1 Friday, 20 March 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 8.53 a.m.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Alarid, the Trial Chamber has spent a lot of
6 time trying to devise measures to ensure that you're able to produce the
7 witnesses that you have. Even though come Tuesday of next week you'd
8 have had the same time as the Prosecution, we have decided that we will
9 continue hearing evidence up to the 9th of April. We will be taking a
10 break, the Easter break, and we will return, I believe, on the 21st,
11 Tuesday the 21st. So on Tuesday the 21st, we'll have the closing
13 Now, I want to stress, Mr. Alarid and Mr. Ivetic, that when we do
14 this, we expect the time that be used. We don't want to come and then we
15 have a day's hearing and a witness's evidence is concluded within one
16 session, and the rest of the day is lost. On Monday, we will be giving
17 directions as to other time periods relating to closing briefs and so on,
18 and I'm going to require you to give me a list day by day of how the time
19 will be used by the Defence.
20 MR. ALARID: On Monday, Your Honour?
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'll let you know on Monday.
22 MR. ALARID: Okay.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'll let you know on Monday, perhaps by Tuesday.
24 Perhaps by Tuesday, yes.
25 MR. ALARID: Okay. One of the things I think might come up,
1 Your Honour, and one of the witnesses we would like to include in that
2 schedule; and I know it's been denied at one point, but considering
3 Ewa Tabeau filed a clarification in the Prosecution's most recent filing,
4 there was some additional research that was done with regards to that;
5 and we'd still like to follow up with her on the demographic side of
6 proof of death. So just to keep that out there, I just want to make the
7 Court aware, and we'll probably put the request in writing, of course,
8 but I just want to --
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Don't put it in writing. I will take this as an
10 oral motion for reconsideration, and we'll give it the consideration that
11 it requires.
12 MR. ALARID: Thank you, Judge. Thank you, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Groome.
14 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, just a few points. Related to the --
15 what we're discussing now, in light of earlier orders by the
16 Trial Chamber, we actually had made arrangements for witnesses to begin
17 arriving here, I think next Wednesday is when the first witnesses were
18 going to arrive, so we would appreciate guidance as soon as possible as
19 to when we would start our rebuttal case so we don't delay any
20 proceedings there.
21 And, Your Honour, with respect to the rebuttal case, we were
22 filing the motion today, but one of the witnesses we intend to call is a
23 Dr. Chris [phoen], he is a burn expert here in the Netherlands who looked
24 over Dr. Andersen's report and has some significant issues with it, and
25 he also looked at the same material and is going to come and show the
1 flaws in Dr. Andersen's report. He's only available --
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Should he be admitted?
3 MR. GROOME: Sorry?
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Should he be admitted as a rebuttal witness?
5 MR. GROOME: He's going to rebut with Dr. Andersen [Overlapping
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: No, I'm saying if we --
8 MR. GROOME: Sorry, Your Honour?
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: No, that is on the basis that we admit him as a
10 rebuttal witness ... [Overlapping speakers].
11 MR. GROOME: I'm not anticipating Your Honour's rulings, but you
12 have given us definite time, and all of these things take two, three
13 weeks to organise the logistics. But he's only available on the 27th of
14 March before he goes on a very extended training trip in the US and other
15 places. So I would be asking the Chamber to consider, if it does allow
16 us to call him, the Chamber is empowered by the rules to adjust the order
17 of trial to, at least if the Defence have not finished calling their last
18 witness, that this doctor be permit to be called.
19 Your Honour, just two other brief matters. It occurred to me
20 last evening in discussion with some staff that I think it really is
21 inappropriate. We talked about Mr. Tabakovic and some of the other
22 witnesses who have since they were initially Defence witnesses have made
23 some really serious allegations against the Defence team and Mr. -- I
24 notified the Chamber that it would be my intention to call them.
25 Mr. Alarid said, Well, we would still like to call them. And I have no
1 problem with who calls them, but to me it seems very inappropriate at
2 this time given these allegations that these witnesses are then asked to
3 sit down with the people they've made allegations against for proofing.
4 I have no intention of proofing these people. I'm intending to introduce
5 some video statements under 92 ter. I will let what their video
6 statements speak for themselves. I would ask the Court to give some
7 serious consideration to what -- possibly instructing VWS just to have
8 them brought to the court. If Mr. Alarid wants to call them, that's
9 fine, but I really think it would be inappropriate to require those
10 witnesses to meet in a proofing session with the Defence at this stage.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We'll consider that.
12 MR. GROOME: And then one final matter, Your Honour. Yesterday,
13 Mr. Alarid notified the Court and us that he intends -- that Mr. Lukic is
14 going to testify. Now, I would want to ask Mr. Lukic a number of
15 questions about Prosecution witnesses who have said -- given evidence in
16 this case. And I don't want to -- it's an area that's ripe for
17 confusion. There are a lot of pseudonyms, a lot of names, and I don't
18 want a situation where I might be asking Mr. Lukic about one witness and
19 he's thinking of another. So what I would like to do in advance of his
20 testimony is to prepare an exhibit that just has a picture of each of the
21 witnesses so I can say, there's VG-13, you can see VG-13, this person has
22 said this, what do you say that that? The problem is, Your Honour, I
23 cannot get those from the Registrar. They're not authorised to release
24 them --
25 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. Groome, a little slower please, thank you.
1 MR. GROOME: [Previous translation continues] ... I'm asking the
2 Chamber to authorise the Registrar to provide pictures of his own
3 witnesses that we can create these exhibits. We would, of course,
4 observe the protective measures and we would introduce it as a
5 confidential exhibit when Mr. Lukic testifies. Therefore, that way
6 everyone in the courtroom can be very clear about who we are speaking
7 about, and I --
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: I understand what you're saying, but I'll not
9 give a ruling on that now. Later today.
10 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness be called.
12 [The witness takes the stand]
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Groome.
14 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 WITNESS: MARTIN McCOY [Resumed]
16 Cross-examination by Mr. Groome: [Continued]
17 Q. Good morning, Mr. McCoy. Before I ask my questions today, I
18 wanted to give you an opportunity to amend any of your answers yesterday
19 on the main points I raised with you. Perhaps upon reflection overnight,
20 you might have reconsidered your answers. Is there anything you want to
21 change about your statement that if there was a fire in the basement,
22 there would be smoke plume damage on the -- above the windows on the
23 exterior of the house?
24 A. Again, it's a large, intense fire --
25 Q. Now, we don't have to go through the testimony again. Is there
1 anything you want to change or not? That's all I'm asking you.
2 A. No.
3 Q. Okay. Now, is there anything you want to change about your
4 testimony about your conclusion that the door that is presently in the
5 house that you saw on January 25th, 2009, is the same door that was there
6 17 years ago?
7 A. It is my opinion, yes. It is the same door.
8 Q. And is there anything you want to change about your conclusion
9 that the damage that we can see on the wedge in the upper left-hand
10 corner of the door jam has no fire damage on it?
11 A. That is correct, sir.
12 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, yesterday at transcript page 5690, you
14 "We came to a conclusion -- many to conclusions," I think you
15 were saying many conclusions "... at the scene, but this document,"
16 referring to your report, "... was done in my office with peer review
17 from my colleague, Ben Dimas."
18 Do you remember saying that yesterday?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Do I take it that you and Ben Dimas discussed the conclusions and
21 you are in agreement with respect to the conclusions in your report?
22 A. I believe so. Yes.
23 Q. So he agrees with the conclusions about the smoke plume, the
24 door, the wedge, the flooring?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, before I go back to talking about the
2 flooring, I want to show you a couple of pictures that you took and ask
3 you a couple of questions arising from them.
4 MR. GROOME: Could I ask that we call up Y020-3365, and I'm going
5 to ask that two pictures be placed on the screen at the same time, but
6 maybe if we start with this one. It's not one of the large pictures.
7 Q. Now, what I'm interested in here, this picture that we're looking
8 at this is a picture of the house that is directly across from the
9 Omeragic house, across the gully; is that not correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. I believe it was taken from the window of the basement; am I
12 correct in that?
13 A. I cannot say whether it was on the insider to outside, but from
14 that general area, yes.
15 Q. Okay. Thank you.
16 MR. GROOME: I would tender that into evidence.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
18 THE REGISTRAR: That's Exhibit P289, Your Honour.
19 MR. GROOME: Now, if we could move this to the side of the
20 screen, and if we could call up Y020-3401.
21 Q. Now, if we could focus on this picture, if we could maybe just
22 zoom in a little bit on that house between the two trees, that's the same
23 house, is it not?
24 A. Yes, I believe so.
25 Q. And if we look, we can actually even see the same laundry: I
1 don't think this person ever imagined their laundry would be shown at the
2 Tribunal, but you can even see the same laundry hanging the clothesline;
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Can we zoom out from this picture now again on the right. So if
6 that's the same house, that means that the Omeragic house is either
7 behind that tree or maybe perhaps behind the corner of that building; is
8 that correct?
9 A. Can you zoom in again?
10 Q. To the house?
11 A. Zoom in --
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Ivetic.
13 MR. IVETIC: Objection, relevance and beyond the scope of any
14 expertise this witness has offered, Your Honours. I mean --
15 MR. GROOME: He took the pictures.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: He's just asking about the photographs that he
17 took. Proceed, please.
18 MR. GROOME:
19 Q. I'm just trying to -- okay -- okay -- where would you like us to
20 zoom in, at the house or to the right of the -- you tell us where you'd
21 like to zoom in, and we'll do that.
22 A. Right below that black satellite dish.
23 MR. GROOME: Can we zoom in to that area?
24 Q. Okay. Now, with the Omeragic house --
25 A. It would be to the right of that.
1 Q. To the right if that. Just to the right?
2 A. Yes. I'm not sure how far, but you can't see it.
3 Q. Now, would I be correct that if the Omeragic house was fully
4 engulfed in flames, someone standing where you were when you took this
5 picture would be able to see smoke from the house, no?
6 A. Again, you can't see the house.
7 Q. Would the smoke go up into the sky, do you think?
8 A. Yes, it would, but you couldn't see -- if you can't see the
9 house, you can't say for certain if you could see the smoke plume or even
10 flames, for that matter.
11 Q. I don't quite understand. You're saying that someone standing
12 here, if the Omeragic house was fully engulfed in fire, the roof was on
13 fire, the basement, the ground floor, you're saying that a person here
14 would not have any idea that there was a fire going on there? They would
15 not be able to see smoke?
16 A. Can you zoom out again?
17 MR. ALARID: And objection, Your Honour, calls for speculation
18 and beyond the scope of direct exam.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: The witness can answer the question. If he can
20 answer it, then let him answer.
21 THE WITNESS: If I cannot see the house, I cannot say for certain
22 if somebody in this position could see smoke or flames from the house.
23 MR. GROOME:
24 Q. Sir, you're an experienced fireman. You drive up to a
25 neighborhood. Have you a call for a fire. Do you need see the smoke
1 rising from the top of the building long before you get to the house?
2 A. Yes, that's happened on occasion, depending on the intensity.
3 Q. So it's not unreasonable to think that someone could see the
4 smoke from here; correct?
5 A. Again, in my expert opinion, I don't believe so. It might be
6 possible but not very probable.
7 Q. Okay. It's a dark night when the fire starts. If it was a large
8 fire, completely engulfing the house, would somebody from here have any
9 sensation that there's light up in the sky, light against -- light
10 illuminating the smoke?
11 A. Again, in the middle of the night at this particular -- from this
12 particular balcony, I was not there at night. I don't know how much
13 ambient light is in the air from --
14 Q. I'm not talking about ambient light. I'm talking about a house
15 that's fully on fire. It gives off quite a bit of light, no?
16 A. Yes, it does.
17 Q. And a house that's fully engulfed in fire, it's making a sound as
18 well; is it nor? Are beams not cracking? Do we not hear the roar of the
20 A. I'm sure there is noise associated with it. Usually the fire
21 trucks are way noisier; on an average scene in my city the fire trucks
22 are extremely loud compared to the --
23 Q. Is it unreasonable to think that someone from this balcony would
24 have heard --
25 A. No.
1 Q. They would not have hear it?
2 A. No.
3 Q. That's your testimony? Okay. Thank you. Can I tender both of
4 the those photos, please?
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Mr. Groome, Mr. Ivetic spent two hours and
6 30 minutes. You have now gone about two hours and 37 minutes. I'll give
7 you another ten minutes. You must conclude within that time.
8 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, there was an awful lot of technical
9 problems yesterday trying to pull up these things. I don't have much
10 more, but I will do my best to finish in ten minutes but we have a few
11 important questions.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: We have a very proficient time-keeper, and I
13 have no reason to doubt the accuracy of what she has -- the figures she
14 has given me. Ten more minutes. We have move on.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P290, Your Honours.
16 MR. GROOME: Could we call up Y020-3448.
17 Q. Sir, can I ask you to circle on this photograph the balcony that
18 you took the photo from.
19 A. I believe it was either this balcony or this balcony.
20 Q. Okay.
21 A. I don't recall this picture.
22 Q. Do you recognise the house?
23 A. Yes, and again, I don't know if it was this balcony or this
24 balcony at this point.
25 Q. Okay. So it's either one of the balconies you've circled. I
1 will tender that into evidence. I'm going to ask you another question,
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P291, Your Honours.
5 MR. GROOME: Could I call up P31. Can you turn it sideways,
7 Q. Sir, see the circle on the bottom of the photograph?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. That's the -- it has 5, 6, or something, 6 it looks like. That's
10 the --
11 A. Are you talking about this one?
12 Q. That one there, yeah. That's the house you took the picture
13 from; correct?
14 A. I believe it was that one.
15 Q. Okay. Thank you.
16 MR. GROOME: Tender that into evidence, please.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
18 MR. GROOME: And could we call up Y020-3649.
19 MR. ALARID: And could the Prosecution provide the reference to
20 the exhibit number, as this is clearly a marked photograph. Is this
21 VG-115's exhibit?
22 MR. GROOME: P31 is the exhibit number.
23 MR. ALARID: P31? Thank you.
24 MR. GROOME:
25 Q. Sir, there seems to be some problem with the technology. I'm
1 going to ask that you look at two photographs from a book of your
2 photographs to confirm that they're yours.
3 MR. GROOME: Could I ask that the witness be shown page 3 on the
4 book of photographs that was introduced last week.
5 Q. Can I draw your attention to the picture on the bottom. It's
6 Y020-3649. Is this a picture of the Omeragic house on the left and the
7 house next door to the right; is that correct?
8 A. Okay. You want me to --
9 Q. 3649. It's the bottom photograph.
10 A. 3649 is the top photograph.
11 Q. I'm sorry. The bottom one.
12 A. Okay. The bottom one is 3387.
13 Q. Okay. And is that the Omeragic house on the left and the -- and
14 the house next door on the right?
15 A. Yes, I believe -- yes, it's the adjacent house.
16 MR. GROOME: I would tender that.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P292, Your Honours.
19 MR. GROOME:
20 Q. And I'm going to ask you to look at page 4. It's Y020-3404.
21 Now, in picture was taken in front of Pionirska Street look up away from
22 the town; correct.
23 A. Away from the river. There's -- the majority of the -- I mean,
24 in the north direction.
25 Q. Well, this is the roadway just in front of where the Omeragic
1 house is; correct?
2 A. There's two or three structures between --
3 Q. Between.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. But this is this Pionirska Street?
6 A. Yes, this is Pionirska Street.
7 Q. And where you're taking this picture from is essentially the
8 driveway to the house directly in front of the Omeragic house; correct
9 there's a space between two houses there?
10 A. Yes. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. Thank you.
12 MR. GROOME: I tender that.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P293, Your Honours.
15 MR. GROOME:
16 Q. Now, sir, if we can go back to talking about the floor. We
17 finished yesterday, and you had explained what an accelerant is, and my
18 question to you is, if someone walked into this courtroom - this a
19 carpet, let's say there's a wooden floor underneath it - and someone were
20 to pour five gallons of gasoline right in front of me, okay? The
21 gasoline wouldn't soak all the way to the far side of the room, would it?
22 A. Depending on the surface. If it leaned that way, yes.
23 Q. Let's say it was actually poured out right here on the floor.
24 A. Okay.
25 Q. So let's say it's 6, 7 litres of gasoline or a few gallons of
1 gasoline, it wouldn't be enough to cover the entire floor?
2 A. Not of a room this size, no.
3 Q. But it would seep out in all the different directions; correct?
4 A. Depending on how thin the layer is, it could possibly cover a
5 room half this size, yes.
6 Q. Okay. But it wouldn't cover all the floor. I'm trying to -- if
7 an insufficient amount of gasoline is poured on this carpet not to cover
8 the entire floor, some parts of this carpet will be soaked with gasoline,
9 some will not; correct?
10 A. That is correct.
11 Q. And if someone were to ignite that and we would allow that fire
12 to take its natural course uninterrupted by a fire Brigade, certainly the
13 parts soaked in gasoline would burn, and that fire would spread to the
14 walls and to the ceiling of the room; correct?
15 A. Yes. In a normal fire, yes.
16 Q. Now, you as a fire investigator are called to examine this scene.
17 If you strip out the floor, you will see a pattern of where the flammable
18 substance was and where it wasn't; correct?
19 A. Yes. Burn patterns, not necessarily where it was and was not.
20 Q. Well, it would be a burn pattern, and that burn pattern would be
21 more intense where the flammable liquid actually was laying on the floor
22 and less intense or possibly non-existent on an area that was not -- did
23 not have the flammable liquid; correct?
24 A. Correct, but adjacent to the flammable liquid is going to burn
25 more intense than five or ten feet away.
1 Q. Correct. So we could have very significant burning here,
2 moderate burning front of you, and possibly no burning at the far left
3 wall of this courtroom; correct?
4 A. Possibly, yes.
5 Q. Let's look at a photograph. Y020-3618. This is one that we --
6 MR. GROOME: I'm going to ask that we put a large one in front of
7 the witness, and there's a large one for the Bench to look at as well.
8 That could be placed on the ELMO. Could we turn it sideways.
9 Q. Sir, I put some sticky notes on it to indicate the portion that I
10 want to direct your attention to, and I don't want to mark the exhibit.
11 I'd like to you mark the exhibit. So could we shift it over so that we
12 could see the number 1. Could I ask you just to draw a circle just
13 around that immediate area and remove the tag that says number 1.
14 A. And the reason for the circle?
15 Q. I want to ask you your observations about that area.
16 A. [Marks]
17 Q. And put 1 inside there, and you can take the 1 away. If you'd
18 just write with your own hand 1. Now, is it your evidence that the area
19 in circle 1 is mold and not burnt floor-board?
20 A. On the inside --
21 MR. ALARID: And Your Honour, objection, misstates the evidence
22 as tendered. The references to mold are not references to the
23 floor-board. In the original testimony, it was dampness.
24 THE WITNESS: The floor was wet.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: He's asking him his view --
1 MR. ALARID: It misstates the evidence. It misstates his prior
2 evidence. He never stated with regard to those floor boards it was mold.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Groome, are you putting to the witness that
4 he had previously said that this was mold?
5 MR. GROOME: My recollection was that he was saying -- and he did
6 say rot as well. I'm concerned whether it's [indiscernible].
7 MR. ALARID: Transcript reference, please.
8 MR. GROOME: I'll [Overlapping speakers] myself to fire.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Reformulate the question because if you're going
10 to refer to previous evidence, then the practice is that you must cite
11 the transcript.
12 MR. GROOME:
13 Q. Sir, the area in the circle that you've marked number 1 -- is the
14 pen working?
15 A. [Marks]
16 Q. Okay. Is there fire damage in that circle?
17 A. No, there is not.
18 Q. That wood is not damaged by fire. What is it damaged by?
19 A. It is damaged by -- well, for one, it is damp.
20 Q. So it's the dampness that makes it this colour?
21 A. Yes, that is correct.
22 Q. Now, could we move to the area marked 2. Could I ask to you do
23 the same exercise, draw a circle around it, put 2 in it, remove the tag.
24 A. [Marks]
25 Q. Could we shift it up on the ELMO a bit so we all can see it, and
1 the same question to you, sir, here, is in this area, is that not fire
3 A. That is not fire damage.
4 Q. Okay. Can we look at 3. Do the same, please.
5 A. [Marks]
6 Q. That piece there. Is that your evidence that that's not fire
8 A. That is not fire damage.
9 Q. And 4, it's a furring -- if we could just move over and see 4.
10 Is that against the wall, is that not a piece of furring strip affixed to
11 the wall showing some evidence of fire?
12 A. Again, to me that doesn't look like it's affixed to the wall.
13 It's angled --
14 Q. So that is not affixed to the wall. It is lying inside. Is
15 there any fire damage on that piece?
16 A. No.
17 Q. And -- and it's not affixed to the wall. Now, let's look at A
18 for a second.
19 A. Okay.
20 Q. The floor from this point back, there is not as much -- we don't
21 have the black, the rotting, the dampness that you talk about; right?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. Now, in your evidence yesterday, you said that the woods would
24 get this way because of moisture in the ambient air. Do you recall that?
25 And that was at transcript -- 62 was the reference yesterday. I think
1 they've renumbered it since then. But do you remember saying that was
2 moisture in the ambient air that would cause the rot?
3 A. Again, I don't remember saying exactly that, and moisture in the
4 air does add to potential rot. This area that's black right here is
5 under the window. Stuff away from the window is going to be less damp,
6 okay? Just giving you --
7 Q. Okay. So it's your evidence -- so is that how you would explain
8 that some of the boards do not show these signs of this very dark
9 appearance that you say is not fire and some do? It's the location with
10 respect to the window.
11 A. Again, it's not my -- there was -- the majority of in room was
12 damp. Why? I don't know. There were two windows that had been opened
13 for 17 years.
14 Q. What is your explanation as a fire investigator as to why some of
15 the boards seem relatively fine? They're unmarked by this dark
16 appearance, to me what appears as charring, and some are. What's your
17 explanation as to why adjacent boards could have such a different
19 A. There were photographs of small stalagtite-looking droppings from
20 the slab above.
21 Q. So water was seeping in through the slab?
22 A. Yes. Yes. Along with close proximity to this open window.
23 Q. So is it your evidence that parts of the room are damper than
24 others, and that's why some -- there's a difference?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Okay. Now, could we look -- speaking of photographs, you said
2 last night that you would look and bring us a photograph of the door jam,
3 where the lock was inserted. Were you able to find that?
4 A. I don't believe I said that.
5 Q. You said you wanted to look overnight, remember?
6 A. Yeah, I did. I looked at some photos and --
7 Q. Did you find one that shows where the lock goes in?
8 A. No, I did not.
9 Q. Okay. Thanks. Maybe I'll still work with this photo.
10 MR. GROOME: Where's the one with the tags on it? I would tender
11 that exhibit, and there's one that has a close-up of a board here that
12 I'd like to use.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P294, Your Honours.
15 MR. GROOME:
16 Q. Now, going back to the marks that an accelerant would leave, the
17 tell-tale sign that an accelerant was used, am I right in saying that it
18 would be the kind of shape that you would expect if someone poured water
19 or poured another liquid, it would kind of follow the pattern of the
21 A. Can you rephrase that?
22 Q. Well, you talked about kind of a circular, not a -- I think -- I
23 don't know exactly how you described the pattern --
24 A. Yeah, not corner, not solid straight lines, but more of a
25 circular-type pour pattern.
1 Q. And it would be -- it would correspond to the impression left by
2 the -- where it was wet; correct? If someone poured the gasoline and it
3 went out to a pattern, naturally found a pattern, it's that same pattern
4 that would be replicated in burn marks; correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Okay. Let's take a look at this next exhibit, and could we turn
7 it upside down, please, or turn it the other way. Thank you. Now, I
8 just put those yellow tags there to show you the area I want you to focus
9 on. Could I ask you to remove them, so we can all see it very clearly.
10 Just take them all off. That was just a temporary thing.
11 Now, sir, here we have on the same board a combination of what I
12 believe is charring and what appears to be wood that doesn't look like
13 it's that compromised. Is that not consistent with the type of mark we
14 would see if an accelerant were used?
15 A. You're talking about the dark mark or the light mark?
16 Q. Well, it's all on the same board, so it looks like part of the
17 board has this kind of not angular shape where it's dark and some it's
18 not. It's on the exact same board. Is this not consistent with the kind
19 of thing you would see if an accelerant were used?
20 A. It's similar but along with accelerant -- a liquid, so rain,
21 moisture, along with darkening because of wet wood. It's liquid.
22 Q. We can talk about other reasons afterwards. It is similar,
23 but -- you're saying it is similar to a pattern left by an accelerant?
24 A. There's no obvious signs of charring.
25 Q. Okay. So if the black were charring, it would be entirely
1 consistent with an accelerant, pattern of an accelerant?
2 A. If you're talking five litres or five gallons I can --
3 Q. Let's put amounts out of it. We don't know how much was used.
4 Just you, as a fire investigator, looking at that, does it occur to you
5 an accelerant might have been used in this case?
6 A. No. It would be larger. It would be not just one -- this board
7 is possibly three inches across. That's probably two inches across. It
8 would be --
9 Q. So you as a fire investigator would look at this and say, That
10 has no evidential significance in my investigation.
11 A. That is correct.
12 Q. Okay. Thank you.
13 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, can we have the witness finish his
14 answer at line 17 to 19? Mr. Groome is constantly cutting off the
15 witness in the mid of an answer. And I think that that's --
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: It was the witness himself who stopped. I don't
17 think it was Mr. Groome who stopped him. This is at line 19, isn't it,
18 where he says "it would be ..."
19 MR. IVETIC: Yes, yes.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: It was the witness who himself who stopped. He
21 stopped himself.
22 Yes, Mr. Groome.
23 MR. GROOME: Just a few more questions, I'm sorry.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P295, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Groome, I had given you ten minutes. You
1 are ten minutes beyond that.
2 MR. GROOME: I have literally six more questions, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Six more questions? Very well.
4 MR. GROOME: Unless this -- two of them, Your Honour, I just want
5 to show two pictures, the pictures taken by this witness. If the Defence
6 will agree to save the formality of what seems to be a very long process
7 of trying to call them up in e-court. They're Y020-3524 and 3432.
8 They're just two other pictures of the floor. If Mr. Alarid will agree
9 to their admission, I would tender them and move forward.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 MR. GROOME: So I would tender those two admissions. There
12 doesn't seem to be an objection. So 3524 and 3432.
13 THE REGISTRAR: P296, P297.
14 MR. GROOME:
15 Q. Mr. McCoy, when there's an intense fire, let's say this was a
16 concrete ceiling, intense fire in this room, the intensity of that fire
17 could cause little pockets to be formed in the concrete above us, would
18 it not, little indentations?
19 A. If you're talking about spalling, yes.
20 Q. Some people like the word spalling, some don't like the word
21 spalling; but they're essentially the intense heat causes it to expand at
22 different rates, and we have little indentations; correct?
23 A. Yes. The theory behind that is there's still moisture in the
24 concrete, and when it's heated to high temperatures --
25 Q. I'll call up the picture and get you to finish explaining that.
1 Could we call Y020-3481. While that's being called up, please continue
2 with your explanation of how spalling occurs.
3 A. When the super-heated gases heat the moisture in the concrete, it
4 tends to expand and crack, make little cracks like you said.
5 MR. GROOME: 3482.
6 THE WITNESS: While I'm waiting, I would also like to say that--
7 MR. GROOME:
8 Q. About spalling?
9 A. Yes, relating to spalling.
10 Q. It's up now, again it's my time. I'm limited very severely on
11 the time.
12 A. Let me finish just real quick. Spalling can also take place with
13 super cold, freezing temperatures.
14 Q. Okay. The top portion there, just about the centre, the centre
15 right of the photograph, do you see the portion I'm talking about? Could
16 you circle the --
17 A. Centre right?
18 Q. The centre right, the top right quadrant, there's no steel
19 exposed. Do you see the indentations on the ceiling?
20 A. You're talking this here?
21 Q. Yes. Is that consistent with spalling?
22 A. Yes, similar, similar.
23 Q. Okay. Thank you. A couple more questions. I tender that.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P298.
25 MR. GROOME: And call up 3530, Y020-3530.
1 THE WITNESS: And again, spalling can take place with freezing
2 temperatures also.
3 MR. GROOME:
4 Q. Thank you. If that were the case, though, I mean, all the
5 concrete structures in this area are subjected to the same weather
6 conditions. It would seem to indicate we would see consistent damage on
7 the region?
8 A. On exterior portions of structures, yes. On interior of a home
9 that's occupied --
10 Q. That's different.
11 A. -- because there's heat.
12 Q. Sir, where is this picture taken? Is it not the area outside
13 under the portico just to the right of the door?
14 A. Sir, do you have other pictures similar to this one.
15 Q. You don't recall where you took this picture?
16 A. Without a reference, before and after ...
17 Q. Well, I'll ask Mr. Dimas -- I'll try to find a picture and clear
18 it up with him. Let me ask you: Is it not -- can we not see here six
19 ends of wood coming through this concrete wall, each of them blackened as
20 if they had been charred?
21 A. Can you zoom in?
22 Q. Any one of those boards.
23 A. The resolution isn't that good on my screen, and again, I'm not
24 denying the fact that there was a fire under this portico that you call
1 Q. Okay. Thank you. Last picture I want to show you, it's
2 reminiscent of the first picture I showed you. I'm going to ask that it
3 be called up, 3684, and ask that a print of it be placed on the ELMO for
4 you to examine. I have it here. Sir, the picture's up on the screen
5 now --
6 MR. GROOME: There's no large picture. I just have this picture
7 I'd ask to be placed on the ELMO.
8 Q. This is picture again of the upper floor where it was burnt out.
9 The picture that I showed you yesterday, the tip of that timber is the
10 one on the top right-hand corner. Are you oriented to where this picture
11 is taken?
12 A. The one yesterday is right here?
13 Q. That's -- yesterday, the one -- the circle you've just made.
14 This is the remainder of the floor. We can see three other beams, two of
15 them appear to be completely burnt out of their pocket and the on in the
16 middle seems to have substantial fire damage but is still hanging on to
17 the wall?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. Sir, can you show us where is smoke plume damage above any of
20 these beams on this wall?
21 A. It's slightly discoloured there.
22 Q. So you see smoke damage there?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Okay. Thank you.
25 MR. GROOME: I have no further questions. I tender that into
1 evidence, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
3 THE REGISTRAR: That's Exhibit P299.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Groome.
5 Mr. Ivetic, any re-examination?
6 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honours. If we can keep this up on the
7 screen for the moment. I'll start from backwards since this was an area
8 I already planned on going to since yesterday Mr. Groome spent a lot of
9 time with just the timber on the right being on the screen and zoomed in
10 out of context.
11 Re-examination by Mr. Ivetic:
12 Q. Now, you've identified certain signs that you believe to be
13 evidence of the smoke plume damage on the bricks, and you had yesterday
14 the testimony that the bricks are not as absorbent as concrete, but I'd
15 like to pull back if we can from this picture and give Y020-3680,
16 Mr. McCoy. And hopefully when that comes up, you'll be able to locate
17 Mr. Groome's timber from yesterday in the middle of the picture.
18 Now, having the full picture in front of you instead of -- and if
19 we could zoom in on that centre portion. Zoom in some more. Not that
20 much. Up -- one more back. There. That'd be fine.
21 Sir, looking now at the full picture of the area of the bricks
22 that have deteriorated above that timber from yesterday that Mr. Groome
23 focussed on, do you see anything additional with this better view of that
24 timber that you might consider to be the effects of smoke and/or fire
25 evidenced on the brick?
1 A. Again, what I see from this picture to appear like smoke damage,
2 and again, it's common to have V patterns, which would be a pattern like
3 that with severe charring or heavier charring in the V that we see here,
4 along with other -- there's more, but ...
5 Q. We'll get to the other -- to the timbers in a second. But the
6 point, is I guess, that even decade or so of Visegrad rains has still not
7 removed the signs of the smoke and fire damage even for this timber that
8 Mr. Groome focussed on yesterday for the majority -- or a large portion
9 of time.
10 MR. IVETIC: Can I have this mark -- is that correct?
11 JUDGE VAN DEN WYNGAERT: Excuse me, Mr. Ivetic. I can't
12 understand what the witness means. In the V pattern, more charring?
13 Could you --
14 THE WITNESS: Okay. If you have something on fire up against a
15 wall, it will leave a V pattern.
16 JUDGE VAN DEN WYNGAERT: How does it show on the photograph?
17 THE WITNESS: Okay. If you zoom in -- I didn't highlight the
18 whole area, but there's damage above --
19 MR. IVETIC: Before we zoom, in I want to make sure we don't lose
20 the markings. And I'd move to admit the markings before we zoom in.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D174.
22 THE WITNESS: Down. I'm sorry. Up. More. More. Okay. Sorry.
23 MR. IVETIC: You have to wait and listen to the court usher,
24 Mr. McCoy. She's -- it's best to listen to her.
25 THE WITNESS: There is smoke damage, smoke discolouration in a V
1 pattern above that timber. It's darker-coloured areas of the tile.
2 Arson investigators, we're trained to read patterns. That's what leads
3 us to the origin.
4 JUDGE VAN DEN WYNGAERT: Thank you.
5 THE WITNESS: You're welcome.
6 JUDGE VAN DEN WYNGAERT: I fail to see it, but if you say so.
7 MR. IVETIC: I guess we can have this one marked, as well, since
8 the witness has marked that up, and have that admitted as the next 1D
9 exhibit number.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
11 MR. IVETIC: And if Your Honour has follow-up questions on that,
12 I'll defer.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D175.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm not sure -- Witness, are you saying we
16 should have seen on this photograph a V pattern?
17 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. Again --
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Where is it?
19 THE WITNESS: Again, smoke and by-products of heat and flame move
20 up and out, okay, in a V.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Microphone not activated] but is that visible
23 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour, please.
24 THE WITNESS: In my opinion, yes.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Microphone not activated] trained eyes.
1 THE WITNESS: My opinion, yes, and you can review this, again,
2 with my colleague, Ben Dimas.
3 JUDGE VAN DEN WYNGAERT: I can't see anything, frankly. There is
4 nothing, colour or anything different showing --
5 THE WITNESS: There is discolouration in this area. There is --
6 JUDGE VAN DEN WYNGAERT: It's more damage, but it's not a colour
8 THE WITNESS: It's discolouration on the bottom side of those
9 blocks. In my opinion, that's -- that's the way a pattern is left.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: What you just drew, that's a V.
11 THE WITNESS: Yes. That's a V --
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: And that's the way the smoke went?
13 THE WITNESS: Typically, you'll have damage in the shape of a V
14 within the V. It's typical. Sometimes it would be an inverted V if
15 there is an accelerant and it's a wide area on the bottom, it would be an
16 inverted V.
17 JUDGE VAN DEN WYNGAERT: [Microphone not activated] and is it
18 your evidence, then -- that --
19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour, please. Microphone.
20 Microphone for the judge, please. Microphone please.
21 MR. GROOME: The interpreters are asking for you to turn it on.
22 JUDGE VAN DEN WYNGAERT: I'm sorry. Is it then your evidence
23 that you would see similar Vs above the other beams?
24 THE WITNESS: Okay. The aspect of the underside of these blocks
25 that are not there, that are damaged, leads me to believe that they
1 collected and were protected, okay, from the elements, but he also
2 collected as the smoke was going up. The smoke and heat and soot, they
3 collected underneath and continued going up.
4 JUDGE VAN DEN WYNGAERT: Why wouldn't you see it above the other
5 beams, then, if that were to be ...
6 THE WITNESS: Okay. In this area, there's some there, possibly
7 some there, some there -- and there is -- there is discolouration in this
9 JUDGE VAN DEN WYNGAERT: Thank you. Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
10 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours. Can we have this marked
11 and admitted as the next available 1D exhibit number.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
13 THE REGISTRAR: 1D176.
14 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
15 Q. Now, sir, focussing on the timber on the right-hand side of this,
16 you indicated there is some evidence of smoke damage. I'd like to now
17 have photograph Y020-3681, which is a close-up taken of that exact same
18 location. Perhaps you can see it better, and if you can describe for us
19 what you see in the photograph when it comes up, Mr. McCoy.
20 A. Again, this is a close-up, and I see damage -- that brick is
22 Q. Thank you, sir, and again this, has been exposed to the elements,
23 and we see yet after so many years, we still see the damage. Is that
24 your testimony?
25 A. Correct.
1 MR. IVETIC: Can we have this one marked and admitted as the next
2 1D exhibit number.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D177.
5 MR. IVETIC:
6 Q. And you indicated there's a difference between the smooth bricks
7 and concrete. If we can have Exhibit Y020-3688, which is, I believe, a
8 close-up of the -- of one of the other sides there on the upper levels of
9 the house, and ask you if you could comment. Do you see anything in
10 there of import to us after all these years on the concrete, not the red
11 brick but the concrete above, anything that might be remnants of a fire
12 or smoke damage.
13 A. Again, this picture's -- I mean, this whole area --
14 Q. Again, you're going to have to cooperate with the court officer,
16 A. It's very probable this was damaged by smoke. This area below,
17 I'm not sure because of the -- it's not uniform, but this area above
18 looks more uniform.
19 Q. You've touched on an important point, the uniformity of damage.
20 Did you see anything like this down in the basement room where the fire
21 was alleged to have been, the large fire?
22 A. No, sir.
23 MR. IVETIC: If we could have this marked as the next 1D exhibit
24 number and admitted into evidence, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
1 THE REGISTRAR: 1D178.
2 MR. IVETIC: And I apologise. I need to call up Y020-3639. It
3 did receive a P number, I believe; but I can't find it in my notes, so
4 we're going to have to go back to the original and ...
5 Q. Sir, what you're going to see is a photograph of the -- of a
6 portion of the wood -- of the wood door jam that Mr. Groome asked you
7 about and asked if that was ash or if that was burn damage. And the
8 question I have for you is, let's for the time being assume that
9 Mr. Groome's hypothesis - and adopt it, shall we say - that this is fire
10 damage. Would you expect the door jam to have similar damage? That is
11 to say, would you expect there to be uniformity of the damage to this
12 wood if, in fact, it were due to a fire?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Why?
15 A. Fire doesn't skip. It starts and stops. Burn damage doesn't
16 skip. It's uniform. It starts where the point of ignition is, and it
17 continues until it stopped burning, whether it's a piece of wood or, for
18 that matter, a forest fire.
19 Q. And so, again, in your opinion based upon the pattern of the
20 darkening and the other damage to this wood, is this markation a result
21 of fire damage?
22 A. No, it is not.
23 Q. Now with respect to the floors, the wood floor in the basement
24 room, Mr. Groome asked you about that, and I'd like to ask you a few
25 things. Now, there is some talk about an accelerant being poured onto
1 the floor and some talk about the burn patterns there. If you have a
2 fire being started in a room where the floor has been saturated with some
3 form of accelerant where you have 60 to 70 persons with their clothing
4 burning for several hours, would the fire only affect the wood
5 floor-boards where the accelerant was or wood the fire consume the wood
6 floor-boards beyond where the accelerant was poured, in your opinion?
7 A. In my opinion, in an area the size of the basement on
8 Pionirska Street with that many persons and that much fuel, there would
9 be such a thing as flashover with that much fuel, both the persons, the
10 clothing being fuel and the accelerant being fuel, flashover is a room
11 reaches ignition temperature; everything inside the room reaches its
12 ignition temperature and is ignited. Every surface in this room would
13 show charring, would show damage, fire damage, black burnt wood, every
14 single surface with temperatures that high.
15 Q. And now you've used an interesting term. You've said with that
16 much fuel, and it seems to me you're referring to the people as well.
17 What happens when fire, intense fire begins burning a human body, human
18 flesh, human fat. What effect does that have on a fire, especially when
19 there's large numbers of human bodies, sir, in your experience and
20 opinion as a fire-fighter and arson investigator?
21 A. Reviewing case studies on one particular fire where over 101
22 people did perished in the United States, in the state of Rhode Island,
23 the person's tissue, the person's body fat, the person's hair and
24 clothing do becomes fuel and do ignite. They do add to the flame
25 process, to the burning process, to the heat. They become fuel
2 Q. Thank you, sir. Now, with respect to one more question as to
3 the -- actually, maybe two more questions as to the flooring.
4 MR. IVETIC: If we could have --
5 Q. You indicated there was moisture, and Mr. Groome asked you about
6 the sources of moisture, and he showed you just one photograph of the
7 ceiling. I'd like to show Y020-3621, if we can, on the e-court. And
8 first, sir, when this comes up, I'd like to ask you if, indeed, that is a
9 photograph from inside the basement room, the suspect room where it is
10 alleged that this fire occurred and these people perished.
11 A. Yes, that is from inside the basement.
12 Q. Now, sir, if I could direct your attention to the exposed rebar
13 in the ceiling, and to the left-hand side of the photograph there appears
14 to be some white chalky substance hanging from that portion. Could you
15 tell us -- right there. Could you tell us -- could you tell us if you
16 observed such substances and what they were -- what they were, what that
18 A. That area right there, again, as I've described yesterday are
19 stalagtites. They're tiny little, I believe, calcium crystals from the
20 moisture dripping down from above, from the crack foundation.
21 Q. And so with respect to this area of wood underneath this ceiling
22 where the rebar is exposed and where active water is seeping in, would
23 you expect to see more or less water damage to the wood directly below
24 this part of the ceiling as opposed to other parts of the ceiling where
25 there is no damage?
1 A. Obviously more damage below this area.
2 Q. Y020-3616, I believe it was one of the photographs that was used
3 by Mr. Groome that we might even have a large copy of. Unfortunately, I
4 don't have the large photographs. We don't have those capabilities, nor
5 were we provided the Prosecution's set. But sir, on the wood there,
6 there appears to be some kind of gloss --
7 MR. IVETIC: We should save this one, I'm sorry. Save this one
8 and admit it as the next available 1D exhibit number, Your Honours. I
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D179.
12 MR. IVETIC: I stand corrected. The Y020-3616 was apparently not
13 used by the Office of the Prosecutor. They used the other one preceding
14 it, but I'd like to pull that up and ask the witness questions once we
15 have a chance, and I apologise for speeding ahead. I'm trying to make
16 efficient use of the time.
17 This should be fine.
18 Q. Sir, in the bottom right quadrant of this photograph, and if we
19 have the large one, we can put it on the ELMO, but there appears to be
20 some shiny glossy appearance to the wood. While you were on the scene,
21 what was that? What was causing that effect of gloss or shininess to the
23 A. In my opinion, I believe it was moisture, just damp, wet wood.
24 Q. Thank you, sir.
25 MR. IVETIC: I'd like to have this introduced into evidence if it
1 has not already been so. Is it?
2 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D180.
3 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
4 Q. Now, sir, Mr. Groome asked you about this floor, and he says
5 if -- he seemed to suggest that animals right have been walking over the
6 floor destroying evidence of alligatoring or destroying evidence of
7 charcoaling in the wood. The question I have for you, sir, is even if
8 animals had walked all over the wood floor in that room, would you as an
9 expert and would any fire arson expert be able to tell if it had been on
10 fire or not?
11 A. If there were extensive tests, possibly, but just visually, no.
12 Q. So in your opinion, even if taking into account that animals
13 right have walked over this floor, you still contend that there was not
14 evidence of fire damage to the floor --
15 MR. GROOME: Objection, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: That's not what he said at all. That's not what
17 he said at all, Mr. Ivetic. He said if there were extensive tests,
18 possibly, but just visually, No. But you appear to be putting to him the
19 evidence which you wish to get.
20 MR. IVETIC: I apologise. I thought I heard him say something
21 more, but --
22 THE WITNESS: The evidence shows that there were areas that were
23 not burnt.
24 MR. IVETIC:
25 Q. And lastly, there was some question of furring strips. Did you
1 see in that basement room any evidence of any divots or holes left from
2 furring strips in a regular pattern across the walls indicating that
3 anything had been affixed to them at any point in time?
4 A. No, sir.
5 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Mr. McCoy. I have no further questions
6 for you.
7 Thank you, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. McCoy, that concludes your evidence. We
9 thank you for coming to the Tribunal to give it. You may now leave.
10 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
11 [The witness withdrew]
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Next witness.
13 MR. ALARID: Dr. Linda LaGrange, Your Honour.
14 And Your Honour, just for a little bit of housekeeping, just to
15 inform the Court that our web mail is down, and all other access to the
16 outside, the LiveNote we got running before court, but I tried to open
17 web mail after the fact, and nothing's coming in on our servers so.
18 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: That's not peculiar to you. That's affected the
20 entire building, I understand.
21 MR. ALARID: Okay. It doesn't surprise me, I guess, but ...
22 [The witness entered court]
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness make the declaration.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly swear that I will speak
25 the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
1 WITNESS: LINDA LAGRANGE
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: You may sit, and you may begin, Mr. Alarid.
3 MR. ALARID: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Examination by Mr. Alarid:
5 Q. Good morning, Dr. LaGrange. How are you today?
6 A. I'm fine, thank you.
7 Q. Now, could you please state your full name for the Court, please.
8 A. My name is Linda Shannon LaGrange.
9 Q. And where do you currently reside?
10 A. I reside in Las Vegas, New Mexico.
11 Q. Are you married?
12 A. Yes, I am.
13 Q. And I'm slowing down and my colleague is telling me to slow down
14 because we'll have to observe pauses between my questions and answers
15 because the translators are attempting to keep up and also the
16 court reporter is taking down everything we say, so I'll try and go a
17 little slower.
18 A. I understand.
19 Q. What is your current occupation?
20 A. I'm employed by New Mexico Highlands University
21 professor of experimental psychology. I'm also the associate
22 vice-president for academic affairs.
23 Q. And please take us through your education going back to
24 post-secondary school and tell us what it took to get where you're at
1 A. I attended -- well, I got my undergraduate degree in elementary
2 education and music at the University of Alaska
3 master's degree in experimental psychology at New Mexico Highlands
4 University, and I got my Ph.D. in experimental psychology at the
5 University of Albert
6 Q. And tell the Court, please, what is experimental psychology and
7 maybe differentiating what are the other fields from psychology.
8 A. Roughly speaking, divided between clinical psychology and
9 experimental psychology, and I think clinical psychology is what most
10 people think of when they imagine what a psychologist does, ask that's
11 usually psychotherapeutic interventions. Experimental psychology is
12 broken down into several sub-fields such as neuroscience, physiological
13 psych, psychopharmacology, psychopharmacology, so that's my emphasis.
14 Q. And please explain to the Court what is psychopharmacology.
15 A. Psychopharmacology is the study of the effects of psychoactive
16 drugs on brain and behavior.
17 Q. And what kind of psychoactive drugs are you studied particularly?
18 A. The emphasis, at least in my own research career, was alcohol,
19 but the instruction that I provide for students is in all psychoactive
21 Q. What course -- you're the vice-president in charge of academic
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. What are your duties as vice-President?
25 A. My office supervises all external intramural funding for grants
1 and research purposes, state, federal, and private. My office also
2 supervises the graduate school, and we also supervise the institutional
3 research office, which gathers data about the institution, and then
4 finally we also oversee all of the off-campus centres, the campuses that
5 aren't in Las Vegas
6 Q. And also, it's my understanding that you're just simply a tenured
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And what courses do you teach?
10 A. I still teach, actually. I try to teach one course a semester,
11 and the courses that I try to teach every year are physiological
12 psychology and psychopharmacology.
13 Q. And what's a physiological psychology?
14 A. Well, physiological psychology is sort of the study of linking
15 sort of the peripheral nervous system functions such as moving around,
16 interacting with the world; with central nervous function, which is sort
17 of the brain and processing of that information.
18 Q. And I note that -- 2007 to 2008 you were in dean of graduate
19 studies and research. What did your duties consist of as that?
20 A. Well, those are now subsumed under my new title, and again, the
21 research is just processing of grant applications to funding agencies to
22 ensure that when we send them out that they're of appropriate quality
23 when they get reviewed at the national level.
24 Q. And with the court usher's assistance, could we please call up
25 1D22-0686, a range to 1D22-0691.
1 Now, what we have here is the CV that we tendered to the
2 Prosecution in January of this year, but it's my understanding -- and you
3 forwarded an updated one. What's the difference between your curriculum
4 vitae -- oh, excuse me. It's 1D22-0668, and we got 0686 here. And
5 that's my dyslexia written down.
6 And what would the difference be between your -- I'm sorry,
7 between your older CV and your newer one, while we wait?
8 A. Okay. I'm looking at one that I think you submitted that says
9 June 2008, I believe.
10 Q. Okay.
11 A. If that's correct, then I can update that by adding an extra
12 review panel for NIH for the spring, and then also I believe that there
13 are -- I'm not sure if there's -- let's see. There are three, maybe four
14 more appearances as an expert witness listed.
15 Q. Okay.
16 A. And I think that would be the only differences.
17 Q. All right. And let's try --
18 MR. WEBER: I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr. Alarid. Good morning,
19 Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
21 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution just ask that they be provided a copy
22 of that most current CV during the course of the break so we could review
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, that should be done.
25 MR. ALARID: Absolutely. Thank you. And I believe the old one
1 that we have is 1D022-0667. Let's try that one, please, and page 2 is
2 what we would be asking for.
3 Q. Now, let's go back to when you became an assistant professor of
4 psychology. That's going back to 1989?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Take us through your academic experience and professor
8 A. For those first four years as an assistant professor, I was
9 teaching full-time for the first two years, and then because I got grant
10 funding, I had some release time, so I did a combination of instruction
11 and research. And the courses that I taught then were
12 psychopharmacology, which I've taught every year for 20 years; and
13 physiological psych, which I've also taught every year for 20 years; and
14 then drugs and behavior, research methods and statistics, and sensation
15 of perception.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Groome, are you contesting the professor's
17 qualifications? We have already decided to admit her as an expert.
18 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, clearly we have no qualms with her --
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Sorry, I should have addressed myself to
20 Mr. Weber. I'm sorry, Mr. Weber.
21 MR. GROOME: Just as a general matter then I'll leave it to
22 Mr. Weber to address you specifically. Some of these experts,
23 Your Honour, we have absolutely no question. They're clearly qualified.
24 It's the boundaries of the expertise that we do have some contention
25 with, so I'll let Mr. Weber address the Chamber on what we believe are
1 the appropriate boundaries of Dr. LaGrange's expertise.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, because it's occurring to me Mr. Alarid,
3 that we don't need to have all of this detail.
4 MR. ALARID: Okay, and some of it is only for the Court's benefit
5 as opposed to qualifications.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: We have the --
7 MR. ALARID: And if you feel comfortable, I'm okay. All right.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Weber, though.
9 MR. WEBER: Just to be clear, with respect to the first prong
10 that was enumerated by the Court yesterday, if the Defence is tendering
11 her as an expert in experimental psychology, if that's the field she's
12 being tendered in, clearly this witness is testifying currently to
13 experience in that area. If that's the expertise that she's been
14 tendered in, then by all means, let's admit the CV and the Prosecution
15 has no objection to proceeding with other matters. We would still,
16 though, contest as enumerated by Mr. Groome that the nature of this
17 witness's expertise with respect to the second prong, she doesn't have
18 the necessary competency to be providing the nature of those opinions
19 that would material advance this Chamber in the system and determination
20 of the issues are before --
21 MR. ALARID: And anticipating that caveat, Your Honour, one, we
22 would have tendered her as experimental psychology but with a background
23 in psychopharmacology as she just testified. She taught the course for
24 20 years, and we could go a little bit more into her focus of
25 psychopharmacology, but it is psychopharmacology that is the reason she's
1 here. I'm sure she'd like to perform an experiment on Mr. Vasiljevic,
2 but that's not available.
3 MR. WEBER: And, Your Honours, I believe the witness was
4 extraordinarily clear that a sub-set of experimental psychology is
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, you can raise whatever you wish in
8 cross-examination, of course.
9 MR. ALARID: Thank you.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: But it seems to us that her qualifications are
12 MR. ALARID: Thank you, Your Honour. Well, then, we'll tender
13 her CV as the next available 1D number.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
15 MR. ALARID: With the Court's indulgence, I'll simply go into a
16 little bit more regarding what psychopharmacology is and what it can show
17 before we endeavour into any opinions.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D181.
19 MR. ALARID:
20 Q. Okay. Let's focus on psychopharmacology and specifically the
21 effects of drugs and alcohol. Explain a little more what that's about
22 and what kinds of different things you study and teach your students.
23 A. Well, I think the primary concept is that the effects of drugs
24 and/or alcohol on the body are very specific to certain brain areas and
25 even more specific to certain neurotransmitter systems and circuits
1 within the brain; and so that when these students that I'm instructing
2 graduate and are practicing in mental health fields, they are aware of
3 the effects of both recreational drugs and therapeutic drugs and are able
4 because of their training to make that distinction and are able to
5 diagnose substance abuse versus just side-effects from psychotherapeutic
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Alarid, we're going to take the break now
8 for half an hour.
9 MR. ALARID: Yes, sir. Thank you, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Half and hour.
11 --- Recess taken at 10.20 a.m.
12 --- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Alarid, please continue.
14 MR. ALARID: Just a moment, Your Honour. I'm just looking at the
15 last bit of the transcript.
16 Q. Okay. We were starting to -- just to instruct the -- or inform
17 the Court, rather, as to what psychopharmacology is versus other fields.
18 What's the difference between a psychopharmacologist and let's say a
19 toxicologist or a medical doctor who's also interested in the effects of
20 drugs and alcohol on the human being?
21 A. Well, there's considerable overlap, and those three examples that
22 you gave, I guess the primary distinction at least at this point is the
23 effects on the living person in terms of the ingestion of psychoactive
24 drugs and their impact on behaviour. As opposed to when you talk about
25 toxicology, you're usually implying that there was an overdose or
1 something was tainted in the drugs, and so it's up to that expert to
2 determine the cause of death or illness.
3 Q. And what would a medical doctor's primary concern be with regards
4 to alcohol ingestation or drug ingestation?
5 A. Well, I suspect the primary reason would be -- you know, there
6 are a lot of sub-fields in medical doctors, as well; but if you're
7 talking about a general practitioner, I think the primary purpose a
8 general practitioner would have would be to identify in his or her
9 patients abuse of a substance and then knowing where to refer that
11 MR. ALARID: And could we have back on the screen the CV that was
12 the last document up.
13 Q. And just going through your primary research interests, please go
14 through those with the Court and how those might be relevant to what
15 you've been asked to come to court here today.
16 A. Well, I've done a number of different areas in research. The
17 first one was looking at biochemical markers of excessive alcohol
18 consumption so you could detect that a person -- in particular, what we
19 were looking at was females who might be pregnant who were also abusing
20 alcohol. A way to devise a simple lab test that would alert the general
21 practitioner to the fact that this woman might be abusing alcohol while
22 pregnant. And as you know, alcohol is metabolized very quickly, so the
23 test had to be indirect test of some other substance that indicated a
24 high ingestion of alcohol.
25 And then my field also included the research into the effects of
1 alcohol interacting with personality characteristics that might predict
2 aggression under the -- when someone was under the influence of alcohol,
3 and then the sort of final area that I looked at was using flavonoids to
4 protect the foetus from alcohol abuse when in utero.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Much of your work, then, is of a scientific
6 character --
7 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: -- and would require, it seems to me, a fairly
9 strong basis in science. Looking at your CV, can you point me to the
10 specific period when you acquired that kind of scientific basis?
11 THE WITNESS: When I was a graduate student at New Mexico
12 Highlands University
13 took blood samples and analysed them for different endogenous substances
14 that might indicate the presence of personality characteristics, and then
15 also when I was in the Ph.D. programme, I was looking at information
16 processing and how much information a human brain can process at a single
17 time using different sensory systems.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: I might have been misled because your first
19 degree was in a wholly arts field.
20 THE WITNESS: Yes, it was in music and elementary ed, yes.
21 JUDGE VAN DEN WYNGAERT: Doctor, what would be the difference
22 between your training and the training of a neurologist?
23 THE WITNESS: I suspect that a neurologist would have more
24 hands-on experiences with the devices that are used to image the brain
25 and the brain functions; for instance, they'd have more experience with
1 MRIs and CAT
2 JUDGE VAN DEN WYNGAERT: Do you do MRIs yourself?
3 THE WITNESS: I do not.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute.
5 Judge David.
6 MR. ALARID: Absolutely.
7 JUDGE DAVID: Dr. LaGrange, if you feel related to experimental
8 psychology in the sense of the work being done by Kerner at New Mexico
9 School of Medicine
10 department during many years?
11 THE WITNESS: Related by not identical, certainly not identical,
12 but it's -- in the sense that it is experimental, it's close, and I'm
13 aware of those folks. I actually was going to go to UNM to get my Ph.D.
14 in a neuroscience program, but I chose instead to go to the University of
16 and neuroscience department.
17 JUDGE DAVID: And what interrelations do you have in your field
18 with other psychological schools. I am talking about cumulative
19 psychology, also the psychology of meanings, you know, in other related
20 fields. You have just talked about some interrelations and overlapping.
21 THE WITNESS: Right, well my primary relationship was not with
22 psychology but it was with University of New Mexico's pharmacology
23 school, and so my mentor as I was beginning my work as a professor in
24 1999 was Dr. Edward Dreyus [phoen] at UNM pharmacy school, and so I did
25 almost all of my research in his lab because he had such a well-equipped
1 biochemical lab, and so most of my collaboration has been with UNM's
2 pharmacology school in the school of medicine.
3 JUDGE DAVID: Were you a graduate student at the time that
4 [indiscernible] was the president of Las Vegas?
5 THE WITNESS: Soon afterwards.
6 JUDGE DAVID: Thank you very much.
7 MR. ALARID:
8 Q. Just focussing -- just looking at your report, I know you've
9 taught 18 times, I'm assuming that's 18 years, as Psychology 612,
10 psychopharmacology. Is that 18 times being 18 years?
11 THE WITNESS: That's 18 years now it's 20. That's the older CV
12 that you're looking at.
13 Q. That's true. That's the one I printed out. Now, with regard to
14 psychopharmacology, tell the Court, please, about the basic
15 pharmacological principles of absorption, distribution, inactivation, and
16 elimination of a substance.
17 A. Part of the course, in psychopharmacology, at least what I have
18 my students, do is to be able to determine how a particular dose, and
19 we'll just use alcohol as an example, since that's what we're discussing,
20 how much alcohol would be consumed to produce a certain peak on blood
21 alcohol level. And when you're trying to find out those values, you have
22 to take into account how the drug in this case how the alcohol was
23 ingested. So once it's ingested, it has to be distributed throughout the
24 body so have you to know the rate of distribution throughout the body.
25 Once it's been distributed throughout the body, then it has to
1 begin -- it's absorbed into the tissue. In the case, what we're
2 interested in is brain tissue. Once that has occurred, the alcohol has
3 to be eliminated because, in fact, it is a toxin, so in order for it to
4 be eliminated it has to be metabolized into water soluble substances,
5 which it is; and they have to know how that metabolization takes place,
6 also what affects its rate, how fast it occurs, and then be able to
7 calculate from the beginning of alcohol consumption to the ultimate
8 elimination of all active alcohol molecules in the body. So it's
9 ingestion, absorption, distribution, metabolization, and then
10 elimination, and they have to know all those phases.
11 Q. What about the cellular mechanisms involved in drug actions, and
12 let's just use alcohol again.
13 A. Well, alcohol is a very interesting drug in that it has actions
14 at particular neurotransmitter receptors, but it also interacts with
15 cellular membranes. So it has two mechanisms of action, which are
16 entirely different but nevertheless have profound effects on behavior.
17 Q. What kind of profound effects on behaviour are those?
18 A. Those are the effects that most of us can casually observe in
19 someone who's had too much to drink, and that is loss of equilibrium in
20 terms of motor skills and fine motor skill function as well as cognitive
21 abilities and impulse control.
22 Q. And what about the knowledge of a major neurotransmitter and
23 neuroendocrine systems?
24 A. Alcohol interacts primarily with one neurotransmitter system,
25 which is GABA inhibitory system, which is why alcohol is a depressant
1 because it is an agonist at GABA receptors, and, therefore, if you
2 consume enough alcohol, you have a sort of system-wide inhibition which
3 is why it's called a depressant.
4 Q. And specifically, what about -- how would alcohol fall into the
5 issue of therapeutic uses of psychoactive drugs?
6 A. Well, it's not used therapeutically, or at least it shouldn't be.
7 There is some use in self-medication, but if you're psychoactive drugs to
8 treat alcoholism; for instance, if you check into an emergency room and
9 you've consumed too much alcohol, what they will do is put you on an IV
10 benzodiazepine drip, because benzodiazepine act at GABA systems as well
11 not the same receptor but on the same systems; and so you can use these
12 therapeutic drugs to alleviate withdrawal symptoms, which in alcoholism
13 can cause death, they are very serious.
14 Q. What other kind of withdrawal symptoms might you experience if
15 you're an alcohol in the emergency room?
16 A. Some alcoholics will have DTs, which is a serious elevation of
17 body temperature because of the rapid shaking, the tremors that they
18 display. They probably won't have any memory for how they got there or
19 what caused the situation to occur in the first place. And I don't know
20 if you're referring to just those short-term --
21 Q. How about long-term effects of DTs or detoxification?
22 A. Not so much the DTs but the long-term effects of prolonged,
23 chronic, heavy alcohol consumption are that there's inevitably some
24 organic damage to the brain because as I mentioned before, alcohol is a
25 toxin; and the process of metabolizing alcohol, you also produce toxic
1 by-products which are free radical species which will bind to lipids and
2 membranes of the cells and cause, in some cases, irreversible cellular
3 damage, which will result in long-term neuronal loss, particularly in the
4 frontal cortex.
5 Q. You also teach Psychology 508, drugs and behavior. Tell us about
6 that course and why it might be relevant to what you were called here
8 A. The psychopharm course is more focussed on psychotherapeutic
9 drugs whereas drugs and behavior is a course that is offered to criminal
10 justice majors, health majors, psychology majors; and it's sort of a
11 general overview of, again, cellular mechanisms of psychoactive drugs,
12 but the focus here is more on recreational drugs and drugs of abuse and
13 signs and ways of detecting that abuse and then what to do once it's been
15 Q. And how might consumption and specially chronic consumption of
16 alcohol effect behavior?
17 A. Are you speaking of any kind of particular behavior or just --
18 Q. Generally speaking at first. We might --
19 A. Okay. Just the long-term chronic consumption of alcohol, how
20 might it affect behavior; isn't that correct?
21 Q. Yes.
22 A. Well, it depends on the amount we're describing as heavy, but if
23 a person has been consuming alcohol for say 10, 15 years daily, or in --
24 even worse is not the daily consumption but a worse pattern of drinking
25 in terms of negative effects on behavior is binge drinking where you
1 achieve these amazingly high blood alcohol levels which will then have
2 profound effects on brain function. So ultimately the person would be
3 less able to reason, plan, problem-solve, certainly short-term memory,
4 and to some extent long-term memory would be negatively impacted.
5 Q. And just specifically speaking, have you been published in the
6 area of psychopharmacology and alcohol consumption and abuse?
7 A. Yes, I have.
8 Q. How many times?
9 A. Well, within just human consumption, only three times. The rest
10 of the publications have been with indirect measures of consumption where
11 we've assessed how much the person has consumed by self-report and then
12 correlated that with biochemical correlates in the blood and also
13 personality measures.
14 Q. Now, I note that you've been a reviewer for several publications.
15 What are the personality and individual differences? You've been a
16 reviewer since 1999 to the present.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Alarid, I don't think we need all of this.
18 It's in the record. Now take her to the evidence that you have brought
19 her here to give.
20 MR. ALARID: Yes, Your Honour.
21 Q. All right. You've been asked to provide some analysis and
22 ultimately some opinions surrounding a Mr. Mitar Vasiljevic, and
23 specifically what were you given to review for your analysis?
24 A. I was given the transcripts of October 23rd, 2001; October 25th,
25 2001; October 26th; 2001; November 12th, 2001; November 13th; 2001; and I
1 read those transcripts and interviews.
2 Q. Okay. And that was before you prepared a summary report that was
3 tendered to the Court?
4 A. That's right.
5 Q. Okay. And --
6 MR. ALARID: Private session, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
8 MR. ALARID:
9 Q. And since --
10 [Private session]
11 Page 5852 redacted. Private session.
2 [Open session]
3 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session.
4 MR. ALARID:
5 Q. Now, with regards to Mr. Vasiljevic and your review of the
6 materials specifically related to his admissions of alcohol consumption
7 and habits of consumption, were you -- let's focus you first on possible
8 or probable blood alcohol levels of an individual similarly situated as
9 Mr. Vasiljevic. And do you have some analysis to give the Court?
10 A. Yes, I do.
11 Q. And tell the Court -- take them through your analysis step by
12 step, and there's an ELMO there, and I know you've probably done some
13 calculations there. If you want to put them on the ELMO at all so the
14 Court can see, we can do that as well.
15 A. Well, they look like a chicken walked across -- they're just
16 numbers and -- so I'll probably be better off just reading them and
17 articulating them.
18 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, sorry to interrupt again, but much like
19 the curriculum vitae, if the Prosecution could just be provided with a
20 copy of this, we have not received that before, the notes.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, that's to be done.
22 MR. ALARID: Thank you.
23 Q. First things first, take us through your analysis, and what do
24 you think about the information provided by Mr. Vasiljevic?
8 (redacted) If we could just have
9 that redacted. We're in open session. It's line 56 -- page 56, line 5.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
11 MR. ALARID: Thank you.
12 Q. And just for purposes of analysis, would you please give -- just
13 using it as a range, could we used both a 750-millilitre consumption and
14 also a 1-litre consumption?
15 A. Certainly.
16 Q. And what assumptions did you make with regards to Mr. Vasiljevic
17 in terms of his size?
18 A. I assumed that he was 180 pounds, and then I did a standard error
19 around that of 160 to 190, just to -- for purposes of calculation.
20 Q. So to clarify, we're using the weight and measure of pounds, and
21 you used the range of 160 pounds to 190 pounds?
22 A. Mm-hmm.
23 Q. Okay. Please go ahead with your analysis.
24 A. If his drinking pattern is as he described it, it sounds as if he
25 were trying to achieve a certain blood alcohol level that achieved -- did
1 what he wanted it to do. Whatever he drank, for whatever purpose, it was
2 to elicit a certain sense; and so people who are consuming any kind of
3 drug will consume it to a point where it meets that desired need. If he
4 drank a litre a day throughout the day, his probable blood alcohol levels
5 at any given time during the day would be .2 grams per decilitre, which
6 is -- I don't know how it's reported here, but for driving it's 0.8
7 percent is considered the legal limit, so .2 is considerably more than
8 the legal limit, to give a sort of frame of reference. If he drank
9 heavily and took large doses, he could probably achieve a level of .5
10 grams per decilitre, which in most people would cause death, but if a
11 person has been drinking long enough, they have built up enough tolerance
12 that they would not succumb to such a high dose.
13 Q. What are the likely physiological effects on a human being at .2
14 grams per deciliter?
15 A. I suspect if this person had been drinking for a long period of
16 time, if you were to observe this person at .2, because of tolerance, the
17 motor skills and the ability to move through the world and do normal
18 functions would not be that evident. The problem is that tolerance to
19 alcohol is developed at different rates for different functions, so the
20 tolerance for motor function develops quicker than the brain's tolerance
21 for the toxicity of alcohol, so that's one of the sort of insidious
22 dangers of alcohol consumption; heavy alcohol consumption is that you
23 appear to be functioning fairly normally, but the brain is still in the
24 throws of a toxic substance, and it is not developing that tolerance as
1 Q. Why is there that difference?
2 A. It's -- well, that difference exists for all drugs because
3 different organic systems in the body respond to drugs in a different
4 way, and of all of the systems in the body, the most vulnerable to drug
5 insult is the brain because it has the least protection. It's just cells
6 without any fat tissue, without any muscle tissue. It's just completely
7 open cells, and the only thing protecting the brain is the blood-brain
8 barrier, and alcohol gets through the blood-brain barrier with absolute
9 ease. There's nothing about it that protects the brain.
10 Q. And what might a -- just using that middle range of .2 grams for
11 decilitre, what effect might that have on the brain?
12 A. If it's done constantly, it's going to cause irreversible brain
13 damage, particularly in the frontal lobe.
14 Q. Why is that?
15 A. Well, I earlier mentioned the fact that alcohol is a toxic
16 substance as well as the metabolites creating free radicals, and so those
17 free radicals are going to interact with cell membranes and compromise
18 the integrity of the individual neurons in the brain. The other is that
19 when they stop drinking, there is a rebound effect and the GABA system
20 that had previously been stimulated by the presence of alcohol is all of
21 a sudden under-stimulated which upsets the balance in the brain and
22 allows excitatory amino acids, like glutamate to prevail, and when they
23 are overactive, then the consequence is neuronal damage from
25 Q. And what kind of side effects come from this neuronal damage?
1 A. Well, again, the ability to plan, reason, problem-solve, and then
2 short-term memory and long-term memory suffers.
3 Q. Why are all these abilities and/or functions focussed in the
4 frontal cortex?
5 A. Well, the frontal cortex is considered the sort of executive area
6 of the brain, and so that the rest of the brain kind of responds to
7 external sensory stimuli by doing what they're supposed to do; but
8 ultimately the frontal lobe says don't run because if you run that lion
9 will chase you. So you have this executive that keeps the rest of the
10 brain informed, controls it, controls impulses, emotions and so it's what
11 makes us human.
12 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness kindly speak slower when
13 she's using medical terms, et cetera. Thank you.
14 THE WITNESS: Yes.
15 MR. ALARID:
16 Q. And with regards to impulse controls and emotional issues, what
17 impacts might some brain damage from prolonged alcohol use have on on an
19 A. Well, it --
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm sorry. I should bring to your attention
21 that the interpreter has asked you to speak more slowly.
22 THE WITNESS: Yes. Could you repeat the question, please?
23 MR. ALARID:
24 Q. Just in terms of executive functionings specifically relating to
25 impulse controls and emotions, what kind of side effects might you expect
1 with someone with this chronic alcohol use and subsequent brain damage?
2 A. Okay. The impulses are sort of generated in an area of the brain
3 called the limbic system, and the frontal lobe, or the executive system
4 exerts inhibitory control over the limbic system; and if the frontal lobe
5 function is compromised or in some way reduced by degeneration, then the
6 ability of the person to control his or her impulses is also impaired.
7 Q. And relate -- relating back to an earlier comment you made as to
8 teaching your students about aggression and alcohol, tell us about that.
9 A. Well, the interest at least among my students is the cause of
10 spousal abuse and why does alcohol consumption -- why is it so strongly
11 associated with alcohol -- or, I'm sorry, spousal abuse, and so we're
12 conducting research right now into what it is about alcohol consumption
13 that causes people to become aggressive, and then specifically, we're
14 interested in spousal abuse.
15 Q. Is there any statistical data on the correlative effects between
16 aggression and alcohol consumption?
17 A. There is a vast amount of data on that, and what we're interested
18 in is displaced aggression, which is less studied, and displaced
19 aggression is -- say, for instance, a driver cuts me off and irritates me
20 I can't retaliate against that driver, but I might go home and retaliate
21 against a family member. If I've been drinking, it enhances that
22 likelihood of that displaced aggression occurring.
23 Q. Could other factors such as experiencing a death in one's family
24 set off displaced aggression?
25 MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honours. This is not contained
1 within the noticed opinions that are provided within this expert's
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm sorry. Could you elaborate on that?
4 MR. WEBER: The question as posed a going into psychological
5 experience in one's familiar. This witness was not called here today nor
6 did she provide any opinions that relate to any type of emotional
7 difficulties or matters that relate to her area of psychology in her
8 report. Her report merely indicates the relationship between the effects
9 of chronic alcoholism on Mitar Vasiljevic, so this is outside the scope
10 of her report and the noticed opinions to the Prosecution.
11 MR. ALARID: My response to that, Your Honour, is simple, is I'm
12 not an expert, and oftentimes when an expert's on, they say something
13 that I think needs appropriate follow-through. I think in this
14 particular case, there is evidence that Mr. Vasiljevic experienced a
15 funeral the day before the Drina River
16 cousin, I think it was, if I misspoke. And that combined with admissions
17 of alcohol consumption, it seems to be relevant. That's why I followed
18 up on it, but I hadn't thought about it until today, and I'm really
19 posing the question to Ms. LaGrange -- Dr. LaGrange today for the first
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We rule that the witness can answer the
24 THE WITNESS: Repeat it just to make sure that I ...
25 MR. ALARID:
1 Q. Well, there's evidence that Mr. Vasiljevic the day before -- an
2 incident at the Drina River
3 was a killing, he had been to the funeral of his nephew who was allegedly
4 killed in battle with enemy forces. And so along those lines, is that
5 the kind of instigator, if you would, for displaced anger that might come
6 into play given chronic alcohol consumption?
7 A. That's precisely the example. I mean, we're using a much less
8 profound provocation, but that's certainly within sight that kind of
9 displaced aggression.
10 Q. And do you talk about displaced aggression while under the
11 influence of alcohol or just after a long-term effects of alcohol?
12 A. All of the studies that I've read and the studies that we are
13 doing is when they are actually under the effects of alcohol.
14 Q. And would you consider being under the effects of five cognacs
15 under the effects of alcohol?
16 A. I'd consider one beer sufficient.
17 Q. And is there any statistical data regarding increased instances
18 of displaced aggression while under the influence of one beer to more?
19 A. There is a positive dose response curve, so the more that is
20 consumed, the more likely it is to have occurred.
21 Q. Now, specifically focussing on memory impairment, tell us about
22 the differences or potential effects on memory of long-term chronic as
23 well as acute consumption of alcohol?
24 A. Well, acute consumption of alcohol, if it's heavy, will certainly
25 impair short-term memory during the time the person was under the
1 influence of alcohol. In fact, that's what black-outs are, if a person
2 has achieved a particularly high level of alcohol, they might continue to
3 function fairly normally and have no memory of it the very next day,
4 that's short-term memory.
5 Q. What are the ranges -- is there any statistical data of when or
6 what levels people begin to experience black-outs, although I know there
7 could be some correlative effects on their chronic use to that?
8 A. Yes. It would depend on how tolerant the individual were to the
9 alcohol itself, so if a person were alcohol-naive and then drank a bottle
10 of wine, that person might indeed have difficulty remembering the last
11 few drinks of that evening; whereas someone who was a chronic alcoholic
12 would take considerably more alcohol to experience a similar kind of
14 Q. Now, can black-outs be partial as well as complete, i.e., you
15 remember some details but not all details versus not remembering
17 A. Well, they are on a continuum. So if someone -- say you ask a
18 person about what happened during this time-period when he or she was
19 under the influence of alcohol --
20 Q. Like remember last night at the party.
21 A. Right. The person would say, I don't remember anything, and then
22 if you prompted that person with particular details, then they would be
23 able to retrieve some but certainly not all of what happened.
24 Q. And what about memory impairment in intoxicated non-alcoholics?
25 A. Well, it occurs there as well. It's just not as profound, nor is
1 it as long-lasting because obviously there has been no real damage to the
3 Q. Now, assuming someone is already under the influence of brain
4 damage, i.e. the brain damage has become organic and it is chronic in
5 nature, is there any effects on memory even outside the consumption of
7 A. At a certain point, a threshold is reached where compensatory
8 mechanisms for laying down memories and recalling them does become
9 compromised. You know, it's not an absolute threshold. It's an
10 individual threshold, but at some point when the damage becomes
11 sufficient, then that person will no longer be able to retrieve all the
12 memories that were laid down.
13 Q. Now -- and do we have a number for that report? I'm sorry. I
14 was on the wrong channel. I didn't realise you had your report in front
15 of you. Now, tell us about -- let's go to the next page, please. And
16 tell us about brain damage caused by chronic heavy consumption and would
17 somebody who historically -- or gave a history, rather, similar to
18 Mitar Vasiljevic experience some brain damage caused by chronic
20 MR. WEBER: Objection --
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Weber.
22 MR. WEBER: -- to the form of the question. This witness
23 indicated that they reviewed five days of transcript. I believe the way
24 it's phrased, that gave history, this witness is being clear that they
25 did not ever personally interview.
1 MR. ALARID: Okay. True. That's true, Your Honour, and I'll
2 qualify -- I'll rephrase it.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Rephrase it.
4 MR. ALARID: Yes.
5 Q. Making the assumption that you were taking a history of a --
6 Mr. Vasiljevic, and he gave identical answers regarding his alcohol
7 consumption as he did in the testimony you reviewed and the interviews
8 that you reviewed, what would you expect?
9 A. In terms of --
10 Q. Brain damage.
11 A. Okay. I would expect that -- it looks as if he were consuming
12 this alcohol for years, and of the two drinking patterns that I mentioned
13 earlier, that of steady, daily consumption versus binge consumption,
14 where very, very high blood alcohol levels are achieved; the secondary
15 pattern, the binge pattern is far more likely to result in brain damage
16 because of the sort of initial insult of such high levels of alcohol.
17 So what is likely to occur in the long run is that there is some
18 brain damage to the frontal lobe and then particularly -- in particularly
19 the circuit on the frontal lobe that connects to the hippocampus. And
20 the hippocampus is the area of the brain that takes information that's
21 coming in the realtime, lays it down in the form of short-term memory,
22 and then the transfer to long-term memory occurs in an interaction with
23 the frontal lobe. And so those are two separate processes, and both
24 of which would become eventually impaired by long-term alcohol
1 Q. Now, with the chronic alcoholic that's able to achieve very high
2 blood alcohol levels, like you mentioned .5 grams per decilitre that
3 would normally be fatal in a naive drinker, how -- strike that. What is
4 the impact of the brain on extremely high alcohol levels such as that
5 achieved between .3 and .5 grams per decilitre?
6 A. When alcoholics consume a lot of alcohol, the alcohol we talked
7 about earlier, ingests, distribution, absorption, and metabolization,
8 alcohol is metabolized by enzymes in the liver, and it is done so by a
9 mechanism called zero-order kinetics, which means that the alcohol is
10 metabolized at a constant rate regardless of how much alcohol you ingest.
11 Alcoholics, though, ingest way more than what that system can
12 handle, and so there's an alternative metabolization system in the liver,
13 called the CYP450 2E1 system that operates on first order kinetics, which
14 means that it is concentration-dependent in terms of how much it
16 The issue here is that when you kick in that 2E1 system, the
17 by-products of that metabolic process are very, very toxic. They are the
18 free radicals that I mentioned before that will be binding to the lipid
19 membrane of the cells in the brain, and when they bind to those, when
20 they -- they have an extra electron or a few electrons which makes them
21 want to bind with molecules in the lipids in the brain. When they do
22 that, that converts that membrane into an entirely different substance,
23 and when it is a different substance, it can no longer function normally
24 and allow the brain to process information normally. And if that
25 disruption occurs time and time again, that cell dies.
1 MR. ALARID: I pass the witness, Your Honour.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 MR. ALARID: And Your Honour, I would tender the report of
4 Dr. LaGrange that's on the screen as the next available 1D number.
5 MR. WEBER: I have no objection to the report being marked for
6 identification at this time subject to cross-examine.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D182 marked for identification,
9 Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Weber, you'll now cross-examine.
11 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Cross-examination by Mr. Weber:
13 Q. Good morning, Dr. LaGrange.
14 A. Good morning.
15 Q. My name is Adam Weber from the Office of the Prosecutor.
16 Dr. LaGrange, you were provided with materials to review in this case;
18 A. That's correct.
19 THE INTERPRETER: Please make pauses between questions and
20 answers. Please make pauses between questions and answers. Thank you.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Already, you're being asked by the interpreter
22 to observe the pause between question and answer. You speak particularly
23 fast, Mr. Weber.
24 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 Q. In forming your opinions, is it important to review all available
2 A. It is.
3 Q. If you do not have all of the materials, your opinions would be
4 incomplete because not all the relevant information would be incorporated
5 into your conclusions.
6 A. If I did not have them, that would be true.
7 Q. With the material -- with the material that is provided to you,
8 it is important to analyse all of the information that either supports or
9 refutes a particular conclusion.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. If information refutes a particular conclusion, it is important
12 to acknowledge this information and either reconcile it or explain it.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. In this case, the Prosecution was provided with a bunch of
15 materials that were provided to you. They included many additional
16 materials than the ones that you indicated here today. Is it correct,
17 then, that you were not provided with the transcript of an interview with
18 Mitar Vasiljevic from the 16th and 17th of November, 2000; is that
20 A. I wish I had brought them all with me because I did bring them to
21 the hotel room. I might not have mentioned them in the report, but I
22 really don't remember whether I did or I did not. I know that I did not
23 mention them in the report.
24 Q. Okay. Well, you do not, then, rely as far as you recall on any
25 of the statements on those two days in those interview transcripts?
1 A. Not that I recall.
2 Q. You're providing an opinion today that Mr. Vasiljevic's memory
3 may have been impaired on the date of 7 June 1992 due to alcohol
5 A. I am.
6 Q. However, would it affect your opinion if you did not include the
7 direct statement by Mr. Vasiljevic on page 55, lines 9 through 11, of the
8 17th of November, 2000, interview transcript in which he was asked the
9 following question and gave the following answer:
10 "Q. At the time of the river, you weren't drunk with alcohol,
11 were you?
12 "A. No, I was not drunk at that time."
13 You did not include that statement as part of your report;
15 A. I did not.
16 Q. And you also did not include that statement as part of your
17 testimony here today?
18 A. I did not.
19 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, just for the transcript reference, it
20 was exhibit discussed as clip 126 from 65 ter 20.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Had you taken account of that statement, would
22 it have affected your opinion?
23 THE WITNESS: It would not.
24 MR. WEBER: May I continue, Your Honour?
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
1 MR. WEBER:
2 Q. You also, then, not aware -- actually, back up. You didn't
3 review any videos of Mr. Vasiljevic in this case; is that correct?
4 A. I did not.
5 Q. You were, then, not aware of the 19-minute-long narrative
6 provided by Mr. Vasiljevic in which he details the events of 7 June 1992
7 to include in your report?
8 A. I was not.
9 Q. Now, you've testified that you relied upon five days of testimony
10 in the trial of Mitar Vasiljevic. Based on the statements in this
11 testimony, you believe that Mr. Vasiljevic started drinking beverages in
12 the early morning and continued throughout the day into the evening; is
13 that correct?
14 A. That's what he said, yes.
15 Q. When you state "into the evening," do you refer after -- do you
16 mean after 5.00 in the -- p.m.?
17 A. I do.
18 Q. Dr. LaGrange, you do not reference in your report that
19 Mr. Vasiljevic stated that he no longer had a bottle of alcohol with him
20 in the afternoon of 7 June 1992
21 that correct?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. And because you did not review the -- or you do not recall the
24 interview transcripts of the 16th and 17th of November, you were also not
25 aware of Mr. Vasiljevic's statement that he went to the hotel Vilina Vlas
1 at 4.00 in the afternoon that day after meeting Stanko Pecikoza?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. Those things are not incorporated into your report?
4 A. They are not.
5 MR. ALARID: And, Your Honour, regardless of Dr. LaGrange's
6 ability to recall all she reviewed, I would point to her report that is
7 in front of you that includes the November statement, November 2001
9 MR. WEBER:
10 Q. And for clarification, Doctor, I'm refer to November 2000
11 statement. Do you understand that?
12 A. I do.
13 Q. And the testimony that you provided the last couple of minutes
14 relates to that November 2000 statement; correct?
15 A. In response to your questions that --
16 Q. Yes.
17 A. Okay. Yes.
18 Q. These statements would have been important to your calculation of
19 Mr. Vasiljevic's blood alcohol concentration at the time of the
20 Drina River
21 A. The reports of the blood alcohol concentration were not for a
22 specific time. They were calculated to indicate what he was trying to
23 achieve on a daily basis to actually be able to extrapolate what those
24 values were at a particular hour of the day would be pretty difficult; so
25 I am saying he was achieving a steady state blood alcohol level of
1 probably .2, and I was not making any effort to tie to it a particular
2 event or a particular time. I'm just saying that as a matter of daily
3 consumption, that is what he was trying to do.
4 Q. Just so we're clear. I understand what you're saying.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Tell us why you did not take account of these
6 statements to which the Prosecutor has referred.
7 THE WITNESS: I don't believe that I had those transcripts. I
8 think I don't have them because if it were that specific, I probably
9 didn't. However, it wouldn't have affected what I just reported because
10 I wasn't attempting to calculate a specific time and a specific date. I
11 was trying to just say that this person is a chronic alcoholic would
12 titrate his alcohol consumption in order to achieve a steady-state blood
13 alcohol level at all times.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: You have re-examination. Remember that.
21 But can you tell us what you mean by titrating his alcohol
22 consumption to achieve a steady blood alcohol level at all times?
23 THE WITNESS: Yes. I don't know if you've notice had the when
24 people smoke, now that you can't smoke inside, that they will go outside
25 at a very predictable time, and that dose that they are taking in is
1 called titrating. They are adjusting the dose of nicotine to a level
2 that keeps their system comfortable. And so alcoholics do exactly the
3 same thing. If they're really, really chronic alcoholics, they become
4 very uncomfortable if they're blood alcohol levels goes below a certain
5 level. They go into withdrawal. So that titration is constant dosing or
6 dosing to maintain a constant level of alcohol in the blood.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
8 Judge David.
9 JUDGE DAVID: Dr. LaGrange, is there any relevance of the
15 THE WITNESS: If his analysis were of his behavior in terms of
16 aggression or violence, yes, it would have been enhanced. If it is only
17 restricted to memory impairment, no, because that's not likely to be
18 affected by personality.
19 JUDGE DAVID: So for instance, a chronic depression state versus
20 a non-chronic depressive state will have the same consequences on alcohol
22 THE WITNESS: It depends on whether the chronic state preceded
23 the development of the alcohol problem or the alcohol problem caused the
24 chronic because there are no non-depressed alcoholics because it causes
1 JUDGE DAVID: Thank you very much.
2 MR. WEBER: May I proceed?
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Weber.
4 MR. WEBER:
5 Q. You're aware based on the review of the transcripts that
6 Mitar Vasiljevic described him as a benevolent person while under the
7 influence of alcohol; correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Are you aware that Mitar Vasiljevic testified for eight days of
10 trial between 2001 and 2002?
11 A. No.
12 Q. You're not aware of the three days in which he also testified in
14 A. I believe not.
15 Q. According to the materials that were provided to us, it was
16 indicated that you were provided with the trial judgement from the case
17 of Prosecutor versus Vasiljevic; is that correct?
18 A. No, it is not.
19 Q. You are then not aware of testimony that was received in that
20 case from a Dr. Folnegovic-Smalc; correct?
21 A. No.
22 Q. You're not aware, then, that Mr. Vasiljevic was actually
23 personally interviewed by a professional in your field?
24 A. No.
25 Q. You would agree that an expert in your field who actually
1 personally met and interviewed Mr. Vasiljevic would be in a better
2 position to evaluate any physical signs of chronic alcoholism that you
3 are describing here today?
4 MR. ALARID: And I would object and ask for a clarification as to
5 field. Was he interviewed by a psychopharmacologist or a clinical
7 MR. WEBER: I'll be very precise about it.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Answer the question.
10 MR. WEBER:
11 Q. Just to be clear, the doctor that interviewed Mr. Vasiljevic was
12 a forensic psychiatrist, so slightly different field than yours. But you
13 would agree that a forensic psychiatrist that personally interviewed
14 Mr. Vasiljevic would be able to observe better the physical signs of the
15 chronic alcoholism than what you did in this case?
16 A. Could you define physical signs, please?
17 Q. Well, there would be physical signs of detrimental effects of
18 chronic alcoholism; is that correct?
19 A. Not necessarily unless he intervened with some kind of cognitive
20 testing or memory testing, which I don't know.
21 Q. Well, Dr. Folnegovic-Smalc did perform cognitive testing on
22 Mr. Vasiljevic. You would agree that Dr. Folnegovic-Smalc was in better
23 position based on the administration of the cognitive testing to
24 individually assess Mr. Vasiljevic's cognitive abilities than the
25 materials that you were provided with in this case?
1 A. Yes. If he had the opportunity to test him, sure.
2 Q. If Mr. Vasiljevic successfully passed all of those test, you are
3 not aware of that?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Would that affect your opinion here today?
6 A. Not unless I were allowed to administer the same tests.
7 Q. So you would not accept the opinion of a highly qualified
8 forensic psychiatrist in the field unless you personally saw it yourself?
9 A. That's true.
10 Q. You would agree in terms of the opinion you're providing today
11 that it would have been important for you to review that prior to
12 providing your testimony?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Do you even know what Mr. Vasiljevic looks like?
15 A. I do not.
16 Q. You agree that a Trial Chamber is capable of determining the
17 ability of a witness to recall events --
18 MR. ALARID: Objection, calls for a legal conclusion.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, please ask another question, Mr. Weber.
20 MR. WEBER: Okay.
21 Q. Well, Doctor, here in the courtroom you would agree that the
22 Chamber has the ability to --
23 MR. ALARID: Same objection.
24 MR. WEBER:
25 Q. -- see witnesses that appear before them?
1 A. Could you repeat that? I ...
2 Q. Here today we're in court; is that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. You're able to see the judges?
5 MR. ALARID: Objection, relevance, calls for legal conclusion.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute. I imagine he's leading up to
7 something. What is the concluding question?
8 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, it's the --
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: I mean, it's meritless to ask if we can see a
10 witness. The answer is obvious.
11 MR. WEBER: The issue in respect to any expert that's being
12 called is whether or not they materially assist the Chamber in the
13 evaluation of the matters that are at hand. This witness has indicated
14 that they never reviewed the video, didn't review a lot of other
15 materials that were available in this case. The Chamber has an
16 extraordinary amount of material that's in front of it in this case that
17 relates to Mr. Vasiljevic. It would be the Prosecution's position that
18 the Chamber is actually in a substantially better position to --
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: That's not a matter for her.
20 MR. WEBER: Well, you know, but it goes to the weight that should
21 be provide to her testimony. The fact that --
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: It doesn't matter whether she agrees or not.
23 We'll have to make up our own minds.
24 MR. WEBER: Okay.
25 Q. You're not aware, then, that the trial judgement from the
1 Vasiljevic case found that Mr. Vasiljevic did not suffer from diminished
2 mental capacity?
3 A. No, I'm not aware of that.
4 Q. You are also, then, not aware that there are two other
5 eye-witnesses that were present on the Drina River
7 A. No, I'm not.
8 Q. Okay.
9 MR. ALARID: And object as to relevance. She's not -- yeah,
10 she's not an alibi witness, Your Honour; and she's -- beyond the scope of
11 her opinion and direct examination as well.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Please move on.
13 MR. WEBER: Judge, it is relevant as to whether or not there were
14 people that were present that would have had the opportunity to make
15 observations of Mr. Vasiljevic as to whether he was intoxicated or not on
16 a particular day, a day that the accused is charged with.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: I mean, if she's not so aware what -- what
18 makes --
19 MR. WEBER: Whether or not it would have been important for her
20 to review those materials to determine whether or not those witnesses
21 observed any signs of intoxication.
22 MR. ALARID: And I would -- I mean, I -- the record's so big I'm
23 not sure, but I don't believe either witness ever commented in direct
24 questioning as to --
25 MR. WEBER: Judge, that's not my question [Overlapping speakers].
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Would you have been -- would you have been
2 helped in your assessment had you been aware of two other witnesses who
3 were present and who would have had information?
4 THE WITNESS: I believe that any information would have been
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
7 MR. WEBER:
8 Q. Doctor, there would be noticeable signs to a trained psychologist
9 if an individual was unable to remember an event due to alcohol
10 consumption; is that correct?
11 A. You would think so.
12 Q. Okay. The individual not be able to recall the events in a
13 logical, chronological sequence?
14 A. Well, unless they confabulated?
15 Q. What do you mean by confabulation?
16 A. When people have endured some kind of brain injury or assault,
17 they try to cover it by attempting to articulate sentences that sound as
18 if they make sense and they are logical; and some people become very good
19 at confabulation, and you can't distinguish that they're making it up
20 from what they're not -- isn't true.
21 Q. That is something that a trained psychiatrist could perform
22 cognitive tests on to determine; correct?
23 A. Confabulation? I would suspect so. I don't know if it was
24 included in those tests, but I'm sure you could.
25 Q. I'm just asking in the abstract. That is something that can be
1 tested for?
2 A. Sure.
3 Q. Then the individual would have trouble describing the temporal or
4 spacial relationships that occurred during an event; is that correct?
5 A. They would describe them. They might not be accurate.
6 Q. For example, would a person not be able to precisely recall where
7 individuals were necessarily standing in relation to one another?
8 A. Predicated on whether or not they had brain damage? I'm kind of
9 lost the train of the --
10 Q. If someone's a -- there's really two circumstances that we're
11 talking about here today; is that correct?
12 A. All right.
13 Q. The first circumstance is whether or not the individual is a
14 chronic alcoholic and thereby has brain damage --
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. -- and a diminish capacity due to that; is that correct?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. The second scenario we're talking about today is whether or not
19 at the time of a particular event, they have diminished capacity due to
20 the consumption of alcohol; is that correct?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. So these questions relate to both scenarios, and please
23 distinguish whether there's a difference between the two.
24 MR. ALARID: Your Honour, I would object to the context of the
25 question and based on this analysis. Mr. Weber used in cross-examination
1 the trial finding of no finding of diminished capacity. I think from a
2 legally question, diminished capacity has very different meanings than
3 from a diagnosis perspective of an in-the-moment analysis; and so I think
4 there needs to be a clarification as to diminished capacity from a legal
5 definition versus from a diminished capacity, let's say, from a
6 psychologist or a psychiatrist's position. They may have very different
8 MR. WEBER: Your Honours --
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: That's a question you can ask her in
10 re-examination. You can clarify that with her in re-examination.
11 Judge Van Den Wyngaert.
12 JUDGE VAN DEN WYNGAERT: I have a question which arose from
13 something you just said about lacunar amnesia slots that are filled up
14 with confabulations. Is this something that you could, in a concrete
15 case, find without seeing the person? Without having the clinical
16 examination of the person, is this something you could conclude in the
17 abstract, or would you have to see the person to reach that conclusion?
18 THE WITNESS: You could mention it as a possibility. You could
19 not conclude anything unless you had concrete evidence right in front of
21 JUDGE VAN DEN WYNGAERT: Thank you.
22 JUDGE DAVID: [Microphone not activated]
23 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour, please.
24 JUDGE DAVID: Dr. LaGrange, in your report, page number 2,
25 paragraph 4, you said:
1 "One possible explanation for this is the phenomenon known as
2 state-dependent learning. That is a participants acquired the memories
3 who are sober, but they were asked to recall them when intoxicated. In
4 Mr. Vasiljevic's case, the reverse is likely to have occurred. He was
5 intoxicated at the time of the incident. He is sober when asked to
6 recall the details of the event."
7 Could you elaborate even further your paragraph?
8 THE WITNESS: Yes, because there's a very common phenomenon that
9 spouses or children of alcoholics have observed, and that is that some
10 alcoholics will hide their bottles because they know that the family
11 members will try to take them away, and if they hid the bottle of alcohol
12 when they're sober, they can't find it when they're drunk. If they hide
13 the bottle of alcohol when they're drunk, they can't find it when they're
14 sober. So that kind of memory is dependent upon the state at the time
15 that the memory was laid down, and so if they were in a state of
16 inebriation to recall that memory, they have to also be in a state of
18 JUDGE DAVID: Would there be any circumstances by which one of
19 these persons might deliberately try to ignore and episode, what you
20 called confabulating while really knowing it?
21 THE WITNESS: I'm sure that could be faked, yes.
22 JUDGE DAVID: So the hypothesis of confabulating does not
23 interfere with the functioning of these mechanism? It could be other
25 THE WITNESS: Absolutely.
1 MR. WEBER:
2 Q. Dr. LaGrange, you're providing an opinion here today as to the
3 general levels of alcohol consumption by Mr. Vasiljevic; is that correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. None of your opinion today has to do with Mr. Vasiljevic's
6 specific blood alcohol concentration on the 7th of June, 1992?
7 A. It did not.
8 Q. You can not quantify his exact blood alcohol level concentration
9 for the date 7th of June, 1992?
10 A. I cannot.
11 Q. I just want to go back to some of the other things that an
12 individual might have trouble explaining if they have diminished capacity
13 due to alcohol. Would that person explain events with unexplained
14 periods or gaps in time?
15 A. It's certainly possible.
16 Q. Would the individual have the trouble describing actions of
17 others in detail?
18 A. That's also very possible.
19 Q. Would the individual have trouble recognising individuals for
20 whom they had never met prior to that event?
21 A. So their only exposure to them was at that event but not any
22 exposure before then?
23 Q. Correct.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. You would agree that if an individual knows someone prior to an
1 event, the effect of alcohol or the diminished capacity would have much
2 less importance?
3 A. Yes, I would agree.
4 Q. And especially a circumstance if one of the persons you had known
5 for 15 years?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And the other was the person was the person that that individual
8 stood next to as the best man in their wedding?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. I just want to ask you a couple of questions about your
11 qualifications. You've been accepted as an expert today in experimental
12 psychology, but as a psychologist, do you personally prescribe
14 A. No.
15 Q. And psychiatrists do have different training in relation to the
16 prescription of medications and knowing how they interrelate with the
17 human body; is that correct?
18 A. That's correct. However, in the state of New Mexico,
19 psychologists are able to prescribe. I'm just not a clinical
21 Q. You are not a forensic psychiatrist?
22 A. No.
23 Q. A forensic psychiatrist applies the field of psychologist to
24 legal issues, often for the purposes of offering expert testimony on
25 issues such as competency to stand trial and the relationship of a mental
1 disorder to a crime; is that correct?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. You are not a toxicologist?
4 A. No.
5 Q. A toxicologist is an expert in the detection and calculation of
6 poisons in the human body; is that correct?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. According to your current curriculum vitae, you have testified as
9 an expert witness 16 times in the state courts of New Mexico; is that
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. In those 16 instances, you provided testimony in state-level
13 prosecutions of drug or alcohol cases; is that correct?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. You have never provided expert testimony in a homicide case
16 relating to the competency of an accused to stand trial?
17 A. I have not.
18 Q. You have never provided expert testimony in a homicide case
19 related to the inability of an eye-witness to recall a crime based on the
20 consumption of alcohol?
21 A. No.
22 Q. How many of those cases involved an individual accused of driving
23 under the influence of alcohol?
24 A. All but two.
25 Q. How many of those 16 cases involved misdemeanor charges?
1 A. I don't know. I didn't -- I don't attend to the -- whether it's
2 a felony or misdemeanor. I don't know.
3 Q. As far as you're aware, some of them may have been misdemeanor
5 A. Oh, certainly.
6 Q. In New Mexico, are felony cases prosecuted in the same building
7 as misdemeanor cases?
8 A. You'd have to ask Mr. Alarid.
9 Q. As far as you're aware, you don't know the difference?
10 A. I don't know.
11 Q. In those cases that involve driving under the influence of
12 alcohol, were you called as a certified breath machine operator?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Then you have never testified to the calculation of a blood
15 alcohol concentration based on the use of one of those machines?
16 A. Yes, I have been.
17 Q. You have testified to that?
18 A. I have. Mm-hmm.
19 Q. Okay. Do you have a certificate as a certified breath
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay. Is that certificate current?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. A breath technician relies on the calculation of the machine to
25 determine the blood alcohol concentration for an individual.
1 A. Yes.
2 MR. ALARID: Your Honour, I would object to this line of
3 questioning based on relevance, outside the scope of the opinion, outside
4 the scope of direct examination; and the witness has already testified
5 she was not brought here to testify as to what Mr. Vasiljevic's actual
6 breath score was at the time of the incident on the Drina.
7 MR. WEBER: Judge, they are providing a calculation as to blood
8 alcohol concentration. If she usually relies on a machine to calculate
9 it for her as to herself, that's relevant.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: I agree it's relevant. Let her answer the
11 question, and then we'll take the break for 20 minutes.
12 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour.
13 THE WITNESS: Could you repeat the question?
14 MR. WEBER:
15 Q. You rely on the machine to calculate an individual's blood
16 alcohol concentration; is that correct?
17 A. Usually when I'm testifying, it is to introduce the variability
18 of the machine, and it's possible in accuracy, so I take the amount. I
19 use a very complex equation to compute what I think the blood alcohol
20 should be, and then I attempt to correlate that with what the machine
21 found, so I don't use the machine. The police officer or the arresting
22 officer uses the machine. I do the calculations myself.
23 Q. Okay. Is that calculation either the Widmark formula or the US
24 Department of Transportation formula that is generally accepted as a
25 calculation for blood alcohol concentration in the United States?
1 A. Yes. There's Widmark, but I use Watson because it takes into
2 account total body water which the Widmark does not, so it's considered
3 more accurate.
4 Q. Those -- the Watson test, that is not one of the two generally
5 accepted formulas for the calculation of blood alcohol concentration in
6 the United States, though; is that correct?
7 A. It's acceptable. It's just more complex and more accurate. It's
8 fairly recent, 1992, and so when I do a report, I include the Widmark and
9 the Watson and the Lewis in -- I include those three because then you get
10 a range of possible breath scores or blood alcohol scores.
11 Q. Did you do that in this case?
12 A. I did.
13 Q. When did you provide that to the Defence?
14 A. I did not. I did it for my report.
15 Q. So you had that available to you prior to the 16th of January; is
16 that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 MR. WEBER: And Judge, if I could just ask one more question
19 before the break.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
21 MR. WEBER:
22 Q. You have never testified as an expert in psychology prior to
24 A. In clinical psychology or --
25 Q. Any type of psychology. You've never testified as an expert in
1 that field prior to today.
2 A. You'll have to define it. Because as a psychopharmacology,
3 that's a sub-field of psychology, so I'm not sure what you mean.
4 Q. It's a very simple question, Doctor. When you've gone to court
5 on those 16 occasions, has the Court ever accepted you as an expert in
6 the field of psychology?
7 A. Of psychopharmacology.
8 Q. So how many occasions have you been accepted as an expert in
10 A. All but three because three were field sobriety tests.
11 Q. When you say all but three, all those DUI cases you were accepted
12 as an expert as such?
13 A. Yes. Okay.
14 MR. WEBER: Judge, we can take the break.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. 20 minutes.
16 --- Recess taken at 12.18 p.m.
17 --- On resuming at 12.39 p.m.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Weber.
19 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Q. Dr. LaGrange, I'd like to ask you some questions about your
21 reports specifically. The first sentence of the first paragraph after
22 your report states that it's long been known --
23 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
24 MR. WEBER:
25 Q. Dr. LaGrange, I'd like to ask you about the first paragraph,
1 first sentence of your report. It states that:
2 "It has long been known that high doses of alcohol having
3 profound impact on memory."
4 Is that correct?
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. Is it not a more accurate psychological statement to state that
7 when a person is under the influence of alcohol, it cannot be said that
8 cognitive capacity is reduced by intoxication but that a person who has
9 taken alcohol has reduced retention, which is an element of cognitive
11 A. So you're saying that -- let me make sure I understand the
12 question, that it's not cognition that is impaired; it's the ability to
13 attend to that which is appropriate that is impaired?
14 Q. At the time of intoxication, the person maintains whatever
15 cognitive capacity that they have at that time. It's just that they have
16 reduced retention at that moment due to the consumption of alcohol.
17 A. They have -- certainly. They have reduced retentional skills, or
18 ability to allocate brain function to what is appropriate. Their
19 cognition, although their basal ability at cognition is not impaired,
20 their cognitive function is slower than it would be were they not under
21 the influence.
22 Q. So is it fair to say that a person who is intoxicated does not
23 have full attention capacity?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. This would have an effect on quantitative capacity then of an
1 individual to store information but have little effect, if any, on the
2 qualitative aspects of the information that is remembered by that person.
3 Is that correct?
4 A. The qualitative memory would also be affected. In fact, we're
5 doing a study right now on facial recognition, and that's based on
6 qualitative evaluation of faces; so yes, quantitative probably more so
7 than qualitative.
8 Q. Doctor, I said in that question would have little effect. Is
9 that a fair assessment of the diminished qualitative capacity of someone
10 who is intoxicated?
11 A. I'm just thinking of studies where people who are intoxicated
12 aren't able to evaluate appropriately other people's facial expressions.
13 There are a number of studies out there about that, which to me is a kind
14 of qualitative aspect in terms of right hemisphere function and
15 recognising and threatening expression versus welcoming expression. So
16 however you want to characterise that, that's an example -- I would
17 characterise that as qualitative.
18 Q. You reference the Yuille study in your report; is that right?
19 A. Yes, mm-hmm.
20 Q. And that study found that there is little qualitative to an
21 individual being under the influence of alcohol in terms of their
22 diminished capacity.
23 A. In terms of the paradigm of that particular study, and so when
24 I'm responding to your questions, I'm responding in terms of other
25 studies that had different methodology, different paradigms; and we're
1 looking for different aspects of behavior and memory under the influence,
2 but in that particular study, that is, indeed, the case.
3 Q. With respect to that study, that related specifically as to
4 whether or not eye-witnesses to a crime had diminished capacity based on
5 alcohol; is that correct?
6 A. That's right. That is.
7 Q. And that is the only study that you reference in your report that
8 relates to that specific topic?
9 A. That's right.
10 Q. In your report, you reference three portions of Mr. Vasiljevic's
11 testimony in 2001; correct?
12 A. Yes, mm-hmm.
13 Q. The first two references in your report chronologically going
14 through them are general statements concerning Mr. Vasiljevic's drinking;
15 is that correct?
16 A. Yes, that's correct.
17 Q. According to your report, then, you cite a third statement. Your
18 report states - this is in the very last sentence of the first paragraph:
19 "When Mr. Vasiljevic was asked if he had been drinking the day
20 of -- June 7th, 1992
21 'drank almost constantly.' " Is that what your report said?
22 A. That's what it says.
23 Q. You selected only three words from line 20 of that section of
24 Mr. Vasiljevic's testimony in support of your opinion; correct?
25 A. That's correct.
1 Q. Let me read to you the full section from his testimony on that
2 date, which is the 26th of October, 2001. It's page 2131, lines 6
3 through 21. I quote:
4 "Q. Mr. Vasiljevic, you were able to appreciate that the crime
5 that occurred on the 7th of June was wrong, weren't you?
6 "A. Yes, yes, I was.
7 "Q. Whatever problems you remember having with your alcoholism,
8 it did not impede your ability to know that that was wrong, what
9 happened; is that correct?
10 "A. No, of course. After all, they were people. No, of course
11 it was wrong, even if you're totally drunk. Of course.
12 "Q. Just regarding how much alcohol or when you last had alcohol
13 at the time of the killings, when was the last time that you had a drink
14 that day?
15 "A. You mean before the event? Maybe an hour and a half or two.
16 I will be sincere with you. Even when I was at work, working at the bar,
17 I would have a sip here and there, but when I was completely off alcohol,
18 I wouldn't drink at all. But otherwise, I drank almost constantly, and
19 that's how I am when I drank."
20 My question to you is, you did not include his statement that he
21 was able to appreciate that the crime that occurred on the 7th of June
22 was wrong in your report or here today in your testimony; is that
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. You did not include in your report or your testimony here today
1 the fact that he indicated that whatever problems he was having with
2 alcohol did not impede his ability to appreciate that what occurred was
3 wrong; is that correct?
4 A. No, that is correct.
5 Q. These statements are highly important to forensic diagnosis of
6 Mr. Vasiljevic's ability to recall and appreciate the events of 7
7 June 1992; is that would be correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. You did not include that he had stopped drinking that day about
10 an hour and a half to two hours before the event; is that correct?
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. That would have been crucial information to include in any
13 analysis of his BAC
14 eliminate alcohol from their system over time; correct?
15 A. Well, over an hour and are a half, it would be .015 percent grams
16 per decilitre.
17 Q. Doctor, my question to you is whether or not that would be
19 A. Not really. That would be a very slight -- an hour and a half is
21 Q. Well, if an individual drinks alcohol over the course of eight
22 hours, that is a much longer prolonged period than if they drank all the
23 alcohol within three hours; is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. So that individual would eliminate alcohol from their system as
1 they consumed more over the course of eight hours?
2 A. Sure.
3 Q. So someone's blood alcohol concentration would be higher, let's
4 say, if they drank five cups of cognac within an hour period between 2.00
5 and 3.00 in the afternoon and then stopped drinking two hours after that
6 than if someone drank starting at 9.00 in the morning at 5.30 in the
7 afternoon; is that correct?
8 A. That their blood alcohol level would be -- go back to the very
9 first part.
10 Q. Let's break it apart. Thank you for being patient with me. If
11 someone drinks starting at 9.00 in the morning. They stop drinking at
12 4.00 in the afternoon. At 5.30, they would have a certain blood alcohol
13 concentration; is that correct?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. If someone started drinking five cognacs at 3.00 in the
16 afternoon, drank all five of those cognacs by 4.00 in the afternoon,
17 their blood alcohol concentration would be higher an hour and a half to
18 two hours later than that person who started drinking at 9.00 in the
20 A. That's probable.
21 Q. Are you aware that Mr. Vasiljevic was not working at a bar on the
22 7th of June, 1992?
23 A. No.
24 Q. No, you're not aware of that?
25 A. I was not aware.
1 Q. Your conclusion in the second paragraph, the one relating to
2 Mr. Vasiljevic's estimated blood alcohol content, indicates that it is
3 probable that Mr. Vasiljevic maintained a blood alcohol concentration
4 of .1 to .2 throughout a given day. Is that an accurate reading of your
6 A. It is. It is.
7 Q. It is then not probable that Mr. Vasiljevic had a blood alcohol
8 concentration of .3 milligrams per decilitre on the 7th of June, 1992?
9 A. Based on what you just read and what I read earlier, I can't say.
10 Q. So you cannot state to a reasonable degree of scientific
11 certainty that Mr. Vasiljevic had a blood alcohol concentration of .3 on
12 the 7th of June, 1992?
13 A. I cannot.
14 Q. Okay. So with respect to your testimony here today about the
15 effects of an individual who has .3 milligrams per decilitre of alcohol
16 in their system, that really is not a probable conclusion in relation to
17 Mr. Vasiljevic?
18 A. It's not improbable either.
19 Q. But it's not probable.
20 A. Not probable. It's possible.
21 Q. It's more like likely, according to your testimony, that he would
22 have likely been somewhere in the range of .1 to .2 based on his daily
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. What -- I see that based on the review of your curriculum vitae
1 that you have experienced both administering and teaching standard field
2 sobriety tests?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Standard field sobriety tests are generally accepted motor skills
5 tests that are administered by law enforcement; is that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. They measure an individual's ability to balance properly while
8 under the influence of alcohol; is that correct?
9 A. Balance and process information at the same time.
10 Q. And the reason for that is that the individual who the test is
11 being administered to is receiving directions from that law enforcement
12 person while the test is being undertook.
13 A. When they're performing it, there's no administration of
14 directions. The directions are given while the person's in a particular
15 stance, and once the directions are completed, then the person is told to
16 implement those instructions.
17 Q. The purpose of these tests are to ascertain whether or not there
18 are observable signs of intoxication from that individual; is that
20 A. The purpose of that is to -- if they exhibit a certain number of
21 cues is to estimate blood alcohol levels, not ability to drive.
22 Q. You cannot scientifically precisely estimate the person's exact
23 blood alcohol level based on the administration of these tests?
24 A. No.
25 Q. There would be certain observable signs of intoxication during
1 the administration of these tests; is that correct?
2 A. There are if the person isn't tolerant.
3 Q. Okay. And by intolerant, you're saying didn't build up a
4 tolerance to alcohol prior to the administration of the test?
5 A. That's right.
6 Q. Signs that would be observable would include impaired balance?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Slurred speech?
9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. Red, bloodshot eyes?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. They'd stumble?
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. Okay. With respect to an individual that had built up tolerance,
15 you're saying that these signs might not be observable; is that correct?
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. Would those signs at very extraordinarily high blood alcohol
18 levels been observable, even in a person that has built up tolerance?
19 A. I've known the people at .3 to do the fields flawlessly.
20 Q. That's not a common situation, though, isn't it?
21 A. It's very uncommon.
22 Q. I'd like to ask you a question in the abstract here. If two
23 individuals described a series of events, and then separately
24 Mr. Vasiljevic described a series of events, would it be an indication to
25 you that Mr. Vasiljevic had a clear recollection of the events himself if
1 his description was the same as those two other individuals, if it would
2 be an indication to you, Doctor. I'm not asking if you can say it with
4 A. Repeat it again because I don't know if he was one of the two
5 original individuals or they were two separate individuals.
6 Q. I'm saying two individuals, not Mr. Vasiljevic, describe a series
7 of events. Independent to those two individuals, Mr. Vasiljevic also
8 describes the same sequence of events. If Mr. Vasiljevic and these two
9 other individuals describe the same events, would that be an indication
10 to you that Mr. Vasiljevic has a clear recollection of the events?
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Describe the same events in the same way.
12 MR. ALARID: Yes. And objection, Your Honour, assumes facts not
13 in evidence and referring specifically to the trial judgement, the
14 transcripts of the trial. Specifically Mr. Vasiljevic was convicted
15 because the Court found that, one, his statements were not the same as
16 the two complaining witnesses --
17 MR. WEBER: [Overlapping speakers] ... Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's hypothetical question, and the witness is
19 an expert. Did you understand the question?
20 THE WITNESS: I did.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
22 MR. WEBER:
23 Q. Would that be an indication to you that Mr. Vasiljevic would have
24 a recollection of those events?
25 A. Indeed, if he recall them independently without prompting.
1 MR. WEBER:
2 Q. Okay. And if -- all right. Thank you. I had a couple quick
3 questions about the Yuille. Article, Doctor. It's entitled: Some
4 effects on eye-witness memory; is that correct?
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. Page 2 of that article found that:
7 "File-based research on the effects of alcohol on witnesses seem
8 then and seems now to be impossible." Is that correct?
9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. You only reviewed paper materials that were provide to you in a
11 file in this case; is that correct?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. Page 3 of that study states:
14 "Memory for more complex events, those events with an inherent
15 structure, are less acceptable to interference from alcohol." Is that
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. That Yuille study found that:
19 "The effects of alcohol and eye-witness recall remains
21 Is that correct?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. The 11 paragraphs in your report following the first two quote
24 references to other sources; is that correct?
25 A. That's correct.
1 Q. You did not put any of these quotes from that Yuille article into
2 your report; is that true?
3 A. That's true.
4 Q. Are you aware that Mr. Vasiljevic has repeated the events of 7
5 June 1992 on at least five separate occasions?
6 A. No, I'm not aware.
7 Q. Are you not aware that he immediately told his wife after the
8 shooting at the Drina River
9 A. No, I'm not.
10 Q. Are you then not aware that he then reported the murders --
11 MR. ALARID: Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Microphone not activated]
13 MR. ALARID: I would object as to the reference unless the wife
14 testified in this trial. I'm not aware that she had.
15 MR. WEBER: This is material in evidence, Judge, from the 23rd of
16 October, 2001, clip 28.
17 MR. ALARID: But -- yeah, but this is Mr. Vasiljevic's
18 representations or his wife's?
19 MR. WEBER: If counsel would prefer --
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute, Mr. Weber. Where was that
21 evidence given?
22 MR. WEBER: It was given by Mr. Vasiljevic on the 23rd of
23 October, 2001.
24 MR. ALARID: That he told his wife? Okay. Thank you.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, go ahead.
1 MR. WEBER:
2 Q. Are you, then, also not aware that according to Mr. Vasiljevic
3 that he then reported the murders to the police the next morning?
4 A. If it was in the transcript, I don't remember it.
5 MR. ALARID: And was there any evidence brought in by independent
6 references corroborating that he, in fact, reported to the police?
7 MR. WEBER: Mr. Alarid, that has nothing to do with my question
8 right now.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Please proceed. Answer the question.
10 MR. ALARID: Your Honour, my objection is that it's not a proper
11 hypothetical for this witness consider --
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Why not?
13 MR. ALARID: Well, considering the fact that he's asking her to
14 comment on self-corroboration over time, and that really doesn't go to
15 the fact of anything, really, other than I think the Court could show
16 that this witness could have an interest in testifying the same way over
17 and over again considering it was his Defence. I don't -- I would
18 respect the question much more if the wife had testified corroborating
19 that she had told him the next day or the police had corroborated that he
20 reported the next day.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Alarid, I rule that the question can be
23 MR. WEBER:
24 Q. Dr. LaGrange, are you aware that the testimony of
25 Mitar Vasiljevic in his trial lasted over 51 hours?
1 A. No, I'm not.
2 Q. Then you're not aware that Mr. Vasiljevic recounted on both
3 direct and cross-examination during that testimony the events of 7 June
5 A. I'm not aware.
6 Q. You did have the transcript or part of the transcripts from that
7 trial. You would agree that on direct examination, Mr. Vasiljevic had
8 the opportunity to provide his own narrative of the events on 7 June
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. On cross-examination, you would also agree that he had the
12 opportunity to correct and reject assertions that were put to him
13 concerning those same events?
14 A. Yes.
15 MR. WEBER: If we could just briefly go under private session.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
17 [Private session]
13 [Open session]
14 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
15 MR. WEBER:
16 Q. Dr. LaGrange, would it be an important piece of information to
17 you as to whether or not Mr. Vasiljevic could recall the events of that
18 day, being the 7th of June, 1992, if he was able to consistently repeat
19 and recall those events over a number of times over the course of over
20 eight years?
21 A. It just indicates to me that he had a lot of rehearsal time.
22 Q. Well, you're not aware that Mr. Vasiljevic never met with the
23 Prosecution in this case before his testimony?
24 A. No.
25 MR. ALARID: That's objection. Misstates the evidence. That's
1 exactly what the interview in 2000 was.
2 MR. WEBER: I can correct it.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: To be fair, you'd also have to put the 2002
5 MR. WEBER: I agree with counsel.
6 Q. With respect to the 2000 interview, you don't recall that; is
7 that correct?
8 A. No.
9 Q. With respect to that 2000 interview, you're not aware as to
10 whether or not the Prosecution ever met with Mr. Vasiljevic prior to that
12 A. I'm not aware.
13 MR. WEBER: Judge, if I could please just have one moment.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: What you're saying, then, Doctor, is that the
15 consistent repetition and recollection of the events by Mr. Vasiljevic a
16 number of times may simply be explained on the basis that he had the
17 opportunity to be rehearsed?
18 THE WITNESS: That he repeated himself several times, yes.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Not necessarily that he had a recollection quite
20 independently of that rehearsal?
21 THE WITNESS: That doesn't preclude that, but that doesn't
22 actually indicate that.
23 MR. WEBER:
24 Q. With respect to what Judge Robinson just asked you, though,
25 wouldn't it be a simple and clear explanation that if he were able to
1 recall the events consistently over time that he does have a memory of
3 A. If that were the case, yes, I agree.
4 Q. I mean, that would be the simple deduction based on that fact --
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. -- would it not? You would need additional information that he
7 was, in fact, rehearsed or prepared in order to come to the conclusion
8 that you're inferring to Judge Robinson here today?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And as far as you're aware, you have none of that information
11 that was provided to you in forming your opinion?
12 A. I do not.
13 Q. Dr. LaGrange, at page 58, 13 today, you indicated that
14 irreversible brain damage would be noticeable; is that correct?
15 A. What was the context?
16 Q. I don't have the exact quote in front of me, but if I put it just
17 directly to you that would irreversible brain damage, would that be
19 A. Not necessarily. If you had a transient ischemic attack and it
20 just damaged a small area of the brain, you wouldn't notice it.
21 Q. Doctor, what I'm asking you, would that likely be noticeable?
22 A. No.
23 Q. And when I say that, are you referring to just whether or not
24 visually to the untrained eye, would it be noticeable?
25 A. No, I'm referring to behaviourally, cognitively, and visually.
1 Q. An expert can examine someone over the course of time to
2 determine whether or not they have irreversible brain damage?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. You said that one of the long-term effects of alcohol consumption
5 is long-term brain damage; is that right?
6 A. That's right.
7 Q. This does not always happen; is that true?
8 A. It does not always happen.
9 Q. It is possible for people to consume alcohol in quantities over
10 time and not have brain damage.
11 A. Unlikely, but it's possible.
12 Q. It is possible; correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. It is possible for those people to remember things that happened
15 years ago.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Just because someone drinks alcohol over the course of time in
18 quantities doesn't mean that they're going to diminish cognitive
19 capacity; is that correct?
20 A. Not all of the time.
21 Q. Okay. I'm just saying just because of that reason, that does not
22 mean that.
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. Dr. LaGrange, I have brought to your attention a number of things
25 that you did not have today in your review of the materials. Based -- in
1 relation to the fact that you did not have all of the materials that were
2 available, whether it be transcripts, videos, reports of other forensic
3 psychiatrists, do you feel confident today saying beyond a reasonable
4 degree of scientific certainty that Mr. Vasiljevic had impaired cognitive
5 functions in 1992?
6 A. If I base my opinion on what I read in those transcripts, I
7 would --
8 Q. Doctor, that's not what I'm asking you.
9 A. Well, repeat it.
10 Q. I'm saying now that you know that you did not have all of the
11 materials that were available, that you did not have all the transcripts,
12 that you did not have the videos of Mr. Vasiljevic, that you did not have
13 expert reports and testimony on this topic, can you state to a reasonable
14 degree of scientific --
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute. Counsel is on his feet.
16 MR. ALARID: Your Honour, I would object to the context of the
17 question as to relevance considering the fact of the narrow scope of this
18 doctor's opinion and what she would review. Quite frankly, it's simply
19 because of the 51 hours you add to it, all this -- a great amount of the
20 testimony had nothing to do --
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Alarid, the objection is without merit.
22 Complete the question and let us get on with the case.
23 MR. WEBER:
24 Q. I'll repeat it one more time, Dr. LaGrange. Now that you are
25 aware and you've indicated yourself that these materials would have been
1 important to your review already in this testimony, now that you're aware
2 of the important information that you did not have, like additional days
3 of testimony, like transcripts of interviews, like expert reports, and
4 relating to cognitive tests that were performed on Mr. Vasiljevic and
5 testimony of those experts, can you say beyond a reasonable degree of
6 scientific certainty that Mr. Vasiljevic's cognitive functions were
7 impaired in 1992 without a review of all of those materials?
8 A. I didn't say that without the review. It was never my intention
9 in my report to say that beyond a scientific reasonable doubt. I'm
10 simply interpreting what I saw and saying this is what is possible, so
11 the additional information would make me no less certain, no less
13 Q. Thank you. So it'd be wrong for either party to say, in fact,
14 Mr. Vasiljevic's cognitive functions in 1992 were diminished based on
15 your testimony?
16 A. That's correct.
17 MR. WEBER: Nothing further, Judge.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Alarid, re-examination.
19 MR. ALARID: Sure. [Microphone not activated]
20 Re-examination by Mr. Alarid:
21 Q. What is the gold standard to confirm brain damage --
22 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
23 MR. ALARID:
24 Q. What is the gold standard to confirm brain damage in an
1 A. MRI
2 MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honour. Outside the scope of cross.
3 I did not bring up any testimony relating to the gold standard.
4 MR. ALARID:
5 Q. Well, how would you confirm brain damage? What is the best way
6 to confirm brain damage?
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, answer.
8 THE WITNESS: You would have to do a functional MRI.
9 MR. ALARID:
10 Q. And what would a functional MRI tell a diagnostician.
11 A. When you look at it, you would be able to tell what areas of the
12 brain were functioning at reduced capacity.
13 Q. And are there studies that have compared brain scans over a
14 number of individuals to show the extent or lack thereof of brain damage?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Now, we talked about the opportunity to rehearse testimony. Can
17 an individual include confabulation within testimony?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And even from the perception of the declarant. Could
20 confabulation be considered and felt to be true?
21 A. After a number of repetitions, it becomes true.
22 Q. And by becoming true, is that it becomes reality to the
24 A. That happens.
25 Q. Why does that happen?
1 A. Because it happens even if you're not an alcoholic. If you
2 repeat your perceptions of an event over and over again and you're wrong,
3 the fact that you repeat them lays down a stronger memory than the actual
4 event, and you begin to believe it.
5 Q. Now, with regards to the selected testimony, would it be fair to
6 say that you focussed your analysis on references to alcohol consumption
7 and the amount of alcohol consumed?
8 A. I did.
9 Q. And why would the remaining 99 percent of the testimony not
10 necessarily, be relevant to this kind of analysis?
11 A. Because this -- as I've stated before, this kind of analysis was
12 not intended to give a precise blood alcohol level at any precise,
13 specific time. It was looking at a person's general drinking behavior
14 and sort of predicting based on his self-report, however accurate that
15 was, based on that sort of describing what the blood alcohol level would
16 be on a typical day when that person was drinking, according to his own
18 Q. And do you feel as a psychopharmacologist you had sufficient
19 information from the testimony, and most importantly, the early testimony
20 before the Milan Lukic Defence ever got involved in things, do you feel
21 like you have enough information from the early testimony to render your
23 A. Yes, because it's an opinion.
24 MR. WEBER: Judge, I'd just like counsel to specify what
25 particular opinion he's referencing. The doctor's given him a couple
1 different opinions here today.
2 MR. ALARID: Let's just say opinions in plural.
3 THE WITNESS: Yes.
4 MR. ALARID:
5 Q. Now, what is the difference between competency to stand trial due
6 to diminished capacity and diminished capacity as you reference into the
7 side effects of alcohol consumption or the secondary side effects to
8 brain damage?
9 A. That difference would be profound. The cognitive impairment that
10 I'm referring to is probably not something that would be immediately
11 apparent. It just meanings that the person isn't able to recall things
12 accurately, but doesn't mean that the person can't function as a normal
13 human being.
14 Q. And it doesn't mean that they can't understand the circumstances
15 of which they are under trial?
16 A. They would not lose sight of what is right and wrong.
17 Q. And so the references to the transcript where he indicates that
18 killing people is wrong and what-not, how does that factor into things
19 for you?
20 A. That wasn't -- that wasn't a factor at all. It had nothing to do
21 with memory. It was a moral judgement.
22 Q. And -- so what other -- what kinds of things would represent
23 diminished capacity in the context of alcohol consumption or the chronic
24 effects of alcohol consumption?
25 A. Just the inability to recall past events with any degree of
2 Q. And the Prosecution posed to you a hypothetical involving where
3 two eye-witnesses corroborate the declarant that's the relevant
4 declarant, and you said that that would assist you in your analysis?
5 A. That's right.
6 Q. Would it change your analysis if certain relevant details were
7 dramatically different between the two witnesses and the declarant; i.e.,
8 two witnesses say declarant had a gun and was actively involved in the
9 shooting, and declarant says, I didn't have a gun and I stayed out of the
11 A. It would be difficult for me to disentangle the obvious desire to
12 claim innocence and say I didn't have the gun with an impaired ability to
13 remember the actual situation, so it is so hypothetical I don't think I
14 could really answer that question.
15 Q. And with regards to an evaluation either by a psychiatrist or a
16 psychologist, what part of the standardised battery of testing would go
17 to potential brain damage or loss of cognitive functioning due to chronic
18 alcohol abuse?
19 A. I'm not sure what was administered. That's why I was asking,
20 because there are dozens of diagnostic tools that could be used, and I'm
21 not sure which ones were used; and I don't know if they were used to
22 assess memory or were they used to deal with right and wrong and
23 reasoning powers; so it's just vast, the number of tests that could be
24 given, and I'd have to know which ones were.
25 Q. What tests would you give?
1 A. If I were to do this, there are some simple memory tests, very,
2 very simple memory tests that you can give that require testing
3 short-term memory as well as long-term memory; and these kinds of tests
4 are screening tests, not diagnostic tests, but they can tell you within
5 five minutes if there is memory impairment. Then you can go further to
6 do an MRI
7 Q. And with regards to a psychiatric or psychological evaluation,
8 can the evaluation be coloured by simply what the medical professional is
9 looking for, what is their goal during the time that they have to
10 evaluate that person?
11 A. I'm interpreting that question to mean that perhaps the
12 psychiatrist was evaluating that person to determine if he was able to
13 speak for himself adequately and was not mentally afflicted in any way
14 that would impair his ability to understand his trial and what was going
15 on, and if that were what was being -- what he was trying to examine or
16 ascertain, it isn't likely that he would have focussed that much on
17 memory. I don't know, though.
18 Q. Now, what relevance is there, if any, this would be new evidence
19 from the standpoint that upon admission on June 14th to the hospital with
20 a broken leg that a secondary diagnosis was made of psychosis, and from a
21 hypothetical perspective --
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Weber on his feet.
23 MR. WEBER: Objection. This was not touched upon on
24 cross-examination whatsoever, any type of secondary diagnosis, anything
25 outside of the report.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Groome, what I do say to that? It doesn't
2 arise, Mr. Weber said.
3 MR. ALARID: Mr. Alarid? Mr. Groome?
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Alarid, I'm sorry.
5 MR. ALARID: Got it.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Microphone not activated] You get along so
7 well, so ...
8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour, please.
9 MR. ALARID: My position is this, that the Prosecution in
10 cross-examination did touch upon the issue by bringing up the psychiatric
11 evaluation. To be honest, I'm not really clear on why the psychiatric
12 evaluation was done, but --
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, let her answer the question.
14 MR. ALARID: Now --
15 MR. WEBER: For the record, we did not have an
16 opportunity [indiscernible] certain information here. We did not have
17 the opportunity to cross-examine her based on direct evidence, so if that
18 could be considered by the Chamber.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, go ahead. Answer the question.
20 MR. ALARID:
21 Q. Now, if the witness indicated that symptoms of psychosis were
22 seeing things, including having a phobia to things black and seeing
23 things black and having fear from that, this is at the time of admission,
24 but how relevant is that to your analysis, if at all?
25 A. What it indicates to me is he was in withdrawal when a person
1 can, indeed, have psychotic breaks. It wouldn't have any impact on my
2 analysis, though.
3 Q. Okay. And how important is it for the clinician for the person
4 during giving their history to not under or overrepresent their
6 A. The situation in terms of ...
7 Q. Well, let's just say someone's going in for treatment for
8 alcohol. Is it uncommon that they under-represent their drinking for
9 purposes of guilt and appearance?
10 A. That's pretty common, yes.
11 Q. Okay. And so --
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Weber, I'll allow you to ask a question on
13 that matter. Not now. When he's finished.
14 MR. WEBER: Based on that --
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: If you wish, the question of symptoms of
17 MR. WEBER: Judge, based on her answer, I'm not going to have a
18 question, but at the end of this I would like to make a submission.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Go ahead.
20 MR. ALARID:
21 Q. And is there any relevance to the synergistic effect between the
22 chronic effects of alcohol consumption, possible brain damage, and the
23 acute effects of being under the influence at the time?
24 A. Oh, yes. There's definitely an synergism. It makes the memory
25 of short-term events even more difficult to recall.
1 MR. ALARID: Okay. No further questions.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Doctor, that concludes your evidence. We thank
3 you for coming to the Tribunal to give it. You may now leave.
4 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
5 [The witness withdrew]
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Can we move to -- I want to give a decision, an
7 oral decision. We are in public session?
8 This morning, the Defence of Milan Lukic asked the Chamber to
9 reconsider its decision not to allow Ewa Tabeau to give evidence. The
10 Chamber had earlier on the 12th of March denied a Defence request to call
11 Tabeau because it was not satisfied that she could provide any more
12 information on the issue of alleged survivors than she had already
13 provided during her testimony as a Prosecution witness.
14 On the 16th of March, the Prosecution filed a notification of the
15 outcome of further investigation regarding alleged survivors. Attached
16 thereto is a clarification of the demographic unit prepared by Tabeau in
17 which she explains the methodology used by her unit when verifying the
18 death of victims and in which she gives additional information about 18
19 alleged survivors.
20 The clarification contains new relevant information justifying
21 reconsideration of the Chamber's previous decision. Tabeau may be called
22 as a Defence witness for the purpose of giving additional testimony about
23 alleged survivors.
24 The Trial Chamber further notes that the Prosecution requests
25 admission into evidence of Tabeau's clarification. The clarification is
1 to be admitted as a public exhibit.
2 That's the end of the decision. Mr. Alarid -- do you wish to
3 give it a number?
4 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Is this to be admitted as a Defence or
6 Prosecution exhibit?
7 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I believe it's the Prosecution that --
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Prosecution, yes.
9 Mr. Alarid, in relation to next week, we have to ensure that we
10 all make the greatest effort possible to make the best use of the time.
11 MR. ALARID: I can promise you.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: We have a request for information about
13 Wednesday because the Prosecution was bringing witnesses here for
14 Wednesday, and they have -- they're asking whether they should bring
15 those witnesses in light of the fact that I am allowing you to call these
16 additional witnesses. What can you say to that? What are we to tell
18 MR. ALARID: I think realistically next week is then very full if
19 not overflowing. Just given the cross-examination of Mr. McCoy, how it
20 flowed over in the next day, I can only assume that it will be the same
21 with Mr. Dimas, and then if you add the issue that we have the examining
22 psychologist for Mr. Milan Lukic as well as my police investigator who
23 touches on a lot of separate facts that I think will deserve
24 cross-examination --
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Alarid, on your word, then, I'll tell the
1 Prosecution not to bring the witnesses, and if the witnesses -- if the
2 time is not used ...
3 MR. ALARID: We'll use it. I'll use it, and especially you
4 inject Ewa Tabeau into it, we're full and we --
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Will you reimburse the United Nations for the
6 lost time, Mr. Alarid?
7 MR. ALARID: I can't afford that. This building's too big.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: From your rich resources.
9 MR. ALARID: You'd kill me. And Your Honour, practically
10 speaking, we're not even funded for this month until someone makes a
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, I don't know. Your friend Mr. Weber may
13 be able to assist.
14 MR. WEBER: Judge, I didn't know if you had another matter that
15 you wanted to raise.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: You wanted to raise another matter?
17 MR. WEBER: Yes, I just wanted to make a submission to the Court,
18 if I could.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
20 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, on the 13th of March, 2009, the
21 Prosecution filed a Prosecution submission regarding admission of medical
22 records, a motion for admission of previous testimony pursuant to Rule 92
23 bis with annexes. Contained in this material was the Prosecution's
24 request for the admission of the previous testimony of Dr. --
25 THE INTERPRETER: Please slow down for the interpreters. This is
1 not possible for the interpreters.
2 MR. WEBER: -- previous.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: You've been asked to slow down.
4 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Judge. We're --
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: We didn't get the doctor's name.
6 MR. WEBER: It's Dr. Folnegovic-Smalc. We would just like to
7 make a brief submission in light of today's testimony to be considered by
8 the Chamber. We understand that the Defence still has time and an
9 opportunity to respond to this in writing, if I may proceed.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
11 MR. WEBER: With respect to the testimony that was brought forth
12 today, the Prosecution -- it's probative value was very minimal based on
13 the amount of information that was provided to Dr. LaGrange.
14 Dr. LaGrange testified very candidly before the Chamber concerning the
15 materials that were not provided to her and the importance of other
16 information and things that were done. Dr. Folnegovic-Smalc personally
17 interviewed Mr. Vasiljevic over the course of two days prior to his trial
18 in 2001. She performed a series of cognitive tests on Mr. Vasiljevic.
19 She reached conclusions on re-examination by counsel. He brought up the
20 issue of a psychosis. Dr. Folnegovic-Smalc fully discusses and analyses
21 the mental condition and cognitive abilities of Mr. Vasiljevic in 1992
22 during the course of both her report and her testimony.
23 The Prosecution would just ask the Chamber to further consider
24 testimony by Dr. LaGrange today; for example, the fact that a forensic
25 psychiatrist would be in a better position to fully evaluate
1 Mr. Vasiljevic if they personally met with Mr. Vasiljevic and
2 administered cognitive tests to him in their consideration of the
3 admission of this testimony as rebuttal related to the issues that were
4 raised today.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: You mean you are planning to call
6 Dr. Folnegovic-Smalc in rebuttal?
7 MR. WEBER: That's correct, Your Honour. We have a pending
8 application, so I don't know -- the Prosecution [Overlapping speakers]
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: How many witnesses are you now seeking to call
10 in rebuttal, Mr. Weber?
11 MR. WEBER: Judge, that's for Mr. Groome to inform the Court of,
12 but with respect to the pending application, the Prosecution did not
13 raise this today to elicit a response for the Defence. We understand
14 that Mr. Alarid and Mr. Ivetic have time to still respond to this
15 application in writing. We would just like to provide this additional
16 information for the Court's consideration.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: You know what the criterion is in the case law?
18 Couldn't you have reasonably foreseen that you would need this evidence
19 and have called it in examination-in-chief? Has it a reason
20 ex improviso?
21 MR. WEBER: Judge, on the 19th of November, 2008, we received the
22 first witness list from Mr. Alarid. Dr. Linda LaGrange at that time was
23 listed as a toxicology expert, not even as a psychologist. There was no
24 factual description whatsoever of the opinions that she would be offering
25 in this case. We had no idea that she would even offer opinions in
1 relation to Mr. Vasiljevic. On the 26th of January, we actually got a
2 report. That was the first notice we ever had that she would be offering
3 any opinion in relation to Mr. Vasiljevic. So no, Judge, the Prosecution
4 could not have anticipated that because it was something that was not
5 known to us.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: We're not going to decide now. We will consider
7 it. The threshold as you know is very, very high, but perhaps we could
8 just hear. What's your view on this, Mr. Alarid?
9 MR. ALARID: Well, Your Honour, I was going to change the topic
10 slightly. I forgot to submit the report of Dr. LaGrange.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you supporting Mr. Weber in his application?
12 MR. ALARID: To be honest, I got to read the report. I think
13 it's attached. I haven't read it yet. I will reserve, to be honest. I
14 mean they can present their rebuttal normally in whatever way they can.
15 I know it gets fuzzy when experts get involved, so please let me read the
16 report over the weekend.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
18 MR. ALARID: I just moved for admission of Dr. LaGrange's report.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we admit it.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D182 is admitted now, and the
21 clarification of Dr. Ewa Tabeau will become Exhibit P300.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We will adjourned until Monday afternoon.
23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.34 p.m.
24 to be reconvened on Monday, the 23rd day of March,
25 2009, at 2.15 p.m.