Q.   Okay.

Page 5415

 1        A.   So you can have the device itself, if it's in military munition,

 2     let's take that, for instance, a military munition, if it's a

 3     heavy-cased, and when I say heavy-cased, a thick walled metal material,

 4     that in itself is a fragmentation.  If you have a thin-skinned type of

 5     military piece of ordnance, you're looking for more of a blast

 6     overpressure effect instead of fragmentation.  If the explosion is big

 7     enough, it can -- individuals standing around it can become secondary

 8     fragmentation because the blast overpressure tears them apart, makes them

 9     or parts of them fragmentation.

10        Q.   And that goes also as well with a vehicle that's on top of the

11     IED or -- or structures that are next to the IED and things like that?

12        A.   Take, for instance, vehicle-born IEDS, improvised explosive

13     devices, that's basically your car bomb.  The engine block, the vehicle

14     itself, the axles, the tires, the lug nuts, the seats inside, depending

15     on the amount of explosive used, all of those materials can become

16     fragmentation to help destroy whatever the target is.

17        Q.   And as part of your -- okay.  And as part of the your duties and

18     expertise, are you required to be familiar with ordnance from around the

19     world?

20        A.   Absolutely.  Going through EOD school, it's probably 50/50 down

21     the line as far as how much US ordnance we study compared to foreign

22     ordnance we study as well.

23        Q.   And briefly describe the components of an improvised or an

24     explosive device.

25        A.   Your improvised explosive device is just going to -- in a very

Page 5416

 1     simplistic manner you're going to need an explosive.

 2        Q.   What kind of things are explosives?

 3        A.   Would you clarify?

 4        Q.   Well are there different kinds in terms of chemical -- is

 5     gasoline an explosive?

 6        A.   Gasoline can be used as an explosive, yes.  The vapours from

 7     gasoline liquid can be used as an explosive.  That would be more falling

 8     into the lines of an incendiary type of device because it provides so

 9     much fire and heat and thermal energy to the actual target.

10        Q.   And tell us about something that would deal more with gas

11     overpressure and fragmentation.

12        A.   In Iraq we were running incidents where - and Afghanistan - where

13     they would take the trigger mechanism and wire it with a battery source,

14     power source, usually batteries, into a blasting cap.  When the blasting

15     cap would be put into an actual ordnance, piece of ordnance which was

16     designed to detonate.  The ordnance didn't necessarily have to have its

17     fusing that came with it, didn't have to have its fusing on it.  The

18     blasting cap itself holds a primary explosive in it, something that's

19     very sensitive to heat, shock, and friction.

20        Q.   Tell us about a blasting cap.

21        A.   The blasting cap, mercury fulminate.  There's another one,

22     another explosive that they use, it's extremely sensitive to heat, shock,

23     and friction.  So an electric current going through it will set it off.

24        Q.   What about a -- what about a lit fuse?

25        A.   In our training in the EOD school we are -- we're taught

Page 5417

 1     basically to provide an explosive train to sympathetically detonate

 2     whatever we're trying to get rid of, i.e., you know, the ordnance items

 3     in demolition procedures.  So you either have what they call a

 4     nonelectric blasting cap where you attach that to the end of time fuse,

 5     time fuse being a plastic cord with gunpowder through the centre of it,

 6     and it burns.  Depending on the amount of time fuse you have and also

 7     humidity factors, that will basically tell you how much time you have

 8     once you light it to get away from the device before it detonates.

 9        Q.   And can in combination with the blasting cap, can a time lit fuse

10     be used to explode other chemical ordnance?

11        A.   Not chemical ordnance.

12        Q.   I'm sorry, yes.

13        A.   Chemical ordnance would be your phosgene or your lucite or your

14     mustard gas type of ordnance items.  Your explosive ordnance, we would

15     run -- we ran incidents regularly where they would use an electric

16     blasting cap or some type of fuse-lit device that would burn down, or

17     when triggered, the current would go through the blasting cap, and that

18     blasting cap was embedded in the actual explosives of the military

19     munition.  So you have a projectile that's 105-millimetre projectile.

20     The fuse is screwed into the top of the projectile because it's basically

21     a big bullet and shot down range from an artillery piece.  They would

22     scrape away the explosives in the fuse well so that they could glue or

23     plaster the blasting cap into the fuse well, put it up against the

24     secondary explosives or the main charge in the actual device, and when

25     it's set off or they triggered it, it would function just like a regular

Page 5418

 1     artillery piece.

 2        Q.   Without the barrel?

 3        A.   Without the barrel.  Without travelling down range and without

 4     the proper fusing that goes with that piece of ordnance.

 5        Q.   Okay.  And tell us the difference between a fire-inducing

 6     explosive device versus a gas overpressure-inducing explosive device.

 7        A.   Most of your fire-producing explosive devices are going to be

 8     explosive from the vapours that build up, your Molotov cocktail is you're

 9     lighting the -- it's in -- I would say an incendiary -- an improvised

10     incendiary device.  And you light the fabric that's hanging outside the

11     bottle and when it -- when the glass breaks and spreads liquid

12     everywhere, it's ignited because the fabric's on fire.  Your incendiary

13     devices are not as destructive immediately because there isn't that much

14     of a blast overpressure effect.  They turn to -- tend to explode and do

15     damage through thermal transfer more than -- than actually exploding and

16     hitting -- hitting the target with a shock wave which is the blast

17     overpressure.

18        Q.   What causes the fire in an incendiary device versus a regular

19     explosive device?

20        A.   As long as you have -- as long as you have an oxidiser and some

21     type of accelerant, it can be anything.  It can be gasoline, it could be

22     rubbing alcohol.

23        Q.   What about magnesium, like incendiary grenade?

24        A.   An incendiary grenade is basically manufactured to provide just

25     that.  It's destructive power through extreme heat to destroy whatever

Page 5419

 1     it's put up against.

 2        Q.   Now if you were assuming an incendiary grenade, would you assume

 3     that everything around it would catch fire?

 4        A.   If it wasn't -- if it wasn't protected or buffered from the

 5     actual -- the magnesium or the grenade itself, then, yes, the extreme

 6     potential of everything going up in flames is there, yes.

 7        Q.   Now with a regular explosive with gas overpressure, does that

 8     start any kind of fire?  Would there be a perception of a fire at the

 9     outset?

10        A.   Not initially, no.

11        Q.   Okay.

12        A.   Once the explosive -- once the explosive device is set off

13     that -- that instant where the chemical breakdown of the explosives is

14     going on with normal ordnance items, you're not going to have -- you're

15     not going to have fire.  With conventional ordnance items you're not

16     going to have fire.

17        Q.   Are you going have a flash?

18        A.   There will be, yes, you will have a flash.

19        Q.   From a layperson's perspective is that flash considered fire?

20        A.   No, I do not consider it fire.

21        Q.   I'm talking about just a Joe Schmo observer.

22        A.   Someone that's not trained in explosives or the demolition

23     procedures could possibly view that as thermal energy or fire, yes.

24        Q.   Now let's -- I think it's time to move forward to Visegrad and

25     your travel there.  But before you -- you went to Visegrad, to

Page 5420

 1     Pionirska Street, what kind of materials were you provided, and what did

 2     you review before going to the scene?

 3        A.   I reviewed a couple witness statements and also photographic

 4     evidence of the site.  I don't recall when those pictures were taken, but

 5     that was the only material that I reviewed.

 6        Q.   Okay.  And with regard to witness statements, what relevant

 7     information did you need to begin to think about this from a post-blast

 8     exploitation perspective?

 9        A.   One -- one of the witnesses described getting something

10     detonating or going off and getting physically thrown out one of the

11     windows in the building.  And that on top of the witness statement of --

12     they heard gunshots and screams for half hour to an hour after the

13     incident, the initial incident, led me to believe that an explosive

14     device was used to stun or basically make people incoherent inside the

15     room, and I moved -- I formulated that and moved forward with that once

16     we arrived in Visegrad.

17        Q.   Now, why -- you know, it -- you were also provided a copy of the

18     indictment against Mr. Lukic.

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Now --

21        A.   I -- Go ahead, I'm sorry.

22             THE INTERPRETER:  Please pause between question and answer.

23     Thank you.

24             MR. ALARID:

25        Q.   We have to take our time.  I just got keyed in because we both

Page 5421

 1     speak English, and yet we have -- the translators have to keep up with

 2     us, so we'll try and observe a pause between the question and answer.

 3        A.   Sorry.

 4        Q.   Now you were provided a copy of the indictment, and you are aware

 5     that the Pionirska Street charge is centred around the theory that an

 6     accelerant was placed on the carpet and the floorboard and that these

 7     people were burned by conventional means inside this area.  Why is the

 8     witness statements with regards to the shootings and the screams relevant

 9     in your investigation?

10        A.   I feel that the -- the witness testimony or statement, the

11     witness statement of an accelerant being utilised and the room going up

12     in flames is inconsistent with individual -- or the witness hearing for

13     half an hour to an hour after the initial onset of the situation of

14     gunshots and screams.  If --

15        Q.   Why is that?

16        A.   If you have a room that you're utilising a mass amounts of

17     accelerant and you put people in there and you ignite it, those

18     individuals are going to succumb to smoke inhalation within a matter of

19     minutes, not half an hour to an hour later.  And there wouldn't be a need

20     for gunshots.

21        Q.   And -- and just from your personal experience of seeing people

22     die by fire, how quickly were those individuals overcome by the flames

23     that they were engulfed in?

24             MR. GROOME:  Objection, Your Honour.  I believe we're straying

25     outside Mr. O'Donnell's expertise.

Page 5422

 1             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Mr. Alarid.

 2             MR. ALARID:  Your Honour, simply from his personal experience in

 3     the field, I believe he has a relevant information with regards to his

 4     observations of how quickly fire can really overcome a human being versus

 5     the ability to let out screams and whatnot for a significant period of

 6     time.  It's a minor point but meant to further a theory of modality and

 7     liability of this incident.

 8             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

 9             Answer.

10             THE WITNESS:  The instances, specifically where we dealt with

11     individuals that had succumbed to fire in Iraq, the -- it didn't --

12     specifically the one -- the one situation I talked about earlier where

13     the four individuals were attacked in the Humvee and the gunner was

14     pushed into the truck with the explosive device detonating above -- above

15     the vehicle, those -- at least the gunner was killed instantly.  The

16     other individuals possibly could have been mortally wounded but not

17     killed instantly.  We were on site within 25 minutes, and their bodies

18     were still burning.  So I believe it was the detonation and the

19     fragmentation that killed them more so than the fire, but their bodies

20     were on fire.

21             MR. ALARID:

22        Q.   Now, you opine that the witness statements were leaning you

23     towards that an explosive device was either used to, and you said, stun

24     the people, but could people suffer mortal wounds and/or be injured

25     severely in a closed environment like that?

Page 5423

 1        A.   Absolutely.  An explosive device, depending on the number of

 2     people in that room, an explosive device going off could, even if the

 3     individual didn't receive damage to themselves via fragmentation, could

 4     have -- could have perished due to the blast overpressure scrambling

 5     their brains in their head.

 6        Q.   Okay.  Now, let's go specifically to Visegrad.  What did you do?

 7     And tell us how you got there and ...

 8        A.   My services were requested to come provide exploitation of the

 9     house at Visegrad -- or in Visegrad at Pionirska Street.

10        Q.   And how were you contacted?

11        A.   Via e-mail and phone.

12        Q.   Okay.

13        A.   From yourself.

14        Q.   Okay.  And who -- who provided you the materials and the witness

15     statements?

16        A.   You provided me the copies of the witness statements and also the

17     photographic evidence.

18        Q.   Okay.  And how was your travel arranged?

19        A.   I travelled with the arson investigators and also Mr. Jenkins

20     from Albuquerque, New Mexico, and we arrived in Belgrade, layover in

21     Amsterdam, arrived in Belgrade on I believe the 28th and decided to get

22     on the road that evening.  And then we arrived in Visegrad, I think, at

23     2.00 or 3.00 in the morning on the 29th.

24        Q.   And tell us about your examination of the Pionirska site.

25        A.   Upon arrival at the Pionirska site, I -- I with -- withheld

Page 5424

 1     initiating my investigation, allowing the arson investigators to go in

 2     and do their photographic evidence in there.  And basically start and

 3     complete their investigation.  Mine is -- my -- in going in and basically

 4     doing the exploitation of the site, it's not as evasive as theirs are.  I

 5     was actually digging in the walls looking for fragmentation.  So I wanted

 6     them to get their photographic evidence on what they found on site

 7     undisturbed done prior to me going in and looking for actual

 8     fragmentation in the walls.

 9        Q.   Now, you know, just from a -- putting it in perspective, the date

10     of the alleged incident is June 14th, 1992.  How relevant is it that

11     you're not getting there until 2009?

12        A.   I think it has everything to do with being relevant.  In 15 years

13     or close to 15 years, there will be no traces of explosive residue

14     whatever.  Based off the photographic evidence, you can see how the

15     structure itself has just decayed.  And it's -- I mean, the whole place

16     has fallen apart.  Any type of evidence that would have been left via the

17     device or an explosive device would be gone.  Vagrants -- we found human

18     excrement and trash in this area, within the room itself, so it obviously

19     had been occupied by people, a lot of people, over the last 15 years.

20        Q.   Okay.  Now, let's just --

21             MR. ALARID:  Your Honour, I'm not going to tender the report at

22     this time, but we'll mark it for identification and then come back to it

23     after we go through some photographs, if that's okay.

24             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

25             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1D135, marked for identification,

Page 5425

 1     Your Honours.

 2             MR. ALARID:  And just to get started, could we bring up

 3     Y020-3362.  Oh, I'm sorry, 3362.  I apologise.  My bad handwriting.

 4     Could we have 3632 -- yes.

 5        Q.   I just wanted to embarrass you a little bit.

 6        A.   Thank you.

 7        Q.   Identify this photo, please.

 8        A.   This is in front of the house at Pionirska.  The bottom room, the

 9     door correctly over my left shoulder is the room in question.  And that's

10     a picture of me standing outside the structure on the 29th of January.

11        Q.   Okay.

12             MR. ALARID:  We'll tender this into evidence, Your Honour, before

13     we move on.

14             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1D136, Your Honours.

16             JUDGE ROBINSON:  29th of January this year?

17             THE WITNESS:  Yes, sir.

18             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Okay.

19             MR. ALARID:  All right.  Let's bring up, please, Y020-3566.

20        Q.   Now, we're going to kind of put you in as if you're walking into

21     the door.  And I'm going to show you a series of photographs.  And I want

22     you to orientate the Court and describe what we see.  And also with the

23     Court's assistance we'd probably be marking some of these photographs as

24     we tender them.  So can we give his assistance with use of the pen.

25             Do you recognise this photograph?

Page 5426

 1        A.   I do.  The photograph is of the left wall and the back wall of

 2     the room.  So the far left corner from the entranceway as you walk in.

 3        Q.   And were you able to examine these areas both at a distance and

 4     close up?

 5        A.   Yes, I was.

 6        Q.   Okay.  And just --

 7        A.   Thank you.

 8        Q.   And generally speaking, despite the time and distance, did you

 9     find some evidence of the potential that an explosive device had been

10     used in this room?

11        A.   Yes.  What I found upon entering the room -- in entering the room

12     I decided to proceed to the back wall which is in this picture here and

13     start there working in a clockwise pattern within the room.  I found

14     fragmentation marks or impact areas, I should say, impact areas.

15        Q.   Please use the pen and circle what you would call an impact area.

16        A.   Yes, sir.

17             These are the most visible right off the bought.

18        Q.   And -- and -- and just tell us what the composition is of the

19     walls as you found them.

20        A.   This -- this white area here is a plaster, and we found quite a

21     bit of that throughout the room itself.  It's obviously deteriorating.

22     When you go up and actually apply pressure to it, it crumbles right off

23     the foundation or the concrete wall on the back behind it.  The room

24     itself is in horrible decay.

25        Q.   And can you give us the approximate dimensions of the room?

Page 5427

 1        A.   Roughly, I didn't -- I personally didn't take measurements.

 2        Q.   That's fine.

 3        A.   But roughly I'd have to say it's maybe 20 by 20.

 4        Q.   And that's in feet?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Okay.  You use the term "impact marks."  Why be vague in terms of

 7     that or --

 8        A.   Due to the -- the time from the actual incident transpiring and

 9     when we were actually able to get there on the 29th and provide

10     exploitation.  I'm not going to sit here and say that these are without a

11     shadow of a doubt fragmentation marks or were marks that were made by

12     fragmentation.  I use the term "impact mark" because any of the possible

13     individuals that had been in this room over -- or throughout the last

14     15 years could have possibly made these marks with some type of a device,

15     you know, a steel bar or whatever.

16        Q.   Okay.  And also, how -- how is it relevant that the witness

17     testimony included the firing of weapons?

18        A.   Because these impact marks could have been made by bullets as

19     well or ricochets.  So if you have individuals actually shooting rounds

20     into a room, they're going to leave holes or indentations in the plaster

21     and concrete, and these would be areas of possible impacts of rounds or

22     bullets.

23        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.

24             MR. ALARID:  Could we tender this into evidence right now.

25             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

Page 5428

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1D10 -- I apologise Exhibit 1D137.

 2             MR. ALARID:

 3        Q.   And you stated that the room was in extreme state of decay.  What

 4     was the contributing factors to this decay?

 5        A.   Mass amounts of moisture in the room over the last 15 years.

 6        Q.   And what kind of damage had the moisture caused?

 7        A.   Exposed rebar in the ceiling, which I believe we'll see in other

 8     pictures, is almost completely rusted through.  The right wall which is

 9     not currently in this photograph is basically falling apart due to -- due

10     to moisture and the fact that the outside of that wall is covered by

11     nothing but earth.

12        Q.   Okay.

13             MR. ALARID:  Your Honour, I believe it's close to the time for

14     the break.

15             JUDGE ROBINSON:  You're right.  We'll take the break now.

16             MR. ALARID:  Thank you.

17                           --- Recess taken at 3.50 p.m.

18                           --- On resuming at 4.15 p.m.

19             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes, Mr. Alarid.

20             MR. ALARID:  Thank you, Your Honour.  And I'm assuming we save --

21             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

22             MR. ALARID:  Assuming we saved the last photograph, we would move

23     on to Y020-3569.

24        Q.   Now, looking at these, what do these depict to you from that back

25     wall?

Page 5429

 1        A.   This is a picture of impact marks on that back wall.

 2        Q.   Okay.

 3             MR. ALARID:  Your Honour, can we tender this into evidence.

 4             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1D138, Your Honours.

 6             MR. ALARID:  And could we have Y020-3574, please.

 7        Q.   And what does this depict to you?

 8        A.   This is very close-up picture of one of the impact marks on that

 9     wall.

10        Q.   And what does this picture show you or tell you?

11        A.   This particular picture shows that the point of trajectory was

12     from the ground floor up due to the ridges at the top of the impact mark

13     and the sloping down at the bottom of the impact mark.

14        Q.   And tell me based on your training and experience why you come to

15     this opinion.

16        A.   Due to the height of where this impact mark is in the wall, the

17     trajectory of the object was from the floor upwards, and I believe it's

18     at shoulder level on the wall itself.

19        Q.   Okay.  And just --

20             MR. ALARID:  We would tender this into evidence, Your Honour.

21             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

22             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1D139, Your Honours.

23             MR. ALARID:  And we'll bring back Y020-3566, please.

24        Q.   And put this particular hole in perspective to an unmarked

25     version of the back wall.

Page 5430

 1             Okay.  Approximately can you tell where this particular

 2     photograph is on the back wall?

 3        A.   Yes.  The last photograph would be this --

 4             MR. ALARID:  Okay.  With the Court's assistance could we use the

 5     marker, please.

 6             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.  The last photograph is of this

 7     particular mark right here.

 8             MR. ALARID:

 9        Q.   Okay.  And that was one where you stated that you believed that

10     the trajectory had come from the ground?

11        A.   Correct.  I realise we're looking at this, you know, two

12     dimensional, but the point of -- or the trajectory would be coming in

13     this direction, ground floor in this area, centre of the room

14     practically.

15        Q.   Now, obviously where you've just marked up this picture, we can't

16     see the centre of the room, so you're not saying --

17        A.   No, the picture is not showing where the point of initiation of

18     that possible fragment.  The point of initiation would have been

19     somewhere in the centre of the room.  This is where that fragment,

20     possible fragment, ended its trajectory in the wall there.

21             MR. ALARID:  We would tender this as an exhibit, Your Honour.

22             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1D140, Your Honours.

24             MR. ALARID:

25        Q.   Now, I'd like to move to the right side.

Page 5431

 1             MR. ALARID:  And please bring up Y020-394, please -- 3394,

 2     please.  I'm sorry.

 3        Q.   Now, what do we see here?

 4        A.   This is a picture of as you're walking into the room the wall on

 5     the right side of the room.

 6        Q.   And in terms of -- you had testified a little earlier of the

 7     deteriorated state of the right side wall.  Does this accurately show

 8     that?

 9        A.   Yes.  Unfortunately, the only thing you're not seeing is down at

10     the bottom this picture, which is not in it, all the sediment from this

11     wall as it deteriorates is collecting at the base of this wall itself.

12        Q.   And what other relevances is about this picture?  And what is

13     that in sort of the upper left-hand corner?

14        A.   The -- in this area here, this area here is a piece of tile in

15     the wall itself, and the fragment -- the only fragmentation piece or

16     piece of metal that is not organic to the structure itself was found in

17     this area right here.

18        Q.   Okay.  And specifically how was it found, and tell us about what

19     you did.

20        A.   I noticed an impact mark in the wall here just to the right of

21     the tile.  In excavating the impact mark, there's actually a piece of the

22     tile now missing, and it's on the floor.  It broke off right in this

23     area.  But in following the trajectory and basically the whole of that

24     impact mark, I found a fragmentation piece or a piece of metal embedded

25     in the wall here.

Page 5432

 1        Q.   Did you bring that piece of metal with you today?

 2        A.   I did.

 3        Q.   Could you please produce it to the court assistant, please.

 4             MR. ALARID:  And, Your Honour, we would tender this photograph

 5     into evidence.

 6             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1D141, Your Honours.

 8             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, I'm assuming that whatever was

 9     recovered is wrapped up in a piece of paper.  Could I ask that it be

10     taken out so that we can examine the piece.  I would rather not do it.

11     If Mr. O'Donnell wouldn't mind taking it out, and maybe we can look at it

12     through the plastic bag.

13             MR. ALARID:  We could even put it on the ELMO as well,

14     Your Honour.

15             MR. GROOME:  I would like to get a close-up look at it.

16             MR. ALARID:  Of course.

17             And maybe put the piece on the ELMO after Your Honours have had a

18     chance to look at it.

19        Q.   Now, Mr. O'Donnell --

20             MR. ALARID:  And does the ELMO have the ability to zoom at all?

21        Q.   Now, thinking about how you chose to conduct this post-blast

22     exploitation, you said you went to the back wall and decided to move

23     clock-wise; is that correct?

24        A.   Correct.

25        Q.   So moving along at that back wall to where it intersects with the

Page 5433

 1     right wall and of course the photograph that we just saw last on the

 2     monitor, tell us what was going on in your mind as you find this?

 3        A.   When I first entered the room and approached the back wall, I

 4     traced out the impact marks that we've seen on the previous photos.  In

 5     doing so the plaster was removed from the wall, but I was unable to

 6     locate any types of foreign matter at the back end of the possible impact

 7     marks.  That was not the case here.  For whatever reason I followed this

 8     impact mark into the wall, and I was able to recover this -- this piece

 9     of metal.  And the reason it looks the state it is today is because of

10     oxidation of the metal itself.

11        Q.   Now, specifically in terms of --

12             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

13             MR. ALARID:

14        Q.   Specifically in terms of revealing or reviewing the types of

15     ordnance available to the people in the Yugoslavian theatre, what -- what

16     did they have available to them?

17        A.   They had several different types of grenades.  I brought a manual

18     here with rough pictures of these types of ordnance items.  Many of them

19     are actual regular ordnance items and some of them are actually

20     improvised.

21        Q.   And in terms of improvised, what do you mean?

22        A.   The -- they utilised the body of the ordnance item that has the

23     explosives in it, but they initiate it by some other means other than the

24     normal fusing that's made or constructed for that piece of ordnance.

25        Q.   So can a grenade be rigged to explode using a time fuse?

Page 5434

 1        A.   Yes, it can.

 2        Q.   How is that?

 3        A.   Actually there's pictures in here of ordnance items that were

 4     found organic to the former Yugoslavia area that show actual either wires

 5     going into the fuse well or actual time fuse going into the fuse well.

 6        Q.   And, Mr. Groome --

 7             MR. GROOME:  Yes.  Your Honour, I would just ask that whatever

 8     book the witness is looking at, could we just have the title of it and

 9     some information about it.

10             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.  Please give us the details.

11             THE WITNESS:  This handbook of ammunition used in former

12     Yugoslavia was prepared by the US army armament research development and

13     engineering centre at Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey.

14             MR. ALARID:  Absolutely.  We'll put that on --

15             JUDGE ROBINSON:  What is the year?

16             THE WITNESS:  The date of it is January 2000, and it was prepared

17     for EOD and also other soldiers that -- and military members that were

18     basically having tours over here to help out with the Coalition Forces

19     during the Kosovo Bosnia campaign.

20             MR. ALARID:

21        Q.   And specifically can you show to the Court on the ELMO some of

22     the improvised grenades and turn to those page, please.

23        A.   Absolutely.  Here's a picture of two grenades from this area.

24     The -- as you can see, these are regular ordnance items.  The fusing

25     which has the pull ring is actually in the device, so these would

Page 5435

 1     function as designed.  You pull the ring, throw the grenade.  The spoon,

 2     which is on this side of the grenades here and here would come off.  It's

 3     spring-loaded.  It comes off releasing the cock striker which would hit

 4     the detonator.  We have a 3 to 5 seconds burn time, and then the blasting

 5     cap goes off inside the grenade exploding -- or igniting the main charge,

 6     detonating the grenade itself.

 7        Q.   Would this be commonly known as the black grenade?  Have you ever

 8     heard that term?

 9        A.   No.  No, I have not.

10        Q.   Okay.  Now -- but tell me this:  Is the fragment or potential

11     fragment, rather, that you found in the wall consistent with coming

12     possibly from a grenade?  And if not tell the Court why.

13        A.   I can conclusively say that I cannot prove that it is from an

14     ordnance item or from some other type of material, that it could have

15     been there during the making of the foundation of the -- of the house

16     itself.

17        Q.   Okay.

18        A.   So I can -- I can -- I cannot say that it comes directly from an

19     ordnance item.

20        Q.   And other than the wall being in a deteriorated state, would you

21     have had a better opportunity had you been there much sooner in time?

22        A.   Yes, due to the fact that the question's been brought up about an

23     improvised device or even just a regular device, the sooner you're on

24     site and able to provide exploitation of a site, time works against you

25     in that manner and answers are -- trickle away as time goes on.  So

Page 5436

 1     therefore, the time between when the incident happened and when I showed

 2     up to do exploitation of the site 15 years later does not allow me to

 3     conclusively give any answers.

 4        Q.   Now just looking at the photographs on the -- or the drawings on

 5     the ELMO, tell us about what it means to improvised grenade -- or hand

 6     grenade?

 7        A.   These are -- we'll use side, this one to the left.  This grenade

 8     is actually -- this is a regular military body which is manufactured by

 9     some country, and then this is an improvised fusing.  This simulating

10     time fuse right here.  This is normally a body for a grenade or a

11     booby-trap, and this device is an improvised ignitiation device.

12        Q.   Slide the book up, yes.

13        A.   If we look down at these, you can see what that we're trying to

14     depict here is time fuse coming out of a grenade body or booby-trap

15     land-mine body which is used in a grenade form, and it's improvised

16     because it's initiated via time fuse instead of the actual pull --

17     pull-pin and spoon method that I was talking about earlier off the other

18     grenades.

19        Q.   Now, why would a grenade get modified from what seems to be a

20     more technically advanced model such as that spoon and pin versus a

21     regular old time fuse?

22        A.   Most of the time when items are improvised, it's because they're

23     found on the battlefield.  They're utilised.  You find the grenade

24     bodies, but you don't necessarily find the fuses.  So you have to find

25     some way of -- or concoct some way of initiating the device so that way

Page 5437

 1     you can use it in a defensive or offensive mode rather than just not

 2     having it at all.

 3             MR. ALARID:  Your Honour, with the -- with the Court's

 4     indulgence, could we copy this particular page and enter it into

 5     evidence, please.

 6             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

 7             MR. ALARID:  And we would also tender the fragment that

 8     Mr. O'Donnell identified on the ELMO into the evidence.

 9             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, could I ask -- ask that also the title

10     page of the book also be copied and be made part of the same exhibit so

11     we can retrace our steps here.

12             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.  Yes, that will be done.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1D142, Your Honours.

14             MR. ALARID:

15        Q.   Now, understanding that you can't conclusively say that this was

16     a fragment versus something that had actually been part of the pouring of

17     the foundation, but why did you even touch it as a potential fragment?

18        A.   I removed it from the wall based on the sole evidence of --

19     basically it lined out that I found at the end of an impact mark.  When I

20     say the end, I dug out the impact mark, and there -- that piece of metal

21     was there.  So I guess you could say that I concluded that the impact

22     mark was created by that fragment.

23        Q.   Okay.

24             MR. ALARID:  With the court's assistance could we have Y020-3557.

25     And did we -- I believe we tendered this picture that's on the screen now

Page 5438

 1     into evidence and it was accepted?  3394, yes?  Okay.  Sorry.

 2        Q.   And this is a broader picture of the room.  Describe what you see

 3     here.

 4        A.   This particular picture is a picture of the back wall directly

 5     across from the door, and off to the right is the right wall of the room

 6     itself.  And you can see the sediment down on the floor there that has

 7     basically come off of the wall as it's been deteriorating over the last

 8     15 years or more.

 9        Q.   And just looking at the tile in the upper portion of the

10     photograph, is that where you located the fragment?  And is that the tile

11     before it broke?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   Could you please circle that for the Court.

14        A.   Absolutely.  This is the tile here.

15        Q.   And although it's at a distance, could you also -- and let's use

16     the blue pen, please, as opposed to the red pen, and circle any other

17     potential fragmentation or impact marks that are visible based on your

18     observations in the room.

19        A.   This is -- right in this area here is the impact mark where I

20     found the actual fragment.  And then on the back wall, you can see more

21     impact marks here, here, and there.

22        Q.   And just from one thing certain, would it be as to a certainty

23     that the piece of metal that you pulled out of the wall is not a -- a

24     shell from a firearm?  I.e., like, you know, an AK-47 round.

25        A.   The way the impact mark was going in was from the floor here up

Page 5439

 1     in this general correction.  That was the impact mark on the wall.  Now,

 2     if it was an AK-47 round, somebody would have been laying on the floor

 3     and shot into the wall that way.

 4        Q.   When -- and besides that also, is there a difference in

 5     composition between a -- a rifle shell -- or, excuse me, not the shell

 6     but the actual bullet versus the casing to a grenade?  Are they different

 7     materials?

 8        A.   Yes, the -- your bullets are going to be a more of a malleable

 9     type of a metal that deforms upon impact.  Your fragmentation is going to

10     be jagged, rough types of very thick metal that would, in a grenade

11     instance anyway, that would basically stay the same shape when they

12     impact.

13        Q.   Thank you.  Okay.  And --

14             MR. ALARID:  Could we have -- and could we tender this into

15     evidence, please, before we move on.

16             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

17             MR. ALARID:  And just looking up at the wall --

18             THE REGISTRAR:  I apologise to the Counsel.  The marked

19     photograph will become Exhibit 1D145, and previously the fragment placed

20     on ELMO is Exhibit 1D143, and the second photograph is 1D144.

21             MR. ALARID:

22        Q.   And just looking at the ceiling and the wall on the right, is

23     this the deterioration that you noted earlier?

24        A.   Yes, it is.  As you can see in the ceiling, the rebar is exposed.

25     Basically the ceiling's falling in on itself.

Page 5440

 1        Q.   And the wall, what is that on the ground at the base of the wall

 2     on the right?

 3        A.   Are you -- okay.  You're talking about the base.

 4        Q.   Yeah, below the fragment to the right of the blue arrow.

 5        A.   That's all the sediment from the wall as it collapses inward as

 6     it deteriorates over the years.

 7        Q.   And just looking at the flooring, it look dark.  It looks like it

 8     could be burnt wood.  Is it?

 9        A.   We did not -- myself or -- neither myself nor the arson

10     investigators going in experienced any transfer of carbon from any of the

11     materials on the floor.  That would, although it appears very dark in the

12     picture, is actually wet.  It crumbled in our hands due to decay.  And if

13     you look in the very back corner of the floor underneath the circles -

14     I'll use red on it - this area here -- there's, actually, the wood's dry

15     in that area.  That's why the difference in colour.

16        Q.   Okay.  So as is where the -- the wood is dark in the foreground.

17     Has that been subjected to fire, based on your personal up-close

18     observation?

19        A.   Based on my observation, no.

20             MR. ALARID:  And we would tender this into evidence and move on

21     to Y020-33 --

22             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes, we admit it.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1D145, Your Honours -- 46, I apologise.

24             MR. ALARID:

25        Q.   3357 -- or, excuse me, 59.

Page 5441

 1             And what do you -- actually, that's not the picture I was going

 2     to give you, I'm sorry.  Let's do Y020-3393.

 3             And what does this ...

 4        A.   This is a photograph of the right wall.  Again, you can see the

 5     sediment at the bottom of the picture where the wall meets the floor.

 6     And in this particular picture, the tan material down there or the brown

 7     material down at the bottom is the piece of tile that broke off when I

 8     was removing the fragment out of the wall.

 9        Q.   Will you circle that, and we can tender it into evidence and move

10     on.

11        A.   Inside that circle is the piece of tile.

12             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1D147, Your Honours.

13             MR. ALARID:  And let's have now Y020-3592.

14        Q.   Now, I kind of jumped around the room here.  Tell us what we see

15     here.

16        A.   This is a picture of the left wall between the only two windows

17     in the building, or I should say in this -- in this room.  The window to

18     the right that has the tiles stacked up in it is the window furthest away

19     from the door.

20        Q.   And what about -- what do you see in the middle of the

21     photograph?

22        A.   On the wall itself you'll notice that there are impact marks in

23     this area here.

24        Q.   And what significance is it that the impact marks are in a

25     semicircle around the room?  What does that say?

Page 5442

 1        A.   If, hypothetically, if a detonation had occurred from a device,

 2     the device was in the centre of the room on the floor.

 3        Q.   Now, what relevance is it that -- in terms of number of people?

 4     I mean, the allegations are 60-plus people were crowded into this 20 by

 5     20 room.  What significance is the frag patterns as well as the

 6     allegations in relation to number of people in the room?

 7        A.   The impact mark patterns in the room indicate that there was

 8     actually less mass, and when I say mass I'm referring to the amount of

 9     bodies, in the room that would have created a buffer between the actual

10     device detonating and stopped the fragmentation or potential

11     fragmentation impacting the wall and making the marks that are currently

12     on the walls now.

13        Q.   When -- and in layman's terms, would it be fair to say that

14     where -- fragmentation, where it hits a body, shouldn't hit the wall?

15        A.   Yes.  It's -- it's fair to say that.

16        Q.   Okay.  And -- and conversely, the people in the room would

17     obviously absorb some of the fragmentation from the device.

18        A.   Individuals closest to it would absorb fragmentation.  They would

19     basically become that obstruction between the flight pattern of the

20     fragmentation from its source to the impact marks.  And the more bodies

21     and more mass you have in the room, the less effect the blast

22     overpressure is going to have because of the buffer, the mass absorbing

23     of that blast overpressure.

24        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.

25             MR. ALARID:  Could we tender this into evidence, Your Honour.

Page 5443

 1             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1D148, Your Honours.

 3             MR. ALARID:  And could we have Y020-3579.

 4        Q.   And just looking at this, do you see any other evidence of impact

 5     or fragmentation marks in this particular portion of the wall?

 6        A.   Yes, there are impact marks prevalent in this picture.

 7        Q.   Could you please circle them.

 8             MR. ALARID:  And we would tender this into evidence, Your Honour,

 9     following the marking.

10             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

11        A.   [Marks]

12             MR. ALARID:

13        Q.   And could we have Y020-3560.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  That is Exhibit 1D148, Your Honours.

15             MR. ALARID:

16        Q.   Now let's me ask you this while we're moving the picture:

17             Is it possible that a small explosive device such as a grenade

18     can catch something or someone on fire that is in the immediate proximity

19     to the explosion even for a brief period of time?

20        A.   An individual could possibly receive what we refer to as flash

21     burns, but I -- I would say, no, that they don't -- they would not catch

22     fire.  They would receive flash burns from the transfer of heat from that

23     chemical breakdown of the explosion or the explosives, but they would not

24     catch fire unless it's an incendiary type of device.

25        Q.   And this is 3650, and I wanted 3560.  I apologise.  And looking

Page 5444

 1     at this, can you orientate yourself to the photograph.  And I'm sorry to

 2     jump you around the room.  I've gotten out of order on this.

 3             What is this?

 4        A.   This picture is a photograph of the right wall and then also the

 5     wall that the door is in off to the right side.

 6        Q.   So you would be standing just inside the doorway looking to your

 7     immediate right?

 8        A.   Correct.

 9        Q.   And are there any evidence of impact marks on this wall as far as

10     you could surmise even given the deteriorated nature of the wall?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Could you please identify those.

13        A.   [Marks]

14             MR. ALARID:  All right could we tender this into evidence and

15     move on.

16             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

17             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1D149.

18             MR. ALARID:  And could we have Y020-3637.

19        Q.   And where is this?

20        A.   This photograph is of the door frame.  As you enter the room, as

21     you're walking into the room, the door opens inward and folds to your

22     left.  So this is right behind the door on the left part of the wall.

23        Q.   And just for edification, did you see any evidence of fire damage

24     to the wood structuring of the interior of the room such as the door and

25     door frame?

Page 5445

 1        A.   No, I did not.

 2        Q.   And can you identify a potential fragmentation impact behind the

 3     door?

 4        A.   Yes, I do believe I can.

 5        Q.   And please mark that.

 6             MR. ALARID:  And I would tender it into evidence.

 7             THE WITNESS:  [Marks]

 8             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1D150, Your Honours.

10             MR. ALARID:  And could we have Y020 -- and I believe it would be

11     the next one in the series, 3638.

12        Q.   And just to show what we're seeing.

13        A.   It's a photograph of the same wall behind the door, just the

14     lower half of the door.

15        Q.   Now, do you see any impact marks, or is there any evidence of

16     fire?

17        A.   Neither.

18        Q.   Okay.

19             MR. ALARID:  And could we have last photograph Y020-3398.  And

20     could we tender this into evidence, Your Honour, before it's gone.

21             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

22             Mr. Alarid, I'm trying to get a sense of the time the witness

23     will take up.  How much longer will you be?

24             MR. ALARID:  That was the -- I have maybe one more photograph on

25     my list, and I would tender the report and pass the witness.

Page 5446

 1             JUDGE ROBINSON:  And, Mr. Groome, how long will you be in

 2     cross-examination?

 3             MR. GROOME:  It's hard to say, Your Honour, but I can safely say

 4     I will be well under the time Mr. Alarid used.

 5             JUDGE ROBINSON:  I see.  Thanks.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Admitted as Exhibit 1D151, Your Honours.

 7             MR. ALARID:  And I believe Y020-3398.

 8        Q.   And just looking at this wall, what -- what do you see?

 9        A.   This is a photograph of the, as you're entering the room, the

10     left wall.  This is the window closest to the actual entranceway, and the

11     wall that you see to the right is between the two windows.

12        Q.   And please identify impact or fragment marks.

13             MR. ALARID:  And I would tender it into evidence.

14             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1D152, Your Honours.

16             MR. ALARID:  And the last thing I would call up would be

17     1D22-0599.

18        Q.   And in advance of it coming on the screen, Mr. O'Donnell, did you

19     prepare a report in conjunction with your trip, investigative trip, to

20     Pionirska Street?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   And did you prepare this report following the review of the

23     photographs the ones we've seen in court today?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   And did you prepare this report after an on-site visit and

Page 5447

 1     inspection of the site known as Pionirska Street?

 2        A.   Yes, I did.

 3        Q.   And as soon as we get it on the screen, I'm going to have you

 4     identify the document.  And is it true that the document, including a

 5     photo annex, consists of approximately four pages?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   And do you recognise the document on the screen?

 8        A.   I do.  It's my post-blast exploitation report.

 9        Q.   And could we go to page 2, please.  Is that your signature on

10     page 2?

11        A.   It is.

12             MR. ALARID:  And could we have pages 3 and 4 in succession,

13     please.  Not paragraphs 3 and 4, page 3 and 4.  Sorry.

14        Q.   And do these pictures represent part of your photo annex to your

15     report?

16        A.   They do.

17             MR. ALARID:  Could we have page 4, please.

18        Q.   And does this represent the final page and photo annex of your

19     report?

20        A.   It does.

21             MR. ALARID:  Your Honour, at this time I would tender the report

22     of Stephen O'Donnell into evidence and pass the witness.

23             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

24             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1D153, Your Honours.

25             JUDGE ROBINSON:  It is necessary to have a break now.  We'll

Page 5448

 1     break for 20 minutes.

 2                           --- Recess taken at 4.59 p.m.

 3                           --- On resuming at 5.22 p.m.

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, before we resume I would kindly ask

 5     your permission to make a correction on the transcript.

 6             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  The document Y020-3579 marked by the witness will

 8     be become Exhibit 1D54, since it was admitted previously.

 9             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Mr. Groome.

10             MR. GROOME:  Thank you, Your Honour.

11                           Cross-examination by Mr. Groome:

12        Q.   Good afternoon, Mr. O'Donnell.  My name is Dermot Groome, and I

13     represent the Prosecution here.  And I'm going to ask you a few questions

14     about your report and your observations at Pionirska Street.

15        A.   Okay.

16        Q.   Now, it seems from your testimony and your report, there's no

17     question in your mind that there was some type of explosion in the inside

18     of the room that you examined; correct?

19        A.   Yes, I believe so.

20        Q.   And would it be fair to say that you're -- you're not able to say

21     whether it was one explosion, possibly two explosions, possibly three

22     explosions?  You're not able to say the number of explosion, are you?

23        A.   Off the witness testimony or the witness accounts --

24        Q.   Could I ask -- let's not go to the witness testimony yet.  But

25     just in terms of your observations in the room itself, were you able to

Page 5449

 1     make a determination how many different explosions occurred in that room?

 2        A.   No.

 3        Q.   Now, we've already heard you testify that you were there on the

 4     29th of January.  You conducted your on-site exploitation.  The

 5     transcript at page 48 records you as saying:  "I traced out the impact

 6     marks we've seen in the previous photos."

 7             I didn't receive any drawings or tracings.  Do you have them with

 8     you here today in court?

 9        A.   No.  It's more along the lines of looking at the trajectory from

10     the centre of the room to where they actually impacted the wall.  There

11     were no drawings.

12        Q.   So when you made determination of the trajectory, you didn't

13     record that in any way?

14        A.   No.

15        Q.   Would that be something you would ordinarily do in a post-blast

16     exploitation?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   Why it wasn't done here?

19        A.   One, I didn't have the tools with me.  And, two, is it's 15 years

20     after the fact.

21        Q.   Would the trajectory mark change?  You've talked about the

22     indications.

23        A.   The elevation of the floor could have changed due to the amount

24     of debris in there.

25        Q.   And what were the tools that you would have used other than a pad

Page 5450

 1     of paper and a pen?

 2        A.   You could -- you could have used a laser pointer; you could have

 3     used strings that you attach from the trajectory hole into the centre of

 4     the room to try and face the point of detonation.

 5             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the speakers please pause between

 6     question and answer for the purposes of interpretation.  Thank you.

 7             MR. GROOME:  Yes.  My apologies.

 8        Q.   So given these factors, it seems that your testimony that the

 9     explosion occurred in the centre of the room is really an approximation

10     because of time, of uncertainty about the level of the floor and things

11     like that.

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   Now, you've told us the size of the room.  Give us an idea of how

14     big an approximation are we talking about.  If you were to take us back

15     to that scene and you were to draw a circle of the area where the device

16     could have gone off to cause those marks, how big would that circle be?

17        A.   It's going to -- that -- the -- the factors that are not in

18     your -- your question are the amount of people actually in the room and

19     where are they at.  So that would throw off any possibility of where I

20     could say the detonation possibly happened.  If we actually put 60 people

21     into that room, then we could possibly depict where the detonation, if

22     there was one, possibly happened, yes.

23        Q.   Well, are you saying now that you're -- you're not able to say

24     where the detonation occurred or you are able to say?

25        A.   Not to narrow it down to the exact spot, no.

Page 5451

 1        Q.   Okay.  Now, I understand that.

 2             Can you tell us what is the area that you can narrow it down to?

 3     How big is the circle that you would draw in that room that you could

 4     confidently say to us, I'm not sure exactly where it exploded, but I know

 5     it happened somewhere in that circle?

 6        A.   I would say roughly a seven-foot in diametre circle I could draw.

 7        Q.   It's a 20 foot by 20 foot room I think you said, correct?

 8        A.   That's my estimate, yes.

 9        Q.   And the diameter of the circle would be approximately a third of

10     the length of the room?

11        A.   Yes, centre of the room.

12        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.

13             Now, on page 1, paragraph 4 of your report you say:

14              "To provide the best analysis, sites need to be processed as

15     soon as possible.  That failed to happen in this case.  After 15 years

16     the site will be vacant of any explosive residue that could have affirmed

17     the presence of an explosive device."

18             Now, in your opinion how long is the time period after which it

19     would be pointless to conduct the examination for residue?  Is it a year?

20     Is it two years?

21        A.   I don't know.

22        Q.   In your training was that ever discussed about how long that

23     might be?

24        A.   No.

25        Q.   Now, are you saying -- and it seems that you're testifying that

Page 5452

 1     the impact marks give you a level of certainty that something exploded in

 2     that room; correct?

 3        A.   Those along with other facts, yes.

 4        Q.   So to go and find residue in that room would simply corroborate

 5     your -- your conclusion that you drew from the impact marks; correct?

 6        A.   You have outside factors that have contaminated the site.  On the

 7     day that we were there, the 29th of January, we found human excrement in

 8     the room.  Any type of -- the weather, the humidity, the water is going

 9     to remove residue --

10        Q.   Okay --

11        A.   -- from the room.

12        Q.   But my question to you is:  If you -- let's say -- did you test

13     for residue?

14        A.   No.

15        Q.   If you had to tested for residue and you found that there was

16     none there, would it have changed your conclusion based on your

17     observations of the impact marks with respect to -- that an explosion

18     occurred in that room?

19        A.   No.  It wouldn't.

20        Q.   So the presence of residue is really an additional factor but

21     it's not an essential factor for you to reach the conclusion that there

22     was an explosion in that room?

23        A.   Not after 15 years, no.

24        Q.   Okay.  Well, I think the 15 years aspect of it means -- I think

25     what you're saying there, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that after

Page 5453

 1     15 years it's unlikely at that there would have been residue recovered in

 2     the room.

 3        A.   That's -- that's what my synopsis says, yes.

 4        Q.   Okay.  And the decay that you have you've talked about, you've

 5     talked about several kinds, structural decay, moisture.  You've talked

 6     about this excrement, trash, and just the function of time.  Have I left

 7     any of the factors out that you believe would have made it more difficult

 8     to collect residue of explosives?

 9        A.   I can -- I cannot honestly -- I cannot go on record saying what

10     transpired in that room over the last 15 years.  There could be other

11     things that are admitted at this time, but, yes.

12        Q.   But of the factors that I mentioned, those are the ones that you

13     islanded as factors that would have made it improbable that you would

14     have found residue if you tested for it?

15        A.   I'm not saying it's conclusive that you would have found residue

16     shortly after the incident.  I'm not saying that either.  I'm saying that

17     that's one -- one type of product that you're going to look for when you

18     have a detonation in a room or a detonation anywhere, you're going to

19     look for residue.

20        Q.   Can you explain why it might be that we -- we could have gone to

21     the scene shortly afterwards and still not find residue?  Can you explain

22     that to us?

23        A.   Again outside factors:  Weather, the amount of moisture in the

24     air, the humidity, foreign matter being brought into -- into the room

25     itself.  All that contaminates a -- a site for exploitation.  All those

Page 5454

 1     factors can destroy the evidence that you're looking for.

 2        Q.   So can I take from that that in a relatively short period of time

 3     after this explosion occurred, it might have been that the -- there would

 4     have been no residue that could have been found?  Is that your evidence?

 5        A.   That's not my conclusion.  That's your conclusion, but --

 6        Q.   Well, I'm asking, do you agree with that conclusion?  It sounds

 7     like --

 8        A.   It's a probability, yes.

 9        Q.   It's a probability.

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Can you give us an idea of -- I guess what I'm trying to get at

12     is at what period of time after this explosion occurred would you as an

13     expert believe that the residue is -- has less than a 50 percent

14     probability of being recovered?

15        A.   It's going to depend on what type of explosives were used to

16     begin with as well because the explosives are degrading as they sit

17     inside of an ordnance item.  You can have an ordnance item that's

18     50 years old that has -- in perfect state that has not been subjected to

19     the elements and the -- it has less deterioration in the explosive than

20     one that has been subjected to the weather or the elements.  Based off

21     the chemical breakdown of the explosion, when the explosion occurs.  What

22     type of explosives out there it depends -- or what was used depends on

23     whether you're going to find residue or not and how long the residue will

24     stay.

25        Q.   Well, let's see if we can get a little bit more specific.  You

Page 5455

 1     placed a book of -- of ordnance from the former Yugoslavia on the ELMO

 2     and you opened up to particular pages and they were hand grenades and you

 3     pointed to them.  Let's -- let me put it to you with respect to the items

 4     that you pointed to, the hand grenades that you pointed to.  Are you able

 5     to give us a range of when the residue from those would -- would have

 6     deteriorated?

 7        A.   No, I'm not a chemist.  I would not be able to do that, no.  I

 8     can go into a site.  I can run tests or pull powder or run swabs for

 9     residue, but I would have to send it off-site to somebody to actually do

10     the chemical analysis.  That's not -- that's not the function of my

11     position.

12        Q.   Let me -- well, let me put the question to you a different way.

13     Let's say you were still in the army and your superior officer said,

14     "Specialist O'Donnell, we have a site where there is an explosion.  It

15     happened three months ago.  I want to decide whether it's worth sending a

16     team in, to send you in, to do a full exploitation of that site for

17     residue," what would your answer be?

18        A.   In we were in combat operations, I would say no.

19        Q.   Why would you say no in combat operations?

20        A.   What pertinent information are you trying to receive out of that?

21     And is it worth risking the lives of men going out to that site to

22     perform this type of an exploitation possibly under gun-fire or explosive

23     ambush?  You have to weigh the factors, especially in combat.

24        Q.   Okay.  So -- so what you're saying now is that before you can

25     actually even do your work as a post-blast exploitation expert there has

Page 5456

 1     to be a certain level of security, i.e., there can't be combat in the

 2     area to do that?

 3        A.   Performing my duties on an EOD team, an explosive ordnance

 4     disposal team, as a team and then also a team leader, we were attached

 5     security details to provide us escort from point A to point B.  And if a

 6     commanding officer wanted it done, we would do it to the best of our

 7     acts, but again you have to weigh the factors.  And is it worth

 8     sending -- take Afghanistan, for instance.  My team was the only EOD

 9     asset in the size of a New Jersey AO, area of operation.  So do you want

10     us to spend four hours out there going out three months after the fact

11     looking for residue when we've got two units that are in a holding

12     pattern providing security around two improvised explosive devices or

13     suspect packages which is stopping their missions from continuing.

14        Q.   So it seems that what you're saying is that it's a reasonable

15     decision for a commander or a superior to take that it's just simply too

16     dangerous to send a post-blast exploitation team into an area at this

17     time; is that correct?

18        A.   What we did our --

19        Q.   Sir, we'll get through this much quicker if you can answer my

20     question.  If I ask you a question, you begin to tell another anecdote.

21     I'm just asking you --

22        A.   [Overlapping speakers] ... I'm trying to get to it, I apologise.

23        Q.   What I'm asking you, is it a reasonable decision for a superior

24     or a commander to say to someone like you, Look, it's simply too

25     dangerous at this moment to go do post-blast exploitation of a particular

Page 5457

 1     site?

 2        A.   Yes, it is.

 3        Q.   Now, returning now to the function of time, at what point do you

 4     say to your commander, look, it's improbable that we'll find anything

 5     there.  Too much time has passed"?

 6             MR. ALARID:  And I would just ask for a clarification with regard

 7     to "find anything there."  Are we talking about residue here or other

 8     evidence.

 9             MR. GROOME:

10        Q.   Residue.

11        A.   We not strictly go out to an incident site to perform a

12     post-blast investigation strictly just looking for residue.

13        Q.   Okay.  Well then --

14        A.   And to answer your question, based off of time, if combat -- the

15     area that we -- the detonation went off, say, yesterday, if the area's

16     hot, they are not going to send us.  They're not going to send us.

17        Q.   How about a year after, now the area's no longer hot, would you

18     say to your commander, Look, I'm not sure the value of doing it at this

19     stage, just too much time has passed?

20        A.   Yes, I would.

21        Q.   And what I'm trying to get from you is what's the period of time

22     where you give that answer to your commander?

23        A.   It depends on the target that was -- that was, you know -- what

24     was the target?  Was the target a State department official that was hit

25     in a convoy or was this a foot patrol with soldiers?  And if we're really

Page 5458

 1     looking for the evidence of the device and the residue and it's a higher

 2     priority and it was a State department official and not just a soldier,

 3     then I would say, yes, we'll do it.  If it was a soldier, that's just

 4     normal combat.  And if I'm not on scene within hour or two hours or three

 5     hours, if I'm not on scene the same day it happened or within 24 hours, I

 6     don't see the relevance of doing a post-blast investigation.  We're in a

 7     combat zone.

 8        Q.   Okay.  Now, I'd like to talk to you about the observations that

 9     you made on the 29th of January.  On page 2, paragraph 1 of your report

10     -- do you have your report in front of you that you can refer to it?

11        A.   I do.

12        Q.   Now, you state that you examined the walls of the room and

13     observed the following:

14              "The intact walls of the basement, back, left, and front, had

15     sustained numerous impact marks consistent with damage produced by frag."

16             Now, when you say "frag" that's the type of fragmentation that

17     you've been talking about in your direct testimony?

18        A.   Frag is a general term for any type of foreign matter that could

19     cause any type of damage.

20        Q.   So it would be any type of foreign matter that is propelled by

21     the explosion; is that correct?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Now, how many impact marks altogether did you find in the room?

24        A.   We didn't get a exact count.

25        Q.   Can you approximate for us?

Page 5459

 1        A.   I'd say roughly 30.

 2        Q.   And can you tell us the distribution on the different walls you

 3     examined?

 4        A.   No, there was no symmetrical pattern to the impact marks.

 5        Q.   Well, you say there were 30.  Was it approximately eight on each

 6     wall?  Was it 20 on one?

 7        A.   Due to the degradation of the walls and the amount of decay, the

 8     wall -- the wall with the windows in it, obviously there's surface area,

 9     so I found less impact marks on that one.  Wall to the back of the room

10     actually had more plaster that was still a part of the wall itself still

11     attached to the wall, so it was easy to find the impact marks, so I found

12     more impact marks back -- on the back wall.

13        Q.   Okay.  Now, when you say in your report:  "Consistent with damage

14     produced by frag," do you mean that this damage is consistent with a

15     fragmentation grenade being thrown into the room?

16        A.   No, because it could have been any type of a device.  It could

17     have been an actual grenade.  It could have been an improvised explosive

18     device.

19        Q.   So it could have been a grenade, it could have been some type of

20     improvised explosive device.  Anything else that it could have been or --

21             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the speakers please pause between

22     question and answer.

23             MR. GROOME:  I apologise again.

24             THE WITNESS:  Sorry.

25             Had a detonation occurred and depending on the amount of people,

Page 5460

 1     I refer back to my comment earlier about mass in the room, the amount of

 2     bodies in there, it's likely that any of those -- it could have been

 3     primary frag which actually comes from the device; it could have been

 4     secondary frag which comes from the surroundings.

 5             MR. GROOME:

 6        Q.   But you've so far listed the possible sources as grenade and

 7     improvised explosive device; correct?

 8        A.   Yes, when we're talking about the device, yes.

 9        Q.   So you've excluded any type of rigged artillery shell?

10        A.   No, that would be an improvised explosive device.

11        Q.   Oh, okay.

12        A.   So you just said rigged artillery shell.  It's not there to

13     function as designed.  The initiation system is not there to function as

14     designed.  You rig it up, you're going to detonate it on your own, it's

15     not going to travel down the length of a barrel and shot into the room,

16     so, therefore, it's an improvised explosive device.

17        Q.   Let's focus on the fragmentation grenade for a minute.  A

18     fragmentation grenade is designed upon detonation to break up into

19     hundreds of small fragments, each being propelled at great velocity away

20     from the explosion with the aim of injuring personnel in the immediate

21     vicinity of the detonated grenade, correct?

22        A.   Where did you get that information?

23        Q.   That's a question that I formulated.

24        A.   A grenade is either an offensive or defensive device that is

25     meant to produce a certain amount of frag in a 360 degree area to produce

Page 5461

 1     casualties.

 2        Q.   Okay.  So it's specifically engineered to break up into small

 3     fragments and then propel away from the site of the explosion injuring

 4     personnel; correct?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Now the marks that you observed on the wall were consistent with

 7     the fragmentation grenade being detonated in that room and the grenade

 8     impacting the walls and thereby leaving a mark.  We're just focusing on

 9     grenades for the moment.

10        A.   Okay.

11        Q.   So the marks you saw would be consistent with the fragmentation

12     grenade being detonated in that room, correct?

13        A.   With it being surrounded by bodies.  The I impact marks that I

14     found, the majority of them, and I would say 80 percent of them that I

15     found, were at the shoulder level.  And my unity of measure of that is

16     myself I'm 6'2".  My shoulder level and above is where I found the impact

17     marks.

18        Q.   So let me see if I can break out your reasoning in that.  Your

19     reasoning is that the -- although the fragments would have been dispersed

20     outward in every direction from the explosion, the ones that were

21     travelling at trajectories below shoulder height quite possibly embedded

22     themselves in the bodies of the people there?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   And the ones that you saw actually make it to the wall and leave

25     marks were ones that passed above their shoulders or over their heads

Page 5462

 1     even?

 2        A.   Or between them, yes.

 3        Q.   Or possibly between them.

 4        A.   Yes, what I'm getting at is that the individuals provided

 5     obstruction from the source of the detonation to where the fragments

 6     would have embedded themselves in the wall.

 7        Q.   Now, it's possible for those fragments to have enough velocity to

 8     actually pass through the soft tissues of a person.  Is that not correct?

 9        A.   When you -- I disagree with that statement only from the simple

10     fact that fragments hit bone and they change direction.

11        Q.   Okay.  I'm not talking about the bony tissue yet.  But if a

12     grenade were to go off and just hit the flesh of the arm, hit the muscle

13     tissue, not impact bone at all, would it pass through the soft tissues of

14     the body?

15        A.   Fragment -- if you have -- if you had bodies standing around

16     the -- if the device detonated in the centre of the room, you have bodies

17     standing all around it, there is going to be fragmentation found in those

18     bodies.  And the ones that are closest to it depending on the amount of

19     explosive used, it's possible that the fragmentation passed through them

20     only to be embedded in someone else behind them.

21        Q.   But it would be theoretically possible for a piece of fragment to

22     just simply never impact on anyone's bony structure and simply pass

23     through the soft tissues of one or two people and embed itself in the

24     wall behind them?

25        A.   I -- I don't find it possible in this scenario because you have

Page 5463

 1     the size of the room and estimated 60 people in the room.  That's a lot

 2     of mass and a lot of nonbony material for a piece of fragment to travel

 3     through and then impact itself in the wall.

 4        Q.   But you've said earlier now that the possible place where it

 5     landed could be a circle seven feet wide.

 6        A.   True.

 7        Q.   Which I take it mean that it could have landed closer to the wall

 8     than you're assuming in your answer now, and perhaps it landed in front

 9     of only one or maybe two persons deep?

10        A.   No, I don't believe my answer's changed.  It depends on the how

11     many people in the room.  There is no exact number.  Anywhere between 30

12     to 60 people were said to be in that room.  And if you have 30 people in

13     that room that's a lot less mass than 60 people in that room.  And I'm --

14        Q.   But what I'm getting at is the actual location where the grenade

15     were to land.  Let's say it was to land at that outer perimeter of your

16     seven-foot circle.  It seems it would be closer to the wall and there

17     would be less people between where the grenade exploded and the wall

18     behind the people.  Is that not correct?

19        A.   That is correct.

20        Q.   So would you accept that it would be possible for the fragment to

21     pass through perhaps less people, if it had landed in the middle of the

22     room, pass through their soft tissue and made impact mark on the back of

23     the wall?

24        A.   That is -- it's an accurate statement.  The walls themselves are

25     so degraded that you wouldn't find -- or I didn't find any impact marks

Page 5464

 1     below the waist level.

 2        Q.   But you did find some between the shoulder level and the waist

 3     level?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Out of the approximate 30 can you give us some estimate about how

 6     many were in that region?

 7        A.   About five, five or six.

 8        Q.   So clearly that -- the fact that more of the impact marks were

 9     above shoulder level would indicate to you that there was a possibility

10     that the room was crowned when the explosive device was detonated,

11     correct?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   Now, you found the fragment in a wall of the house.  I'm not sure

14     what your evidence is on this point.  Do you believe it to be a piece of

15     a fragment grenade or do you not believe it to be a piece?

16        A.   It's a foreign piece of material that I found at the end of an

17     impact mark in the wall.  I'm not saying what it is.  It's so

18     deteriorated and decayed there's no positively -- I can't positively

19     identify it.

20        Q.   Now, I looked at it.  Would you agree with me that it's neither

21     lead, nor is it made of copper?

22        A.   Again, I'm not -- I'm not a chemist, but I would say that it is

23     some type of a ferrous metal because it is oxidised so dramatically.

24        Q.   It has rust on it?

25        A.   Yes.  That's what I mean by oxidation.

Page 5465

 1        Q.   Now, bullets ordinarily would be made of lead, or in some cases

 2     that lead would be in a copper jacket, correct?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   There are no bullets that you're aware of that fire steel or

 5     ferrous bullets, are there?

 6        A.   Not that I'm aware of.

 7        Q.   The outside of a grenade, what material is that ordinarily made

 8     from?

 9        A.   It's a ferrous metal of either steel or tin.

10        Q.   Now, just a few questions about the mission.  It seems from what

11     you've testified to and from my reading all of the reports of the defence

12     experts, that you all went to the scene at the same time; is that

13     correct?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   And you had discussions among yourselves about your observations

16     at the scene; is that correct?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   And did you have discussions about what you observed at the scene

19     after you left the scene?

20        A.   No.

21        Q.   And how long were you at the scene?

22        A.   We were at Pionirska I'd say for about an hour, an hour and a

23     half.  Maybe more than that.  I had to wait for the arson investigators

24     to finish their investigation before I went in.

25        Q.   And can you just tell me the names of the people that you were --

Page 5466

 1     who were present at the scene at the time that you were present?

 2        A.   Defence counsel, myself, Cliff Jenkins, Mr. Cliff Jenkins, and

 3     Martin McCoy, and Benjamin Dimas.

 4        Q.   Now, I don't see anything in your report about doing any

 5     post-blast exploitation at the other fire site, the Bikavac site.  Is

 6     that correct?

 7        A.   That's correct.

 8        Q.   Did you visit that site?

 9        A.   I was on scene when they did their investigation.

10        Q.   Why did you not do post-blast exploitation at that site?

11        A.   Due to witness testimony there was never any question of whether

12     or not there was any explosion there.

13        Q.   You weren't shown the evidence of one witness about a Molotov

14     cocktail being thrown into the room?

15        A.   That's an incendiary device, and there is no -- again when you

16     throw a Molotov cocktail the liquid inside the glass jar or whatever is

17     ignited by the flaming rag, the fabric that's on fire.

18        Q.   Would that be beyond your expertise to deal with an incendiary

19     device?

20        A.   That's an arson device, not, in my opinion, an explosive ordnance

21     disposal post-blast type of situation.

22        Q.   So the reason you didn't do anything at Bikavac is because the

23     witness statements that you -- that you read were speaking about an

24     incendiary device not an explosive device.

25        A.   If it was an incendiary device that was set off by an explosion

Page 5467

 1     then I would have possibly, had the Defence requested it, I would have

 2     done a post-blast, but that's not the case.

 3             MR. ALARID:  And, Your Honour, I would object to this line of

 4     testimony, simply because the truth is he wasn't asked to review Bikavac.

 5     But otherwise, because we're all in the same car, he's got to go to it.

 6             MR. GROOME:

 7        Q.   Well, then let me ask you this:  Had you been asked, would it

 8     have been possible in your view, in your observations of the scene at

 9     Bikavac, to have done a post-blast exploitation of that scene?

10        A.   No, because there's no structure left, just pictures of -- what

11     we have are just photographic evidence of just the foundation, the

12     concrete floor on the ground level.  There's nothing else there.

13        Q.   In fact there's not even any rubble there.  It looks like the

14     house was knocked down and the rubble from the house carted away; is that

15     not correct?

16        A.   All I saw was the foundation.

17        Q.   So no rubble from the walls of the house or roof structure or

18     anything like that?

19        A.   I didn't see any, No.

20        Q.   Now, it seems that over a hundred -- I'm sorry, about 450

21     photographs were taken on this mission, and I would like to work with

22     about 50 of them for you -- with you.  And given the amount of time it

23     takes to call these up, I asked Mr. Alarid to give you a book of the

24     photos that I would wish to use yesterday to give you an opportunity over

25     night to take a look at the book.  Were you able to do that?

Page 5468

 1        A.   Yes.  I reviewed the -- the material yesterday.

 2        Q.   Is it approximately 50 photographs in here.  Are they all

 3     photographs that you recognise from the -- the mission or the time that

 4     you went to the scene on 29th of January?

 5        A.   I believe they were taken by myself or my colleagues.

 6        Q.   And are they all fair and accurate representations of the scene

 7     as you observed it on that day?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   Your Honour, I would call up this exhibit.  It's MLDT-photo.

10     There's an electronic copy and I've also made hard copies, Your Honour.

11     I think we can just work more efficiently by just looking at the book.

12     So I'd ask -- both Defence have received copies already, so those are for

13     the Judges.  Actually, could I ask that if there are copies for Defence,

14     the copies I gave to the Defence yesterday it seems Mr. Dieckmann doesn't

15     have his.  And I believe the copy I gave Mr. Alarid did not have the

16     pages numbered yet.  Are the pages --

17             MR. ALARID:  The pages are not numbered.

18             MR. GROOME:  So I would ask that Mr. Alarid be given a copy as

19     well so that he can follow along.

20             THE WITNESS:  I'll need a copy of it myself.

21             MR. GROOME:  Yes, I will do that as well.

22             If the usher could save a copy for the witness as well.  Is there

23     one for the -- thank you.

24             So, Your Honour, with that foundation, I would tender this

25     MLDT-photo into evidence as a Prosecution exhibit.

Page 5469

 1             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P265, Your Honours.

 3             MR. GROOME:

 4        Q.   Now, the first -- before we look at photos, you've mentioned

 5     several times in your testimony blast overpressure.

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Can I ask you to explain exactly what is blast overpressure.

 8        A.   The blast overpressure is the shock wave that is formed from a

 9     chemical breakdown when the explosion commences.

10        Q.   So that if an explosion occurred in this courtroom, that

11     explosion, the shockwave might break the windows behind us, might damage

12     of the walls?

13        A.   Yes, depending on the amount of explosives used, yes.

14        Q.   Might even injure us?

15        A.   If a detonation occurred in this room, yeah, we could lose our

16     hearing.  And go from there with -- with more explosives, it's obviously

17     much greater damage done.

18        Q.   Just -- I forgot to ask you one question about the fragmentation

19     grenade.  You testified that it ordinarily doesn't start a fire; is that

20     correct?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   But that someone could receive a flash burn?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   Now, if the -- the carpet in this room were soaked with gasoline

25     and a grenade detonated on the floor, on the gasoline-soaked -- or some

Page 5470

 1     kind of flammable fluid-soaked carpet, the grenade could possibly ignite

 2     that, no?

 3        A.   Ignite the carpet or ignite the fuel or the vapours?

 4        Q.   Let's take them one at a time.  Could it ignite the gasoline

 5     vapours in the room?

 6        A.   It's possible.

 7        Q.   Could ignite the liquid gasoline that's -- or flammable liquid

 8     that's still soaked into the carpet?

 9        A.   It's possible.

10        Q.   And if people in the room were made to walk in there in their

11     stocking feet and their -- their socks or their clothing absorbed some of

12     the liquid, flammable liquid, could the grenade ignite their clothing?

13        A.   That's improbable.

14        Q.   Why?

15        A.   The amount of distance between the actual device detonating and

16     the actual individuals, it's -- it's a what-if question.

17        Q.   You're an expert.  You're allowed to --

18        A.   I understand that.

19        Q.   You're the type of witness that can answer a what-if question.

20        A.   I understand, but I don't have the resources to give you a

21     correct answer.  If we did it ten times, it could work five times, it

22     could not work at all.

23        Q.   But in any case, once the carpet is in flames, and the people,

24     their clothing is going to catch on fire shortly after that anyway?

25             MR. ALARID:  Objection.  Calls for speculation, facts not in

Page 5471

 1     evidence.

 2             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, I believe an expert is the one witness

 3     who can --

 4             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes, let the witness answer if he can.

 5             THE WITNESS:  Can you repeat the question, please.

 6             MR. GROOME:

 7        Q.   You've already told us that if the carpet were soaked with some

 8     flammable fluid, that a grenade could ignite that carpet.  And my

 9     question to you is accepting your last answer that you believe its

10     improbably that the grenade would directly light the clothing of the

11     people, that if it lights the carpeting, I mean, shortly thereafter if

12     their clothing is soaked in flammable liquid, it's going to ignite as

13     well, maybe not from the grenade but from the carpet; correct?

14        A.   Correct.

15        Q.   Okay.  Now let's go back to the photographs.  Could I ask you to

16     turn to page 5 on -- in your book.  And I wanted to work with the

17     photograph on the top of the page first.  And this is a picture of the

18     house that you did your examination of looking at the entrance to the

19     lower room, the ground-floor room in that house; correct?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   Now, what I'm interested in is directly above that room, what

22     would be the first floor of the house, there are clay bricks missing from

23     that wall; correct?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   And it's somewhat a semi-circular shape; correct?

Page 5472

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Now, let's go down to the bottom page of this -- the same --

 3     sorry, the bottom photograph on the same page.  Now, we're looking at the

 4     house with our back to the gully --

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   -- and it's hard to see because of the overgrowth, but the two

 7     windows of the house are in the ground floor of the house in front of us;

 8     correct?

 9        A.   Yes, they're there.

10        Q.   And the first floor above us with -- where the clay bricks are,

11     we see the same loss of bricks.  And at least in the second cavity on the

12     right, we seem to have the same kind of semi-circular shape to the -- to

13     the missing bricks; correct?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Now can we turn to page 6, and this is the -- the wall of the

16     house that is directly opposite the one that we were looking at, so this

17     is the side of the house that's facing Pionirska Street; correct?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   And once again, we see the clay bricks missing from the wall in a

20     semi-circular shape of -- similar to the other two sides that we've

21     already looked at; correct?

22        A.   Are you referring on the wall that faces Pionirska Street or the

23     wall we've already examined that's above the doorway into the basement?

24        Q.   Well, this -- do you not recognise this as the wall facing

25     Pionirska Street?

Page 5473

 1        A.   I do.  This one right here off to the right.  That's the wall

 2     that faces Pionirska Street.

 3        Q.   I believe you're mistaken.  So let's go back and take a look at

 4     page 5 and see if I can help you get your bearings here.  Okay at the top

 5     of page 5, that photograph where we can see the door underneath.

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   The wall that I'm showing you now is the wall that's on the

 8     right-hand side.  Where we're standing now, Pionirska Street is to the

 9     right; correct?

10        A.   Yes.  It runs parallel -- it runs parallel to the building as

11     you're looking at it.

12        Q.   Okay.  So the wall that I was trying to show you on the next page

13     is not the wall we're looking at now, but it's the wall that joins it on

14     the right-hand side?

15        A.   That's what I asked you, yes, sir.

16        Q.   Now, if you can look back there and see if you can get your

17     bearings.  Okay?

18        A.   Yep.

19        Q.   And again we have the same damage to the house; correct?

20        A.   There's -- there's tiles missing, yes.

21        Q.   Now, the last wall of the house, we have a different pattern.

22     And it seems this wall of the house on the bottom photograph of page 6 is

23     the wall of the house that's furthest away from the door.  Is that not

24     correct?

25        A.   The picture at the bottom of page 6 is not the rear end of the

Page 5474

 1     building as we approached it.  The picture of the walls on page -- at the

 2     bottom of page 6, these are the two front edges of the building that face

 3     you as you approach the dwelling.

 4        Q.   Okay.  Let's see if we can call up that photograph.  It's

 5     Y020-3491.  And the part of the -- the -- this photograph that I want to

 6     draw your attention to is the bottom row of bricks.  You see how -- it

 7     seems that every brick on the bottom row is broken in half.  Do you see

 8     that?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Could I ask that you, during my cross-examination of you, always

11     use a green pen.  This way we will always be sure that in response to my

12     questions you use the green pen.  I know you have used red and blue.

13             Okay.  They tell me that our choices today are just blue and red,

14     so if you would mark it, could I ask you to put your initials on the

15     bottom so I know the ones with your initials were the ones in response to

16     questions from me.  So if you would put your initials perhaps in the

17     upper left-hand corner.  I won't be working with that part of the

18     photograph.

19        A.   Okay.

20        Q.   Could I ask you now to -- oh, we do have green.  Okay.  So that

21     the record is clear, you'll be making marks in green in response to my

22     questions.

23             Could I ask you to circle the bottom row of bricks in this wall

24     that are all broken.

25        A.   [Marks]

Page 5475

 1        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.  Could I tender that into evidence, please.

 2             MR. ALARID:  Objection, relevance.

 3             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.  We admit it.

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P266, Your Honours.

 5             MR. GROOME:

 6        Q.   Now, the question I have for you, when you talk about blast

 7     overpressure, if there was a violent explosion in the interior of the

 8     room underneath where these bricks are, or underneath the first floor, am

 9     I correct in thinking that one of the places where this blast

10     overpressure would have exerted itself was on the ceiling, on the

11     concrete slab above where the people were?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   And is it consistent with blast overpressure that we might see

14     the patterns we've seen here where the walls closest -- or three of the

15     walls it seems bricks fell out or fell in, and on this wall it seems that

16     just the bottom row of bricks all seem to be cracked all along the

17     bottom.  Would that be consistent with the effect of blast overpressure?

18        A.   I believe the amount of explosives to -- that would need to be

19     utilised to crack every single brick at the corner -- bottom corner of

20     that foundation would have destroyed the dwelling to begin with.  So I

21     find it very unlikely that those rows of bricks were strictly broken from

22     just the blast overpressure of the device in this incident.

23        Q.   But would the blast overpressure cause that slab that's the

24     ceiling in the room where it happened and the floor of the first floor,

25     would it not cause that to -- would the shockwave not vibrate that slab?

Page 5476

 1        A.   I'm not saying it wouldn't vibrate it, but to cause that amount

 2     of damage especially when you have two windows down in the bottom

 3     dwelling area or living space on top of a door, I find it very unlikely.

 4        Q.   Any idea, then, based on your expertise what would have caused

 5     every brick along the bottom row to crack like that?

 6             MR. ALARID:  Calls for speculation.

 7             MR. GROOME:  Can he answer the question, Your Honour?

 8             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.  Let him answer the question.

 9             THE WITNESS:  Do I have an answer for that?  No, I don't.  I'm

10     not a carpenter, so I wouldn't know why that would deteriorate the way it

11     is.

12             MR. GROOME:

13        Q.   Well, you mean you did --

14        A.   And again the upper parts of the building were not in the area

15     that my exploitation was being needed.  It was strictly the one room down

16     below.

17        Q.   So you didn't look at the rest of the building?

18        A.   It's -- no.  There was nothing to look at from my -- from my

19     standpoint.

20        Q.   And you made that determination without looking, or you looked

21     and made a determination that there was nothing of significance when you

22     looked?

23        A.   I walked the perimeter of the building and saw that there was no

24     significance.

25        Q.   And so it's your evidence that there's no significance whatsoever

Page 5477

 1     that the clay bricks on the walls directly above where an explosive

 2     device was detonated, it's your evidence that that's not significant?

 3        A.   It's not -- I don't believe it's significant due to the amount of

 4     concrete that's surrounding in the slabs of the room below.  And you have

 5     the two openings of the window and the doorway to vent the blast

 6     overpressure after it bounced around inside.

 7        Q.   Did you measure the thickness of the slab?

 8        A.   No.  There's no way to tell.  There's so much grass.  As you look

 9     in the pictures there's grass and vegetation and a tree growing in the

10     middle of the house.  There is no way to tell how deep or thick the

11     concrete is at different areas.

12        Q.   Let me move to a different area now.  Can I ask you to turn your

13     book to page 9.  Page 9 has pictures that you took of the windows in the

14     room where the detonation occurred.  Now, am I correct in saying that

15     the -- the two photos on this page, the top picture is the window on the

16     left immediately behind the entrance door, and the photo on the bottom is

17     the -- is the window to the right furthest from the entrance door?

18        A.   If you walk in and face the left wall, you're correct in that.

19     The window up top is to the left closest to the actual entrance to the

20     room, and the photo on the bottom is the one furthest away from the

21     doorway.

22        Q.   Now, the pictures that you took of the windows, the window jambs

23     are missing.  The wooden frame that holds the glass is gone?

24        A.   Yes.

25             MR. ALARID:  Objection.  Assumes facts not evidence.  There is no

Page 5478

 1     indication, I believe, within the record that there was glass windows

 2     within those openings.

 3             MR. GROOME:  If Counsel rereads VG-18 or VG-13, I think there's

 4     ample testimony about what was in these windows.

 5             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes, answer the question.

 6             MR. GROOME:

 7        Q.   But again, sir, you're allowed to answer even hypothetical

 8     questions.  If there were glass windowpanes in this, in the frame, is it

 9     possible that blast overpressure could drive out the frames, could push

10     them out?

11        A.   Possible, but I highly doubt it.

12        Q.   And why do you highly doubt it?

13        A.   Because the glass would have broken which would have vented it

14     immediately.  If this was boarded up and all the same material, the same

15     wood, was closed -- closed off this entire portion, then I would say,

16     yes, it's probable that the blast overpressure of a device could have

17     pushed out the entire framework including the frame around the stonework.

18     It's path of least resistance.  The glass breaks there goes your blast

19     overpressure out the window.  It's not going rip away -- let me rephrase

20     that.  It's unprobable that it ripped it out and pulled it to the outside

21     of the building.

22        Q.   So then if it's not here now, it seems then that someone would

23     have removed it, then, sometime after the blast.

24        A.   It's possible.

25        Q.   Well, it seems that it has to be one or the other.  Either it was

Page 5479

 1     knocked out as a function of the blast, or it was taken out by someone

 2     who manually took it out of the window; correct?

 3        A.   One or the other.  But I don't believe it was blown out of the

 4     window.

 5        Q.   How about the door?  Is it the same possibility for the door?

 6     Let's say the door was closed and locked or sealed in some way.  Is it

 7     possible that the blast overpressure would push out the door including

 8     the door jamb?

 9        A.   It's possible but, again, the door is made of a thick material,

10     so the door itself would come off prior to the framework being ripped out

11     of the foundation.

12        Q.   So it's your belief that the most probable scenario is the door

13     would tear off the hinges before the entire door frame would go --

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   -- out?

16        A.   Yes.  Path of least resistance.  The door is the weakest link in

17     the chain, and it would have been blown out without removing the door

18     frame.

19        Q.   Now, you mentioned that part of your -- one of the jobs that you

20     had was in construction.  When you looked at this door and this doorjamb

21     in the building, do you believe it was the door that was there at the

22     time of the explosion?

23        A.   No and my expertise in construction was in a deep tunnel project

24     with a jackhammer on the back of a mole machine, no carpentry skills.

25        Q.   What made you come to the conclusion, though, that it was not the

Page 5480

 1     door or the doorjamb that was there at the time of the explosion?

 2             MR. ALARID:  I believe that misstates the answer.  I think he was

 3     qualifying his construction experience.

 4             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Reformulate, Mr. Groome.

 5             MR. GROOME:

 6        Q.   Well, let me ask you again.  Do you think this was the -- this

 7     was the door that -- and the door frame that was present during the --

 8     the time of the explosion?

 9             MR. ALARID:  Objection, calls for speculation.

10             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, I'm going to ask for an instruction to

11     Counsel to cease with these incessant objections with respect to

12     speculation.  He is a witness that is allowed.  I can put to him an

13     explosion on Pluto, and he's allowed to answer that.  He's allowed to

14     speculate.  He's a qualified --

15             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Precisely, Mr. Alarid.  They are quite pointless

16     in relation to this witness.

17             Let's proceed.

18             MR. ALARID:  Your Honour, how can this witness say when this door

19     was put or not put, whether it was original or not original?

20             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Let him say it whether he can say it or not,

21     yeah.

22             MR. GROOME:

23        Q.   So, sir --

24             JUDGE ROBINSON:  He's here as an expert.

25             MR. GROOME:

Page 5481

 1        Q.   Tell us about the door.  Do you have an opinion as to whether it

 2     was the original door or not?

 3        A.   No, I do not.

 4        Q.   So you're unable to say?

 5        A.   That's correct.

 6        Q.   So your conclusion about there being no fire damage on door

 7     really has no relevance; is that not correct?

 8        A.   No, I was never asked about fire damage to the door.  That's not

 9     my area of expertise.  I'm not an arson investigator.

10        Q.   Weren't you asked that on direct examination?

11        A.   No, not to the door, no.  No.

12        Q.   The doorjamb?

13        A.   No.

14        Q.   Just have a second.  Let me just --

15        A.   I don't believe I was.

16        Q.   Sir, when you were shown photograph 3638, it was the doorjamb.

17     And I'll find it on the transcript, but your testimony records you as

18     saying there was no fire and there was no impact.  Do you --

19        A.   I was asked about impact marks on the concrete surfaces near the

20     door.  I was not asked about fire on the door.

21        Q.   Let me just see.  It's on page 60.  Let me just call it up.  I

22     apologise for taking this time, but page 60.  Mr. Alarid asked you --

23     this is what the transcript records you as saying.  Page 60, line 9.

24               "Q.  Now, do you see any impact marks, or is there any evidence

25     of fire?"

Page 5482

 1             And your answer was:

 2                      "A.  Neither."

 3             Do you wish to change that answer now?

 4        A.   No.  There's --

 5             JUDGE ROBINSON:  In relation to what?

 6             Mr. Groome.

 7             MR. GROOME:  Okay, I'm sorry.  Let me read the question before.

 8             Question by Mr. Alarid:

 9                      "Q.  And just to show what we're seeing --

10                      "A.  It's a photograph of the same wall behind the door,

11     just the lower half of the door."

12             And then you he said:

13                      "Q.  Now do you see any impact marks, or is there any

14     evidence of fire?"

15             JUDGE ROBINSON:  But that appears to relate to the wall behind

16     the door.

17             MR. GROOME:  This is -- well, let me clarify.

18        Q.   When Mr. Alarid asked you just the lower half of the door?

19        A.   No.  The observation that I was making off of that photograph was

20     to say that it's the same wall from the previous picture, it's just the

21     lower half of the wall.  You're looking at a picture of the lower half of

22     the wall, lower half of the door.

23        Q.   So what is your evidence now with respect to your observations of

24     the door and the doorjamb?  Is it that there was evidence of fire on it,

25     or there was not evidence of fire on it?

Page 5483

 1        A.   I'm not qualified to make that assumption or any speculation

 2     thereof because I'm not an arson guy; I'm an explosives guy.

 3        Q.   But I mean I think it's -- you don't need to be an expert.  Isn't

 4     part of all of our common experience as humans that we have seen burnt

 5     wood, whether it be a log on a fireplace or, you know, a piece of wood

 6     that's burnt.  Are you saying that you have no impression of whether

 7     there was fire damage on the door?

 8             MR. ALARID:  Could the witness be shown the photograph.

 9             MR. GROOME:  Call up -- I think it's all of these are Y020.

10     3637.

11        Q.   Now is this the -- this is the photograph we were speaking about

12     and --

13        A.   That's the top portion of the doorjamb door and above someone's

14     head on the wall.

15        Q.   And --

16        A.   Behind the door as it opens up into the room.

17        Q.   And what is your evidence with respect to whether there's fire

18     damage on this doorjamb?

19        A.   No, there doesn't appear by this photo to be any fire damage.

20        Q.   Could I ask that we zoom in.  There's a piece of wood sticking

21     horizontally at the top of the door.  Could I ask that we just zoom in

22     there.  Maybe zoom in even more.  Maybe slide up to it now.

23             Now, when I look at that piece of wood, I see one side appears to

24     be black, and the underneath part seems to be white ash.  Is that not

25     fire damage?

Page 5484

 1             MR. ALARID:  Objection, calls for speculation.  Lack of

 2     foundation with regard to the --

 3             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Please stop.  Please stop, Mr. Alarid.  Please

 4     stop.  You are irritating me.

 5             MR. ALARID:  [Overlapping speakers] ...  then the Prosecutor is

 6     testifying, Your Honour.

 7             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Let the witness answer the question.

 8             THE WITNESS:  Based on this photograph, I cannot make that

 9     determination.

10             MR. GROOME:

11        Q.   Let me ask you to take a look at another one.  Could I ask that

12     you look at 1D151 in evidence.  It was admitted as a Defence exhibit.

13             MR. GROOME:  Could I ask that we zoom in on the edge of the door

14     frame there.  Any portion of the edge.  Not the door itself but the edge.

15     You'll see the -- the unpainted wood and then the black edge.  If we

16     could zoom in even more.

17        Q.   Now, Mr. O'Donnell, it seems looking at this that the entire edge

18     of the door appears to be -- have burnt.  The wood seems burnt.  Is that

19     not correct?

20        A.   I disagree.  When we were in the room itself, none of the wood

21     that we looked at, none of the wood that we tested as far as touch, feel

22     had any fire damage whatsoever.

23        Q.   So now you're --

24        A.   We found a lot.

25        Q.   Now you're saying you're competent to recognise fire damage?

Page 5485

 1        A.   No, I am saying in picking up pieces of wood there was no

 2     charcoal transfer from the wood to my clothing, to my boots, to my

 3     gloves, any of that.

 4        Q.   Okay --

 5        A.   I did not --

 6        Q.   I agree -- I accept that it's possible that a piece of wood could

 7     be burnt and time has elapsed and it was no longer possible if you were

 8     to contact it with your clothing or your hands, there would be evidence

 9     of ash.  Accepting that.  But that's not the same as saying there's no

10     damage caused by fire to the wood, is it?

11        A.   No.

12        Q.   Now these are pictures that you took.  So we're relying on your

13     observations and the pictures that you took.  Now, I want to show you --

14     I mean, as good as this technology is, it's still not as -- it doesn't

15     have the definition of an actual photograph.  So these are the

16     photographs that -- that Mr. Alarid provided me.  I'm going to ask you to

17     look at Y020-3639.  It's a photographic print of the picture you took.

18             MR. GROOME:  Could I ask that the witness be shown this.

19        Q.   I'd ask you that you take a look at it.  And you look at the

20     piece of -- of -- again, this is the piece of wood that's horizontal.

21     It's in the top edge of the door.  Is it not fire damage on that piece of

22     wood?

23        A.   I cannot conclude that from this.

24             MR. GROOME:  Could I ask that it be shown to the Court and to

25     Defence counsel, and I'd ask that it be tendered into evidence.

Page 5486

 1             MR. ALARID:  Your Honour, I would object only so much as we have

 2     the electronic copy.  I don't see the necessary relevance of this print

 3     taking some precedent over the digital copy that's on the screen in front

 4     us.  They're identical photograph.  I think we can all stipulate to that.

 5     But I think that trying to characterise the printout as showing something

 6     that the screen does not would be improper in this situation.

 7             JUDGE ROBINSON:  The objection is without merit.  We'll admit it.

 8             MR. GROOME:

 9        Q.   Now, sir if we could -- I'm sorry?

10             THE REGISTRAR:  I apologise.  That's Exhibit P267, Your Honours.

11             MR. GROOME:

12        Q.   Now if we could return to the lower photograph on page 9.  We can

13     see the doorjamb.  There's no wooden structure or window jamb --

14        A.   Are you referring to your book?

15        Q.   Actually it's your photographs and it's the books that I put --

16        A.   [Overlapping speakers] ...

17             MR. ALARID:  [Overlapping speakers] Your Honour, we would object

18     to characterising them as Mr. O'Donnell's photographs.  They were

19     tendered.  They could be the arson investigator's photographs; they could

20     be Mr. Jenkins photographs.  They were separated by memory card when they

21     were tendered --

22             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes, yes, yes.

23             Mr. Groome, please use the correct description.

24             MR. GROOME:

25        Q.   Is this the photograph that you took?

Page 5487

 1        A.   I can't say if it was or not.  A lot of us -- we took photographs

 2     of the same material.  You were talking about a photograph just a second

 3     ago on page 9 at the bottom.

 4        Q.   Yes, I want to ask you a question about that photograph.

 5        A.   Okay, that's the window, not the door.

 6        Q.   Yeah, I misspoke what I said [Overlapping speakers] ...

 7        A.   Just making sure I'm tracking where you're going.

 8        Q.   There is no wooden window jamb --

 9             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Just a minute, please.  There's a complaint

10     which I have heard of overlapping --

11             THE WITNESS:  Sorry.

12             JUDGE ROBINSON:  -- between counsel and the witness.

13             MR. GROOME:

14        Q.   The window that we see here has no wooden window jamb in which

15     glass could be affixed; correct?

16        A.   Correct.

17        Q.   What we do see are clay bricks mortared into the window lying

18     sideways; correct?

19        A.   That's a possible observation.  I don't know if they're

20     necessarily mortared in there, but they're within the window jamb, yes.

21        Q.   And if we accept the evidence of -- or the observations of the

22     survivors, they weren't there on that night.  So it seems that logic

23     would -- would draw us to the conclusion that someone has attempted to

24     make some use of these rooms, that these bricks were put here for a

25     purpose; correct?

Page 5488

 1        A.   It's -- it's -- it's definitely accurate to say that somebody has

 2     occupied this dwelling since the night of the incident, yes.

 3        Q.   Well, you say "someone," and I want to explore that assumption

 4     with you.  The bricks are put in in such a way that in the cold winter,

 5     and it gets very cold here in Visegrad during the winter, the wind would

 6     simply pass through the blocks the way they're put in now; correct?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   That if someone were to put these blocks in the window because

 9     they wanted to inhabit it, to live in it, common sense tells us they

10     would have put them in the way they're meant to be put so that there is

11     no gap; is that not correct?

12        A.   Sure.  I don't understand where you're going with this.

13        Q.   But you agree with me that if someone were going to dwell in this

14     house and wanted to put these bricks here to make it a dwelling, they

15     would have put it, the bricks, in a way that blocked the wind, not

16     permitted the wind to come in; correct?

17        A.   True.

18        Q.   Would you agree with me that the blocks put here seem more

19     consistent not with someone inhabiting it but someone keeping animals in

20     this room after the blast?

21        A.   No.

22             MR. ALARID:  Objection, calls for -- well, calls for --

23             THE WITNESS:  No, I disagree.  The window that you're looking at

24     right now has possibly a five-foot drop further to the ground outside of

25     it than the window closest to the door does.  [French on English channel]

Page 5489

 1             MR. GROOME:  It seems -- it seems the French translation -- it

 2     seems the French translation is coming across the English channel.

 3             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

 4             THE WITNESS:  Yeah, I just got that.

 5             MR. GROOME:

 6        Q.   Let me now take you to page 10.

 7             Now, both of the photographs on page 10 are photographs of the

 8     ceiling in the ground floor space of this house; correct?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   And the top photograph is the ceiling just immediately outside

11     the entrance door.  Is that not correct?

12        A.   It's difficult to stipulate that that is based off of this

13     picture.

14        Q.   Well, then the bottom photograph, are you able to say from the

15     bottom photograph whether it is actually inside the room or outside the

16     room?

17        A.   The bottom photograph I could say is inside the room.  If you

18     look in the bottom left-hand corner, you can see the top framework of a

19     window.  So therefore that tells me that's the ceiling inside the room.

20        Q.   Now when you were doing your post-blast exploitation, did you

21     examine the ceiling of the room as well?

22        A.   As far -- as far as what?  Look for it for what?

23        Q.   Well, the things that you look for when you do post-blast

24     exploitation?

25        A.   No, I did not.

Page 5490

 1        Q.   Well, from your description of what happens when something's

 2     detonated, it seems that the ceiling might even have been a better place

 3     to look for impact marks because people wouldn't have blocked the path to

 4     the ceiling?

 5        A.   You're absolutely correct in that statement, but the -- the

 6     amount of decay to the ceiling prevented us with moisture coming in --

 7     water was actively dripping from the ceiling.  It prevented us from doing

 8     any -- any exploitation of the ceiling.

 9        Q.   Well, am I correct in saying, according to your observations,

10     there was more rebar exposed inside the room than outside the room?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   And they both would be subjected to the same level of decay.  In

13     fact it could be argued that the ceiling of the portico, of the area just

14     outside the door, might even be more exposed to the elements; correct?

15             MR. ALARID:  And, Your Honour, I would object to relevance and

16     outside the witness's area of expertise, calls for speculation.

17             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Answer the question.

18             THE WITNESS:  Would you repeat the question, please.

19             MR. GROOME:

20        Q.   Let me just put it very simply.  The area of the ceiling just

21     outside the door, in the portico area, had less rebar exposed than the

22     area inside the room itself; correct?

23        A.   That is correct.

24        Q.   Now, taking what you've told us about how blast overpressure

25     works, is it possible that a blast going off in the room, that the

Page 5491

 1     shockwave up to the ceiling could have played some part in the amount of

 2     concrete material that is missing here and exposing the rebar?

 3        A.   Yes, it's possible.

 4        Q.   Now, if we could look at page 8, and these are photographs that

 5     you worked with on your direct examination.  I don't recall at the moment

 6     which exhibits they are now marked as.  These impact marks, can you tell

 7     us approximately how deep they are?

 8        A.   Fractions of an inch.

 9        Q.   Can you be a little more precise, a half inch, quarter of an

10     inch?

11        A.   They went through the plaster on the wall and then met with a

12     more dense material of the concrete behind it, so, therefore, they didn't

13     travel as far in.  So the plaster of the wall could have been a 16th of

14     an inch thick, and it definitely went through that, and it left small

15     indentions on the actual concrete it he have.

16        Q.   The blast impact mark that we see at the bottom seems to have

17     some blackening inside it.  Is that of any significance to you?

18        A.   No.

19        Q.   It would be your understanding that it it's simply dirt or some

20     other foreign matter?

21        A.   Yeah.

22        Q.   This particular photograph is the one where you said you were

23     able to calculate a trajectory from; is that correct?  That's the bottom

24     photograph on number 8.

25        A.   The probability of the trajectory is more accurate than actually

Page 5492

 1     calculate the trajectory, yes.

 2        Q.   Now, from your testimony you mentioned two impact marks where you

 3     estimated the trajectory as the explosive device originating somewhere

 4     below and moving up towards the impact marks; correct?

 5        A.   Correct.

 6        Q.   Were there only two of the 30 impact marks that you were able to

 7     make that estimation?  Or were there more?

 8        A.   Those two specific, I came to that conclusion.  I've also said

 9     that these impact marks could have been made by anything.  That's in my

10     testimony.  That's in my written report as well.

11        Q.   Okay.  I guess what I'm trying to get at is, were any of the

12     impact marks that you saw consistent with just the direct horizontal path

13     from the explosion to the wall?

14        A.   Some of them, yes.

15        Q.   And were there -- how many showed this upward trajectory?

16        A.   I'd say maybe about half.

17        Q.   And of the remaining half, did any show a downward trajectory?

18        A.   I did not -- I did not witness that there, no.

19        Q.   The fact that you saw half of the impact marks with an upward

20     trajectory and half with no upward trajectory, can we conclude from that

21     that there was a probability that two explosions occurred in this room?

22        A.   It's possible, but witness accounts only say one explosion, and

23     then -- and half hour to an hour of gunshots and screaming.  So your

24     impact marks that are -- appear to be straight, parallel to the floor,

25     could possibly have come from weapons instead of a device exploding in

Page 5493

 1     the room itself.

 2        Q.   Now, am I right in thinking that a fragment that travels at high

 3     velocity with enough speed to impact a wall of concrete and leave a mark

 4     like this, that at least in some of these there should have been whatever

 5     that particle was imbedded in the concrete; right?

 6        A.   Should have been.  I didn't find any other than the one fragment

 7     that I produced for the Court today.

 8        Q.   And what percentage would you would expect to find fragments

 9     embedded in a wall?

10        A.   I don't have an answer for that because I don't know what the

11     device is made out of.  And I've said in my testimony that the fragment

12     that I brought was not organic to the foundation.  Meaning it wasn't a

13     piece of rebar.  So it could have been any type of foreign matter.

14        Q.   But it seems that it was a ferrous material which you've told us

15     is also the same type of material that's used in hand grenades.

16        A.   Correct.

17        Q.   So it's possible the fragment you found is a hand grenade

18     fragment; correct?

19        A.   Possible.

20        Q.   So my question to you is that if it's likely that the particles,

21     the fragments, would embed themselves in the impact marks that they make,

22     that seems to suggest that they were removed, no?  At least in some of

23     these impact marks.

24        A.   It didn't look like anybody had gone in there and tried to

25     excavate any of the impact marks prior to me being there.  So as far as

Page 5494

 1     why we have impact marks that there are that should potentially have

 2     fragmentation in them, I don't know why it's not there.  And I've also

 3     stated that these impact marks could have been made by other things other

 4     than an explosion.

 5        Q.   Let's -- you're here as our explosives expert, so let's focus on

 6     that.  Is it possible that had some of the fragments embedded themselves

 7     in the wall that if somebody went into this room and washed it down with

 8     a powerful fire hose that that could dislodge some of the fragments that

 9     you would have expected to see in the holes.  Is that possible?

10        A.   I guess.

11        Q.   Could I ask that you be shown Y020-5579.  Just looking over my

12     notes, I see that was adequately covered on direct examination.  So I ask

13     that it not be called up.  There is really no need for me to go into that

14     again.

15             I'd like to talk to you about your conclusions now of your

16     report.  In your report you say:

17              "There was some kind of explosive device used in this incident."

18             So you state with a level of scientific certainty commensurate

19     with your experience and expertise that an explosive device was detonated

20     in this room; correct?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Now, I have Retired Colonel Travers next to me and another person

23     that I've consulted on this.  May have been your superior, I don't know,

24     in Afghanistan, a Lieutenant-Colonel Ray Lane, let me give you his title,

25     and see maybe he's someone that you know.  He was the Chief of Operations

Page 5495

 1     for counter improvised explosive device branch, a senior advisor to the

 2     commander of the force in Afghanistan.  Would you have had contact with

 3     someone like this, the Chief of Operations of --

 4        A.   No.

 5        Q.   One of the things they've suggested I explore with you is fuel

 6     air effect.  Are you familiar with that?

 7        A.   Familiar.

 8        Q.   Can I ask you to tell us what is the fuel air effect?

 9        A.   If -- I believe you're referring to fay [phoen] bomb type of --

10     is that what we're referring to?

11        Q.   Well, let me give you my understanding --

12        A.   Fuel air dispersion and ignition of that.  Is that what we're

13     referring to?

14        Q.   I'm not sure I understand what you're putting to me now.  So let

15     me put to you what I think the definition is, and please correct me if --

16     if I'm misstating it.  Am I correct in stating that a fuel air effect is

17     when flammable vapours present in the air ignite causing an explosion.

18     It would be similar to holding a lit match over a can, open can of

19     gasoline?

20        A.   That's correct.

21        Q.   So that's the fuel air effect?

22        A.   Correct.

23        Q.   So it's not the can of gasoline that's exploding --

24        A.   It's the vapours.

25        Q.   -- it's the vapours that have accumulated.  And that's why on

Page 5496

 1     every gasp pump in the world there's a warning not to be there with an

 2     open light; correct?

 3        A.   Right.

 4        Q.   Now, in the case of an enclosed space, the fuel air effect can be

 5     very great.  So for an example, in the case of a house which has a

 6     natural gas leak, if the gas vapours accumulate in the house and are not

 7     allowed to escape, if they are ultimately ignited by something, you can

 8     have a catastrophic destruction of the house; correct?

 9        A.   Yes, you can.

10        Q.   Now, in the case of volatile chemicals, would high heat, high

11     humidity contribute to the rate at which these volatile chemicals are

12     transformed into flammable vapours?  Is that correct?

13        A.   Are you asking is it going to accelerate the process the liquid

14     goes into a vapour?

15        Q.   Yes.

16        A.   Then, yes.

17        Q.   So if we had a can of gasoline in the winter and we had a can of

18     gasoline in the summer, we could expect greater vapours to be created

19     during the summer?

20        A.   Absolutely.

21        Q.   Now, early in your remarks, and you've mentioned it several times

22     in your answers to me, the importance of witness accounts.  I think you

23     said that's one of the first things that you try to do when evaluating a

24     site is to see what the witnesses say.  Now, there has been evidence from

25     witnesses that there was some sort of volatile chemical soaked into the

Page 5497

 1     carpet of this room when they entered it.  Would the fact that it was a

 2     summer night, that approximately 70 people each giving off their own body

 3     heat, the fact that the windows were closed, the door was closed, might

 4     this all contribute to the potential for a fuel -- fuel air effect

 5     explosion in that room?

 6        A.   It's possible.

 7        Q.   And would closing the door of the room also contribute to the

 8     concentration of flammable vapours in the room?

 9        A.   Yes, if you don't have a venting source, yes.

10        Q.   Now, accepting that scenario, what might happen if someone opened

11     that door with an open flame in their hand, perhaps a match, perhaps a

12     Molotov cocktail?  What would happen if a person was at the doorway,

13     opened it with some kind of lit flame in their hand?

14        A.   They could possibly expect an explosion in their face.

15        Q.   From the vapours in the room?

16        A.   Possible, yes.

17        Q.   And would it be likely that the -- the source of ignition would

18     begin at the flame in the person's hand; correct?

19        A.   Yes, it would.

20        Q.   And it's quite possible that they, themselves, might be injured

21     at least in the hand in which they're holding that lit frame?

22        A.   That size of room that possible scenario they would be lucky to

23     just walk away with just injuries to their hand.

24        Q.   Okay.

25             And there could be a terribly violent explosion because of fuel

Page 5498

 1     air effect?

 2        A.   Correct.

 3        Q.   It could be as powerful or perhaps even more powerful than a hand

 4     grenade?

 5        A.   In that room it would possibly be more powerful than a hand

 6     grenade.

 7        Q.   And that explosion would essentially be a cloud of flame that

 8     entirely -- entirely engulfed the room and all of the participants in it;

 9     correct?

10        A.   Momentarily, yes.

11        Q.   And such an explosion would also cause blast overpressure;

12     correct?

13        A.   Yes.  Not to the extent of an actual chemical breakdown of an

14     explosive, but, yes, it would cause blast overpressure.

15        Q.   Okay.  Now, I'd like you to look at page 25 of the -- of the book

16     that you have before you.  Now, these are pictures from the ground floor

17     of that house, pictures taken by either you or one of your colleagues on

18     the 29th of January.  Can you tell me precisely where these pictures were

19     taken?

20        A.   I believe this is in a very small crawl space.  If you're looking

21     at the entrance it's kind of tucked up to the right of the door, if

22     you're looking at the entrance of the room.  It's outside the room.

23        Q.   Okay.  Could I ask that we split the screen.  And on the other

24     side we call up photograph Y020-3344.

25             While that's being called up, would you agree with me that this

Page 5499

 1     is clear evidence of fire-damaged wood?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3             MR. GROOME:  So the number again is Y020-3344.

 4        Q.   Okay.  We're looking at the house.  We're looking at the

 5     entranceway.  If I ask you to circle the area where this wood was, would

 6     you be able to do that on this photograph?

 7        A.   I believe so, yes.

 8        Q.   So could I ask you to take the pen.  Hopefully it's in green.

 9        A.   I'll wait for assistance.

10        Q.   Could I ask you to begin by putting your initials somewhere, not

11     on the house, and then when you're able to circle as precisely as you can

12     the area where this wood was.

13        A.   It's tucked up in this area over here.

14        Q.   Okay.  Could I ask you just simply, so it would be easier for us

15     later on, just to put "burnt material," or "burnt wood," something to

16     indicate what that arrow means.

17        A.   [Marks]

18        Q.   And that's -- that's -- actually, maybe if -- if the court usher

19     would remain there.  Just so the record is clear, we've gone away from

20     green and we're back to blue, but in case these are marks that you made

21     in response to my questions.

22             Now, could I ask that that exhibit now be tendered.

23             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

24             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P268, Your Honours.

25             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Mr. Groome, how much longer will you be?

Page 5500

 1             MR. GROOME:  I think I only have about ten more questions,

 2     Your Honour.  I think we should move rather briefly.

 3             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Because I'd like to try to complete this

 4     witness's evidence.

 5             MR. GROOME:  Just a couple more photographs.

 6             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Mr. Alarid, are you going to be re-examining?

 7             MR. ALARID:  Your Honour, I -- I look at maybe using two

 8     photographs for clarification and the questions that it would take to

 9     clarify two photographs.

10             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes, proceed.

11             MR. GROOME:  Okay.  I ask that I tender the picture of the house

12     where Mr. O'Donnell has made some markings, then once that's done could I

13     ask that that be removed.  And if we could zoom in on the left-hand side

14     of the top photograph.

15             Okay.  If we could just go back to one image on the screen and

16     please focus, enlarge the left-hand side of the upper photograph.

17        Q.   Now, let's take a close look at this burnt material.  There's no

18     question that this is severely charred material; correct?

19        A.   Correct.

20        Q.   Now, it appears -- you see the piece of wood sticking out that

21     does not seem to have any damage from fire?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Can I ask you to circle that, please.

24        A.   [Marks]

25        Q.   Am I right when I look at this, I mean, you were there, you saw

Page 5501

 1     this up close, to me when I look at that it seems that that is a thin

 2     strip of wood that has been fixed to the concrete foundation horizontally

 3     so that another -- something else could be attached to it.  Is that

 4     correct?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   And it's the material that was attached to it that seems to have

 7     sustained the burns, not this piece that it was affixed to; correct?

 8        A.   The edges look like they're fried, but, yes, more damage to

 9     what's affixed to it, yes.

10        Q.   Now, I know that as furring strip.  Are you familiar with that

11     term furring strip?

12        A.   No.

13        Q.   Furring strip would be horizontal pieces of wood that something

14     is attached to.  I want to show you another photograph.  Could I tender

15     this into evidence?

16             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

17             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P269, Your Honours.

18             MR. GROOME:  And can I call up -- can I call up a Defence

19     exhibit -- well, before I call it up as a Defence exhibit, will it be

20     possible for the witness to mark in green?  If not, I'd call up a fresh

21     copy so there's no confusion.  Perhaps let's not take any chances and

22     we'll call up a fresh copy.  So I would call up Y020-3398.  And I want to

23     tender this into evidence.  So this will be tendered?

24             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

25             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, it was admitted as Exhibit --

Page 5502

 1             MR. GROOME:  [Overlapping speakers] ...  I see that it's been

 2     erased.  I don't want it erased.  What's that?

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  It's saved already.

 4             MR. GROOME:  It's saved already.

 5             I'm finished with this exhibit, and could I call up Y020-3398.

 6     That's Y020-3398.

 7        Q.   Sir, this is a photograph that you already worked with with

 8     Mr. Alarid.  What interests me at this point in time is you see the strip

 9     of wood underneath the window?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   That's not the same type that we were just looking at, is it not?

12        A.   It's -- I mean, it's a piece of wood.  Are you asking for me to

13     narrow it down if it's oak or elm, or -- it's a piece of wood.

14        Q.   No, I'm not asking that.

15        A.   Okay.  It's a piece of wood, yes.

16        Q.   Is it of the same proportions as the other piece of wood we saw;

17     namely, a thin strip of wood affixed to the concrete foundation?

18        A.   While on site that piece of wood actually looked like it was

19     embedded in the foundation, not strictly attached to the surface, it

20     looked like it was a part of the wall.

21        Q.   Could I ask that you circle that piece of wood that we're talking

22     about so that it will be clear for future reference.

23        A.   [Marks]

24             MR. GROOME:  And I would tender that into evidence.

25             THE WITNESS:  Do you want my initials?

Page 5503

 1             MR. GROOME:  Yes, if you wouldn't mind.

 2             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P270, Your Honours.

 4             MR. GROOME:

 5        Q.   And the last photograph that I want you to take a look at is

 6     Y020-3564.

 7             Now, here we see, do we not, a piece of similar wood not affixed

 8     to the wall but leaning up against it; correct?

 9        A.   Correct.  Bottom left corner.

10        Q.   Could I ask you to circle that.

11        A.   [Marks]

12        Q.   Was that as you found it, or was that removed from the wall?

13        A.   That was as I found it.

14             MR. GROOME:  I tender that exhibit.  And I ask that Exhibit P269

15     be called up again.

16             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

17             THE REGISTRAR:  That's Exhibit P271, Your Honours.

18             MR. GROOME:

19        Q.   I just have one more question for you, Mr. O'Donnell, when the

20     picture is placed on the screen.

21             Sir, given -- when we look at P269, given that we see this narrow

22     strip of wood relatively unblemished behind this severely charred wooden

23     material and we find similar wood inside the room where those people

24     died, you have no way of determining whether or not the entire original

25     interior surface of the wall was charred in this way, do you?

Page 5504

 1        A.   No, I don't.

 2        Q.   Thank you.

 3             MR. GROOME:  No further questions, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Mr. Alarid.

 5             MR. ALARID:  Thank you.

 6             With regards to this exhibit on the screen here, is this the

 7     book, and can we go page by page and not have to use the separate

 8     numbers?  Is that how it was working?

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  The book is P265, Your Honours.

10             MR. ALARID:  And this being the book of the Prosecution's

11     pictures that we've all been referring to.

12             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, just so the record is clear.  It's not

13     the Prosecution's pictures; they're Defence pictures organised in a

14     particular way by the Prosecution.

15             MR. ALARID:  Yes, absolutely.

16             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes, proceed.  And please remember we are trying

17     to finish by ten past 7.00.

18             MR. ALARID:  Absolutely, that's why I want to get to this.  Can

19     we go to page 5 as referred in the picture book.

20                           Re-examination by Mr. Alarid:

21        Q.   And I'd briefly like you to take a look at page 5.  That's

22     page 4.  Oh, I'm sorry.  The next page, please.

23             Now, looking at the photographs, Mr. O'Donnell, the Prosecutor

24     mentioned the -- the removal of bricks kind of in this semi-circular

25     pattern over both the front door on the side, and I got the impression

Page 5505

 1     that he didn't quite go out and ask you, but I got the impression that

 2     the theory was whatever blast might have been in that basement room was

 3     severe enough to knock out the walls.

 4             And could we move to the next page, please.

 5             And looking at the photograph knocking the bricks and breaking

 6     the bricks along the -- where it attaches to the foundation.

 7             Now, have you dealt with explosions or explosives that have -- or

 8     were significant enough to blow out walls and crack foundations?

 9        A.   Yes, I have.

10        Q.   And -- but what is problematic is when you put an explosive

11     device of that size in a confined space does that amplify or decrease the

12     explosive charge?

13        A.   When you have an explosive device inside of a confined space,

14     it's going to, I guess -- look, would you mind clarifying just so that I

15     can answer correctly, sir.

16        Q.   Well, I guess this:  Would a grenade or even two grenades or

17     three grenades thrown in that bottom room be of sufficient explosive

18     power to crack the foundation and blow the walls out in the upper

19     structure?

20        A.   No.  Negative.  As Prosecution talked about a 155, if a 155 was

21     in there, it could have brought all the walls down on top of the room.

22        Q.   But by the same analogy what would happen to anyone in that room?

23        A.   With the 155 or the three grenades?

24        Q.   How about 155?

25        A.   You would have been very hard pressed to find bits and pieces of

Page 5506

 1     them.

 2        Q.   And what about hearing screams and shots for the next 30 minutes?

 3        A.   Negative.

 4        Q.   What about anyone surviving?

 5        A.   No.

 6        Q.   And just simply put, I mean, let's not -- let's not qualify it by

 7     155 or even three grenades.  An explosive charge sufficient to blow out

 8     the walls of the upper story and crack the bricks around the foundation,

 9     would we be finding survivors in that basement?

10        A.   No, we would not.

11        Q.   Would any survivors have made it out the door or the windows?

12        A.   No, they would not have.

13        Q.   And could we turn to what I think would be page 13.  You were

14     shown these pictures a little bit earlier.  And I say it's 12 in the book

15     but -- as numbered but 13 for e-court.

16             Do you recall looking at these pictures?

17        A.   I do.

18        Q.   And I think the discussion was surrounding the door and the door

19     frame and would it have blown out.  If the door had been shut prior to

20     the explosion, just assuming grenade-strength explosives, would we have

21     expected the door to be blown out or the frame attached to it to be blown

22     out?

23        A.   No.

24        Q.   Why not?

25        A.   Your weakest link in the three entry points to this room the

Page 5507

 1     windows and the door, the windows if they were -- had glass in them would

 2     have been the weakest link and all the blast overpressure would have gone

 3     out that way, just from we're talking about grenade-sized explosive.

 4        Q.   And just considering that blast overpressure as it relates to the

 5     picture we saw of the ceiling, is it possible that the blast overpressure

 6     could simply weaken the structure of the concrete causing an acceleration

 7     of deterioration by other ambient means such as moisture and water, but

 8     not necessarily cause the damage way back in 1992?

 9             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, could I ask that the witness not be

10     led?

11             MR. ALARID:  Yeah --

12             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes, I think you're doing a little leading

13     there, Mr. Alarid.

14             MR. ALARID:  I apologise, Judge.  I'm just trying to get through.

15        Q.   Looking at the ceiling and seeing how it collapsed inside and

16     exposed the rebar, obviously moisture, you testified moisture was coming

17     through the ceiling.  But my question is, is it possible that the blast

18     overpressure weakened it back in 1992, but the collapsing or the

19     deterioration happened later?

20        A.   Yes, it's possible.

21        Q.   And looking at the -- could we put both pictures on the screen as

22     they are from that page as opposed to zooming in?  Now, just looking

23     if -- if -- if on a hypothetical the door frame had blown out, would you

24     expect to see plaster and concrete in front of the wood as you do in the

25     picture?

Page 5508

 1        A.   No.

 2        Q.   Why not?

 3        A.   Because it -- the wood would have pushed the plaster and concrete

 4     out of its way.

 5        Q.   Now we see a lot of black stuff up on the ceiling and we saw it

 6     around.  Did you have an ability to make an observation what that black

 7     stuff was?

 8        A.   Yes, and --

 9             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, I don't believe I phrased this in

10     cross.

11             MR. ALARID:  We're under the same porch where the wood was,

12     Your Honour.

13             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.  Answer the question.

14             THE WITNESS:  We did.  And I say we as the entire team, the arson

15     investigators and also Mr. Jenkins and myself, we deduced that the black

16     substance that you see on the ceilings is mould of some type.

17             MR. ALARID:

18        Q.   Now, there was testimony that the old -- an old man survivor of

19     the fire was blown out an open doorway.  Is it possible that someone

20     could be blown out by blast overpressure, especially an older man, maybe

21     a smaller man?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Okay.  From a grenade?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   Okay.

Page 5509

 1             MR. ALARID:  No further questions, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Thank you, Mr. O'Donnell.  That concludes your

 3     evidence --

 4             THE WITNESS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 5             JUDGE ROBINSON:  -- and you may now leave.

 6                           [The witness withdrew]

 7             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Earlier today I indicated that the Chamber will

 8     hold a hearing tomorrow morning in relation to a particular matter, and I

 9     said that there would be a discussion.  The Chamber has since developed

10     its position in relation to this matter.  It will instead give a ruling,

11     and it may entertain one or two questions by way of clarification.  So I

12     just want to make that clear that the Chamber will give a ruling on the

13     matter in the morning.

14             Mr. Groome.

15             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, can I just ask, does the Chamber wish

16     anyone else from the Prosecution aside from myself to be here to address

17     those questions to?

18             JUDGE ROBINSON:  No.  No.  I believe you're perfectly competent,

19     Mr. Groome.

20             We are adjourned.  Let me just clarify one other matter for

21     tomorrow, the position with witnesses.

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 5510

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

 6             MR. ALARID:  But other than that, Your Honour, according to VWS,

 7     they may need us -- because of here state, we may not be able to proof

 8     her until Monday.  And so that's their qualification based on her

 9     representations, not mine.  But she -- and the travel time.  But other

10     than that, Your Honour, you know, assuming we proof on Sunday, we would

11     have a witness for Monday.  But if we don't, we wouldn't have a witness

12     until Tuesday.

13             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Very well.  We are adjourned until tomorrow

14     morning.

15                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.14 p.m.,

16                           to be reconvened on Friday, the 13th day

17                           of March, 2009, at 8.50 a.m.