Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 6014

 1                           Tuesday, 24 March 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.

 5             JUDGE ROBINSON:  At the outset, let me say that in the absence of

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

 7     of Rule 15 bis.

 8             Mr. Groome, are you to -- is there a preliminary matter?

 9             MR. IVETIC:  There were two brief ones, Your Honour.

10             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.  Okay, Mr. Ivetic.

11             MR. IVETIC:  One, yesterday, Madam Registrar advised me that

12     there was a document.  This is the compendium of photographs that

13     Mr. McCoy had taken and selected that was a part of his report,

14     1D22-0603, which I had neglected to tender to the Chamber.  I was told

15     that there was a marked and an unmarked copy, a marked copy that I guess

16     the witness had marked up in the course of either the direct or the

17     cross-examination and that I need to tender one or the other.  I decided

18     to -- yeah, for purposes of preserving the full record, I think I ought

19     to tender both the marked and the unmarked of that document as they are

20     for all intents and purposes different documents once the markings have

21     been added to it.

22             The second matter, I did receive last night the video-tape that

23     Mr. Groome was intending to show to the witness when we had taken the

24     break, when we had taken the break yesterday.  Two things with respect to

25     that.  The video I received is sound bytes.  It's not a continuous video,

Page 6015

 1     so to the extent there is raw footage, I believe we will be entitled to

 2     that under the disclosure rules.  But the portions of the video that I do

 3     have have this individual who's sitting in the courtroom today.  I

 4     believe his name is Mr. Sexton, that can be corrected if I'm wrong.  It

 5     has him testifying on the video making assertions and rendering opinions

 6     as to what we are seeing, et cetera.  Now, this gentleman is not on the

 7     witness either as fact witness or as an expert witness or as a rebuttal

 8     witness.  It is out-of-court testimony that has been presented, we

 9     believe, for the truth of the matter asserted, and it is being presented

10     to a witness.  So we have an out-of-court declarant statement being

11     present to a witness, which I thought was something that we had

12     previously -- that previously had been ruled to be impermissible.

13             Now, again, and we're being presented it without cross, and we

14     don't know this man's qualifications as to whether he is an expert.  So

15     if the video-type is to be relied upon in any way as to the spoken

16     portion of it, we believe it would be a violation of Rules 92 bis and 94.

17             JUDGE ROBINSON:  You know my predilection.  It is to take the

18     points when the matters arise.  So let us see the video and let me see

19     the individual who --

20             MR. IVETIC:  That's fair enough.  I just want to make that at the

21     outset, number one.

22             JUDGE ROBINSON:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

23             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the speakers not speak at the same time.

24     Thank you very much.

25             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Mr. Groome.

Page 6016

 1             MR. GROOME:  I have no preliminary matters, Your Honour --

 2     [overlapping speakers] ...

 3             JUDE ROBINSON:  {Overlapping speakers] ... let the witness be

 4     brought.

 5             MR. GROOME:  I'm prepared to continue.

 6                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

 7             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.  I'm admitting the exhibits of Mr. Ivetic.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  1D22-0603 will become Exhibit 1D195,

 9     Your Honours, and the marked copy will become 1D196.

10             JUDGE ROBINSON:  May I be told why the witness is late, the

11     Court Deputy?

12                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

13                           [The witness takes the stand]

14             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.  The Court Deputy is investigating the late

15     arrival of the witness, and we'll inform you as soon as we have more

16     information, and I'd like that to go on the record when we do get the

17     information.

18             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Mr. Groome, you may continue.

19                           WITNESS:  BENJAMIN DIMAS [Resumed]

20                           Cross-examination by Mr. Groome: [Continued]

21        Q.   Mr. Dimas, before I pick up where I left off yesterday, you had

22     said that it was the policy of fire investigators to destroy their notes

23     once they issue a report; is that correct?

24        A.   That is correct.

25        Q.   Now, through the magic of the internet, we were able to actually

Page 6017

 1     download the Standard Operating Guidelines for the Albuquerque Fire

 2     Department.  I'm going to hand it up to you, and I believe that you

 3     testified that you were in part one of the authors of this document.

 4     Could I ask you to please show us the section where it says that are you

 5     to destroy your notes after you file your report.

 6        A.   Actually, before you start there, I don't know where it's at in

 7     there.  I helped draft them up, and then they got turned in to my

 8     captain, submitted to administration.  I have not yet seen the new ones

 9     that have come out.

10        Q.   You're more familiar with this document than I am.  Perhaps you

11     could look through the table of contents or the index, and could you show

12     us where it says that a fire investigator should destroy his or her notes

13     once they have drafted a report.  And while you're looking through that,

14     do you recognise that as the Standard Operating Guidelines of

15     Albuquerque?

16        A.   Yes.  This is, I believe, a portion of them.

17        Q.   Perhaps in order to save time, could I ask you maybe to hold on

18     to that copy.  If you would be so good as to during the next break spend

19     some of the time looking through it, and then perhaps when you return

20     from the break you can let us know where it is, okay?

21        A.   Okay.

22        Q.   Now, you said you had FBI training with respect to investigation;

23     is that correct?

24        A.   Post-blast investigation.

25        Q.   In that course, did the FBI teach the destruction of notes after

Page 6018

 1     a report?

 2        A.   No note-taking or anything like that was covered in it.  It was

 3     just identifying explosions.

 4        Q.   Now, I want to just ask you a follow-up question about the piece

 5     of wood that was embedded in the concrete about 7 feet off the floor that

 6     we talked about yesterday.  My question to you is, did it appear to you

 7     to be a piece of wood that had already been charred and jammed into the

 8     concrete, or did it appear to be a piece of wood that was in the concrete

 9     when it became charred?

10        A.   Actually, it was 6 feet above, and it didn't appear to be jammed

11     in because I was able to just simply remove it.  There was a gap around

12     the edges of it.

13        Q.   So it appeared to be present in the concrete when the concrete

14     was placed before it set; is that correct?

15        A.   No, it is not.  I couldn't make that determination.  Again, it

16     wasn't set in there such as that beam under the window.  That one you

17     could tell was affixed when it was plastered.  This one was just simply

18     sitting there.  There was a gap above it as it was sitting in the bottom.

19     Then as I would just reach in, pull it out, so it not like I had to pry

20     it out or force it out.  So it was not plastered in.

21        Q.   So you actually took out the piece of charred wood?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   And what did you do with the piece of charred wood that you took

24     out?

25        A.   Like I did the other ones; I felt it, examined it, and determined

Page 6019

 1     it was a piece of charred wood.

 2        Q.   And what did you do with it then?

 3        A.   Then I placed it back in the hole.

 4        Q.   Okay.  Now, I'm going to ask that you -- well, you talked about

 5     that beam now.  Yesterday, you said when I asked you the question:

 6             "How did you come to the conclusion that it was actually embedded

 7     in the concrete wall?"

 8             And your answer was:

 9             "Because the concrete is flush with the edges of it."

10             Is that correct?

11        A.   That is correct.

12        Q.   Could I ask that you now take a look at clip 090321, Pionirska

13     overview, wall C.  There's a video going to be shown on the screen in

14     front of you.  After you look at it, I'm going to ask you a question.

15                           [Video-clip played]

16             Voiceover:  "This area with the two windows, large windows, is

17     deemed area or wall C, and it also has an electrical -- it also has an

18     electrical junction or junction box with chase running down the wall,

19     curving over under the window.  As you can see, there's vine that we

20     haven't removed.  Below the window-sill --

21             MR. ALARID:  Your Honour.

22             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.  Just a minute.  Please stop the tape.

23             MR. ALARID:  Per the Court's instructions, this is the point we

24     were talking about, is if the declarant on the video has not been

25     identified as the witness, has not been tendered pursuant to a motion to

Page 6020

 1     amend, is the testimony improper at this point and a violation of Rules

 2     92 or 94?

 3             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Mr. Groome.

 4             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, I'm not offering the testimony.  I'm

 5     just seeking to impeach the witness and be entitled to impeach the

 6     witness with anything.

 7             MR. ALARID:  But, Your Honour --

 8             MR. GROOME:  If I can finish my comments to His Honour.

 9             I'd be entitled to impeach with any video, whether it was by

10     someone who works for OTP or for a video taken by any source.  It's --

11     until the time that I intend or try to seek it as evidence in my case, I

12     think that's when the issues of hearsay and that all come.  I'm simply

13     using it to challenge this witness and whether his conclusion that the

14     wood was embedded in the concrete wall.

15             MR. ALARID:  Well, and Your Honour, but as we can see, the tape

16     is becoming part of the record.  The court reporter is taking down what's

17     on the video-tape, and the Court has already ruled it improper to impeach

18     a witness with a statement of another witness.  And I'm going to assume

19     that Mr. Groome out of the magic of the voice of whoever is on here is

20     going to claim that whatever's said on this video-tape is true,

21     regardless of the training or background of the declarant or why he's

22     being offered, and that is improper.  And it is an out-of-court statement

23     being used to impeach an in-court witness improperly.  At the very least,

24     he should have an opportunity to review the statement, review the

25     evidence; he is an expert.  And then Mr. Groome can put to him the

Page 6021

 1     statements.  But otherwise, otherwise the record is going to be full of

 2     what is ever on this tape.

 3             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Mr. Alarid, may I adopt one of your favorite

 4     expressions.

 5             Mr. Groome, what is missing is the, what is it, foundational

 6     matters.  Who is this?  And we haven't heard anything as to what is going

 7     on and who is speaking.

 8             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, the person who's speaking on the tape

 9     is an investigator by the name of Mr. Garry Selsky.  He's sitting behind

10     me in the court.  He accompanied me to Visegrad this past weekend to

11     verify some of this testimony that was introduced last week just to take

12     a look at whether or not it was corroborated by what we saw.  We can as

13     easily play this tape silently if the Court wishes, but I submit -- you

14     know, I always remember when I was in law school my evidence teacher

15     saying, You know, you can impeach a witness with a slice of pizza to make

16     the point that really an impeachment, it a -- really anything you're

17     entitled to put to a witness to see if it challenges their conclusions or

18     their assumptions.  I'm not seeking to tender this evidence at this

19     point.  I'm simply asking the witness to look at this, and then I'm going

20     to ask him whether it changes his conclusion that this piece of wood is

21     embedded in the wall.

22             JUDGE ROBINSON:  But we haven't heard who is speaking.

23                           [Trial Chamber confers]

24             JUDGE ROBINSON:  We will see the images without any voice.

25     That's the Chamber's ruling.  And then you can put questions to the

Page 6022

 1     witness on the basis of the images.

 2             MR. GROOME:  I'm just setting that up now, Your Honour.

 3                           [Video-clip played]

 4             MR. GROOME:

 5        Q.   Mr. Dimas, what we're looking at at .22 seconds on this image,

 6     that's the electric box that's to the upper left-hand corner of the

 7     window in the room; correct?

 8        A.   I couldn't tell with the blurriness.  It looks similar, yes.

 9        Q.   Well, you were there.  What was it?

10        A.   Yes.  That was the electrical box.

11        Q.   That was the electrical box, okay.  Thank you.

12             MR. GROOME:  Please continue.

13                           [Video-clip played]

14             MR. GROOME:

15        Q.   Now, the piece of wood that we're looking at, that's the beam

16     that you referred to that was embedded in the wall; correct?

17        A.   Correct.

18                           [Video-clip played]

19             MR. GROOME:  And if we could pause the video now.

20        Q.   Now, sir, as we can see from this image, in the centre of this,

21     there's actually an inch gap between the wall and the piece of wood; is

22     that not correct?

23        A.   On this one, yes.  If you go back to about .47 to the edge of it,

24     you can see the plaster directly to the edge of the beam.

25        Q.   So is it your evidence now that it was partially embedded in the

Page 6023

 1     wall or completely embedded in the wall?

 2        A.   No, I believe earlier I did state yesterday that the walls had

 3     been falling apart and degredated [phoen].  This was attached, but it's

 4     obvious, you can see the walls have been collapsing around this.  But if

 5     you look at the edges, the edges are smooth and flush with the wall.  If

 6     you want to go back to .47 or in that area --

 7        Q.   Let's continue on.  Please continue on.

 8                           [Video-clip played]

 9             MR. GROOME:

10        Q.   And this is not a piece of furring strip?

11        A.   No.

12                           [Video-clip played]

13             MR. GROOME:  Okay.  We can stop the video there.

14        Q.   I'm going to ask you to look at one more video.

15        A.   Once again, if you want to go back to just about maybe four

16     seconds, it shows the edge flush with the wall again.

17        Q.   The next video shows the edge very good, and that's PO Evid,

18     wall C.

19                           [Video-clip played]

20             MR. GROOME:

21        Q.   Now, what's being taken out of the the wall is the electric box;

22     correct?

23        A.   Yes, sir.  That's the same area, I believe.

24        Q.   Did you take a close look at this electric box?

25        A.   We just examined the hole and determined that it was some sort of

Page 6024

 1     junction box based on the wires going into it.

 2        Q.   Did you have any opinion as to whether the material was burnt or

 3     not?

 4        A.   Yes.  I determined that it was a black hole with wires going into

 5     it.

 6        Q.   And black, you mean -- black is sometimes associated with

 7     burning.  Did you believe it was burnt?

 8        A.   No, I did not.

 9                           [Video-clip played]

10             MR. GROOME:  We can see the bag being sealed.

11                           [Video-clip played]

12             MR. GROOME:  Now, on the video we can observe at 2. -- 2 minutes,

13     13 seconds, investigator Selsky writing on the board, the embedded beam.

14             MR. ALARID:  Is Mr. Groome a witness?  And, if so, let's move to

15     disqualify the OTP.  Let's make him a witness.  And let's go on with

16     that.  Mr. Groome should not be tendering this video, and if Mr. Groome

17     took this video, I move to make Mr. Groome a witness, and I move to add

18     him to my 65 ter.  And I make the motion to disqualify the Prosecutor

19     right now.

20             JUDGE ROBINSON:  [Microphone not activated]

21             MR. GROOME:  Please continue.

22                           [Video-clip played]

23             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Mr. Groome, you are not to comment on the tape

24     in the manner which you just did because that breeches the ruling that I

25     gave.

Page 6025

 1                           [Video-clip played]

 2             MR. GROOME:

 3        Q.   Mr. Dimas, based on what we're watching now, isn't it true that

 4     this piece of wood --

 5             JUDGE ROBINSON:  That was on the transcript.  I just spoke.  But

 6     my words have been, but my words have been attributed to Mr. Alarid.

 7             MR. GROOME:

 8        Q.   Mr. Dimas, it was not a beam embedded in the concrete, was it?

 9     It was a nailed to the concrete, was it not?

10        A.   I simply stated that it was a piece of wood embedded in the wall.

11     It is not a furring strip.  A furring strip is made to hold other items

12     up, such as wooden planks.  Is it your contention that this interior of

13     the room had wood interior wall?

14        Q.   That's what I want to ask you.

15             MR. GROOME:  So if I could ask the usher's assistance to actually

16     show Mr. Dimas that piece of wood.

17        Q.   Mr. Dimas, I'm going to ask you to take a look at that piece of

18     wood.  Please be careful.  It has nails on it.  Is that the piece of wood

19     that you described as a beam that was pristine embedded in the wall?

20        A.   It is the wood that I saw that was embedded in the wall.

21        Q.   Now, the common usage of embed is it's inside the wall.

22        A.   And this was inside the plastered area.  As the video showed, it

23     was flush on the edges.

24        Q.   Now, if you look at the top of the piece of board, the side with

25     the writing on it, there are a number of nails that are partially on the

Page 6026

 1     other side, the side with the writing on the left-hand corner.

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   There are a number of nails that are partially in the board;

 4     correct?

 5        A.   That is correct.

 6        Q.   Is that not consistent with other material being affixed to this

 7     piece of wood?

 8        A.   Well, the majority of those nails are coming from the backside,

 9     so how would you nail something from the backside when it's in the wall

10     such as this?

11        Q.   Well, could we do this.  Could you place it down on the side that

12     was facing the concrete wall.

13        A.   Your Honours --

14        Q.   Yeah, okay, like that.  That's good.  That's very helpful.  Now,

15     can you please point to the nails that are partially protruding from the

16     board.

17        A.   We have several here, here, and here.

18        Q.   Now --

19        A.   These here, here, are from the backside.  These are nailed from

20     the backside.  These are from the backside.

21        Q.   Can you please point to any nail where the head of the nail is

22     facing towards us.

23        A.   These two, this one, and this one.

24        Q.   And is that not consistent with something at some point having

25     been affixed to the top of this board?

Page 6027

 1        A.   That is correct.  I have never denied that.

 2        Q.   Okay.

 3             MR. GROOME:  I'd ask that Your Honours take a look at this board

 4     if the usher could allow the Chamber to see the board as well as Defence

 5     counsel, then.

 6             JUDGE ROBINSON:  If we're injured by the nail, who is

 7     responsible?

 8             MR. GROOME:  There are plenty of lawyers in the court that may

 9     assist you, Your Honour.

10        Q.   Mr. Dimas, is that not a piece of furring strip that is commonly

11     used as substrate for attaching finished wall materials?

12        A.   I couldn't say what that would be used for.  It's simply --

13     basically, what is that, three-quarter inch by, maybe, 3-inch piece of

14     wood.

15        Q.   Is it a beam?

16        A.   Well, maybe my terminology was wrong.  It's a piece of wood.

17     It's a furring strip -- the furring strip's used where I'm from are

18     usually just 1-by-2s.

19        Q.   So this would be an inch wider than the furring strip that you

20     would be used that; correct?

21        A.   That is correct.

22        Q.   So aside from it being an inch wider, it essentially would be the

23     same as a furring strip that you and I would be familiar with in the US;

24     correct?

25        A.   Not necessarily.  Again, I looked at the beam with the totality

Page 6028

 1     of everything.  You have one beam, you're talking about the furring strip

 2     for putting up a wood-type of wall.  Now, are we to believe that you have

 3     one furring strip underneath one wall instead of all walls?

 4        Q.   Well, sir, isn't it possible -- isn't it possible that if someone

 5     were -- if there were a finished material on this wall that was burnt and

 6     someone was attempting to conceal what happened there, they removed all

 7     of the burnt material, all of the furring strips, and overlooked this

 8     piece of furring strip underneath the window?  Isn't that a possibility

 9     that you considered?

10        A.   Yes, it is.  Again --

11        Q.   Okay.  Thanks.

12        A.   Can I answer the question, please?

13        Q.   I'm just asking is it something you considered.

14        A.   Yes, and I did, and I'm explaining how I considered it.

15        Q.   Please.

16        A.   Again, we looked at the totality of it.  We looked to see what

17     fire damage there was, and again, you're talking about more wood within

18     the structure.  You're talking walls of wood that they had removed, and

19     there is no signs or evidence of large-scale debris in there.

20        Q.   So you did not consider the fact that all of the debris could

21     have been taken away?

22        A.   No, at that time, I did not.

23        Q.   Why did you not consider that if they were trying to conceal what

24     took place there that they would not have only taken the debris down but

25     they would have shipped it or taken it out of the room?

Page 6029

 1        A.   Based on the fact that the whole corner that was still left, that

 2     had the small burns that we showed yesterday, you still had partial

 3     floor.  If you're going to remove it and clean the scene, why not do the

 4     entire room?  You're going to leave one-third of the room still intact?

 5        Q.   Or perhaps someone came in and used it afterwards for a different

 6     purpose.  I'm finished with that.  Thank you very much.  Now, I'm going

 7     to ask that you take a look at --

 8             JUDGE VAN DEN WYNGAERT:  Excuse me, Mr. Groome.  I'm not sure I

 9     understand what a furring strip is.  Could someone explain to me what a

10     furring strip is.

11             MR. GROOME:

12        Q.   Can you please explain how would you would -- how we would use a

13     furring strip in the US.  Let's say if you were going to finish a

14     basement in the US, how would you use a furring strip?

15        A.   Normally what you do is you attach small planks of wood around

16     the whole wall area so you can affix your wood finish over it.

17        Q.   Now and -- would I not be correct in saying that the wood is

18     ordinarily placed horizontally, parallel with the floor and the ceiling?

19        A.   That is correct.

20        Q.   And then the fixed finish is put up above it?

21        A.   That is correct also.

22        Q.   And the only difference between a furring strip that you and I

23     are familiar with and this piece of wood is that this piece of wood is

24     one inch wider than a furring strip that we would be used to?

25        A.   It's also shorter, and it's one piece, and it's not the whole

Page 6030

 1     length of the wall.  Usually you put in the whole length of the wall

 2     because you're going to finish the entire wall.  You're not going to

 3     finish just the area beneath your window.

 4        Q.   Now, there were several electric boxes in the walls, and we've

 5     seen one on the tape.  You saw no burning -- evidence of burning in those

 6     electric boxes?

 7        A.   Not that I recall, no.

 8        Q.   Now, there were grooves cut in the wall, were there not, where

 9     the wire from those electric boxes were placed; is that not correct?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   And --

12        A.   Excuse me, I'm sorry.  Are you talking about where the wire was?

13        Q.   Well, the person on the video-tape from the electric box runs

14     their pen down the side of the wall, and then it curves over towards the

15     window.

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   That was a groove where there was wiring placed, was that not?

18        A.   That is correct.  We found that the wires were plastered directly

19     into the wall.

20        Q.   Okay.  You -- are you saying that you could not see the groove

21     left by the wires?

22        A.   No, I saw the grooves, yes.

23        Q.   Okay.  And that was burnt, was it not?

24        A.   No.

25        Q.   So you looked at the wiring and made a determination that there

Page 6031

 1     was no evidence of burning on the insulation or whatever remained of that

 2     wire?

 3        A.   It -- we noted that it was melted.

 4        Q.   The wire was melted?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   So when we look from the top of that electric box and we travel

 7     down the wall, you made the conclusion that the insulation in there had

 8     melted?

 9        A.   In parts of it, yes.

10        Q.   Is that --

11             THE INTERPRETER:  Could both speakers slow down, please, and make

12     a brief pause between question and an answer, please.

13             MR. GROOME:  Apologies to the interpreters.

14             THE WITNESS:  Sorry, Your Honour.

15             MR. GROOME:

16        Q.   Did you put that in your report?

17        A.   No, I did not.

18        Q.   Why did you not put -- let me ask you this.  We can see those

19     grooves -- now, I'm familiar with the word "chase," wire chase.  Is that

20     the word that you would use?

21        A.   No.

22        Q.   What word would you use for the -- where wires are placed in a

23     concrete wall?

24        A.   Well, wire chases usually refer to the conduit or piping or an

25     opening such as -- and a lot of times older homes just drill holes

Page 6032

 1     through walls.

 2        Q.   What would you call that groove where the wiring is placed?

 3     Should we just call it a groove?

 4        A.   That's fine.

 5        Q.   They are in several locations in that room; correct?

 6        A.   That's correct.

 7        Q.   And how many of them did you make the determination that there

 8     was -- the wire insulation had melted?

 9        A.   I believe in two different areas.

10        Q.   And so when you looked at this room, you found in two locations

11     the wiring embedded in the concrete walls melted, and you did not put

12     that in your report?

13        A.   No, I did not.

14        Q.   Why did you not put it in your report?

15        A.   Again, I went to the totality of everything and the amount of

16     damage.

17        Q.   Okay.  I'm going to ask that you -- with the usher's assistance

18     that you take a look at a bag.  It's an evidence bag, and if it could be

19     placed on the ELMO.

20             MR. ALARID:  And, Your Honour, we would object to this form of

21     tendering the materials to the witness.  One, the witness has been

22     already accepted by the Court as an expert in fire investigation.  I

23     looked at the bag and Mr. Groome refused to open the bags for me.  The

24     reason being is -- and the objection is that if you're going to put

25     questions of this nature to this witness as an expert, he should be

Page 6033

 1     allowed to inspect the contents.  The fact of the fatter is that the bags

 2     from whatever dirt, they're almost opaque at this point in time, so it

 3     makes it very suggestive without a real opportunity to examine the

 4     contents of the bag.  I would object to a simple ELMO presentation.

 5             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, I fully agree with Mr. Alarid, so I'm

 6     going to ask the witness to open the bag, pour the contents on a tray,

 7     and examine it here before us.

 8        Q.   Sir, I'm going ask you -- if the usher could please place this

 9     tray on the bag.  I'm going to ask that -- if it can be placed on the

10     ELMO, please.

11             MR. ALARID:  [Microphone not activated] May we inspect the bag

12     before it's emptied?

13             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes, if you wish.  Let Defence counsel see the

14     bag.

15             MR. GROOME:  If the usher would show Defence counsel.  The

16     contents of some of these bags are quite fragile, so I just ask for some

17     care to be used.

18        Q.   Sir, when the bag makes its way to you, I'm going to ask that

19     you -- you examine the bag.  You work with evidence bags all the time, do

20     you not?

21        A.   I do.

22        Q.   So you'll be able to tell whether the seal on this bag has been

23     violated?

24        A.   That's correct.

25        Q.   Okay.  And -- so could I ask you to take a look at the bag, check

Page 6034

 1     whether or not it has been violated.

 2        A.   It does not appear to be.

 3        Q.   I'm going to ask that you take a scissor, and I'm sure you're

 4     familiar with opening evidence bags, but I'm going to ask you to cut it

 5     at the bottom, not near seal, so we always have a record of the seal, and

 6     I'm going to ask you to pour the contents onto the white tray.

 7             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Mr. Groome, what's the provenance of this bag

 8     and its contents?

 9             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, if Your Honours will recall from the

10     video, this was the bag that was -- and we can see the same writing on

11     the bag.  Again, I'm not tendering it at this time, but it's obvious from

12     the video that this was the material taken out of the electric box and

13     placed in the bag.  I can call up that portion of the video if

14     Your Honour wants to compare the writing on this bag with the writing on

15     the video.

16                           [Trial Chamber confers]

17             JUDGE ROBINSON:  No, that's not necessary.

18             MR. GROOME:

19        Q.   Okay.  Sir, can you please open the bag and just put the contents

20     on the tray.

21        A.   [Witness opens bag]

22             MR. GROOME:  And if the bag can be returned to

23     Investigator Selsky, he'll take care of that.

24        Q.   Now, sir, can I ask you just to take a look at that, maybe flip

25     it over to the portion that was -- now, the portion that you have in your

Page 6035

 1     hand now that's facing you, if you could turn it over to the other part

 2     there.  Is it your evidence that there's no evidence of burning on that,

 3     no smoke damage, no evidence of burning?

 4        A.   I don't see any, no.

 5        Q.   Okay.

 6             MR. GROOME:  I'd ask that that be shown to Defence counsel and to

 7     Their Honours.

 8        Q.   Sir, while that's being shown around, you'll remember yesterday I

 9     brought to your attention a black horizontal strip that was -- if we were

10     inside the room looking at the door, it was on the upper left-hand

11     portion of the wall.  Do you recall that?

12        A.   Could you restate that again.

13        Q.   The part of the wall that I want to refer you to is, if you're

14     standing in the centre of the room looking towards the door, the upper

15     left-hand -- to the left of the door, the upper portion of the wall,

16     there was a black line that ran horizontally, and you circled it

17     yesterday.  Do you recall?

18        A.   Yes, I do.

19             MR. GROOME:  I'd ask that that be returned to

20     Investigator Selsky.

21             MR. ALARID:  [Microphone not activated] Actually, we'll probably

22     have questions, so -- I apologise.  We'll probably have questions

23     utilising it, so if we could set them out on a table so they're easily

24     accessible, that kind of thing.

25             MR. GROOME:  Sure.

Page 6036

 1             MR. IVETIC:  And is there a way to identify that?  I ask that

 2     when we call up -- since you're not tendering it, is there some kind

 3     of --

 4             MR. GROOME:  That's bag C-1.

 5             MR. IVETIC:  C-1.  Thank you, Counsel.

 6             MR. GROOME:

 7        Q.   You know the piece that I'm referring to?

 8        A.   I believe so.

 9        Q.   Okay.  I'm going to ask that you look at a piece of video-tape.

10     It's 090321, PO Evid, wall A, number 1.  And I believe you testified

11     yesterday that you did not take a close examination of this black

12     material in the wall.  Is that true?

13        A.   I believe that's what I stated.

14                           [Video-clip played]

15             MR. GROOME:

16        Q.   Do you recognise on the screen now?

17        A.   Yes, I remember that from yesterday.

18                           [Video-clip played]

19             MR. GROOME:  While the video is being played, could I ask the

20     usher, please, to place another tray next to the witness.  Perhaps we can

21     expedite the time that it's taking.  And this would be the bag that's

22     marked A-1.

23                           [Video-clip played]

24             MR. GROOME:

25        Q.   Sir, would you agree with me that whatever this black material,

Page 6037

 1     is it's clearly embedded in the wall?

 2        A.   Yes, that appears so.

 3                           [Video-clip played]

 4             MR. GROOME:

 5        Q.   Now, as Investigator Selsky holds it up to the camera, I'd ask

 6     you just to take a look as well with the bag next to you.

 7                           [Video-clip played]

 8             MR. GROOME:

 9        Q.   Can I ask you to look at the bag next to you.  Does it appear to

10     be the same bag that we're looking at in the video?

11        A.   The bag appears to be the same.  Could you rewind that?  I didn't

12     see where he -- it looked like he placed the bag and then he turned

13     around and then the bag was on the other side of him.

14        Q.   Well, can I ask you to examine the seal on that bag and see

15     whether it appears tampered with or violated.

16        A.   No, it does not, but that's not what I was referring to.

17             MR. ALARID:  The witness wants a slight rewind of the video.

18             MR. GROOME:  If we could go back to the video.

19        Q.   And what portion do you want?

20        A.   Just back maybe five seconds, seven seconds.  I'm sorry, maybe

21     further.  Right before -- right when we sets it down from that point on.

22     No, prior to that.

23        Q.   Okay.  Is that rewound enough?

24        A.   That's fine.

25             MR. GROOME:  Play it.

Page 6038

 1                           [Video-clip played]

 2             THE WITNESS:  It appears he -- I'm sorry.  To me, it appears he

 3     places it on his left, he turns, and then it's in a different position,

 4     but -- this is the bag that you did bring up.

 5             MR. GROOME:

 6        Q.   Okay.  Is the seal violated?

 7        A.   No, it's not.

 8             MR. GROOME:  Does counsel wish to see it before I ask Mr. Dimas

 9     to cut it?

10             MR. ALARID:  No.

11             MR. GROOME:

12        Q.   Could I ask you to cut the bag open and empty the contents on

13     the ...

14        A.   [Witness empties bag]

15        Q.   And again, if the bag could be given to Mr. Selsky.  Could I ask

16     you to examine the contents of this bag and tell us whether or not

17     there's charred material in that bag.

18        A.   It appears there are a few chunks in there, yes.

19        Q.   Of charred wood?  Are you able to say?

20        A.   Yes.

21             MR. GROOME:  Could I ask that it be shown to the Chamber and to

22     Defence counsel.

23        Q.   So, so far now we have the charred wood that you found up in the

24     wall, 6 feet above, we have the melted insulation in two places in the

25     wall, and now we have charred wood from an area -- how high would this be

Page 6039

 1     off the floor?

 2        A.   It'd probably be up to the same as the other one, about 6 feet

 3     up.

 4        Q.   So about 6 feet off the floor.

 5             MR. GROOME:  Okay.  If that could be returned to Mr. Selsky.

 6             Now I want to move to the floor.  Could I ask that the following

 7     video be played for Mr. Dimas:  090321, PO Evid, floor.  And I'm going to

 8     ask that the tray with bag F-1 be given to Mr. Dimas.

 9                           [Video-clip played]

10             MR. GROOME:

11        Q.   Can you see the video, Mr. Dimas?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   Okay.

14                           [Video-clip played]

15             MR. GROOME:

16        Q.   Do you recognise where in the room we are in this video?

17        A.   Yes, I do.

18        Q.   Okay.

19                           [Video-clip played]

20             MR. GROOME:

21        Q.   Mr. Dimas, could I ask you -- could we put another tray with bag

22     with F-2 right on the table in front of you.  Both of them have to do

23     with the floor.  I think maybe we can expedite matters by having you deal

24     with both of them at the same time.

25                           [Video-clip played]

Page 6040

 1             MR. GROOME:

 2        Q.   Mr. Dimas, can you explain to us, how would it be that a piece of

 3     wood embedded in the wall would become charred?

 4        A.   I don't know.  Are you talking that it's already there, somebody

 5     placed it there?

 6        Q.   Let's assume for the moment that the wood wasn't -- no one built

 7     a structure with charred wood but that they built it with whole wood and

 8     it became charred after.  What are the different ways that a wood

 9     embedded in the concrete wall could become charred?

10             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Mr. Alarid.

11             MR. ALARID:  I would just ask for a clarification.  Are we

12     talking about the one 6 feet off the ground, or are we talking about one

13     in the apparent closed-in doorway or window as it appears?

14             MR. GROOME:

15        Q.   I'm just asking you theoretically for the moment.  What are the

16     different ways, if you were investigating a scene and you found a piece

17     of wood that was obviously fully embedded in concrete and you found it

18     charred, what are the different possible ways theoretically that it --

19     could it become charred?

20        A.   It could be charred due to heat transfer.  It could be done by a

21     direct flame.  If there's any electrical wiring nearby, conductivity

22     through the electrical wire.

23        Q.   So it sounds like the three ways you've described -- heat

24     transfer, so you mean heat in the room of sufficient heat -- of

25     sufficient temperature to char that wood; correct?

Page 6041

 1        A.   Sounds about right, yes.

 2        Q.   And what temperature would the heat in the room have to be to

 3     char the piece of wood in the wall?

 4        A.   It depends on the extent of the char.

 5        Q.   Similar to what you saw in the last exhibit, that charring.

 6        A.   You really can't say.  Depends on the wood, how dry it is, the

 7     humidity factor, moisture content, type of wood.

 8        Q.   What would be the lowest possible temperature at which that wood

 9     would char?

10        A.   I'd probably say maybe a thousand degrees.

11        Q.   A thousand degrees.

12             What would happen to the human if the human was in the room at

13     the same time that whatever heat was in the room that charred that wood?

14        A.   They'd be burnt.

15        Q.   Now, you also said it could happen by direct contact with flame;

16     correct?

17        A.   That's correct.

18        Q.   So if the flames themselves were actually touching the wood, that

19     would cause charring?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   And then the final way that you said was that if there was some

22     kind of electrical problem with electrical wires running, what, adjacent

23     to the wood?

24        A.   Adjacent, or if like in the States a nail might have punctured

25     the wire and it would be conducted through that nail.

Page 6042

 1        Q.   And that would cause in the wood.

 2        A.   Correct.

 3        Q.   Okay.  Now can I ask you -- let's do F-1 first.  That's the one

 4     on the ELMO to your left.  Could I first ask you again, check the seal of

 5     the bag.

 6        A.   It's intact.

 7        Q.   Could I ask you to open it as you have before and place it on the

 8     tray.

 9        A.   [Witness empties bag]

10        Q.   Could I ask you to repeat the same exercise for F-2 before you.

11     Please check the seal on the bag in front of you.  When you're satisfied

12     it hasn't been violated, open it up and place the contents on the tray.

13             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, while Mr. Dimas is doing that, I'm

14     reminded to ask the Chamber when we might expect the source material for

15     Dr. Hough since he's going to be called imminently.  We would like an

16     opportunity to review that.

17             MR. ALARID:  Your Honour, we had already tendered all source

18     materials for Dr. Hough.  He did not ever review the recordings that

19     Mr. Ivetic made, nor has he ever had an opportunity to review them.  And

20     so from that standpoint we consider the ruling as is, and we had already

21     given the Prosecution all the statements and materials that we believe he

22     had had.

23             MR. GROOME:  I believe there were 194 quotes contained in the

24     report.  Was there not some kind of notes with which he was able to --

25     that he made during the interview where he recorded these statements?

Page 6043

 1             MR. ALARID:  I'm sure he has personal notes, but that's his

 2     personal notes.  That's not source material.  And that's not stuff we

 3     gave him.  Source material implies that we gave it to him.

 4             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, then I would ask the Chamber for a

 5     clarification as to whether the material envisaged by the Chamber to be

 6     turned over included notes taken by Dr. Hough during the interviews of

 7     Mr. Lukic upon which he made his report.

 8             JUDGE ROBINSON:  We'll tender that.

 9             MR. GROOME:

10        Q.   Sir, let's start with the tray that's F-1.  Would you agree with

11     me that is not burnt?  That's the one right in front of you now.

12        A.   That is correct.

13        Q.   And F-2, could you look at that, and what is your opinion as to

14     whether that piece of wood shows evidence of charring?

15        A.   This one has more of the appearance of just heavy moisture and

16     rotting away.

17        Q.   Is it possible that it could be charred and that in the 17 years

18     subsequently that moisture has also caused it to rot?

19        A.   With char, you'd still be able to notice the char, even in moist

20     wood.

21        Q.   Okay.  So it's your evidence that there's no evidence of charring

22     on this?

23        A.   No.

24        Q.   Okay.

25             MR. GROOME:  Could I ask that the two trays be held up for the

Page 6044

 1     Chamber and for Defence counsel to see.

 2        Q.   Okay.  Sir, then I -- just a couple of more things I'd like you

 3     to take a look at.  I want to now move to the area where you said you saw

 4     some charred material in the wall --

 5             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Mr. Groome, where did that come from?

 6             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, the video -- hopefully it was clear to

 7     Your Honours.  If you were watching the video, it was picked up from the

 8     floor, of the area where there was dark wood in the -- I can replay the

 9     video if you wish.  Both these pieces, one was collected from the area of

10     the floor where there did not appear to be any dark wood, the other where

11     there was.

12             THE WITNESS:  May I make a comment, Your Honour?  I never --

13             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

14             THE WITNESS:  I never disputed that we found fire and charred

15     wood on the floor.

16             MR. GROOME:

17        Q.   And I'm not challenging you, but so is your evidence that you did

18     find charred wood on the floor but that this wood here is not the wood

19     that you found that was charred?

20        A.   That is correct.

21        Q.   Okay.

22             MR. GROOME:  And if they could be returned to

23     Investigator Selsky.

24        Q.   Now, I'm going show you two clips, and this relates to the area

25     where you said -- you've already said you found charred wood, okay?

Page 6045

 1             MR. GROOME:  Could video-clip 09321, evidence character, wall E,

 2     number 1 be played.

 3             Your Honour, can everyone see this video?

 4        Q.   Are you able to see the video, sir?  No?  Let's try again.

 5             MR. GROOME:  I don't know if all the switches are in place where

 6     they need to be.

 7                           [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

 8             MR. GROOME:

 9        Q.   Sir, can you see the still image on the screen before you?

10        A.   Yes, I can.

11        Q.   Before we play it, is this the area where you found the charred

12     wood?

13        A.   Yes, it is.

14        Q.   Now, there are two indentations in the wall there.  Which one is

15     the place where you found the charred wood?

16        A.   The one on the left there where the finger's pointing.

17        Q.   Okay.  Let's watch the video.

18                           [Video-clip played]

19             MR. GROOME:  Sorry.  I'll ask the usher before you sit down,

20     unless you have a task to attend to, I'd ask that you place another tray

21     in front of Mr. Dimas.

22        Q.   I ask that we place bag E-1 on the ELMO in front of you.

23             MR. GROOME:  Can we pause for a second.

24             Your Honour, I'm going to ask that we put the sound on now.

25     Although there's no commentary by the investigator, there are some sounds

Page 6046

 1     of wood breaking that I think will help the Chamber come to a view as to

 2     whether this wood was simply loose in there or actually had to be broken

 3     out of where it was embedded in the wall.  So with the Court's

 4     permission, I would ask that we play that -- play the sound, and of

 5     course, if anything is said, I would ask that it be disregarded.  But I

 6     think the sound of the wood being taken out of the wall would be

 7     relevant.

 8             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

 9             MR. GROOME:

10        Q.   While that's being done, Mr. Dimas, we can see a screwdriver

11     being used to probe the depth of that hole.  Did you do that?

12        A.   No, I did not.

13                           [Video-clip played]

14                           [Sound of cracking wood]

15             MR. GROOME:  Could I ask that the second clip, number 2, be

16     played.

17        Q.   And sir, could I ask you again to maybe have sight of the bag

18     when the video is playing just so I can ask you if you're able to see

19     that it's the same.

20                           [Video-clip played]

21             MR. GROOME:

22        Q.   Sir, as you see it come out of the wall, do you have any view

23     from what you see in the video whether or not this appears to be charred

24     wood?

25        A.   Yes, and I believe I stated there was charred wood up in that

Page 6047

 1     corner.

 2        Q.   But I believe your testimony is that it was loose; correct?

 3        A.   On the hole on the left-hand side.

 4        Q.   Did you notice this hole on the right-hand side?  Did you explore

 5     this hole when you were there?

 6        A.   It was all actually encompassed in one area.  It appeared to be

 7     adjoining hole.  I didn't have any tools present so I took the easiest

 8     route and looked at a piece I was able to pull out and examined.

 9        Q.   Would you ordinarily go to a fire scene to do an evaluation

10     without any tools?

11        A.   No, I would not.

12                           [Video-clip played]

13             MR. GROOME:  Now, if we could pause right there.

14        Q.   Now, sir, the video indicates someone withdrawing a screwdriver,

15     holding it up to a measuring tape, and it being approximately 6 inches.

16     Would you agree that that's the approximate depth of that hole?

17             MR. ALARID:  Your Honour, assumes facts not in evidence, and the

18     Prosecutor's testifying.  And I don't believe that the video showed

19     anywhere near that, and so we would object.

20             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Mr. Groome, you'd have to ask him whether he

21     agrees --

22             MR. GROOME:  I believe that's what I did --

23             JUDGE ROBINSON:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

24             MR. GROOME:

25        Q.   Are you able from your observations - you've already told us you

Page 6048

 1     had no tools - but does it seem reasonable to you that this piece of wood

 2     embedded in the wall could have gone back as far as approximately

 3     6 inches?

 4        A.   Actually, we would have to replay it.  I wasn't concentrating --

 5        Q.   Okay.  Let's -- could we play back a little bit of this.  Just

 6     watch the screwdriver when it's fully inserted.  Maybe back a little bit

 7     further.  Okay, that's good.

 8                           [Video-clip played]

 9             MR. GROOME:

10        Q.   Do you want us to pause anywhere?  Let us know.

11        A.   That's fine right there.  As you can see, it's being taken at an

12     angle, so he's able to fit the whole screwdriver in there, and I already

13     stated that the two holes appeared to connect to me.

14        Q.   Okay.  So what would be your approximation of how deep into the

15     concrete this depression in it -- into the wood was?

16        A.   I don't know about how deep.  It's not the 6 inches you're

17     describing because it's at an angle.  He's going elongated instead of

18     straight.

19        Q.   I'd ask you to just watch the video now for the sealing of the

20     bag.

21                           [Video-clip played]

22             MR. GROOME:

23        Q.   Now, could I ask you to examine the bag next to you.

24        A.   I didn't see the front of the bag.  I'm sorry.  It just showed a

25     signature on the back or initials.

Page 6049

 1        Q.   Well, perhaps flip the bag over and see ...

 2                           [Video-clip played]

 3             MR. GROOME:  Okay.  We could pause there.  Back up just a few

 4     frames.

 5        Q.   Can I ask you to examine the bag and tell us whether you

 6     recognise that -- what's visible on the screen is the back of the bag.

 7        A.   It appears so.

 8        Q.   Okay.  Can I ask you to check the seal on the bag.

 9        A.   The seal's fine.

10        Q.   Now can I ask you to open it and place the contents on the table.

11        A.   [Witness empties bag]

12        Q.   And could I ask you to examine the contents of the bag and give

13     us your opinion as to whether or not that's charred wood.

14        A.   Yes.  It's a combination of charred and moisture, same as -- yes.

15     Same as the one next to it, which I've already accepted.  Yes.

16        Q.   Now, you seem to have reached that conclusion in about five

17     seconds.  Is it that obvious that it's charred wood or ...

18        A.   Yes.

19             MR. GROOME:  Okay.  Could I ask that that be shown to the Chamber

20     and to Defence counsel.

21        Q.   Now, sir, you agree with me, it's not an insignificant amount of

22     charred wood, is it?

23        A.   In itself, it is.  For an entire room, yes.

24        Q.   Well, now we have it on two locations in the room.  It's

25     6 feet -- at least 6 feet off the floor, so it can't be the result of any

Page 6050

 1     small fire for boiling a kettle or cooking some food, can it?

 2        A.   No -- well, it depends.  If one of the fires took off, burned up

 3     some more of the room, we don't know.

 4        Q.   But if one of the fires took off and burned up some more of the

 5     room, then we have a fully-involved fire in the room, do we not?

 6        A.   Yes, but again, we don't know when that took place.

 7        Q.   Okay.  So you now agree that it is possible that there was a

 8     fully involved fire in that room?

 9        A.   Possibly at some point, yes.

10        Q.   We don't know.  We'd have to look at other evidence to determine

11     when that fire occurred, but we can now clearly say that the evidence

12     that we find in this room is consistent with a fire being fully involved

13     in that room.

14        A.   Can you restate.

15        Q.   What you're saying now seems somewhat different than your report.

16     It seems now you're allowing for the possibility that this evidence is

17     consistent with a fire in that room that was sufficiently involving the

18     entire room to cause charring in two places 6 feet above the ground.

19        A.   Well, it's possible, but, again, you could have fire in different

20     location.  We've reviewed, and your own statements, about the fire on the

21     exterior because we don't know when that happened, 'cause the existing

22     shed.  Your video also showed that the --

23        Q.   Let's focus the physical evidence --

24        A.   Just let me finish.

25             THE INTERPRETER:  Would the speakers, please not overlap.  Thank

Page 6051

 1     you.

 2             THE WITNESS:  May I continue, Your Honour?

 3             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes, please.

 4             THE WITNESS:  By your video that was taken in 2001, it showed

 5     that that structure was being utilized by someone.  For what purpose, we

 6     don't know.  We don't know when the fire took place.  They're occupying

 7     it at that time in 2001.  Now you stated the fire that was inside the

 8     shed, and I'm not talking about the shed under the portico, I'm talking

 9     the structure itself was being utilised in 2001 by your own video.

10             MR. GROOME:

11        Q.   But sir, your expertise wasn't brought to this courtroom to say

12     when a fire occurred.  Your expertise was called upon to say whether or

13     not there was a fire inside the room; correct?

14        A.   I was brought to determine if there was a fire involved in the

15     room and if it could be stated -- by the statements.  If it was

16     consistent --

17        Q.   Well, can I ask you to just confine yourself -- let's put the

18     statements aside for a moment and confine yourself to the physical

19     evidence from the room, okay?  Given that we've now found charred wood by

20     your admission on two walls in the room, how far apart are these two

21     areas where the charred wood was recovered?

22        A.   Maybe 10 -- 10 feet.

23        Q.   And how long is the overall length of the room?

24        A.   Eighteen.

25        Q.   So it seems to cover most of the room, no?

Page 6052

 1        A.   Close, yeah.

 2        Q.   And if those two pieces of wood embedded at 6 feet in the wall

 3     became charred at the same time, would that the not lead us to the

 4     conclusion that the room was involved in a fire of at least a thousand

 5     degrees to cause the charring?

 6        A.   If we're talking about a fire of that considerable amount --

 7             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Just a minute.

 8             Mr. Ivetic.

 9             MR. IVETIC:  I think I would object to the classification that

10     they were charred at the same time.  I don't think there's any way that

11     the Prosecution has established that, and I believe that's speculation.

12             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, I'm allowed to ask an expert such a

13     question.

14             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

15             MR. ALARID:  But then he's asked and answered the question as to

16     possibility and probability.

17             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Listen, you both, you fire from two cylinders at

18     the same time.

19             MR. ALARID:  Sometimes.

20             MR. GROOME:

21        Q.   Please continue, sir.

22        A.   Could you restate the question.

23        Q.   My question was:  "And if those pieces of wood embedded at six

24     feet in the wall charred at the same time, would that not lead us to a

25     conclusion that the room was involved in a fire of at least a thousand

Page 6053

 1     degrees to cause that charring?"

 2        A.   Now, if you're talking about a fire of that magnitude, it would

 3     encompass the entire room.  We would not have clean wood still left in

 4     the corner.

 5        Q.   Okay.  Aside from that -- so what would be the other reasonable

 6     possibilities for wood embedded in concrete, there from the time the

 7     structure was built, presumably, to become charred?  What would be the

 8     other reasonable possibilities?

 9        A.   I'm not -- I don't understand.  Can you --

10        Q.   Well, you've told us the three ways they can become charred is an

11     electrical fault, a direct flame, or a heat transfer from the room;

12     correct?

13        A.   That's correct.

14        Q.   So can you give us a theoretical scenario where the room is not

15     engulfed in flames and these two wood at both location becomes charred?

16        A.   If there were separate fires during the course of when the

17     structure was built, or not built but being occupied.

18        Q.   So you believe it's possible in a room 18 feet wide -- how -- I'm

19     sorry, long.  How wide was it?

20        A.   Thirteen.

21        Q.   Thirteen feet wide, that there could be a fire that would raise

22     the temperature in one part of the room to 1.000 degrees but not impact

23     the other wood 10 feet away.  Is that what you're saying now?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   And you think it's possible that someone put out that fire and

Page 6054

 1     then at some other point in time, there was another fire in the room in

 2     front of that piece that raised the temperature to 1.000 degrees and did

 3     not impact the rest of the room?

 4        A.   That's possible as well.

 5        Q.   Have you ever seen a case like that?

 6        A.   Yes, I have.

 7        Q.   Now, sir, is it still your evidence that what we see before us on

 8     the tray was not significant enough to put in your report?

 9        A.   That's correct.

10        Q.   Okay.  Now, I'm going to ask that -- if the usher could return

11     that to Mr. Selsky.  I'm going to ask that you look at a video of the

12     outside of the window frame.  Now, you've said on your -- page 2 of your

13     report under 1(A), you state:

14             "Exterior showed no signs of fire venting upward as would occur

15     in a structure fire."

16             Correct?

17        A.   That's correct.

18        Q.   I'm going to ask that you look at a video.  This is from -- well,

19     it's 090321, PO outside of window.  And I'm going to ask Mr. Van Hooydonk

20     to pause it at 16 seconds.

21                           [Video-clip played]

22             MR. GROOME:

23        Q.   Do you recognise where we are?

24        A.   I believe that's the first window.

25        Q.   Now, we see some black and grey at the upper corner of that

Page 6055

 1     window under the vines that are growing there.  Sir, is that not

 2     consistent with the type of smoke damage that we would find in a violent

 3     fire?

 4        A.   I didn't notice it to be smoke damage when I was there.

 5        Q.   Did you notice it at all?

 6        A.   Yes, I noticed some discolouration due to the water content.

 7        Q.   So it's your evidence that that's water on the concrete?

 8        A.   Water, moisture, mold.

 9        Q.   Did you get up to --

10        A.   Excuse me.  I'm still talking.  Mold, the contents of the dirt

11     flowing down.

12        Q.   So you got up to examine it?

13        A.   I didn't climb up there.  I observed it from the ground level,

14     yes.

15        Q.   And you made those conclusions?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Okay.

18             MR. GROOME:  Could we go on to 19 seconds.

19                           [Video-clip played]

20             MR. GROOME:

21        Q.   It's still your evidence that that could not be smoke damage?

22        A.   It does not appear to be.

23        Q.   How would smoke damage look different from what we're looking at

24     now?

25        A.   It's -- I don't know how to describe it.  It's --

Page 6056

 1        Q.   Is it a different colour?  Is it a different shape?

 2        A.   It varies in colours.  What you're seeing here is some grey with

 3     a couple of black spots.

 4        Q.   What would smoke damage look like to us?

 5        A.   Well, usually similar colours.  Again, have you to look at.

 6        Q.   Okay.  So the colours are similar to smoke damage?

 7        A.   Right.

 8        Q.   What is different about how smoke damage would appear that made

 9     you conclude that this was not smoke damage?

10        A.   Just looking at the entire area.

11        Q.   You're talking about the inside again?

12        A.   No, inside, exterior, just like underneath the portico or

13     whatever it's called, that area, we assumed that that was heavy smoke

14     damage, when, in fact, we found a lot of mold under there.  Just because

15     it's so dark, we -- at first, initially, we thought it was smoke damage.

16        Q.   I'm going ask that you be -- a picture could be placed on the

17     ELMO.  This is a still of the video taken or tendered by Mr. Ivetic

18     yesterday as 1D184.  Now, I'm going to ask you to look at the same top

19     left corner and ask you to circle it.  See the top upper left corner of

20     the window?

21        A.   Yes, I do.

22        Q.   Can I ask you to circle that, please.  Oh, sorry.

23        A.   [Marks]

24        Q.   Now, do you agree with me that there seems to be some darkening

25     in the same area up at the upper left-hand corner?

Page 6057

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   And in 2001, it seems the structure was in better shape, and

 3     there's no obvious signs of wetness on this structure, is there?

 4        A.   No, it does not appear.  This is actually a good photo because

 5     what you see in normal venting would be an entire pattern coming off in

 6     the -- in the full length here.  All you're seeing is one little corner.

 7     If it's fully involved, it's going be venting out this window, off each

 8     end.

 9        Q.   What would happen, let's say the person --

10        A.   Excuse me.  I'm still --

11        Q.   Please continue, sir.

12        A.   May I continue, Your Honour?

13        Q.   Yes, you may continue.

14             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes, go ahead.

15             THE WITNESS:  If you look out this -- this window here, we'd see

16     a V-pattern coming out of it.  We'd see this whole area here.  As we

17     know, smoke would be billowing out, if it was fully involved.  So all we

18     see is a dark discolouration here.  If it's a fully involved fire, or as

19     we've been discussing, reaching a thousand degrees, we'd see black smoke.

20     Anyone who's seen a fire sees black smoke coming out.  Witnesses -- one

21     of the witnesses stated she --

22        Q.   Sir, now you're starting to talk about -- I've asked you --

23     sorry.  I've asked you a specific question about the window.  I have

24     another question for you.

25        A.   Okay.

Page 6058

 1        Q.   If only part of the window was broken, that the person who broke

 2     this window, maybe it was two panes, we don't know, but if only a portion

 3     of the window was broken, is it not fair to say that only smoke would

 4     billow out of the portion of the window that was broken?

 5        A.   That would not be the case.  Once it become fully involved, the

 6     entire window would have busted out and vented upward.  Even if it was

 7     only one smaller pane, by the statement, that window was broken out by

 8     one of the witness that she escaped through.  Even if we just state for

 9     one second that was top corner that she escaped from, how small was the

10     window that she escaped from to vent this fire?

11        Q.   So it's your evidence -- do you have any professional opinion as

12     to what is the darkening in the upper left-hand corner of this window?

13        A.   No, I do not.  I was not there in 2001.

14        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.  Before we finish with this picture, can we

15     zoom out just a little bit.  Sir, we see, do we not, that it appears that

16     some plastic sheeting has been used to cover the window?

17        A.   That is correct.

18        Q.   And do we also not see that it appears to be the end of a bed

19     frame?

20        A.   Yes, a bed frame and some wood.

21        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.  I'm finished with that.  Could we call up on

22     e-court Y020-3507.

23             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, is there a way to identify that

24     document so I can use it in cross-examination?

25             MR. GROOME:  I'm sorry.  I would tender that, Your Honour.  My

Page 6059

 1     apologies.

 2             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P305, Your Honours.

 4             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Mr. Groome, I'm going to take the break at

 5     20 minutes to 11.00 at which time you will have about 20 minutes left for

 6     your cross-examination.

 7             MR. GROOME:  I should finish within that time, Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes, and we will break at about 12.00 or 10 past

 9     12.00.  As I indicated yesterday, all judges have a plenary to attend.

10             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, given that Judge David is not here this

11     morning, could I ask it be communicated to him that Mr. Selsky will

12     remain here in the courtroom with the evidence on the table should he

13     wish to see it after which time Mr. Selsky is going to preserve the chain

14     of custody, put it in new evidence bags, but of course we could always

15     open bags at a later time if Judge David wanted to look at it, but I'll

16     have Mr. Selsky remain here during the break with the evidence on the

17     trays.

18             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

19             MR. GROOME:  Can I ask that we --

20        Q.   Sir, now, it seems that everyone is in agreement that there was a

21     fully involved fire on the upper floors on this house; correct?

22        A.   That's correct.

23        Q.   Now, in this picture we see the rear of the house, do we not?

24        A.   That's -- what do you mean the rear?

25        Q.   Well, we're looking from where the gully is up towards the house.

Page 6060

 1        A.   Yes.  That would be basically the north-east -- no, north-west

 2     corner.

 3        Q.   Okay.  And we're looking at below are the two windows of the

 4     basement room that we were just discussing.

 5        A.   That's correct.

 6        Q.   Now, I want to draw your attention to the lentils of the

 7     first-floor window.  Do you see them?

 8        A.   What are you considering the lentils?

 9        Q.   See the concrete structures at the -- see the openings where the

10     bricks have fallen out?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Can you go to the top row of bricks.

13        A.   Okay.

14        Q.   Do you see the two concrete structures in between?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Can I ask you to circle them so that it's clear to everyone in

17     the courtroom what we're talking about.

18        A.   [Marks]

19        Q.   Now, sir, are these not lentils that are used to support windows

20     in a building?

21        A.   Yes, they are.

22        Q.   Can you please indicate -- well, let me ask you, do you see any

23     smoke plume damage from the fires that we all agree occurred on the first

24     and second floor above the lentils of the first-floor windows?

25        A.   No, do not.  There could be many explanations for this.  I'm not

Page 6061

 1     sure if this building was completed as far as construction, if there was

 2     a roof on it, if the back area was open.  There could be many reasons why

 3     it wasn't venting that direction.  If it has another path, that's the way

 4     it'll go, whereas in the basement there was no other way for the smoke

 5     and heat to escape other than the windows.

 6        Q.   Okay.  But you do agree there's no smoke damage above the windows

 7     on the upper floor?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   Is it not possible that after 17 years of snow, rain, wind, sun,

10     the elements that the weather has eradicated the smoke?

11        A.   I'd say no in this case.

12        Q.   So it's your evidence, then, that smoke would not -- for whatever

13     reason that you're not sure of, smoke did not come out of the rear

14     windows of this house?

15        A.   That's correct.  On that first ground floor, yes.

16        Q.   Thank you.

17             MR. GROOME:  I tender that into evidence.

18             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

19             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P306, Your Honours.

20             MR. GROOME:

21        Q.   I'm going to now ask you to look at a video, 090321, PO overview,

22     door.

23                           [Video-clip played]

24             MR. GROOME:

25        Q.   Sir, now, let's not talk about the wood for a moment.  Let's talk

Page 6062

 1     about the blackened area of the concrete above the door.  Is that not

 2     smoke damage to the door?

 3        A.   We found it to be mostly mold and blackening from the mold.

 4        Q.   Is this the surface you described as wet and mouldy?

 5        A.   Yes, it was.

 6        Q.   Okay.

 7             MR. GROOME:  Please continue.

 8                           [Video-clip played]

 9             MR. GROOME:

10        Q.   Does it appear as it appeared to you that day?

11        A.   Similar.

12        Q.   And that looks wet to you?

13        A.   It's hard to tell from the video.  It's much easier to be

14     on-site, physically touch it, examine it.  Just as I stated from the

15     initial photographs, I had other ideas until I actually got on-scene.

16        Q.   Okay.

17             MR. GROOME:  Please continue.

18                           [Video-clip played]

19             MR. GROOME:

20        Q.   And that's -- you're absolutely certain was not smoke damage?

21        A.   No, it was not.

22             MR. GROOME:  Pause.

23        Q.   How would smoke damage look?  How would it be different from what

24     we see here?

25        A.   Again, you'd see different patterns.  You'd see the area

Page 6063

 1     underneath it where it would be coming out.  All you have -- it's

 2     black -- it's hard to -- it's just black on the edge of your line there

 3     above the wood frame.  If it's billowing out, it'd be rolling underneath

 4     it.  So all you have is some greyish areas in that spot.

 5        Q.   Okay.

 6             MR. GROOME:  Please continue.

 7                           [Video-clip played]

 8             MR. GROOME:

 9        Q.   Now, this is a surface up under an enclosed area.  That can't be

10     smoke?

11        A.   As you went up higher, part of it seemed to be similar to smoke,

12     which we attributed mainly to that burnt-out corner in the portico.

13        Q.   This part is directly above the door; correct?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   So if there was a fire in the room, smoke would contact -- we

16     would expect smoke to contact this area as well?

17        A.   Again, we'd be seeing patterns coming out from the door rolling

18     up -- up into that area.  You don't see that.  All you see is a black

19     baseline along the edge.  Again, as I stated yesterday, we look at burn

20     patterns to show not only intensity but movement.  There's nothing to

21     show the fire moving up out the door up into there.

22        Q.   Well, it's a concrete structure.  It's not flammable, is it?

23        A.   No, so that would actually be easier because the smoke would be

24     rolling over it without actually impinging any wood and burning into the

25     wood.  The smoke would just simply roll over, so we would see more smoke

Page 6064

 1     and heat damage.

 2        Q.   Okay.

 3             MR. GROOME:  Please continue.

 4                           [Video-clip played]

 5             MR. GROOME:

 6        Q.   Now, as we watch the door here, I think you said yesterday that

 7     you really are not able to conclude whether or not this was the door back

 8     in 1992; correct?

 9        A.   That's correct.

10                           [Video-clip played]

11             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, this might be a good time to break, but

12     if I could just bring to Your Honours' attention perhaps for your

13     consideration over the break, I have a message from Ms. Sartorio who will

14     be examining Dr. Hough.  I have still not had an opportunity to read

15     carefully your decision of yesterday afternoon, but she advises me that

16     in paragraph 24, you specifically refer to notes taken by Dr. Hough --

17             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes, I have it in front of me now, and I confirm

18     that it says the Trial Chamber will therefore proprio motu order the

19     Defence to provide to the Prosecution any source material relied upon by

20     Dr. Hough in writing his report.

21             MR. GROOME:  And Your Honour, in addition to the notes, I recall

22     from reading the report that there was test data.  There were several

23     psychological tests.  The Prosecution believes that the test data would

24     also be covered by the Chamber's order of yesterday.  I would ask for not

25     only the notes by the test results to be provided -- the test data to be

Page 6065

 1     provided to the Prosecution.

 2             JUDGE ROBINSON:  If the Defence has those, they are to provide

 3     it.

 4             We'll break for 20 minutes.

 5                           --- Recess taken at 10.39 a.m.

 6                           --- On resuming at 11.05 a.m.

 7             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes, Mr. Groome.

 8             MR. GROOME:

 9        Q.   Mr. Dimas, you've had an opportunity now to look through the

10     Standard Operating Guidelines.  Were you able to find any section that

11     says -- instructs fire investigators to destroy their notes?

12        A.   Actually, I was not.  I'm not sure if this is a complete set or

13     not.  Again, I assisted in drafting them.  I didn't have any part in

14     approving them.  In our original draft, it also went into how to conduct

15     an investigation, and that's not included in this as well.

16        Q.   Well, do you know a person by the name of Captain Michael Diaz?

17        A.   Yes I do.

18        Q.   Would he be your superior?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   In a conversation we had with him yesterday evening asking him

21     what would be the applicable regulations to fire investigation, he said

22     that volume 4 there was --

23             MR. ALARID:  Objection.  The Prosecutor is testifying, assumes

24     facts not in evidence.

25             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Is that already in evidence?

Page 6066

 1             MR. GROOME:  No, Your Honour.  I'm putting a proposition to the

 2     witness.

 3             MR. ALARID:  He's testifying about a conversation he had with a

 4     Michael Diaz, and that has not been presented.  That means the Prosecutor

 5     is making himself a witness and testifying.

 6             JUDGE ROBINSON:  No, he's asking whether that person is his

 7     superior.

 8             MR. ALARID:  Yes, and he answered in the affirmative.  Then he

 9     talks about a conversation he had with Mr. Diaz.  That is an improper

10     conversation.

11             JUDGE ROBINSON:  I'm not going to allow any conversation between

12     you and the --

13             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, I haven't spoken to Captain Diaz --

14             JUDGE ROBINSON:  We'll wait and see.

15             MR. GROOME:

16        Q.   Sir, isn't it a fact that volume 4 that have you before you is

17     the complete set of guidelines apply to fire investigators?

18        A.   I believe that's the current listing.  Again, I'm not sure what

19     they numbered it.  It's just recently come out and been made available to

20     the office.

21        Q.   Well, you've now had about 25 minutes with that book in the area.

22     Were you able to find any section that says fire investigators should

23     destroy their notes after they file a report?

24        A.   I believe I answered no, and I --

25        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.  Now, can copper wire melt in a fire?

Page 6067

 1        A.   Usually -- it's called beading.  It's similar to melting, yes.

 2     It kind of rolls up.

 3        Q.   What temperature would the fire have to get for copper wiring to

 4     melt?

 5        A.   I'm not familiar with the temperature of it.

 6        Q.   The burnt insulation that you described before, the copper wire

 7     was gone from that; correct?

 8        A.   I don't know.  I didn't inspect the wire itself.  I noted the

 9     melting of what was considered the insulation, and in the one box, just

10     that wires were protruding into it.

11        Q.   You said that you noted the insulation was melting.  You noted

12     that in your notes that you destroyed?

13        A.   When I state noting, I don't always mean I write it down.  I

14     mentally note it as well.  It's something that I keep just for part of my

15     examination.

16        Q.   Okay.  I'm going to ask that you look at -- but you noted --

17     okay.  I'm going ask you to take a look at one more video.  Then I'll ask

18     you a couple of questions after it.

19                           [Video-clip played]

20             MR. GROOME:

21        Q.   Perhaps if you could tell us what we're looking at based on your

22     visit to the scene.

23        A.   The floor of the structure.

24                           [Video-clip played]

25             MR. GROOME:

Page 6068

 1        Q.   Now what are we looking at?

 2        A.   The ceiling and the rebar.

 3                           [Video-clip played]

 4             MR. GROOME:

 5        Q.   Now that we've moved on to the floor section -- I mean, on to the

 6     ceiling section, did the portion of the video that showed the floor, did

 7     it fairly and accurately depict the condition of the floor as you recall

 8     it from the 29th of January?

 9        A.   More or less.

10        Q.   And the portion of the ceiling that we're looking at now, does

11     this fairly and accurately represent the ceiling as you recall it from

12     your visit on the 29th of January?

13        A.   It's similar.  I can't say if any more fell off or less.

14        Q.   While we're watching this, can you please tell us -- you

15     described what spalling was yesterday.  What temperature would have to be

16     reached inside a structure like this for spalling to occur?

17        A.   The temperature would vary, it depends again, back on the

18     moisture content of the concrete, how long it's been curing.  There's too

19     many factors.

20        Q.   Maybe if you would be able to give us a range.  What would be the

21     lowest temperature that spalling would be possible?

22        A.   Well, the lowest would be in freezing temperatures, so that's how

23     much it fluctuates.  You can have spalling in freezing as well as

24     heating, so you can have spalling at any time.

25        Q.   Does this look like spalling that occurred from freezing?

Page 6069

 1        A.   Actually, it appears like it's been degredated, I don't know, due

 2     to moisture or why.  That's why yesterday I stated that I did not include

 3     it as spalling because I can make a determination to eliminate it or

 4     include it.

 5        Q.   So let's set aside spalling from freezing for the moment.  What

 6     would be the lowest temperature on the high end where it's caused by heat

 7     that would cause spalling?

 8        A.   Again, there's no upper limit.  Again, it goes back to the

 9     factors of the moisture, the curing time.

10        Q.   Well, I'm saying the lowest.  What would be the lowest

11     temperature where we could expect spalling?

12        A.   Well, the lowest is when freezing turns to heat.

13        Q.   I'm saying let's put aside freezing.

14        A.   That's the range.  It's from freezing temperatures to the maximum

15     heat.

16        Q.   Let's say the spalling was caused during a fire.  What

17     temperature would have to be occurring in the room for spalling to occur

18     because of the fire?

19        A.   It can be from the lowest possible heat source.  Again, the

20     temperature varies from freezing up to the highest temperature.

21        Q.   I'm asking you --

22        A.   You can have spalling a small fire is what I'm trying to state,

23     because it fluctuates so much.

24        Q.   Okay.  So even a small fire could cause spalling, a fire that

25     would be at the lower end of severity?

Page 6070

 1        A.   Correct.

 2        Q.   Okay.  Now, Mr. McCoy said that some of what we see in the

 3     ceiling was similar to spalling.  Based on your observations, does some

 4     if it appear as possibly spalling to you?

 5        A.   Possibly, yeah.  Again, I looked at it, and I couldn't rule one

 6     way or the other.  That's why I did not call it spalling.

 7        Q.   The portion of the video that we looked at on the ceiling, does

 8     that fairly and accurately reflect what you remember observing on the day

 9     that you were -- viewed the ceiling?

10        A.   Yes.  It's very similar.  The chunks missing, the rebar.  You can

11     actually see the moisture and mold on there as well.

12             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, at this time I would tender just a

13     video portion of that video-clip, not the audio portion, simply the video

14     portion.

15             MR. ALARID:  No objection.

16             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

17             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P307, Your Honours.

18             MR. GROOME:

19        Q.   Sir, I have just two pieces of evidence I'd like to you look at.

20     Again, with the assistance of the usher, if you could take a look at some

21     concrete.  Again, I'd ask you to examine the bag to see where -- to see

22     if the seal has been violated.

23        A.   It does not.

24        Q.   Okay.  Could I ask you to open it, and I want you to examine

25     what's inside it.

Page 6071

 1        A.   [Witness empties bag]

 2        Q.   Now, I know you have no personal knowledge of where this material

 3     came from, but could I ask you to read what's on the bag, just so the

 4     record knows -- or record is recorded to the label that the material came

 5     out of?

 6        A.   It states that it's the portico over the entrance of the door.

 7        Q.   Now, could I ask you to look at what are chips of concrete;

 8     correct?

 9        A.   That's correct.

10        Q.   And could I draw your attention to the blackened areas on them,

11     and my question to you is, sir, this is not mold, is it?

12        A.   No, it's just grey concrete.

13        Q.   Sit not concrete with smoke on it?

14        A.   No, it's not.

15        Q.   How are you so sure that it's not smoke?

16        A.   Well, if you examine -- you even have black flakes of the mortar

17     within.  It's just black concrete.  Concrete varies in colour.

18        Q.   Okay.

19        A.   If you look on this -- on that side closely, you have darker grey

20     there.  That's darker there.  It's just a different colour.

21        Q.   Okay.  But there's no mold on that, is there?

22        A.   Not on that -- I'm sorry, Your Honours.  Not on that piece, no.

23        Q.   And the concrete over the door, directly over the door, it's your

24     evidence that there was mold on that portion of the door?

25        A.   Yes, there was in several areas.  The video shows one area that

Page 6072

 1     did not have mold.

 2        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.

 3             MR. GROOME:  If that could be returned to Investigator Selsky.

 4        Q.   And if I could ask you to look at one more.  Again, if you could

 5     read what's on the label here.

 6        A.   "Portico."

 7        Q.   Could I ask you to check the evidence seal.

 8        A.   The one attached to the bag or the one on the bag?

 9        Q.   The one on the bag itself.

10        A.   It appears to be sealed, yes.

11        Q.   Could I ask you to open this bag and remove its contents.

12        A.   [Witness empties bag]

13        Q.   Now, again, I know you have no personal knowledge of where this

14     material came from, but can I ask you to assume for the purposes of my

15     questions to you that this is the material from underneath the portico,

16     okay.  And could I ask you to look at it, turn it over, examine it.  And

17     I ask you, does it appear consistent with the material that you recall

18     seeing under the portico?

19        A.   Yes, I do.

20        Q.   The question that I have for you is, you see the piece that you

21     have in your hand now?  Can we focus on that piece for a minute.  Can you

22     turn that over.  Can you explain to us as an expert, what is the

23     phenomena where the side which appears to have faced the fire seems

24     heavily charred, yet the piece behind it -- I mean, it's dirty, but it

25     doesn't seem charred.  What would be -- what would cause -- what

Page 6073

 1     conditions would cause that?

 2        A.   It's considered a protected area.  This one almost appears that

 3     it was --

 4        Q.   Can I ask you to hold it a little bit more under the camera so we

 5     can see what you're talking about.

 6        A.   This could be one or two things.  It could be a protected area.

 7     However, it looks like it was actually a thicker piece and this peeled

 8     off.  Some woods are manufactured in layers, so this actually could just

 9     be peel off of another piece and that's why it didn't penetrate all the

10     way through, just similar if we break this open, the centre would be

11     clean.

12        Q.   Okay.  So if this is the piece under the portico, it seems that,

13     although we seem substantial damage on the place face the fire, it seems

14     that that finishing material actually offered some protection to the wall

15     behind it; correct?

16        A.   I'm not sure this came off the wall.

17        Q.   Just assume for the my -- I know you have not personal knowledge

18     of that.  Assume for the purposes of my question.

19        A.   If it was attached to a wall, it would have offered some

20     protection, yes.

21        Q.   So it's possible that if someone were to clean off that type of

22     material off the wall, that the wall underneath it may not have all the

23     indicia of a severe fire?

24        A.   I'm not familiar with the term you just used.

25        Q.   That if there was a finished wall covering, that it could sustain

Page 6074

 1     heavy charring from a serious fire, but that material would offer some

 2     protection to the wall behind it.  We've agreed on that.

 3        A.   There would be some protection.  It would go to how closely

 4     they're attached because there's no way you're going to get a finish,

 5     smooth all the way to protect the entire wall.

 6        Q.   [B/C/S on the English channel] I just note that the translation

 7     seem to be coming across -- the B/C/S seems to be coming across on

 8     channel 4.

 9             But this material, since it has not burned all the way through,

10     can offer protection to the wall behind it; correct?

11        A.   Some, yes.

12        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.

13             MR. GROOME:  I'm finished with that.  I'd ask that that be shown

14     to the Chamber and to counsel.

15        Q.   I just have really one more question for you, Mr. Dimas.

16             MR. GROOME:  And could I ask that both sides be shown to the

17     Chamber.

18        Q.   Now, once that is returned to Investigator Selsky, I'm going to

19     ask that a blank screen, as it were, a blank electronic piece of paper be

20     called up for you to draw on.  I'm going to ask you to draw something for

21     us.

22             MR. GROOME:  It's there now?

23        Q.   They tell me that it's in front of you now.  Can we have a blank

24     piece of paper.  Could I ask you not to make any marks until I've fully

25     explained what I'm asking you to mark, okay?

Page 6075

 1             Can I ask you to draw a rectangle to represent the rough

 2     dimensions of the room.

 3        A.   Did you want the windows included, door, all that?

 4        Q.   Yes, if you could.  I was going to ask you to do that next, so

 5     whichever way is easiest for you.  If you could put a W for window and D

 6     for door.  Okay?  Now please do that.

 7        A.   [Marks]

 8        Q.   Can I ask you to make it as big -- use up the entire screen,

 9     okay.

10        A.   And I believe the windows are 3 foot, 6 inches approximately.

11        Q.   Did you measure them or ...

12        A.   Yes, I did.

13        Q.   Okay.  So I'm going to --

14             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Just five minutes left, Mr. Groome.

15             MR. GROOME:  Yes, Your Honour.  That's all it'll take,

16     Your Honour.

17        Q.   You've drawn a rough diagram of the wall or the room.  You've put

18     18 feet.  You've put the measurements for the windows.  You're putting

19     the width now.  Okay.  If I could ask you to hold off there.  Now, if I

20     could ask that we change the pen to red.  That's all been done in blue.

21     Now, I'm going to ask you to draw an X at the approximate location of

22     where you found the charred wood on the day you examined the site, in the

23     pocket in the wall.

24        A.   [Marks]

25        Q.   Is that the charred wood on the floor?

Page 6076

 1        A.   Yes, it is.

 2        Q.   So please put F, and we'll know that the circle with the F in it

 3     or the F below it is where you found charred wood on the floor.  Can I

 4     ask you now on the wall, can I ask you to put an X at the approximate

 5     length of the wall where you found charred wood 6 feet above the floor.

 6        A.   [Marks]

 7        Q.   Why don't we put a 1 inside the circle so we know clearly.

 8        A.   [Marks]

 9        Q.   Okay, so you've put a circle with a 1 in it.

10             Can I ask you to put a circle with a 2 in it to the location

11     where there was black material that you did not investigate but upon

12     examining here you recognise that it's charred material.

13        A.   Are you talking about the one by the door?

14        Q.   To the left of the door.  Yes, sir.

15        A.   [Marks]

16        Q.   And can you put 2 next to that.

17        A.   [Marks]

18        Q.   And you said that you saw two locations where you found lines of

19     wire where the insulation material was melted.  Can I ask you to put a

20     circle and the number 3 to indicate the approximate location of where you

21     found that on the wall.

22        A.   [Marks]

23        Q.   And can I ask you to please indicate with a circle and 4 to

24     indicate the other location where you found melted insulation in the

25     groove containing the wiring.

Page 6077

 1        A.   I don't -- I'm sorry.  I don't remember where I saw that one at

 2     offhand.

 3        Q.   Do you remember which wall?

 4        A.   I believe it was this east wall.

 5        Q.   Before you -- okay.

 6        A.   Wait.  I'm sorry.  I do not remember.

 7        Q.   Okay.  Was it on one of the walls that we've already marked, or

 8     was it on one of the other?  Okay.  Can I ask you then to simply write in

 9     red in the middle number 4, unknown location, other wire.

10        A.   [Marks]

11        Q.   Okay, and maybe just put your initials somewhere on that diagram.

12        A.   [Marks]

13        Q.   Okay.

14             MR. GROOME:  And I would tender that now.  And it could be left

15     up on the screen.

16             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

17             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P308, Your Honours.

18             MR. GROOME:

19        Q.   Now, Mr. Dimas, in this relatively small room, you've now marked

20     three locations where there's charred wood, charred insulation -- I mean

21     melted insulation, and another site, perhaps on the same wall, perhaps on

22     a different wall, that there was melted insulation.  Is it still your

23     evidence that there was not a fully involved fire in this room?

24        A.   Not consistent with the overall scene exam, the witness

25     statements, and how their statements stated it happened, no.

Page 6078

 1             JUDGE ROBINSON:  That's the last question.

 2             MR. GROOME:  Yes, Your Honour.  No further questions.

 3             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Mr. Alarid.

 4             Sorry, Mr. Ivetic.

 5             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honour, and I will try to go

 6     chronologically through the items as discussed with Mr. Groome.

 7             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Just give us an indication as to a length of

 8     your re-examination.

 9             MR. IVETIC:  I believe we're going to 12.10.  Is that correct?

10     I'm going to try and finish within that time-period.

11             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

12                           Re-examination by Mr. Ivetic:

13        Q.   Mr. Dimas, first of all, you were asked I believe yesterday, as

14     to concerns to the safety of the site in relation to the video-tape that

15     was shown from 2001 when the armed individuals were escorting the

16     investigators.  Now, at that time it was postulated that the room was not

17     examined due to potential presence of a mine or threats in the area.  In

18     the course of your work on a daily basis, do you run into the same risk

19     when investigating sites?

20        A.   Yes, I do.  We always have to take into consideration foreseen

21     security, especially in the case if it is an intentionally set fire or an

22     arson fire because the person involved may still be in sight and they do

23     not wish us to examine or make a determination.

24        Q.   And in those instances, sir, does that threat prevent you from

25     performing your investigative duties, or do you find a way to proceed

Page 6079

 1     with that investigation?

 2        A.   We always proceed.

 3        Q.   Now, have you ever encountered unexploded incendiary devices in

 4     your line of work in your experience?

 5        A.   We had a case where one was, but any type of a situation when an

 6     explosive may be involved, we automatically call out our bomb squad and

 7     make sure everything is safe prior to entering.

 8        Q.   And once the bomb squad arrives and diffuses the device, does the

 9     investigation proceed at that point in time?

10        A.   Yes, it does.

11        Q.   In the course of your professional career, have you ever heard of

12     an instance where investigators first arriving at a seen in 2001 would

13     wait until 2009 to actually enter the alleged arson site to perform their

14     investigation?  Is that within the standard of protocol and procedure of

15     an arson investigation?

16        A.   No, it is not.  You'd want to document as much as you can as soon

17     as you can.

18        Q.   Thank you.  Now, if we can -- yes.  If we can go to the

19     photograph Y020-3622.  I think it's much quicker to just have the

20     photograph instead of the video that was used by the Office of the

21     Prosecutor.  And sir, is this a photograph that was taken by your

22     investigation team with respect to the charred wood that you did find in

23     the wall pulled out and returned in its place?

24        A.   Yes, it was.

25        Q.   Okay.  Now, with respect to the wood that you were able to pull

Page 6080

 1     out of the wall and insert back into place, did it appear to be a

 2     structural element of the wall?

 3        A.   No, it did not.  It just seemed like a piece of wood that may

 4     have been plastered into it by accident for some unknown reason, but I

 5     found no functionality for it.

 6        Q.   What about the -- what about the piece of wood to the right, the

 7     second pole?  Did that appear to be a structural element of the wall?

 8        A.   No, it did not.

 9        Q.   And what is this white area between these two holes?

10        A.   Excuse me?  Could --

11        Q.   What -- what is the area -- the two holes, the dark holes, what

12     is the lighter-coloured area between these two holes?  What material is

13     it?

14        A.   Oh, it's the plaster, the concrete.

15        Q.   And was that plaster level with the rest of the wall?

16        A.   Yes, it was.

17        Q.   In your opinion, is it probable that these holes were covered by

18     concrete and/or plaster at some time?

19             MR. GROOME:  Objection as to leading.

20             MR. IVETIC:

21        Q.   What conclusions do you draw based upon the empirical evidence at

22     the scene as to whether in fact -- what the status of these holes was at

23     some point in time earlier, for instance, in 1992 or when the building

24     was constructed?

25        A.   From looking at the walls, it had the appearance that these walls

Page 6081

 1     had been plastered as a finish.

 2        Q.   Okay.  If we can -- and have you ever -- strike that.  I believe

 3     you were a code inspector for the fire marshal's office during -- at some

 4     point in time during your career; is that accurate?

 5        A.   That is correct.

 6        Q.   Have you heard of construction workers pouring concrete as their

 7     standard -- as to pouring concrete walls in specific -- in steps, not all

 8     at once?

 9        A.   Yes, that --

10             MR. GROOME:  Objection, Your Honour, it's not a matter that I --

11     was raised in cross-examination.

12             MR. IVETIC:  Actually, Your Honour, it was.  Mr. Groome was

13     bringing up alternative possibilities as to how wood could be embedded in

14     a wall --

15             JUDGE ROBINSON:  I said I'll allow it.

16             MR. IVETIC:  I'll wait for the transcript.

17        Q.   Now, in the course of your experience, have you heard of

18     construction workers, pouring concrete in a standard, that is to say with

19     respect to walls and steps in phases, not all at once.

20        A.   Yes, many times concrete is poured that way.  The best example

21     would be not so much as in a building or a structure, but when they build

22     dams.  Dams are done in steps because each section has to cure, and they

23     develop heat when the concrete is curing.

24        Q.   And is there a problem presented when temperature changes occur,

25     what effect does the drop in temperature have on concrete that is curing?

Page 6082

 1        A.   That's what you can develop the spalling.  Again, it depends on

 2     how much water molecules are based in the concrete and at what step it's

 3     cured.

 4        Q.   And have you ever experienced in -- or heard of construction

 5     crews that are pouring concrete using methods to heat concrete while it's

 6     curing so as to prevent -- to keep it warm, to keep it from freezing and

 7     to prevent the concrete from degrading or curing improperly?

 8        A.   Yes.  It's common practice whenever you pour a concrete slab as a

 9     wall, that you use portable heaters to help cure it and set faster,

10     especially in cold temperatures or wintertime.

11        Q.   Okay.  Let me give you a hypothetical.  Suppose you're in an area

12     where there is not accessible electricity; there are no portable heaters.

13     Are there more primitive means for heating the slabs while the concrete

14     is curing such as --

15             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, there's no evidence that this expert in

16     fire is also an expert in the placing of and curing of wet concrete.

17             MR. ALARID:  But the evidence --

18             JUDGE ROBINSON:  You asked similar questions, Mr. Groome.  I'll

19     allow it.

20             MR. IVETIC:

21        Q.   Now, as I was saying, sir, if I could give you a hypothetical,

22     suppose you're in an area where there's not accessible electricity, there

23     are no portable heaters, and more primitive means have to be used, such

24     as, perhaps, in Visegrad whenever this building was constructed.  Would

25     it be also an acceptable means to utilise open flame or wood on a slab to

Page 6083

 1     keep it warm while it's curing?

 2        A.   Yes, it would, as long as it keeps the concrete warm.  That helps

 3     in the curing and setting process.

 4        Q.   Given the empirical evidence that you saw at the scene, can you

 5     exclude the possibility that this wood was embedded in the concrete at

 6     the time that the concrete was poured, perhaps from a fire lit to keep

 7     the temperature of the curing concrete stable?

 8        A.   No, I could not.

 9             MR. IVETIC:  If we could turn to P305 briefly -- pardon me.  If

10     we could have this introduced into evidence if it hasn't already.  Is

11     there a record -- I looked yesterday, and I didn't see it.  I tender this

12     as the next 1D exhibit.

13             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1D197, Your Honours.

15             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Madam Registrar, and if we can have P305

16     up just briefly.  I apologise.  I forgot this was the still photo.

17        Q.   Sir, this is a still photo from the video that we looked at

18     yesterday that Mr. Groome tendered in his cross-examination, and I would

19     ask you -- I would ask you to take a look at the same again, and tell me,

20     do you see those lines in the concrete wall running horizontal?

21        A.   Yes, I do.

22        Q.   Okay.  Do you have an explanation for those lines running

23     horizontally?

24        A.   It appears to be different levels.  If I'm understanding you

25     correctly, are you discussing, like, that line, then we have line here?

Page 6084

 1     It looks like it's different layers of concrete.

 2        Q.   Can you mark the lines with a pen, perhaps a different colour pen

 3     than the red that was utilised in Mr. Groome's cross-examination.

 4             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, before that's done -- do we have

 5     another copy?

 6             MR. IVETIC:  Or do we have another copy?

 7             MR. GROOME:  Can I ask that we use a different copy so that

 8     there's no confusion.

 9             MR. IVETIC:  That's fine.  That's fine.

10             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

11             MR. IVETIC:

12        Q.   Now we have a clean photograph, sir.  Could you please mark for

13     us the horizontal lines that you talked about being different sections,

14     different layers of the concrete.

15        A.   [Marks]

16        Q.   Okay.  Does that appear -- are you done, sir?

17        A.   Yes, that appears to be it.

18        Q.   Does that -- do you have any opinion as to whether this wall was

19     poured in one piece or whether it was poured in several sections?

20        A.   It appears to be done multiple sections just based on the layers.

21                           [Defence counsel confer]

22             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, I asked if there was a piece of wood

23     stuck in the concrete.  It's now gone to multiple layers expressing

24     opinions about -- that this concrete was poured in multiple layers.

25     There's been absolutely no foundation laid to establish how Mr. Dimas is

Page 6085

 1     able to look at this photograph and establish that it was poured in

 2     however many layers he's testifying it was poured in.

 3             JUDGE ROBINSON:  When you asked questions of the witness which

 4     were a little outside his expertise and an objection was raised, your

 5     answer was, He's here as an expert, and I propose to deal with this

 6     matter in the very same way.

 7             Let us hear the witness's answer.

 8             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 9        Q.   Now, in --

10                           [Defence counsel confer]

11             MR. IVETIC:

12        Q.   And with respect to seeing now this empirical evidence that you

13     believe that the walls were poured in sections, does that -- how does

14     that affect your capability of excluding or including the possibility

15     that wood used in a fire to heat the slabs while they were curing may

16     have been embedded in the concrete during the building process?

17        A.   It's very likely.  Any time especially when you're mixing

18     concrete for something to fall in, so that would make more sense since

19     there is no practical purpose for that wood being in that concrete.

20        Q.   Thank you.

21             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, I would tender this as the next 1D

22     exhibit into evidence.

23             JUDGE ROBINSON:

24             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1D198, Your Honours.

25             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

Page 6086

 1        Q.   Now I'd like to focus on the wood beam that we had here, and

 2     while we're doing that, let's look at Y020-3614.  And while we're waiting

 3     for that, sir, you examined the beam physically -- the piece of wood, I

 4     should say.  You've examined it physically here in the courtroom.  Did

 5     you note any evidence of charring or any evidence of fire or smoke damage

 6     or heat damage?

 7        A.   No, it showed no signs of fire damage whatsoever, no sooting, no

 8     charring, nothing.

 9        Q.   Now, sir, while we're waiting for the zoom to go in on the

10     picture, looking at this photograph of that piece of wood in the wall,

11     the photograph appears that there's no gap in it this time.  Is this the

12     condition that you saw the piece of wood at the time you performed your

13     visual inspection physically at the premises?

14        A.   Yes, it is.  Again, if you note if edge, the edge is smooth, even

15     with the edges of the wall.  The video also showed the left-hand side

16     being flush with the wall.

17        Q.   Could you -- I'm sorry, could you circle where you say the edge

18     is smooth and it's in line with the wall, flush with the wall.  If you

19     could use that -- with the assistance of the court usher use a colour to

20     circle that portion and label it 1.

21        A.   [Marks]

22        Q.   And what conclusions can you draw from the ends of the wood being

23     flush on all edges?

24        A.   Again, that's how -- that's how I determined that it wasn't a

25     furring strip.  In addition, if it was used as a furring strip, you'd

Page 6087

 1     have boards attached and you'd see lines going upward, and had there been

 2     a separation, that would also be an indicator.  I also looked at the dark

 3     area around, which was called in question as possible smoke damage, yet

 4     it doesn't -- you have it on top and bottom, yet it doesn't have any on

 5     the wood.  So again, that is not a smoke pattern.

 6        Q.   Thank you, sir.

 7             MR. IVETIC:  If we can have this admitted as marked as the next

 8     available 1D exhibit number.  I'd want to show two more photographs of

 9     this before asking the witness a question.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1D199.

11             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

12        Q.   And sir, I'm going to ask to have two more photographs of this

13     wood piece as you saw it on the scene shown to you:  Y020-3615 and

14     Y020-3613.

15             MR. IVETIC:  If they could be shown side by side, I think that

16     would speed things up.  Thank you.

17        Q.   And again, sir, do these two photographs depict the remainder of

18     that piece of wood as it was on the site as you saw it in January of

19     2009?

20        A.   Yes, it does.

21        Q.   Now, sir, we viewed a video-tape produced by the Office of the

22     Prosecutor from this weekend where this same piece of wood had some gap

23     that was alleged or demonstrated.  In your opinion, has something

24     happened to this wood since the date that you inspected it?

25        A.   Actually, even on this one you can see some gaps where the

Page 6088

 1     concrete has actually fallen off around it, yet the edges are still

 2     intact, and they were intact at the time of the video.

 3             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.  Great.  If we could have these --

 4        Q.   If you could mark those -- anything of interest to your

 5     description in this photograph, and then I would ask that they be

 6     tendered after the marking, and if you could describe for us what those

 7     markings mean.

 8        A.   Again, the edges which we've just examined.  Also, again, the

 9     cleanness of the wood.  Depending on the size of the furring strips,

10     we're not assuming that the wood finish -- if we're talking just wood

11     planks, we'd say even if they were just smaller planks, we would see some

12     type of lines where they once existed, yet we only see nails on this side

13     of the board after we examine it here that there's maybe approximately

14     three nails the full length, yet there's no edge next to those nails

15     where a board would have been nailed to.  So that's how I was able to

16     eliminate anything being attached such as an exterior panelling.  Also,

17     as we discussed, this at one time was discussed as possible pattern, yet

18     if it's the intention that that was involved in the fire and it's still

19     there, we see no smoke damage to this beam itself.

20        Q.   Thank you, sir.  Now, there was the hypothesis given by

21     Mr. Groome that this is a furring strip and that the room had multiple

22     furring strips that were taken down by somebody.  Now, in watching the

23     video-tape, we saw that a crowbar was required to take this piece of wood

24     out of the wall and the wall deteriorated upon the wood being pulled out.

25     The question I have for you --

Page 6089

 1             MR. GROOME:  Objection.

 2             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

 3             MR. GROOME:  If I'm not able to see what's being depicted in the

 4     video, certainly Mr. Ivetic shouldn't be able to talk about seeing wall

 5     crumbling when the piece of wood was removed.

 6             JUDGE ROBINSON:  I guess the video could be shown.

 7             MR. IVETIC:  It could, Your Honour, except that I don't have the

 8     numbers for the video, since, again, this was one that was disclosed to

 9     us last night, I have no way of playing it myself.  It's on the Sanction

10     system, which the Defence does not have access to, so ... if

11     Mr. Van Hooydonk can locate the video in question and play it, that would

12     be --

13             JUDGE ROBINSON:  The Defence will try to locate the video.

14             Mr. Cepic.

15             MR. CEPIC:  Yes, because the interpretation in B/C/S are late,

16     quite late because speakers are speaking quite fast.  Thank you.

17             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Well, I'm glad the reprimand has come from you,

18     Mr. Cepic, rather than me.  You have to slow down, Mr. Ivetic.

19             MR. IVETIC:  I appreciate that, and I apologise to the

20     translators and the Trial Chamber.

21             Is it possible, Mr. Van Hooydonk?

22             MR. GROOME:  Yes, it's being called up now.

23             MR. IVETIC:  Are we going to lose the markings if we switch?

24             I believe it was towards the middle of this clip,

25     Mr. Van Hooydonk.

Page 6090

 1                           [Video-clip played]

 2             MR. IVETIC:

 3        Q.   And Mr. Dimas, as we're all watching this video, when it comes

 4     time and the piece of wood is extracted from the wall, if you could

 5     please describe for us what your trained eye sees as to the wall and the

 6     material surrounding the wood as it being removed, that would greatly

 7     assist us.

 8                           [Video-clip played]

 9             THE WITNESS:  You can clearly see when he first pulled it that

10     some of the concrete actually started falling immediately.  Again, when I

11     reviewed that beam or piece of wood and excluded it as possible furring,

12     I also examined the other walls, and that's when I found no indication

13     that there was no other similar wood that would be used in that fashion.

14     As I stated earlier, it wouldn't make sense that you'd put a finished

15     section beneath one window inside your home.

16             MR. IVETIC:

17        Q.   Thank you, sir.  And one other question I have.  The other -- the

18     remaining walls that you observed in the basement room, did they appear

19     to have been plastered over?

20        A.   Yes.  There was evidence that they were a smooth plastered wall.

21        Q.   Did it appear the smooth plastered wall had been painted?

22        A.   I couldn't determine that.  Portions were so badly decomposing,

23     you could just tell smooth areas.

24        Q.   Would you expect to find a plastered wall with furring strips

25     onto the plaster and then a wall finishing -- covering the plaster?

Page 6091

 1        A.   That's very unlikely.

 2        Q.   Thank you.

 3             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honour, I would tender this marked exhibit --

 4     marked photograph as the next 1D exhibit number.

 5             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1D200, Your Honours.

 7             MR. IVETIC:  With the assistance of the court usher, I'd like to

 8     have this placed on the ELMO.  This is the booklet that was used by the

 9     Office of the Prosecutor in the cross-examinations of Mr. McCoy and

10     Mr. O'Donnell.  I can't recall if it was used today or not, but ...

11        Q.   We just saw the juncture box in this video that we heard some

12     testimony about.  Now, sir, you see this photograph which the Office of

13     the Prosecutor has marked as being burnt timber in the wall pocket in the

14     ground floor room.

15        A.   Yes, I do.

16        Q.   What is that that we see in this photograph?

17        A.   That's actually the electrical outlet and the area where the

18     wiring went into it.

19        Q.   Okay.  So the Prosecution's exhibit is misstating the empirical

20     evidence from the site.  Is that what you're telling us?

21        A.   That is correct.  It's mis-marked.  It's saying it's burnt

22     timber, and they actually brought in that section today, and we were able

23     to examine it.  That is not timber at all.

24             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, is it possible to take a screen-shot

25     of this photograph and introduce it so we know which page we're dealing

Page 6092

 1     with or should I reference the page number?  Because this was -- the

 2     whole booklet was introduced into evidence by Mr. Groome through

 3     Mr. O'Donnell.  I don't have the book in front of me to know the page

 4     number, but -- oh, page 27.  Thank you, Your Honours.

 5        Q.   Sir, you indicated this piece was brought into the courtroom

 6     today.  Again, with the assistance of the usher, if we could move the

 7     book aside and have the contents of bag C-1 brought to the witness.

 8     That's, I believe -- that I believe are the contents.

 9             Now, sir, are these the contents of the bag that was represented

10     to you as being removed from that juncture box by Mr. Selsky during the

11     Prosecution's mission this past weekend?

12        A.   Yes, it is, and -- except now it's labelled as the burnt

13     electrical box.

14        Q.   Okay.

15                           [Defence counsel confer]

16             MR. IVETIC:

17        Q.   Now, sir, to your trained eye that has been to the site, seen

18     other sites, is this material wood?

19        A.   No, it is not.

20        Q.   Is this material concrete or plaster?

21        A.   It appears to be concrete.

22        Q.   Is this material metal?

23        A.   No, it is not.

24        Q.   And just to be clear, are there any signs that you would expect

25     to find on an exposed piece of concrete had the room been fully enveloped

Page 6093

 1     in a fire involving 60 to 70 persons who perished therein lasting for an

 2     extended period of time?

 3        A.   No, it does not.

 4        Q.   Thank you.

 5             MR. IVETIC:  Is there a possibility of tendering this into

 6     evidence?

 7             MR. ALARID:  [Microphone not activated]

 8             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, they were all collected at the same

 9     time.  Though I would agree to have them all admitted, I'm not willing to

10     agree having them tendered piecemeal.

11             MR. IVETIC:  I stipulate, Your Honour.  That's -- I think you

12     should have all the pieces -- to have before you when making your

13     decisions, Your Honours.

14             JUDGE ROBINSON:  We'll admit all of them.

15             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, just so the record's clear, so all of

16     the evidence that this witness was shown today will be tendered into

17     evidence.  That includes eight exhibits, and I can -- after noon -- after

18     we finish our session work with the Registrar to provide all the

19     information.

20             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Very well.

21             MR. IVETIC:

22        Q.   Now, with respect to --

23             MR. IVETIC:  I'm finished with that exhibit.  Thank you.  And

24     while you're there, Madam Court Officer, can we get bag A-1 and the

25     contents of bag A-1 ready for the ELMO; and, Mr. Van Hooydonk, if

Page 6094

 1     possible I'd like to have the video that I did mark down as 0930321,

 2     Pionirska, evidence wall, A-1 queued up.

 3                           [Video-clip played]

 4        Q.   While this video is playing, sir, just for point of reference, do

 5     you recognise this dark line that we had the representation that bag A-1

 6     is the charred wood from that black line?

 7        A.   I believe that's where they dug it out from.

 8        Q.   Okay.  Now, this appears to be a square that has a black line all

 9     the way around it, but there's concrete in the middle.

10        A.   That is correct.

11        Q.   What is on the other side of this wall?  What feature?

12        A.   I don't understand what you're asking.

13        Q.   As you enter the room, this area is to the right of the entrance,

14     the doorway.

15        A.   Oh, you're asking what's on the other side of that wall.

16        Q.   What's on the other side of the wall on the exterior of the home?

17        A.   That's the area of the portico.

18        Q.   Is that also the area where a fire did occur, because we have the

19     alligatoring wood on the portico?

20        A.   That is correct.

21        Q.   Watch here.  What was that piece of lighter material that just

22     broke off from in front of the dark line and fell into the bag?

23        A.   Sorry.  If can you replay that one more time.

24             MR. IVETIC:  If you could rewind it a little bit.  A little bit

25     more.  A little more.  Little more.  There.

Page 6095

 1                           [Video-clip played]

 2             MR. IVETIC:

 3        Q.   There.

 4        A.   Oh, that's part of the the wall, the concrete that he just busted

 5     off.

 6        Q.   Would you agree, or -- would you agree -- pardon me.  Can you

 7     exclude the possibility that this line of wood was covered by concrete

 8     and/or plaster?

 9        A.   No, I cannot.  For that matter, it could actually be the other

10     side where the portico is.

11        Q.   Can you exclude the possibility that the damage to this wood was

12     caused by the fire on the portico that we know --

13             MR. GROOME:  Objection, Your Honour.  This is clearly leading.

14             JUDGE ROBINSON:  What's your response to that as a leading

15     question, Mr. Ivetic?

16             MR. IVETIC:  Well, Your Honour, if it's -- I don't know.  In my

17     jurisdiction, it would not be leading.  That's how expert witnesses are

18     handled by both parties, but if Your Honours feel it's leading, I'll try

19     to do it another way to save time.

20             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Reformulate it.

21             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.

22        Q.   Given the knowledge you have of the location and the condition on

23     the other side of this wall, what possible conclusions can you reach as

24     to how this wood was damaged in the manner it was so damaged?

25        A.   I cannot exclude that it was actually the burnt wood that was in

Page 6096

 1     that corner in the portico because that is the same area where the wood

 2     was on the other side, and especially having to break out the concrete

 3     like that, I can't rule out that that might not even -- that could be the

 4     exact same wood, for that matter.

 5        Q.   Okay.  Now, we earlier looked at some photographs of the upper

 6     level of this structure, and with respect to the timbers, why would

 7     timbers go through a wall?

 8        A.   Usually, they support another level.  It could be rafters that

 9     you -- a tier, say a light fixture.  More than likely, it's for the

10     support of a roof, things of that nature.

11        Q.   Do we have any empirical evidence or can you reach any

12     conclusions as to this particular wood that was the dark frame around

13     that rectangular area, how far that extends to the outside?

14        A.   In which area?

15        Q.   This area that we just looked at where the contents of A-1 before

16     you came from.

17        A.   Are you talking about the thickness, size, or ...

18        Q.   Does it -- can you determine whether it extended all the way to

19     the exterior where the portico was?

20        A.   No, I couldn't.

21        Q.   Thank you.

22             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Mr. Ivetic.

23             MR. IVETIC:  Yes.

24             JUDGE ROBINSON:  How much longer will you be because --

25             MR. IVETIC:  We have the break, I know.

Page 6097

 1             JUDGE ROBINSON:  I'm going to break.  I have other duties to --

 2             MR. IVETIC:  I would imagine about 15 minutes, Your Honour.

 3             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Right.  Well, we'll take that I adjournment now,

 4     and we'll resume at 2.45 unless otherwise indicated.

 5             I have received from the victims and witnesses unit an

 6     explanation for the late arrival of the witness this morning, and it was

 7     due to the change which was made very late yesterday in the court

 8     schedule and the difficulty in contacting the witness at his cell phone,

 9     and the unit says that this will certainly lead to a re-evaluation of VWS

10     routines concerning contact with witnesses outside of court due to

11     last-minute changes in court schedule, and they tender their apology,

12     which is accepted.

13             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, just two brief things.  With respect to

14     all these exhibits, to maintain the chain of custody, I'm going to

15     instruct Investigator Selsky to re-bag them in new evidence envelopes,

16     and we can sort out the mechanics of what the exhibits are this

17     afternoon, if that's okay with Your Honours.

18             And the second thing is with respect to the Hough's source

19     materials, I just want to memorialize for the record that Mr. Alarid has

20     given me his assurance that right now he will go to the hotel, bring

21     those materials back, photocopy them, and provide them to me within the

22     hour and certainly before we resume this afternoon.  Thank you.

23             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Very well.

24             MR. ALARID:  And, Your Honour, I don't know what you were

25     thinking about tomorrow, but since we're here, were you considering the

Page 6098

 1     morning schedule because we would -- oh, good.

 2             JUDGE ROBINSON:  We're not able to sit in the morning.

 3             MR. ALARID:  Well, then that takes away my concern.  Thank you.

 4             MR. IVETIC:  One quick question I have, Your Honour.  2.45 in

 5     this courtroom or elsewhere?  In courtroom II.

 6             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Court adjourned.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  We will be resuming in courtroom II, and

 8     apologies, Your Honours.  I understand bag C-1 has been admitted as

 9     Defence Exhibit 1D202.

10             JUDGE ROBINSON:  We stand adjourned.

11                           --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.06 p.m.

12                           --- On resuming at 2.44 p.m.

13             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Mr. Ivetic, you are to continue and wind up your

14     re-examination.

15             MR. IVETIC:  Yes, Your Honours.  Redirect.  Thank you.

16        Q.   Mr. Dimas, me again.  Now, you talked several times in the course

17     of the cross-examination of Mr. Groome about a fully involved fire having

18     to be approximately 1.000 degrees in a room.  What effect would a fire of

19     that magnitude have on the human body, that is to say on any people in a

20     room?  Let's take a hypothetical of there being 60 to 70 persons in a

21     room?  First of all, what effect would that presence of human tissue and

22     human bodies have on the fire, and what effect would the fire have on the

23     human bodies and human tissue, again, based upon your knowledge and

24     experience?

25        A.   First off, human bodies, although they're considered people, in a

Page 6099

 1     fire they act as part of the fuel load, and as they're being burned

 2     they'll actually be part of the fire themselves, increasing temperatures

 3     due to their clothing, their skin, the body fat within a person.  It all

 4     ads to the extent of the fire.  And if somebody was to be in a fire of

 5     that degree, we'd see heavily burned bodies.

 6        Q.   Would the presence of bodies as you say creating a fuel load for

 7     the fire, what effect would that have on the surrounding environment,

 8     that is to say the residue or deposits you would expect to find, wood,

 9     concrete, or other materials there?

10        A.   That would also add to the patterns as well.  Again, they're

11     basically incensed similar to a piece of wood.  They're burning.  They're

12     giving off vapours, giving off soot.  And they would add to the patterns

13     you'd see, again, charring, sooting, patterns out the windows.  Again,

14     they're similar to a piece of wood being burnt.

15        Q.   And is that the phenomenon that is sometimes referred to as a

16     dirty fire or flame?

17        A.   I'm not familiar with that term.

18        Q.   What about human bodies that would be collapsed on the

19     floor-boards within the basement.  Hypothetically speaking, if a fire

20     reached a thousand degrees and fully enveloped that basement room, how

21     would you expect the floor-boards throughout to be with respect to,

22     again, the hypothetical, of 60 to 70 persons in that room perishing?

23        A.   It depended on how the bodies were laying on the floor, if

24     they're stacked upon each other as they passed away, and how long the

25     fire continued to be burned.  If one body may be lying down with multiple

Page 6100

 1     bodies on top, there might be a protected area.  However, if they

 2     continued to be burned, again, they're part of the fuel load, and

 3     everything would be consumed once again.

 4        Q.   I apologise.  I'm waiting for the translation.  Now, given this

 5     hypothetical, this hypothetical of 60 to 70 persons in a room of this

 6     size in a fully-evolved fire of a thousand degrees, do you consider -- or

 7     what would you say as to how long an observer or eye-witness to that fire

 8     could hear human cries for help, human screams in such a fire?  How long

 9     does it take for the human body to succumb in a fire of that magnitude as

10     is being offered by Mr. Groome's hypothetical?

11        A.   Actually, in most fires and with fire victims, it's not the

12     burning that kills them.  It's the smoke inhalation that they're

13     breathing in.  They'd succumb to that first, and then they'd perish.  So

14     usually while they're breathing, it could be a matter of minutes.  I'd

15     say 5 to 10 minutes, if not, 20 minutes, that they'd pass out because

16     there's no oxygen for them to breathe.  They're breathing in all products

17     of combustion, and then they become burned.

18        Q.   And again, in a fully-enveloped fire, the entire room would be

19     enveloped in flames of a thousand degrees; is that accurate?

20        A.   That's correct.  Once the temperatures reach hot enough, the

21     entire room would flash over, and that's a term when everything in the

22     room becomes one total fire, and that's a fully-involved fire.

23        Q.   Now, there was at least one witness who claimed to have heard

24     cries for up to an hour to an hour and a half while the fire was blazing.

25     In your opinion, what can you say about that in regards to the

Page 6101

 1     hypothetical, a fully-evolved fire in that room?

 2        A.   That would be impossible in a fully engulfed room fire to have

 3     somebody alive that long.  They would have perished, first off, like I

 4     said earlier, from smoke inhalation, and then the mere fact of the burns.

 5        Q.   And just one more on that hypothetical.  How -- what effect would

 6     the addition of accelerant, a combustible accelerant have on such a fire?

 7     Would it -- in terms of how quickly it would become fully evolved.

 8        A.   As far as the fire itself, it would increase the quickness that

 9     it would go up to those temperatures, and the fire would reach those

10     temperatures much faster.

11        Q.   And as to the fate of any persons inside, how would the

12     accelerant affect that?

13        A.   By reaching those temperatures so much quicker, they would perish

14     much faster as well.

15        Q.   Thank you.  With the assistance of the usher, I'd like to now

16     have the contents of evidence bag F-1 available.  Do we have that or not

17     in this courtroom?

18             MR. GROOME:  We do not have it.  It's all been repackaged over

19     the break.

20             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.

21        Q.   Well, with respect to bag F-1, sir, do you recall that was the

22     piece of floorboard that was of a darkened colour, and I believe it had a

23     knot in the middle, and you had it on the ELMO, and you appeared to be

24     doing something to it before answering Mr. Groome's question as to

25     whether there was evidence of charring or fire damage to this wood.  What

Page 6102

 1     was it, sir, that you were doing with your hands to that piece of wood?

 2        A.   I was feeling it for the consistency --

 3             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Just a minute, please.

 4             Mr. Groome.

 5             MR. GROOME:  Just so the record is clear, the dark piece of wood

 6     is F-2.

 7             MR. IVETIC:  I apologise.

 8        Q.   Continue, sir.  F-2.

 9        A.   I was feeling it to see what it was like, if it was sooty,

10     moisture content, to see if it reacted similar to any normal piece of

11     burnt wood or charcoal-type wood would react.  I was looking for the

12     colours, the colour of the sooting when you're rubbing your fingers on it

13     are more of a black.  Where when you're dealing with something that's

14     more moisture content, if you look at your hands when you're done, it's

15     more of a brownish colour.  It might be brownish grey, depending what's

16     in it, where again the burnt wood or charcoaling would be black.

17        Q.   And are those techniques ones that are trained for investigators

18     of your type and utilised by investigators of your type?

19        A.   Yes, it is.  You use all your senses, so it's very important.

20     That's why I got down hands on and examined it, and as I stated, I

21     believe it was on my first day, that I actually physically snapped off a

22     piece of the wood to examine it.  It's a standard procedure for me.

23        Q.   And so what I'm getting at is, did you also do those types of

24     physical manipulation tests at the scene at the Pionirska location on

25     January the, I believe, it was the 29th of this year?

Page 6103

 1        A.   Yes, I did.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  With the assistance of the court usher, I'd like to

 3     have another one of the -- page 25 of the booklet of photographs produced

 4     by the -- tendered by the Office of the Prosecutor into evidence.  I'd

 5     like to have that up on the screen.  And while we're getting that set up,

 6     sir, I'm going to ask you about evidence bag A-5.  If you recall, that

 7     was the piece of wood taken from the portico that Mr. Groome had you

 8     examine and turn over to talk about the phenomenon on the backside of the

 9     wood.  And if you recall there was a piece of lighter-coloured wood

10     jutting out from the side.  And on the photograph that I'm not getting --

11     I apologise.  On the top photograph, do you think you can locate that

12     piece of wood in this photograph or the portion of this photograph that

13     looks like that piece of wood?

14        A.   The clean unburnt one?  Is that what you're discussing?

15        Q.   Yes.

16        A.   That one right there.

17             MR. IVETIC:  Let the record reflect, the witness is indicating

18     the left centre of the -- left side towards the centre vertically of the

19     photograph.

20        Q.   And now, sir, having had the opportunity to review the backside

21     of this piece of wood in court earlier today, can you give us a

22     definitive answer as to whether this piece of light-coloured wood is a

23     furring strip or not, given that it has been referred to as a furring

24     strip by Mr. Groome with two witnesses -- actually, three witnesses.

25        A.   It is not.

Page 6104

 1        Q.   Thank you.  With respect to P307, if we can have that pulled up.

 2     Sir, this was an exhibit that Mr. Groome had shown to you.

 3             MR. IVETIC:  Is that the video by any chance?  Okay.

 4        Q.   Well, unfortunately I've written down the exhibit number.  I

 5     don't know the reference to give to Mr. Van Hooydonk to get off the

 6     Sanction, but let's stick with -- let me skip to -- if perhaps the

 7     Prosecution could try to locate that for me, I will stick with this

 8     photograph that we were talking about earlier.

 9             In the photograph that we just took off the ELMO, there were

10     globules on the ceiling.  I believe previously either you or one of the

11     other witnesses may have referred to them as stalagtites.  Given your

12     physical examination of the premises, the inside of the room, do you have

13     an opinion as to the moisture level in that room?  Was there -- how would

14     you describe the moisture level?

15             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, I think we're going well beyond

16     anything that was raised in cross-examination.

17             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honour, the video I'm waiting for is the video

18     as to the ceiling and the ripples in the ceiling that I'm right now

19     asking about, so if it was beyond the scope of either cross-examination,

20     then P307 should not be admitted into evidence.

21             MR. GROOME:  Well, certainly I think it's proper to ask questions

22     about P307.  And it's now prepared for viewing if Mr. Ivetic wants to

23     show it again, but I don't ever remember asking my questions about

24     stalagmites or stalactites or other things we find in caves.

25             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Stalagmites and stalactites were mentioned --

Page 6105

 1     was that in examination-in-Chief?

 2             MR. IVETIC:  No, Your Honour.  I'm trying to get the LiveNote up

 3     so I can actually see --

 4             JUDGE ROBINSON:  The witness did use that.

 5             MR. IVETIC:  That was mentioned, I believe, in cross-examination

 6     when they were talking about water damage to the ceiling, is what my

 7     notes indicate, and I thought it was in relation to the video that was

 8     played, P307, when they were looking at the revealed rebar in the

 9     ceiling and talking about --

10             JUDGE ROBINSON:  We'll allow the question.  Let's move on

11     quickly.

12             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.  Is the video now ready?

13             MR. GROOME:  Yes.

14             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Mr. Groome.

15        Q.   Mr. Dimas, as we're playing the video again, I'd like to have you

16     commentate as to what -- for those of us who are not in the room, what

17     you see as to the ceiling and as to the particular any evidence of

18     moisture causing the ceiling to deteriorate.

19             THE INTERPRETER:  Would the counsel please articulate his words

20     so that the interpreters can understand.  Thank you.

21                           [Video-clip played]

22             MR. IVETIC:  I apologise, and I think it was towards -- at least

23     one-third into the tape, I think it was ceiling that was exposed.  There

24     we go.

25                           [Video-clip played]

Page 6106

 1             MR. IVETIC:

 2        Q.   What does the appearance of the surface of the ceiling indicate

 3     to you having been on the property as to the most probable cause for the

 4     ceiling deterioration that we see here?

 5        A.   It was determined that it was due to severe moisture and water.

 6     The water while we were on site actually was physically dripping, and

 7     there were stalagtites coming down from the top.  The moisture in that

 8     area, you could actually just reach up and touch it and feel that it was

 9     still dripping.

10        Q.   And what about the discolouration that we see on the various

11     portions of the ceiling as indicated in this video footage?

12        A.   It was moisture.

13        Q.   Thank you.

14             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Mr. Van Hooydonk.  I'm finished with

15     that, and again, my great thanks for your assistance in that matter.

16        Q.   Now, you were asked about the door and the door frame.  First of

17     all, what can you tell us about the door frame?  Was it affixed to the

18     concrete wall in your opinion?

19        A.   It appeared that it was just basically shoved in there, and

20     that's one of the reasons why they needed the block, to also support it

21     in place.

22        Q.   And with respect to -- let's put it this way.  With respect to

23     your overall totality of all the empirical evidence that you reviewed

24     having been on the site, having looked at it, and now having had an

25     opportunity to even review portions of that site brought here by the

Page 6107

 1     Office of the Prosecutor, has anything caused you to change your opinion

 2     from that set forth in your report as to whether or not this basement

 3     room was subjected to a fully evolved fire of the nature described by the

 4     Prosecution's witnesses in the statements that you reviewed?

 5        A.   The only difference after reviewing the video from 2001, it

 6     actually more solidifies my findings due to the fact that there's no

 7     heavy sooting or charring -- or sooting above the windows and openings as

 8     their camera walked around.  Again, that was 2001.  That's way before I

 9     ever made it to the scene and much closer to the actual time frame that

10     it occurred, so that helped out my findings.  I really wish I would have

11     had -- somebody looked inside.

12             The other difference that I noted was, again, off the video, that

13     was interior was being occupied by the bed frame and wood items in there,

14     so, again, they may have had a fire after the fact.  But as described by

15     the witness statements I read, I found it totally inconsistent to have

16     one to that degree.  And now again after seeing the video that just helps

17     me out more to solidify my findings.

18             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Mr. Dimas.

19             On behalf of the Defence, I have no further questions in

20     redirect, Your Honours.  Thank you.

21             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Witness, that concludes your testimony.  We

22     thank you for coming to give it.  You may now leave.

23             THE WITNESS:  Thank you, Your Honour.  May I make one statement

24     before I leave?

25             JUDGE ROBINSON:  No.

Page 6108

 1             THE WITNESS:  Okay, thank you, Your Honours.

 2             JUDGE ROBINSON:  That's not part of our procedures.

 3             THE WITNESS:  Okay.  Thank you.

 4                           [The witness withdrew]

 5             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Next witness, Mr. Alarid.

 6             MR. ALARID:  Your Honour, the Defence could call Prosecution

 7     expert Ewa Tabeau.

 8             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Mr. Groome.

 9             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, we had a discussion yesterday according

10     to the schedule which I interpreted the Court's comments that we were

11     going to abide by the schedule announced by Mr. Alarid on Friday which I

12     had before me is Benjamin Dimas, Cliff Jenkins, Dr. George Hough, and

13     possibly Vladimir Rasic.  I'd ask that we -- if it wasn't clear, I ask

14     the Court to correct me, and if it was clear that that was the Court's

15     direction, I would ask that we follow that.  Ms. Marcus is here, and

16     she's prepared a cross-examination for Mr. Jenkins.

17             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Is Mr. Jenkins here?

18             MR. ALARID:  No, he's not.  He's being proofed as we speak,

19     Your Honour.

20             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

21             JUDGE ROBINSON:  I haven't --

22             MR. ALARID:  Your Honour, I believe it's the Defence's

23     prerogative --

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

25             MR. ALARID:  -- considering extenuating circumstances with the

Page 6109

 1     case.  Two things have not been completed by this point, Your Honour.

 2     One of which is the testimony of Ewa Tabeau is necessary for the full

 3     evaluation by Mr. Jenkins.  One of the responsibilities of a primary law

 4     enforcement officer would be to establish proof of death through whatever

 5     means necessary depending on the facts and circumstance of the case.  In

 6     this particular instance, the Prosecution has sought to establish proof

 7     of death through two means; one eye-witness testimony which Mr. Jenkins

 8     is prepared to testify on.

 9             THE INTERPRETER:  Would the counsel please slow down.  Would the

10     counsel please slow down.

11             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Mr. Alarid, the issue is much simpler.  You put

12     forward a certain order in which you're going to present your witnesses,

13     and you have not followed that order.  Yesterday the issue was raised by

14     Mr. Groome, and the ruling that I gave was that you should maintain the

15     sequence in that order.

16             MR. ALARID:  And, Your Honour, the Court added Ewa Tabeau or

17     permitted the addition of Ewa Tabeau just Friday, and considering --

18             JUDGE ROBINSON:  I know we have added it.  The question is, when?

19             MR. ALARID:  The situation is this, Your Honour.  We either call

20     back Mr. Jenkins in this rejoinder thing, which I'm not quite got a grasp

21     of yet, or we get him in and out of here with all information available.

22             Secondarily, Your Honour, to that is there's a final aspect of

23     his investigation that he's not completed yet.  And I'd actually ask the

24     Court's assistance for that.  Is we have set an interview time at the

25     gaol tomorrow, Your Honour, at UNDU for 9.00 a.m.  We have requested that

Page 6110

 1     Mr. Cliff Jenkins be able to attend that for purposes of inspecting Mr.

 2     Milan Lukic for identifying features consistent with the Interpol warrant

 3     that he was originally arrested under.  That would be standard operating

 4     procedures for an arresting law enforcement officer.

 5             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honours, can I just point out that Mr. Jenkins

 6     has been on the witness list since November.

 7             MR. ALARID:  And we can only -- and we're fighting with OLAD to

 8     get him permission to go in because they think he needs a new background

 9     check in order to be permitted a visitor's pass into the gaol.

10             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, just with respect to this desire to

11     have him examined -- Mr. Lukic's bodies [sic] for tattoos, I don't

12     believe there's been any evidence introduced, the Interpol warrant has

13     not been introduced in this case.  I'm not sure what relevance

14     Mr. Jenkins physical inspection of Mr. Lukic's body, how that assists the

15     Court in any way with respect to the task it has before it.

16             MR. ALARID:  Well, it goes to the credibility -- one, it goes to

17     the initial description given in the warrant which we would be tendering

18     through the police officer investigator, which is that Mr. Milan Lukic

19     originally was described as having moles and tattoos.  And so these

20     particular identifying features which is common for an arrest warrant, I

21     can't have him come in and testify that Mr. Lukic is either consistent or

22     inconsistent with that description unless he actually examines the body.

23             And other than that, Your Honour, Ewa Tabeau's upstairs, and I

24     don't understand why we're fighting over this.

25             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Mr. Groome, it is true that Ms. Tabeau is

Page 6111

 1     upstairs.  Why would you not be able to have somebody from your team?

 2     You are not lacking in resources, and her evidence is not new.

 3             MR. GROOME:  Well, Your Honour, I will try to accommodate the

 4     Court, but it is difficult -- it's difficult to understand what happens

 5     between Friday and Tuesday that the schedule gets turned topsy-turvy, and

 6     I do not have unlimited resources.  I allocate task in part in large

 7     reliance on what Mr. Alarid tells me is the order of the witnesses.

 8             Ms. Marcus is the person I've assigned to do both of those

 9     witnesses.  If I could have a moment to ask her her level of preparedness

10     on Ms. Tabeau, and if I can accommodate the Court, I will.  But I would

11     please ask Mr. Alarid if he is unsure about the schedule when he gives it

12     Friday, please indicate that and tell us when he will be sure.  But to

13     tell us with certainty that certain things are going to happen Monday,

14     Tuesday, Wednesday, and to come in Monday and say, I've changed it all, I

15     just think it's discourteous and it's unfair to the Prosecution.

16             JUDGE ROBINSON:  It's very trying.  Very trying, Mr. Alarid.

17             How long would it take you to get the officer who will be dealing

18     with this?

19             MR. ALARID:  I believe she's in the witness waiting room as we

20     speak, Your Honour.

21             JUDGE ROBINSON:  No, I'm asking Mr. Groome.  How long would it

22     take him to get the lawyer -- [Overlapping speakers] ...

23             MR. GROOME:  It's Ms. Marcus who's doing both.  And Ms. Marcus is

24     prepared to start.  I've asked Your Honours' indulgence.  If she finds

25     that there's something that comes up that she be given the opportunity if

Page 6112

 1     she needs some additional time, but I believe she's prepared to make a

 2     start on her cross-examination.

 3                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 4                           [The witness entered court]

 5             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Let the witness make the declaration.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

 7     speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 8                           WITNESS:  EWA TABEAU

 9             JUDGE ROBINSON:  You may sit, and you may begin, Mr. Alarid.

10             MR. ALARID:  Thank you, Your Honour, and with the Court's

11     indulgence, we'll probably be using this a lot, so if we could just get

12     P119 put on the screen, please, and we can start working with that.

13             THE WITNESS:  If I may have one question, Your Honours.

14             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes, please.

15             THE WITNESS:  May I know whose witness I am today because nobody

16     actually told me for whom I'm testifying.

17             JUDGE ROBINSON:  For the Defence.

18                           Examination by Mr. Alarid:

19        Q.   Good afternoon, Ms. Tabeau.  If you recall, I'm Jason Alarid, and

20     I represent Milan Lukic.  We met sometime last year when you testified,

21     and I hope all has been well with you.

22        A.   Yes, I am good, thank you.

23        Q.   And I think we got in trouble last time for talking too fast

24     because we're in the same language, so we probably need to observe a

25     pause between testifying.  And I want you to be organised, so you tell me

Page 6113

 1     when you feel comfortable with your materials.

 2        A.   I guess I'm ready.

 3        Q.   Now, just so I can ask you, I know that P119 was revised slightly

 4     with colour-coding, but the colour-coding didn't come in very well, and

 5     it actually obscured some of the writing because it's so small when you

 6     put that entire spreadsheet and then reduce it to 8 by 11 or the standard

 7     page size.  Is that a blown-up version of your chart that have you in

 8     front of you?

 9        A.   Well, I believe it is the P119.  Not that I can be certain, but

10     from the format I can see that -- yes.  I have a printed copy that is far

11     better, so at least I can read better.  I'm not sure that anybody else

12     can have the same.

13        Q.   Well, if I use the old version -- and, ma'am, if I use the old

14     version, is there any significant difference between the old version and

15     the new colour of coded one that's been attached to the most recent

16     Prosecution motion?

17        A.   It is the same version, but this version should be read together

18     with the clarification which for a number of records includes additional

19     information.

20        Q.   Okay.  But did you actually change information on the chart other

21     than adding colour?

22        A.   No.  The information remains the same.

23        Q.   Okay.  Okay.  So the clarifications in your report didn't

24     necessarily change the chart but sought to clarify it?

25        A.   The clarifications in the report should be read together with the

Page 6114

 1     results in the P119.

 2        Q.   Now, I apologise.  I mean, when we filed our motion, sometimes as

 3     lawyers we use strong words, and so I apologise for attacking your

 4     reports if I made you a little defensive in the reply, but there was no

 5     offense intended.  So I hope you understand.

 6        A.   Of course.

 7        Q.   And the reason I say that, ma'am, is to be honest, I didn't

 8     really get the significance of your being part of this considering my

 9     naiveté with war crimes.  And to be honest I thought you were just here

10     originally to show this common scheme and practice, the large-scale, if

11     you will, demographic and statistical evidence in the Visegrad area, and

12     it kind of floored me when you ended up being also the -- sort of curator

13     of the Proof of Death Project, if we can call it that.

14             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honours, is this an oral argument of some kind

15     or an examination-in-chief?

16             MR. ALARID:  I'm trying to be nice, Your Honour, but I'm putting

17     my case to her because I want her to know why I'm bringing her back.

18             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes, let's have a question now, Mr. Alarid.

19             MR. ALARID:

20        Q.   Your -- just to briefly re-iterate, you are an statistician;

21     correct?

22        A.   Yes, that's correct.

23        Q.   And what is the extent of your degree, if I might ask you to

24     recall it?

25        A.   I have a Ph.D. in mathematical demography and a master's degree

Page 6115

 1     in economics with the area of statistics and econometrics.

 2        Q.   Now, would it be fair to say that normally demographics and

 3     statistics would not be used in a proof of death scenario?

 4        A.   I don't understand what is normally and what is the proof of

 5     death scenario, normally -- normal proof of death scenario.

 6        Q.   Well, let me ask you this.  You call this the Lukic and Lukic

 7     Proof of Death Project; is that correct?

 8        A.   Yes, it is correct.

 9        Q.   When were you commissioned, if you will, to undertake an actual

10     Proof of Death Project?

11        A.   It was around the summer last year.  I don't remember exactly the

12     date.  Sometime in June, perhaps a little bit later.

13        Q.   Okay.  And --

14        A.   If I may add, we are speaking about proof of death for Lukic and

15     Lukic case, right?

16        Q.   Yes, ma'am.

17        A.   Because we are not generally speaking about proof of death

18     practices as such.

19        Q.   Okay.  Tell me about the proof of death practices that you would

20     otherwise understand.

21        A.   Well, we've been engaged in these kind of activities for a long

22     time.  It dates back as far as the Srebrenica project started, so it

23     would be sometime in 1999 or early in the year 2000.  This is when these

24     kind of activities were initiated.  And since then we've been conducting

25     this kind of analysis systematically for several cases.

Page 6116

 1        Q.   Why would it fall under your responsibility?

 2        A.   Because I'm in charge of the demographic unit and because I have

 3     been working a lot on victims issues, and that is the natural way why

 4     these things would be done by my unit and myself being involved in this,

 5     not to mention the fact that the Srebrenica project was conducted and

 6     completed in my unit.

 7        Q.   Okay.  But in terms of Srebrenica, how many people were we

 8     talking about?

 9        A.   In terms of victims, you mean, or --

10        Q.   Yes, yes, potential victims.

11        A.   It is up to almost 8.000.  This is the number of victims in

12     Srebrenica.

13        Q.   And in the Srebrenica project, isn't it -- would it be fair that

14     you weren't -- you didn't conduct that project with the goal of proving a

15     death being tied to a specific culprit?

16        A.   I don't understand exactly.  If you can rephrase a little bit.

17        Q.   Here's why I'm confused, is, to me, when Mr. Lukic is accused of

18     personally killing a specific person, and we'll just say plural, many

19     people now, if you want to consider the list being a total accusation, as

20     opposed to a general, who is accused of overseeing a large, chaotic,

21     horrible thing of which some people might be involved, but that general

22     didn't personally know or pull a trigger or -- in such a personal way.

23     Mr. Lukic is accused of personally, first-hand being the culprit that

24     kills these people in your list.  And so my question is, how might it be

25     different in Srebrenica than a small project such as this one?

Page 6117

 1             MS. MARCUS:  Objection.  Your Honours, Dr. Tabeau is not an

 2     expert in the modes of liability or how the cases are proven.  Dr. Tabeau

 3     has come to talk about the Proof of Death Project, so perhaps counsel

 4     could restrict his questions to areas in Dr. Tabeau's expertise.

 5             MR. ALARID:  Well -- and that's a very good point, Your Honour,

 6     because at the end of her testimony, we will be filing a motion -- we

 7     made the motion orally when she testified to strike as not relevant her

 8     report, and we will be renewing that motion at the end of this.

 9             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Just ask her a question that's related to her

10     expertise.

11             MR. ALARID:  Okay.

12        Q.   So what about demographics?  Other than having access to the data

13     of census, of the Book of the Dead, of the International Red Cross

14     reporting, what does trying to -- what does this Proof of Death Project

15     for Lukic and Lukic have to do with demographics?  You have access to the

16     databases, but what does the actual project have to do with demographics?

17        A.   Well, this is a very general question, but -- I actually don't

18     know what do you want me to talk about.

19             JUDGE ROBINSON:  What he's asking is, how does demographics

20     assist you in proving death?

21             THE WITNESS:  It's actually a very useful question.  The thing is

22     that the knowledge demographers have about analysis of sources, data

23     sources, being it victims or whatever other demographic events is very

24     important because it gives us a broader perspective on how to analyse the

25     sources, how to combine the sources, and how to read the results of our

Page 6118

 1     analysis.  I wouldn't think that a statistician without a demographic

 2     background would be able to make the same analysis as we have done and

 3     have been doing for this project and many other projects.  So the general

 4     experience, demographic experience that we have in data analysis, in the

 5     analysis of demographic processes, other processes such as birth or

 6     deaths or marriages or divorces, any demographic process, the same

 7     perspective can be applied in the analysis of data on victims.  And this

 8     is something that others simply don't have.  A statistician working on

 9     business data wouldn't be able to analyse data on demographic events

10     including data on victims the way we do.

11             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Let me see if I can assist, Mr. Alarid, further.

12             Mr. Alarid is saying to you that his client is charged in this

13     case with personally, physically doing particular things, killing

14     particular people, let's say A, and he wants to know how those

15     demographics assist you in establishing that Mr. Lukic killed A.  Is that

16     where you're leading?

17             MR. ALARID:  Yes.

18             JUDGE ROBINSON:  That's part of it.

19             MR. ALARID:  Yes.  Part of it.  Thank you, Your Honour.

20             THE WITNESS:  The answer is very simple.  It is what we do goes

21     beyond witness testimonies and witness statement, and we look at sources,

22     which are often not used in legal proceedings, sources like the

23     population census, sources on victims, sources on survivors.  And by

24     searching through these sources and integrating information such results

25     from our work, we were able to provide additional information that either

Page 6119

 1     corroborates or rejects the statements made by the witnesses.  So it's a

 2     very useful approach which I think is quite exceptional, and I don't

 3     think it is an approach that can be thought of in many places of the

 4     world.  From this point of view, this Tribunal is very lucky, having all

 5     these sources and people who have the demographic expertise --

 6             JUDGE ROBINSON:  I think I might have misstated the proposition.

 7     It's not how does demographics assist you in establishing that Mr. Lukic

 8     killed A, but how does demographics assist you in establishing that A was

 9     killed?  I think that's putting it more accurately because the

10     Prosecution would have adduced other evidence --

11             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

12             JUDGE ROBINSON:  -- as to Mr. Lukic's alleged responsibility for

13     killing A.  It is how does demographics assist you in establishing death?

14             THE WITNESS:  As Your Honours already stated, we can't help

15     establish whether Mr. Lukic killed these people or not.  We can help

16     establish whether these people were killed or survived by using our

17     sources and our expertise.

18             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes, Mr. Alarid.

19             MR. ALARID:  Thank you, Your Honour.

20        Q.   Okay.  But wouldn't it be fair to say that that has nothing to do

21     with statistics?

22        A.   I disagree.  It has all to do with statistics.

23        Q.   Okay.  In your clarification, you put two numbers by ratio, and I

24     understand ratio, of consistencies between the list of the names and

25     reported census data on one hand, International Red Cross data on another

Page 6120

 1     hand, and Book of the Dead data.  And you put -- and you put some

 2     numbers.  Can you tell the numbers.  What is the ratio -- without stating

 3     specific victims or alleged victims, rather, what is the ratio of alleged

 4     victims that also have corresponding biographical data per the 1991

 5     census?

 6        A.   It's all in the clarification.  When we are speaking of 86 names

 7     of victims from the --

 8        Q.   Schedules, yes.

 9        A.   -- schedules.  And as far as I remember the ratio was about

10     69 per cent, that many names were confirmed in the census approximately,

11     if I'm right.  But if you want correct figures, it is all in the

12     clarification.

13        Q.   Now, before you did this and as you correlated your evidence, did

14     you consider at all what is legally required under Yugoslavia's laws to

15     establish proof of death?

16        A.   No, not really.  Not really indeed.  I've never spoken in my

17     clarification or any other report about legal standards in the former

18     Yugoslavia for proof of death.

19        Q.   Well, might death records from a country actually be an

20     additional data set that might assist you in conducting a complete

21     investigation?

22        A.   Oh, yes --

23             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Just a minute.

24             Yes, Ms. Marcus.

25             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honours, those two questions are quite directly

Page 6121

 1     leading.

 2             MR. ALARID:  If I beat around the bush --

 3             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.  Don't lead.

 4             MR. ALARID:  I'll try not to, but for foundational purposes,

 5     Your Honour, I don't want to just beat around the bush and waste too much

 6     of the Court's time.

 7             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Well, you have called her as your witness,

 8     so ...

 9             MR. ALARID:  Okay.

10        Q.   Would ordinary standardised Yugoslavian proof of death records

11     assist you in collaborating the information, or corroborating is a better

12     word, the information in your report?

13             JUDGE ROBINSON:  And what is an ordinary standardised Yugoslavian

14     proof of death record?  I don't understand that.

15             MR. ALARID:  Death certificates.  I mean --

16             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Well, put that, then.

17             MR. ALARID:

18        Q.   Did you do a search of any death certificates?

19        A.   Sir, we used two huge databases, the so-called DEM 2 databases.

20     One of the federal authorities, statistical authority, and one of the RS

21     authority.  Altogether, these two databases contain approximately 140.000

22     death records.  A large number of them are documented by death

23     certificates, regular Yugoslav, or say, Bosnian standard death

24     certificates.  Many are not, but it is that we searched in this kind of

25     information, in this project as well.

Page 6122

 1        Q.   And I'm sorry, what is the total number of deaths we have in our

 2     sub-set here?

 3        A.   In the sub-set of ...

 4        Q.   Of our victims.

 5        A.   Of our victims.  The number of listed victims from the indictment

 6     is 86 for these two incidents, right, Pionirska and Bikavac?

 7        Q.   Yes.  And of the 86, how many were you able to establish by

 8     formal death records?

 9        A.   Well, in RS mortality database, the DEM 2 database, none; and in

10     the federal statistical authority, as far as I remember, 9 or less.  But

11     we are speaking of known deaths.  In these databases, there are known

12     deaths included, no missing persons.

13        Q.   Okay.  But missing persons doesn't necessarily tell you how,

14     when, or where someone died.

15        A.   Missing persons are missing, so there is no account of how the

16     person died, where the person died, what was the cause of death.  They

17     are reported missing.  There is no body found yet.

18        Q.   And what significance do you attribute to not being placed on the

19     missing persons list?

20        A.   This is an important issue.  It is not -- the ICRC list of

21     missing persons is exhaustive.  It is not that every missing person who

22     ever went missing in the territory of Bosnia or other countries of the

23     former Yugoslavia is reported in the ICRC records.  But there are other

24     lists of missing persons, and there is no one-to-one correspondence

25     between the ICRC list and other lists.  We use the ICRC list, not the

Page 6123

 1     other list.  So it is possible that a number of missing persons are not

 2     on the ICRC list at all.  They might be on other lists.  They might be

 3     not reported anywhere at all.  It is also possible.

 4        Q.   Isn't it true, though, that death certificates and decisions of

 5     death by a Court are not at statistical offices but in the books at other

 6     governmental agencies?

 7             MS. MARCUS:  Objection, leading.

 8             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes, that is very leading.

 9             MR. ALARID:

10        Q.   Okay.  Where are death certificates and decisions of death kept

11     in the former Yugoslavia?

12        A.   There is that obligation of notifying the statistical authority

13     of a death, so if anybody dies, then within three days the family has the

14     obligation to notify the authority about this death.  And the death is

15     registered then in the vital statistics office, and together with the

16     death certificate, I believe the record of death is kept in these local

17     offices.  It is different now in the war-time for obvious reasons, of

18     course.  Not all -- many local vital statistics offices didn't operate

19     properly, so a lot of these death notifications were not submitted and

20     were not kept, not archived.  So there are, though, these two central

21     databases, one RS, one federal statistical authority database, which

22     collected whatever was available.

23        Q.   And it was from these databases that you confirmed the nine?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   Okay.  And did anything about those nine tell you the when,

Page 6124

 1     where, and how they perished?

 2        A.   For whatever record was found, there is a date of death, place of

 3     death, and possibly a cause of death.  However, we are speaking of cases,

 4     death cases of missing persons.  In exceptional circumstances, these

 5     kinds of notifications were accepted, and this was in cases where there

 6     were court decisions available, local courts or cantonal, regional courts

 7     in Bosnia-Herzegovina that declared certain individuals dead.  These

 8     declarations were issued based on witness testimonies.  There was a

 9     requirement of at least two witnesses, eyewitnesses to testify in order

10     to -- that such declaration could be issued.  So even if these nine cases

11     or six - I don't remember exactly the number - for these cases, I

12     wouldn't think death certificates available.  It is likely that these

13     cases were registered based on court declarations.

14        Q.   Now, did you consider the -- what was your original sub-set of

15     victims?  Was it strictly from the indictment, or did you tabulate any

16     information from the actual witness statements of your own -- with your

17     own due diligence and error-checking?

18        A.   We received a list of victims from the Lukic and Lukic

19     Prosecution team.  We checked, compared this list with the list of

20     victims from the indictment.  There were a few differences, like, for

21     instance, one person was listed twice; I'm speaking of Hasan Kurspahic.

22     And in addition to this list we explicitly requested and received from

23     the team information about the relatives of these victims.  So for every

24     victim, we had the names and the approximate age as reported in the

25     indictment, and in addition to this, we received information about the

Page 6125

 1     relatives.

 2        Q.   Would it be fair to say that the accuracy of your report somewhat

 3     reflects on the accuracy of the information given to you?

 4             MS. MARCUS:  Objection, leading.

 5             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes, leading.

 6             MR. ALARID:

 7        Q.   Does the accuracy of your report, or can the accuracy of your

 8     report reflect upon the accuracy or inaccuracy of the information given

 9     to you?

10        A.   Of course the input information is very important.  If there are

11     errors in the input information, it is unlikely that there will be no

12     errors in the outcomes.  But what we always do, we double-check.  So I

13     ask a colleague of mine to go through witness statements and check the

14     information on relatives provided and correct any mistakes in the names

15     or insert additional names, so that we would work with a full and correct

16     information.

17        Q.   Who is this colleague?

18        A.   This is Mr. Beecham.  He's a member of my unit, and he's

19     specialised in searches in our archive of witness statements and other

20     documents.

21        Q.   And the reason I ask you that is in the clarification, there are

22     some footnoting that appears that there was some, you know, secondary

23     verification work done.  And so I was wondering, who did the secondary

24     verification work as noted in the footnotes.

25        A.   I don't understand what you mean by secondary verification,

Page 6126

 1     but --

 2        Q.   Okay.  I can give you an example on the front page here.  I'd

 3     like to you look at number 3 particularly, Hasan Kustura, listed as one

 4     of the five victims of the Drina River incident.

 5        A.   You are speaking of P119; right?

 6        Q.   Yes.  And it should be on the screen --

 7             THE INTERPRETER:  Would the speakers, kindly not overlap.

 8             MR. ALARID:  I apologise.

 9             THE WITNESS:  Yes, I see the report.

10        Q.   Okay ... now, of course Mr. Kustura, as you listed him in the

11     summer of 2008 appeared to be alive.

12        A.   Yes.  This is what you can read from P119, but --

13        Q.   Ma'am, it's -- because -- I'm just looking at this, and you have

14     that he voted in 1998.

15        A.   The person who voted was Hasan Kustura, father's name, Ahmet,

16     born on the 7th of May, 1939.  That person is registered as a voter in

17     97, 8 elections.

18        Q.   Well, with you maybe only having maybe the name of Hasan Kustura,

19     how did this person's personal data end up on P119?

20        A.   In several cases, there were several alternative matches to the

21     names on the schedules, so Hasan Kustura was one of these names, and if

22     you go to the clarification --

23        Q.   Yes, we'll go to that in a second --

24             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, counsel continually cuts off Dr. Tabeau

25     and she's not able to finish her explanation.  If you want her testimony,

Page 6127

 1     I would submit that she should be allowed to finish her answer.

 2             THE INTERPRETER:  Would the speak, kindly not overlap.

 3             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Would you finish the last answer, rather.

 4             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  Thank you.

 5             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes, please go ahead.

 6             THE WITNESS:  I started speaking about alternative matches.  And

 7     what is seen in this current version of P119 are one-to-one matches.  No

 8     alternatives are shown.  Certain choices were made to simplify the

 9     outcome of our analysis.  In the case of Hasan Kustura, the most

10     conservative choice was made, which means we are showing a person who is

11     registered as a voter.

12             MR. ALARID:

13        Q.   In Visegrad?

14        A.   This person is listed here with place of residence in Visegrad.

15     This is how the person is reported in the census.  It doesn't mean this

16     is the only match we obtained for this person.

17        Q.   Now, before we get too far afield, please, for the record, can

18     you tell me what names in P119 you have for -- what death certificates

19     you have or declarations of death do you have for the victims listed in

20     P119.

21        A.   Sir, we just discussed the issue, and the conclusion was that

22     these persons are missing persons, and the expectation of them being

23     reported as known deaths in them two databases is wrong.  So this is why

24     you can't see cases in P119 which would be documented by death

25     certificates.  There will be a few documented, for instance, by missing

Page 6128

 1     persons, ICRC missing persons records.

 2        Q.   No, but, ma'am, I'm just asking you -- I think you said you had

 3     nine.

 4        A.   Yes, from the --

 5             THE INTERPRETER:  Please remember to pause between question and

 6     answer.  Thank you.

 7             THE WITNESS:  Yes, I am sorry.  I'm sorry.

 8             From the federal statistical authority, them two databases, we

 9     obtained in total ten matches within P119.  Unfortunately, the matches

10     are not listed because you only -- them two database included in P119 is

11     RS mortality database, RS DEM 2 database.  And with this database no

12     matches were obtained.  There is a footnote, however, in the report in

13     which I explain the matches obtained from the federal authority database,

14     and this is footnote 8 on page -- on page 8 of the English version of the

15     report.

16             So for the Pionirska --

17             MR. ALARID:

18        Q.   Pionirska, you found how many links?

19        A.   Six out of nine.  Six.  Six.  This is the number for the

20     Pionirska victims in the DEM 2 database of the federal statistical

21     authority.  That would be the cases that you are saying are possibly

22     documented with death certificates.  And I'm saying not necessarily,

23     because even when registered in these kind of databases, the death

24     certificates might very well not be available because these are cases of

25     missing persons.

Page 6129

 1        Q.   What is the statistical significance of six out of the total

 2     number of listed Pionirska Street victims?

 3        A.   It's of course not a large number, as we know, but if you are

 4     saying that the existence of a death certificate is the ultimate proof of

 5     death, then I must say in what circumstances?  In normal, peace-time,

 6     maybe very well so, but we are speaking about a conflict, a time when

 7     there's a chaotic situation where offices don't work normally, where

 8     people are on move, and many things are happening parallel at exactly the

 9     same time.  So you cannot expect that death cases from the conflict will

10     be documented exactly the same way as death cases in the peace-time.

11     That is simply not the case.  It's not the situation.

12        Q.   Do you know the requirements if missing what is required by a

13     court to establish death and issue a death certificate in Yugoslavia?

14        A.   Sir, I already told you that I didn't study this issue, and I

15     don't know the legal requirements for the proof of death in the former

16     Yugoslavia.

17        Q.   Thank you.  Now, what is the statistical significance of one of

18     five people on your list being alive, for the Drina River?

19        A.   What five people?  What five people?  Have you to explain first

20     why five people are alive.

21        Q.   Excuse me.  There's five people listed for Drina River on page --

22     at the top of the page.

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   And one of those five is alive.

25        A.   Yes, it is.  Well, I wouldn't dare to calculate any percentages

Page 6130

 1     because this is really a very small sample.

 2        Q.   How about 20 per cent?

 3        A.   I disagree.  This is just five persons, you know.  Just live it

 4     out.  Calculating percentages doesn't make sense here at all.  And on the

 5     other hand, I must tell that you this is misleading to insist that

 6     Mr. Kustura, the one listed here is the victim from the indictment,

 7     because the other half of the story is that there was another

 8     Hasan Kustura.

 9        Q.   Yes.

10        A.   And this one was the victim, not the one listed here

11     conservatively as a potential survivor.

12        Q.   You realise this Hasan Kustura just asked for his property back?

13        A.   I don't know that.  You know more than me.

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 6131

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Private session.

14                           [Private session]

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 6132

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20                           [Open session]

21             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honours.

22             MR. ALARID:

23        Q.   Now, ma'am, how many alternative matches did you have

24     specifically with regards to Mr. Kustura?

25             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honours, objection.  I think Dr. Tabeau has

Page 6133

 1     still not been able to finish her explanation.  She's being cut off

 2     consistently, so I would respectfully request the Chamber to ask

 3     Mr. Alarid to please allow Dr. Tabeau to finish her answers.  Thank you.

 4             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Did you have more to say?

 5             THE WITNESS:  I just wanted to say we had two matches of

 6     Hasan Kustura.  And the second match was studied recently very thoroughly

 7     using the census data and links between the families and familial

 8     relationships.  And based on our study, we had a theory that actually the

 9     person included in P119 is the wrong match, is a mismatch, and that the

10     other Hasan, with father Ibrahim, born in 1959 is the right person and

11     should have been included in P119 instead of the person conservatively

12     chosen in September last year.

13             And farther, there were investigations run by the Prosecution

14     team which we didn't -- were not involved in these investigations, but

15     people were contacted; people were interviewed down in Bosnia and

16     Herzegovina.  And we were collecting all the results of these

17     investigations in order to be sure whether the results of our searches

18     are corroborated by the results of independent investigation by the team.

19     And at some point we received confirmation that the record we actually

20     declared recently as the right match was exactly the same as the result

21     of the investigation by the Prosecution team.  And I'm speaking about

22     this way of working in the clarification.  The ultimate goal of this

23     clarification is checking the uncertainties around a number of victims

24     claimed to be survivors using all possible information sources that we

25     have here at our disposal in my unit but also using the results of

Page 6134

 1     investigations that they were supposed to do.  This is their

 2     responsibility to talk to people, to contact people and clarify the

 3     issues.

 4             MR. ALARID:

 5        Q.   Isn't that the injection of a potentially subjective set of

 6     information?

 7        A.   I don't understand why subjective.  If you think of, you know,

 8     any information that we've been working with, anything is subjective.

 9     Victim names come from witnesses.  It's subjective.  Relatives come from

10     witness statements.  It's subjective.  What is not subjective are the

11     sources we have.  The census is not subjective --

12        Q.   The OTP's not subjective?

13        A.   The OTP's not subjective --

14             MS. MARCUS:  Objection, leading.

15             MR. ALARID:

16        Q.   It's a question.

17        A.   Sir, it is -- I'm speaking here about my work and not about my

18     employer.  I'm here as a statistician and as a demographer.  I can tell

19     you everything about my work, about the sources I use, about the methods

20     I use, okay?

21        Q.   And so one of those sources is OTP investigation information;

22     correct?

23        A.   Sir, as I said, my work is demographics.  I work with

24     well-established official sources.  One of the sources is the population

25     census.  There is another set of sources, and these are sources on

Page 6135

 1     survivors, voters registered for the 1997, 1998, and 2000 elections.

 2     There is a register of internally displaced persons and refugees.  And

 3     there are many sources on victims that I have in my unit, and this is the

 4     material with which I work, and this is all objective.  And the method I

 5     use is objective and expertise I have is objective.  I have no more

 6     examples right now, but in my view it is all very objective.

 7        Q.   But that's because a statistician shouldn't be subjective.

 8     Statistics with all hope are a neutral determination.

 9        A.   These are all general, you know, things, whether statistics is

10     subjective or objective.  I think we are speaking here about a very

11     concrete project, a project in which our task was to verify a number of

12     names in the census, and starting from there, to check whether

13     individuals reported in the census were also reported in other sources,

14     both, on survivors and on death or missing persons.

15        Q.   What prompted you to investigate or reconsider number 4, Hasan --

16     or number 3, rather, Hasan Kustura?

17        A.   Well, you, actually in your motions there, because you raise this

18     issue of alleged survivors, so intensively in such a large scale that

19     actually we found there is a need to double-check the results of our work

20     that we completed in September, and by looking at the survivors alleged

21     in your motion, we thought it's also important to take another look at

22     the survivors that -- potential survivors that we identified already back

23     in September last year.

24        Q.   So who confirmed with VG-32?

25        A.   You need a name of an investigator or an OTP?  What -- what is

Page 6136

 1     the question about?

 2        Q.   Yes.

 3        A.   Well, I wouldn't remember the exact name.  If you need me, I will

 4     check it in my e-mails.  I have it all documented, so if it's so

 5     important for you to know the name, I will check it and I will come back

 6     to you with the name.

 7        Q.   Can you also for the entire list of victims, can you provide me

 8     with the alternative that you at least considered as potentials when you

 9     were first compiling the list?

10        A.   The alternative matches?

11        Q.   Yes, ma'am.

12        A.   Sir, first of all, you already have quite a number of them, and

13     you don't realise that.  It is all in the clarification in the Annex A.

14     There are a lot of tables which actually respond to this question.  These

15     are the alternative matches, you know, by proving that certain

16     individuals you alleged to be survivors.

17        Q.   Well, exactly, ma'am, but I didn't allege all of them to be

18     survivors, and it sounded to me like you found on your own alternative

19     matches before I ever raised the question.

20        A.   If you want to -- if you are really interested in studying this,

21     I can provide this.  That's not an issue.

22        Q.   Please do that, ma'am.  I'm very interested.

23        A.   I will write it down.  Yes.

24             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Where are we going with this, Mr. Alarid,

25     because -- how long do you plan to be in your examination?

Page 6137

 1             MR. ALARID:  I can see taking the -- not the whole session but

 2     enough time hopefully to finish Ms. Tabeau full and final today is what

 3     I'm -- my goal is.  I have about -- I have about 45 more minutes of

 4     questioning, but with the breaks and stuff, you know, wherever that takes

 5     us.

 6             JUDGE ROBINSON:  We are going to take the break at a quarter past

 7     4.00.

 8             MR. ALARID:  Thank you.

 9        Q.   Ma'am, with the Court's -- usher's assistance, can we use the

10     pen, please, the screen pen.

11             Now, I'd like you to put an X through Hasan Kustura, please.

12        A.   In what field?

13        Q.   Over his name.

14        A.   [Marks]

15        Q.   Now, are there any other -- on the first page, page 1 of 16, any

16     other persons --

17             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Just a minute.

18             Ms. Marcus.

19             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honours, this is misleading because counsel has

20     not referred to the entirety of the entry, and if we turn to the end of

21     the entry we will see the alternative Hasan Kustura is listed in P119 at

22     the end of that line.  I haven't said so until now, but now that we are

23     marking something which is only a portion of that entry, I feel it is

24     highly misleading to the Chamber.

25             MR. ALARID:  Well --

Page 6138

 1             JUDGE ROBINSON:  But we have all the evidence in front of us, but

 2     I don't think it's misleading, Ms. Marcus.

 3             THE WITNESS:  If I may add --

 4             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

 5             THE WITNESS:  -- there is part of the screen which is hidden.

 6             MR. ALARID:  Yes.

 7             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes, part of the screen is hidden.

 8             THE WITNESS:  And that is the important part that is hidden.

 9             JUDGE ROBINSON:  That is the important part.  Can we get that on

10     the screen, then, the part that is hidden.

11             MR. ALARID:  It would be on page 9 of 16, ERN number 0641-6049.

12             JUDGE ROBINSON:  But it all depends on what the X indicates, and

13     we haven't been given any -- [overlapping speakers]

14             MR. ALARID:  I believe from the clarification, Your Honour,

15     Mr. Kustura was originally listed as the victim, and we're taking him

16     off.  That's what the X --

17             THE WITNESS:  I must object.

18             MR. ALARID:

19        Q.   Why, ma'am?

20        A.   Because if you look at the portion of the information on the

21     screen, then you are seeing the record of the other Hasan Kustura with

22     father Ibrahim.

23        Q.   Yes.  And just -- let's discuss that for a second.  Tell us about

24     your qualification, rather, or limitations of the Book of Dead in your

25     work.

Page 6139

 1        A.   In the -- you want me to speak about the Bosnian Book of Dead,

 2     right?

 3        Q.   Yes, ma'am, because here's my situation here, is -- well, maybe

 4     just -- you'll answer this, and I'll go away on it.  Do you have a JMBG

 5     number for Hasan Kustura, son of Ibrahim?

 6        A.   Yes, I do.  It is not, though, in this P119.

 7        Q.   Why wouldn't you include that in this since that is relevant

 8     information that shows the person at least was in the system?

 9        A.   I just explained that the choice of match with the census was

10     conservative.  The potential survivor was shown, not the other

11     Hasan Kustura with father Ibrahim born in 1959.  So this is the only

12     reason where that JMBG is not listed.  Otherwise, if both these matches

13     were included, and I should have done this rather than picking up just

14     one of the matches.

15        Q.   Why did you originally pick one over the other before the

16     clarification?

17        A.   Well, the purpose was to simplify things.  With alternative

18     matches, the spreadsheet is far bigger than what it is now, right?  But

19     obviously, my subjective decision, I was the person who was editing the

20     spreadsheet and preparing the final version of it.

21        Q.   And the reason I say that is, is because it seems illogical to me

22     that you would have picked the first Hasan because, one, he voted; and

23     two, there was no missing person report for him that would have otherwise

24     piqued your interest; and three, there's another guy that's at least

25     listed in the Book of Dead, and so why pick the other guy?

Page 6140

 1        A.   Sir, there is a rule, golden rule that we have.  We've been

 2     conservative always, always in our work.  So if there is an evidence as

 3     in this case that a person possibly wasn't a victim but survivor, then I

 4     am showing this.  This is this reason why, but I learned if this

 5     experience.  Next time I will do it.  I will include all alternative

 6     matches, disregarding how complicated it is for you, for the Defence, for

 7     the Prosecution, and for the Chamber.  But the thing is that these

 8     subjects are complex.

 9        Q.   Here is where I'm confused:  What is conservative about naming

10     Hasan Kustura number 1?  Why is that the conservative choice?

11        A.   Because he's a registered voter, so there is evidence that

12     possibly and likely he survived.  This is why I'm showing this, and --

13     well, simplifying your task, actually, right?

14        Q.   Well, I don't know that because I don't know where the other

15     gentleman was registered.  You know, was he registered in that part of

16     the country or the opposite side of the country?  Those are the kind of

17     things that I would be interested in knowing, because proximity of the

18     crime also is one of the factors I would consider.

19        A.   The other person is from the Visegrad, so it is not that the

20     other person is completely, totally out of the sky.  So whatever

21     information you need might be provided to you.  What more can I say?  I

22     hope I answered.

23        Q.   Kind of.  Thank you.

24             Now, with regards to the Varda allegations, what concerns me

25     there is that you listed several individuals that say Varda uncharged.

Page 6141

 1        A.   Yes.  There are such names in P119.

 2        Q.   Why did you include names that were not in the indictment as part

 3     of this data set?

 4        A.   Actually, I don't know why.  This is probably because I had these

 5     names in the file sent to me by the Prosecution, so this is why.  I just

 6     completed the searches, or we completed the searches for all individuals

 7     listed in the Prosecution files.

 8        Q.   Did any of these other people have indicia of being alive as

 9     opposed to dead?

10        A.   I don't understand the question there.

11        Q.   Well, see, we don't have the usual person identifying the body or

12     the autopsy and all the other safe guards that normally tell us we got

13     the right person.  And so I understand what you're trying to do, and I'm

14     just trying to get as much of a grasp on it as I can.

15             To me, there seems like there would be three types of people, one

16     that you know are alive, one that you know are dead, and one that is a

17     question mark, one way or another, that you as a statistician shouldn't

18     comment on.

19        A.   This is a very black and white picture, sir, you are drawing

20     here.  This P119 is no more than an overview of related sources of

21     information.  I don't draw any conclusions in the P119 as to whether the

22     persons on this list are dead or alive or inconclusive whatsoever.  There

23     are no conclusions.  This is just an overview of search results, no more

24     than that.

25        Q.   And it's not a demographic study?

Page 6142

 1        A.   In what sense, demographic study?  You have some statistics in

 2     the clarification from P119, some statistics about how many were found in

 3     the census, how many were found in the ICRC, how many were found in other

 4     sources.  So in this sense, there were some statistics, but in P119 there

 5     is no study as such.

 6        Q.   Would you consider a 69 per cent reliability factor a strong

 7     coefficient of reliability or a weak one?

 8        A.   You are speaking of the matching rate with the population census,

 9     the 69 per cent, but the best matching rate we ever obtained is

10     87 per cent, and this is for the Srebrenica list.  So compared with this,

11     it's relatively low, indeed, but the information -- the input information

12     is not very rich, too, so this is the explanation why.

13        Q.   Well, ma'am, to be honest it shocks me because the fact that you

14     find 87 per cent reliability on such an 8.000-person population like

15     Srebrenica and you only have a 69 per cent reliability with direct family

16     identification, meaning the information on the persons came straight from

17     eye-witness family members; no one's guessing, is my point.  And so what

18     I put to you, ma'am, is this, is of the 16 -- of the 31 per cent that

19     have no corresponding biographical data, can we consider them

20     non-persons?

21        A.   Sir, absolutely no.  This is the concept of this fictitious

22     persons which comes back now and then on several occasions, in this case,

23     other cases.  Why one should believe that if there is no match with the

24     census the person never existed?

25        Q.   Because if I say my mom's name is Susan, I expect you can go to

Page 6143

 1     the county clerk and verify her, and so these are names given by family

 2     members.  There should be no confusion.  That's my point.

 3        A.   Right.  But if you go with the name Susan and ask for

 4     confirmation of your mom Susan, believe me, you wouldn't receive one

 5     record.  You would receive hundreds of thousands of Susan's wherever you

 6     live, in the United States, Mexico, whatever.  That is an important issue

 7     of input that you provide, you know, so the families --

 8        Q.   Well, ma'am, I guess I'm -- this is -- it appears to me that on

 9     31 per cent of your data set, you had no date of birth or JMBG number or

10     IRC reporting or anything that corresponded to a real live person that

11     you could include and say you verified.  Isn't that fair?

12        A.   You forgot that you have all these individuals, all of them from

13     the indictment, witness statements.  It is something that cannot be

14     neglected.

15        Q.   Why?

16        A.   So is the why a question or ...

17        Q.   Yeah.

18        A.   I think it is an important piece of information.  It is not

19     perfect because witnesses done have perfect memory.  They forget dates.

20     They misspell names.  So there is a lot of problems in their reporting,

21     but it doesn't mean that these victims never existed.  These are two

22     completely different issues.  If we speak of errors, yes.  Errors are

23     everywhere.  In every source that is related to victims of war, there

24     will be errors, whether this source is coming from the witness statements

25     or is coming from organisation like BBD, Bosnian Book of Dead, or

Page 6144

 1     whatever else, there will be errors, but it doesn't mean that the war

 2     never happened and people were never killed.

 3        Q.   Well, ma'am, for your purposes, for the people that you have no

 4     data, what information that you have that they really ever existed?

 5        A.   Well, I have names and relatives and approximate age.  It is most

 6     certainly not nothing.  I believe as an input and for my work, it is a

 7     good beginning.  Of course it is not the same as in ICRC records, where I

 8     have far more information than that.

 9        Q.   Are you aware of reparations and benefits in Bosnia for killed

10     members of one's family?

11        A.   You mean financial compensation?

12        Q.   Yes.

13        A.   Well, I've heard of several projects, of course, but if you ask

14     me to give a concrete example of what projects run by whom with what

15     mandate, et cetera, I wouldn't know exactly.

16        Q.   Might -- did you consider the potential for financial gain as an

17     impetus for over-reporting or fictitious names?

18        A.   Well, sir, I have no experience with this kind of road.  I must

19     say, I can't answer the question.

20        Q.   So you didn't?

21        A.   I said I can't answer because I don't know.

22        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.

23             MR. ALARID:  Can we go to page --

24        Q.   So, ma'am, would it be fair to say, though, that we can leave

25     Ibrahim Hasan Kustura on the list, but we would be able to put an X

Page 6145

 1     through the gentleman that voted in 1998?

 2        A.   So the X would have to be --

 3        Q.   Eliminating him as a potential victim.

 4        A.   Yeah, but you asked me to cross the victim from the indictment.

 5     That is wrong.  The other field should be crossed in the P119.  We have

 6     to be very, very strict here, sir, because this spreadsheet, this one

 7     spreadsheet contains references and links to very many different sources.

 8     So you really have to be careful what you are crossing.  The cross, yes,

 9     but not where I made it, in a different cell.

10        Q.   Did you consider people that were listed twice by virtue of their

11     maiden name and their married name?

12        A.   Not that I recall in the context of Lukic and Lukic project.

13        Q.   If I were to tell you that there were two individual women on

14     this list that were both listed under their Kurspahic name as well as

15     their other name, would that surprise you?

16        A.   Well, there are no surprises.  Everything can be explained.  You

17     give me their names and other details; I will check and come back to you

18     with my answer.

19        Q.   Do you consider that every person that might not have a

20     corresponding Book of the Dead reference and/or ICRC reporting might

21     simply be alive and somewhere else?

22        A.   Well, these are simplifications and conclusions that may not be

23     drawn, sir.

24             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honours, I have to put on the record that this

25     is truly a cross-examination.

Page 6146

 1             MR. ALARID:  We'd be here forever, Your Honour, if I didn't focus

 2     her somehow.

 3             JUDGE ROBINSON:  We went through that, Ms. Marcus, with another

 4     witness called by Mr. Alarid.  And I know that in the system from which

 5     you come and from which I come, you can't cross-examine your own witness

 6     unless the witness is hostile.  But I did conclude that I thought it was

 7     appropriate in the context in which the Tribunal finds itself to relax

 8     that rule a little, and I didn't want to rehash the entire argument,

 9     argumentation, so I've been giving Mr. Alarid a little leeway.

10             So Mr. Alarid, let's move on.

11             MR. ALARID:  Thank you.

12             Could we have ERN number 0641-6042, please.  Next page, I

13     believe, from ...

14        Q.   Now, who I'm going to focus your attention on --

15             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Perhaps the doctor anticipated this when she

16     asked at the beginning, for whom was she being called?  For which party?

17     And I gave the answer, the Defence.

18             MR. ALARID:

19        Q.   Okay.  I'm going to focus your attention first on the Jasarevic

20     family.  Reference is 21, 22, 23, and 24.  Do you see those?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   And I don't think we have to go backwards on the e-court, but in

23     looking at your own list on page 10 of 16 of your same list, do you see

24     that there's no BBD references for these same four individuals?

25        A.   Right.

Page 6147

 1        Q.   What significance is it that there is no corresponding census,

 2     ICRC, or BBD information related to these specific names?

 3        A.   This only means that we didn't find them.

 4        Q.   And is the other alternative that they never existed?

 5        A.   I must strongly disagree.

 6        Q.   Why?

 7        A.   Why?  Because the theory of fictitious persons has never

 8     convinced me in any circumstances, not in this case and not in other

 9     cases.  There are errors in data sources as I said.  Errors.  Misspelled

10     names.  Wrong dates.  Incomplete dates.  So finding a record is not easy.

11     It's very hard to --

12        Q.   You -- I think we covered this the last time you were here.  You

13     covered the 1991 census, but did you cover any other censuses, compare

14     and contrast; i.e., a reference from a previous census is carried over in

15     the 1991 census?

16        A.   Well, we have been working with 1991 census and not with other --

17     any other censuses from the former Yugoslavia, so --

18        Q.   The reason I ask you this is that the people referenced are 49,

19     47, 42, and 35.  Might they be of an age that you might be able to get

20     statistical reliability from using an earlier census?

21        A.   If we perhaps -- you are referring to the numbers in the P119,

22     49, 47 --

23        Q.   As their ages.  I'm sorry.

24        A.   So what is it?  These are the records that you mentioned

25     previously, right?

Page 6148

 1        Q.   It's in your -- it's in your column, L and L year of birth.

 2     There's no references.  Then L and L age, approximate.

 3        A.   Right.  So what's the question?

 4        Q.   The question is, is would it be useful to check earlier data sets

 5     such as earlier censuses to see if there's a corresponding reference to

 6     someone with this name, with this approximate age in the former

 7     Yugoslavia?

 8        A.   The age indicates that they should be included in other censuses,

 9     earlier censuses.  However, this censuses are not available

10     electronically as is the 1991 census, and I don't have the censuses on

11     paper in my archive.  So it would require contacting the authorities in

12     the former Yugoslavia, although I'm not sure whether the names --

13             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Sorry, Mr. Groome.

14             MR. GROOME:  I didn't mean the interrupt the answer, but am I

15     correct in saying that the Court wanted to take a break at 4.15?

16             JUDGE ROBINSON:  You're right.

17             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, just before we take the break, some of

18     the source material for Dr. Hough is coming in.  This is the first batch.

19     It looks dick like -- second batch.  It says volume 2.  It looks like

20     about 500 to a thousand pages.  He's scheduled to be called tomorrow.

21     Can I get an estimate of exactly how much source material we're going to

22     receive today?  I'm just wondering if it is physically possible.

23             MR. ALARID:  I didn't want to overwhelm you, but I didn't want to

24     leave anything out.  Some of that's the witness statements that we had

25     already line-itemed out.  The only stuff that's going to be new that you

Page 6149

 1     don't already have is actual Articles that he may or may not refer to as

 2     well as his personal notes and the test result data that you required.

 3     And that's small in comparison, but I didn't want you to say that I

 4     didn't give you anything that might be relevant for your purposes.

 5             MR. GROOME:  Will the personal notes and test data be -- will

 6     that be clearly identified because it's --

 7             MR. ALARID:  Hand-written.  It's going to be --

 8             MR. GROOME:  I'm overwhelmed at the moment.

 9             MR. ALARID:  I'm sorry.  That's the one, but I didn't think that

10     was the one that was going to hurt you.

11             MR. GROOME:  Thank you.  Very well --

12             THE WITNESS:  May I finish?

13             JUDGE ROBINSON:  I think you were answering, and then we'll take

14     the break.

15             THE WITNESS:  I was going to speak about the names.  The

16     statistical authority don't work with names, so the names are usually

17     separated from other items collected during the census.  And I believe it

18     would be hard to trace these individuals in censuses earlier than 1991.

19     That's because of this standard practice of the statistical authorities

20     in the region.

21             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Thank you.

22             We'll take the break now, 20 minutes.

23                           --- Recess taken at 4.20 p.m.

24                           --- On resuming at 4.49 p.m.

25             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes, Mr. Alarid.

Page 6150

 1             MR. ALARID:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 2        Q.   I'd like to get off this first page, so let me refer to you a

 3     couple things and have you comment on them before we move on.

 4             Number 19 on your list -- and just to be clear, in the field for

 5     Lukic and Lukic case and then the number system, it's larger than the

 6     total list as part of the annexes in the indictment, isn't it?  You have

 7     more people listed in your spreadsheet than are actually in the

 8     indictment; correct?

 9        A.   Yes, because of the chart, for instance, and Hasan Kurspahic

10     listed twice, it's more.

11        Q.   Now, specifically with number 19, Jasmina Delija, she has

12     corresponding national data, and it appears that she is both listed as

13     missing in the International Red Cross and is listed in the Book of Dead,

14     so this is one of those people that we have total confirmation for;

15     correct?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Okay.  But I would like you to look at Mina Kurspahic.  And I

18     believe that's on -- excuse me.  Yeah, number 59 on page 5 of 16.  Now,

19     just looking at the first page, Jasmina Delija, it says her mother is

20     Bisera.

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   And it appears Mina has the same mother.  Can we just eliminate

23     the maiden name from your list based on this cross-referencing?

24        A.   Well, sir, I would need more information to say that this is the

25     same person listed twice.

Page 6151

 1        Q.   If testimony has been presented under oath to that fact, would

 2     you agree that the maiden name should not be included if the most current

 3     name is married?

 4        A.   Of what two cases are we talking?  Because we --

 5        Q.   Jasmina Delija --

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   -- and Mina Kurspahic.

 8        A.   You are saying this is one and the same person?

 9        Q.   Yes, ma'am.

10        A.   Well, based on the mother's name.

11        Q.   Based on the mother's name, and that Jasmina -- Mina is short for

12     Jasmina.  And sworn testimony presented in court.

13        A.   Well, I am unaware of this testimony.  This is one thing, and in

14     order to confirm that this is one and the same person, I would need more

15     information from you.

16        Q.   Now, isn't it true, though, that the Mina reference that has no

17     corresponding national data, ICRC, or Book of Dead?

18        A.   Well, there is no ICRC record.  Is that correct.  But there is

19     BBD case ID included.

20        Q.   And that's interesting.

21        A.   Yes, it is.

22        Q.   Because who would do that?  Who reports -- fills the Book of

23     Dead?

24        A.   Who fills the Book of Dead?  The people who work on this project,

25     on the Book of Dead, right?  But I can explain you the case where IDs are

Page 6152

 1     included, record IDs from BBD and no further information.

 2        Q.   Okay.

 3        A.   If you want me to.

 4        Q.   Please.

 5        A.   Okay.  So the thing is that if you look at the BBD record of this

 6     person, it's exactly the same as the record in the indictment, so in such

 7     cases meaning that it says it is Mina --

 8        Q.   Okay.

 9        A.   -- Kurspahic, born in 1972.

10        Q.   Okay.

11        A.   Which is calculated backwards, 1992 minus the approximate age,

12     and that the person is reported as killed in this case in BBD in Visegrad

13     on 14th of June, 1992.  So that is a case that is perfectly consistent

14     with the indictment victim.

15        Q.   Okay.

16             THE INTERPRETER:  Please pause for the translation.  Thank you

17     very much.

18             THE WITNESS:  Sorry.

19                           [Defence counsel confer]

20             MR. ALARID:

21        Q.   Please explain why none of that corresponding similar information

22     is listed in the table.

23        A.   Because in such cases with the information identical in the

24     indictment and in BBD, we expected that BBD record was taken based on the

25     indictment.

Page 6153

 1        Q.   If you know, are you aware of how the final list as annexed in

 2     the indictment came about?  Do you have some information, hearsay or

 3     otherwise, that gives you an idea as to how the final tally came about?

 4        A.   Well, the final list from the indictment, how this list was made,

 5     you're asking whether I know?  I don't know the detail.  I do know that

 6     the lists were compiled based on witness statements.

 7        Q.   Now, thinking -- let's just say hypothetically that four

 8     witnesses with differing people, let's say some might remember 15, some

 9     might remember 50, but regardless of that fact different people -- there

10     are differences between the names listed from four separate witnesses.

11     Would the proper way to assess the final list be an all-inclusive or one

12     that's rather where witnesses actually corroborate each other, i.e.,

13     saying the same name?

14        A.   Well, sir, it is known fact that witnesses don't remember all

15     details correctly.  They wouldn't remember all victims, probably, so I

16     wouldn't say the list is all exhaustive.  I don't think so.  There will

17     be problems in the list made based on witness statements and witness

18     testimonies, even sworn testimonies, because people are imperfect.  They

19     honestly and truly will tell you about things they remember, but it

20     doesn't mean that the things they remember are 100 per cent correct.

21        Q.   And I think we concluded a little earlier that the witness

22     identification part of it is the most subjective side of your analysis or

23     at least subjective data set?

24             MS. MARCUS:  Objection.  That misstates the evidence,

25     Your Honours.

Page 6154

 1             MR. ALARID:

 2        Q.   Please clarify if I've misspoke.

 3             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Ms. Marcus, how do you say it misstates the

 4     evidence?

 5             MS. MARCUS:  Dr. Tabeau never confirmed.  It was no a question

 6     from Mr. Alarid, if I'm not mistaken.  Dr. Tabeau never confirmed that

 7     this was actually subjective.

 8             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.  That's correct, Mr. Alarid.  Reformulate.

 9             MR. ALARID:

10        Q.   Let me ask you this.  Is it significant to your analysis that the

11     most exhaustive list, the most similar to the indictment was compiled

12     with someone illiterate, VG-13, and it was done by a read-back?

13        A.   Well, I am not aware of VG-13 and illiteracy of this person and

14     whether the person compiled a list or not, so I can't answer this

15     question.

16        Q.   You're an expert, so you're allowed to answer things based on a

17     hypothetical.  So assuming that to be true, is that significant to your

18     analysis?

19        A.   Well, what is significant for my analysis is the information that

20     I receive to be checked, disregarding the source the information comes

21     from, and what is relevant and significant for my analysis, how I checked

22     this information, what sources I used for cross-referencing this

23     information, and to what extent I can corroborate or reject the details

24     provided me in the input data for my analysis.

25        Q.   What significance is it when the -- let's the ICRC date of

Page 6155

 1     disappearance disputes the date of the crime alleged in the indictment?

 2        A.   Well, first of all, the date of disappearance is the date the

 3     person reporting to the ICRC, so the victim, the missing person last

 4     time, so it is perfectly possible that this data is inconsistent with the

 5     date of actual death of the actual incident.  This is one thing.  Of

 6     course, one would expect some degree of consistency, so the date of last

 7     seen shouldn't be later than the date of actual death if the date is

 8     known.

 9        Q.   Just that point's going to jump out at us, and so let's just get

10     it out of the way.  Ismeta Kurspahic who is referenced on page, I

11     believe, 4.  She's number 49 on page 4 of 16 of P119.  If we have sworn

12     testimony in court that says that there was only one Ismeta, and this is

13     a hypothetical, if there's only one Ismeta in Visegrad, period, and that

14     the age of that victim is consistent with the biographical data that you

15     have, so there's some consistency there, but that person Ismeta is

16     registered in the -- or an Ismeta rather, I think, because you address

17     this in your clarification, is seen being admitted in the Visegrad health

18     centre on June 18th, 1992, is that significant to your assessment?

19        A.   It is not because the person whose in the sworn testimony said

20     there was just one Ismeta this age in Visegrad might be very well wrong.

21     What is objective and what is my source to check this information is the

22     census data.

23        Q.   Do you have any other Ismetas as part -- because you're going --

24             THE INTERPRETER:  Would the speakers not overlap, kindly.

25             MR. ALARID:

Page 6156

 1        Q.   Because you're going to get me everywhere there was another or a

 2     matching name, was there any other for Ismeta?

 3        A.   Well, I suggest -- I take you to page 17 of my clarification

 4     where the case of Ismeta Kurspahic is discussed.  It is number 49 in

 5     P119.  It's page 17 in the clarification, last paragraph at the bottom.

 6        Q.   [Microphone not activated] Yes, and tell the Court your findings,

 7     please.

 8        A.   So this paragraph, the next page, page 18, this paragraph

 9     continues, so that is a discussion of this case.  So my comment on the

10     hospital admission record, it's a very poor record.  There is no age.

11     There is no date of birth.  There is no place of residence.  There is

12     first name and surname in the record.  You included a copy of this

13     record, hospital admission record of Ismeta in your motion, so we studied

14     this record.  So there is nothing about age in this record.  This is

15     first of all.

16             Second, in the census data, two different persons were found with

17     the first name Ismeta and family name Kurspahic.  Very different persons

18     with different dates of birth.  So the one that was born in 1960, for

19     this person there is no evidence that she survived the conflict other

20     than your hospital admission record that you claim is of this particular

21     victim.

22        Q.   Actually, ma'am, I'm not claiming she survived the conflict.  I'm

23     simply saying she was alive on the day after the fire in Pionirska.

24        A.   Well, what -- sir, what I'm trying to say, first of all, if a

25     witness in a sworn testimony claims that there was this one person, just

Page 6157

 1     one person with this first name and surname, living in Visegrad area, I'm

 2     saying the witness can be very well wrong.  And my task is to check

 3     whether there were other persons with the same names, and I can do this

 4     because I have the source, and I have the tools, and I have the

 5     expertise, and this is what I have been doing.  And by studying the

 6     candidate records from the census, I can narrow down my search results,

 7     and I can drop the candidates that seem to be completely irrelevant, and

 8     I can focus on the candidate which fits the profile of the victim.

 9        Q.   But if additional information comes in, i.e., from an extra

10     source such as a hospital record and there's nothing else to dispute

11     that, is it possible that Ismeta Kurspahic was alive on the 18th of June,

12     1992, and whether she lived a day past that, we don't know, but for all

13     you know it's the same Ismeta as is part of the list?

14        A.   What I'm saying, there were more than one Ismeta Kurspahic, and

15     what I'm saying, is hospital admission record is poor, and I can't use

16     this record.  I can't rely on it in whatever way.  If you resubmitted

17     this record and to bring me more information about the person who was

18     treated at the hospital at that day, then I will reconsider my results,

19     but I have no basis for changing my decision at this moment.

20        Q.   And what I'm asking you, though, is why not if you have this

21     alternative put her in your spreadsheet, because you did that with

22     Hasan Kurspahic, and apparently you also did that with Hasan Kustura, so

23     those are two instances where you provided the alternative.  Why not do

24     that with Ismeta?

25        A.   Sir, I already promised you to provide you with the revised

Page 6158

 1     spreadsheet with all alterative matters, so you will have it.

 2        Q.   No, I'm asking why you didn't do that in here.

 3        A.   My answer was given already earlier today when I said I checked

 4     and included in the spreadsheet all names that were provided, and for

 5     Hasan Kustura, two names were provided.

 6        Q.   And for -- but you're telling us today that for Ismeta Kurspahic,

 7     two names were provided.

 8        A.   No, I never said that for Ismeta Kurspahic, two names were

 9     provided by the Prosecution team.  I never said so.

10        Q.   I see.  I misunderstood.

11        A.   I said in that census data, 1991 census data, there were more

12     than one Ismeta Kurspahic found, and this is in the clarification.  And

13     this is, you know, in able 8 that you can check the details in Annex A of

14     these persons, so it is all there.  It is a matter of just going through

15     the clarification.  And all cases, questionable cases of alleged

16     survivors are explained in there.

17        Q.   Well, let's go to the first questionable one that I'd like to

18     talk about, which is back to page 2 of 16, number 30, Aner Kurspahic.

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Of what significance is it that the mother's name is listed as

21     Latifa Kurspahic?

22        A.   What's the significance of this?

23        Q.   Yeah.

24        A.   This is his mother's name.

25        Q.   And his sister, his -- he has two sisters listed:  Sejla and

Page 6159

 1     Lejla?

 2        A.   Yeah, that's right.

 3        Q.   And --

 4        A.   May I have one comment only, please, before you go further.

 5     There is a typo in the spreadsheet in the age of the person.  It says 60.

 6     It should be 6.  I'm sorry for this.

 7        Q.   I wasn't even going to point that out.

 8        A.   But this is important.

 9        Q.   Okay.  Because the date of birth at 1982 puts the child's age at

10     approximately 10 years old.

11        A.   That's right.

12        Q.   But what was interesting is, though, is in the indictment, he was

13     listed as 6 years old.

14        A.   He was listed as 6 years old.

15        Q.   So whoever reported him might have been guessing as to his age,

16     might have been distant enough in relation to not know he's 10 versus 6.

17        A.   Well, I told you, people are very bad in remembering dates.

18     Think of yourself.  Do you remember all the dates of your relatives?

19        Q.   God, no.

20        A.   As simple as that.

21        Q.   Yeah.  But there is some ICRC data that he was reported missing,

22     and the date of disappearance was May 29th, 1992.

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   Why not exclude him from your list?

25        A.   Sir, first of all, it is not me who includes or excludes victims

Page 6160

 1     from the indictment of Lukic and Lukic; second, the P119 is a simple

 2     overview of information on the victims found in related sources of

 3     information.  So this is a material to work with, right?  And not to

 4     immediately exclude or include victims from the indictment.

 5        Q.   Do you have the ability to check the ICRC and tell who reported

 6     the person missing?

 7        A.   We don't have the information about the informants.  I would have

 8     to contact the ICRC back.

 9        Q.   And would it be significant that his mother Latifa had reported

10     him missing?

11        A.   Well, I don't know who reported.  If it was Latifa, it is Latifa.

12     What can I say?

13        Q.   Well, you can say she's on your list as well.

14        A.   Yes, she is, but she's indicated as a potential survivor.  This

15     information is already since September in the spreadsheet.

16        Q.   But you would agree that the boy listed as Aner Kurspahic is the

17     listed son of Latifa Kurspahic?

18        A.   I think the boy, we have checked the entire household of

19     Latifa Kurspahic, her husband, Omer, Lejla, Aner, the other third child,

20     everybody's there.

21        Q.   Did you discover that his father Omer was reported missing to the

22     ICRC?

23        A.   I guess it is in my clarification.  We can check this.  I'm

24     rather sure, yes, that we say, yes, that Omer Kurspahic -- on page 18,

25     please, paragraph in which we discuss the case of Latifa and Lejla

Page 6161

 1     Kurspahic.  We say Omer Kurspahic and Aner Kurspahic are both listed as

 2     still missing by ICRC as of 2005.

 3        Q.   And just to clarify, when did you indicate Latifa as a potential

 4     survivor?  In the clarification?

 5        A.   No, she's indicated as a potential survivor in the P119, in the

 6     version which we've been going through today, which is the same as the

 7     one submitted in September last year with my testimony.

 8        Q.   I guess the issue I have with that is, is in your clarification

 9     you're -- we now get specific responses to individual people and their

10     potential to be survivors.  Why not alert us by a similarly exhaustive

11     report attached to the original P119 that could tell us all, Hey, there's

12     a problem?

13        A.   Well, a good point, I guess.  It would be very helpful to have

14     this report, but as far as I remember, it was a rushed testimony in

15     September, and we didn't have enough time to clarify things.  And the

16     plan was I would explain about how P119 was made, who made it, and what

17     was the purpose of it.

18        Q.   Well, if testimony's been presented that Latifa and her family

19     were not part of any incident on June 14th in Pionirska and those several

20     people associated with her were not there for hypothetical purposes, and

21     considering that your compilation of the list was rushed and could not be

22     verified --

23             MS. MARCUS:  Objection, that misstates the evidence.

24             THE WITNESS:  Yeah.

25             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Well, I was waiting for that.

Page 6162

 1             MR. ALARID:

 2        Q.   It was rushed.

 3        A.   No.  No, no, no, no, no.

 4        Q.   Didn't you say rushed?

 5        A.   Rushed.  The testimony was rushed.  There was no time during my

 6     testimony to explain all the details of my work.  The compilation of

 7     P119, believe me, wasn't rushed, wasn't rushed at all.

 8        Q.   Okay.  So in that compilation, you see that Latifa voted and

 9     registered to vote?

10        A.   Yes, this is what is in the spreadsheet, as out-of-country voter,

11     as far as I remember.

12        Q.   Is that something you could have followed up on?  Did you have

13     the resources to follow up on that and report your findings to the OTP or

14     the Court?

15        A.   No, sir.  I am -- this is not my task to follow up on these kind

16     of cases.  My task is to pinpoint, to highlight these kind of cases, and

17     this is where my task ends.

18             MR. ALARID:  [Microphone not activated] Can we have the next

19     page, please, 3 of 16.

20        Q.   And ma'am, can we take Aner Kurspahic off this list?

21        A.   Latifa, you mean?

22        Q.   Her son Aner.

23        A.   Why?  Why would we do that?  Not that I have in the spreadsheet

24     any evidence of Aner surviving.  On the contrary, we agreed he was still

25     missing person by ICRC, by mid-2005.

Page 6163

 1        Q.   But ma'am, buy see, the problem I have is that your report makes

 2     a very specific assertion.  When you list the place of death in anywhere

 3     as being on the date of June 14th and/or at Pionirska, there is the

 4     weight of your profession and your credibility behind that.

 5        A.   What was your question?

 6        Q.   Can we take him off the list of dead for Pionirska, June 14th,

 7     1992?

 8        A.   Sir, if we go and look again at this record, why would I do that?

 9        Q.   The date of his mother reporting him missing at 5-29-1992 might

10     be a good start.

11        A.   This is the date last seen.  It is perfectly possible that the

12     mother had seen him last time at the end of May.  There is no

13     contradiction between these two dates, unless you know more than I do,

14     then please let me know.

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21             MR. ALARID:  I will stay.  I'll move on.

22             JUDGE ROBINSON:  That will be redacted.

23             MR. ALARID:  Okay.

24        Q.   Now, if we move forward, there is no corresponding ICRC

25     information or missing persons reports for all but one of the persons

Page 6164

 1     listed on page 3 of 16, and please tell me if there's anything on the

 2     Book of Dead for any of these people.

 3        A.   So you are speaking of cases 43 to 59, right?

 4        Q.   No, I'm actually speaking of 31 through 41 on page 3 of your

 5     report.  And before we get there, ma'am, Aner Kurspahic was listed in the

 6     Book of Dead at June 14th, 1992.

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Who could list him there but his mother, let's say?

 9        A.   Sir, these are questions that I cannot answer because the sources

10     for the BBD records are enormous.  On the first place, witness statement;

11     further, any published list of victims; locally published books of

12     missing; ICRC records of missing persons; local records of missing

13     persons, and many, many other sources.  And I have no information about

14     who for each record was the particular informant.

15        Q.   Okay.  So you can't -- you can't assume reliability of the Book

16     of Dead?

17        A.   Well it is -- I never claimed that I've been using the Bosnian

18     Book of Dead as one of my major sources on victims, and also not on this

19     project.  I have never said this.

20        Q.   And so of the persons listed on page 3 of 16 and the

21     corresponding references on page 11 of 16, it appears that many more

22     people are listed in the Book of Dead versus actually having been

23     reported to the International Red Cross?

24        A.   Yes, that's generally the case.

25        Q.   And is there the possibility that that is because the Book of

Page 6165

 1     Dead merely absorbed, let's say, the list from the indictment because

 2     it's a highly publicised situation?

 3        A.   There is such a possibility, but not only that.  There will be

 4     that ICRC lists were absorbed, possibly the indictment lists, possibly

 5     their witness statements, possibly other sources.  This is -- the Bosnian

 6     Book of Dead is a very large database that accepted in several cases

 7     informants that wouldn't be accepted for us.

 8        Q.   And I don't mean to back up a little bit, but that Hasena, last

 9     name unknown, can we take the person that has no corresponding data, not

10     even a last name or an age, can we take them off the list?

11        A.   Sir, I will answer by asking you a question.

12        Q.   Sure.

13        A.   What should we do about the victims of the Cambodian conflict of

14     Khmer Rouge?  There are no names.  There are no lists, but there are

15     estimates that from approximately 1 to 3 million were killed.  Does it

16     mean that this conflict never happened?

17        Q.   Let me put to you this, ma'am:  Your method of compiling records

18     is inappropriate in a first-commission murder case.  It may be fine for

19     the Khmer Rouge or Srebrenica, but when you're going accuse a human being

20     of pulling the trigger on one other human being, you better get both IDs

21     right.  That's my -- what I'm putting to you.

22             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, objection.  Dr. Tabeau has never said

23     anything about who pulled the trigger in any of her submissions or in any

24     of her testimony.  She is simply not a part of her evidence.

25             JUDGE ROBINSON:  That's quite so.  It was more in the form of a

Page 6166

 1     comment, anyhow.  Let's proceed.  You should be coming to a close now,

 2     Mr. Alarid.

 3             MR. ALARID:  Okay.  Next page, please, 4 of 16, please.

 4        Q.   Now, actually, looking at the previous page and the top of

 5     page 4, and top of page 4 is the one I would like to focus on, is these

 6     are the two references to Hasan Kurspahic.  It's the bottom of page 3 and

 7     the top of page 4, the two different Hasans.

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   Now, like I said, this is the second instance where you actually

10     put the two similar names in the chart.  Why making the decision point

11     with the two Hasans, please?

12        A.   This is not me who put these two names on the list.  I received

13     the two names of Hasan Kurspahic, one aged 49, one aged 50, from the

14     Prosecution team for my checks.

15        Q.   Now, we don't have Hasan number 41 voting, but we also don't have

16     him on the International Red Cross, but we do have the second Hasan

17     voting for three years.

18        A.   Yes, this is what we see in P119.

19        Q.   Okay.  Of what significance is it that you see the one Hasan

20     voting for three years?

21        A.   Well, it is a very strong indication that this person is possibly

22     a survivor.

23        Q.   And not just a survivor but not a victim of Pionirska.

24        A.   Indeed.

25        Q.   Can we take him off the list?

Page 6167

 1        A.   This is not my decision.  Why are you asking me?

 2        Q.   Okay.  And just looking, though, at the corresponding

 3     information, though.  In the back, pages 11 -- you have, again, only the

 4     report in the Book of Dead but not the ICRC.

 5        A.   What case are you talking about now?

 6        Q.   The two Hasans.

 7        A.   Mm-hm.

 8        Q.   Just the N-side.

 9        A.   Mm-hm.

10        Q.   Pages 11 and 12 is where they're referenced.

11        A.   For one of them, for number 41.

12        Q.   Right.  The reason I ask you, you were given two names of Hasan,

13     but yet the number 26 on the indictment, he's only mentioned once.  So,

14     again, tell me how you received information that both may be dead, or was

15     there -- was there a quandary there?

16        A.   I received two names to search for and check and provide my

17     results back to the Prosecution team.  That's it.

18        Q.   Okay.  Now, the next two names, Hasiba and Hasnija, and in fact

19     the next four names have no corresponding census data associated with

20     them.  Regardless of where the information came from, how significant is

21     that?

22        A.   Well, I think that there is no census data for Hasiba.  There is

23     no census data for Hasnija, but for next two persons -- sorry, for next

24     person, Hata, there is a very poor census record with a very deficient

25     JMBG; and then for number 47, Igabala Kurspahic, there is a census

Page 6168

 1     record.

 2        Q.   Absolutely.  I wasn't -- and while -- I apologise for the

 3     translation.  But with regards to the other four mentioned, there is no

 4     corresponding -- excuse me, three mentioned, then.  I stand corrected.

 5     There was no corresponding census data.

 6        A.   Well, it is -- you have to refer to the concrete names, and then

 7     we can follow this.  No census for Hasiba, which is number 43 in the

 8     spreadsheet; no census for Hasnija, 44; but 45, we have had census

 9     record; for 46, Ifeta, there is no census record; 47, Igabala, we do have

10     a census record; 48, Ismet, we have a census record; so this is where we

11     stand.

12        Q.   Okay.  And I think you stated on direct exam when you first

13     testified here that the 1991 census is your main data set with other ones

14     taking a supporting role.

15        A.   I don't remember what I said exactly, but as a matter of fact, it

16     is the core source in our databases, the census, not population census,

17     of 1991.

18        Q.   Now, when you go to the corresponding references for the Book of

19     Dead, one Hasnija has no -- or she does have a case ID.

20        A.   She does have a case ID.

21        Q.   So these four people, the next four that I said didn't have any

22     biographical or census data appear magically in the Book of Dead.

23        A.   Well, I don't know whether magically, but they do appear in the

24     Bosnian Book of Dead.

25        Q.   How significant is it that they all have the same three dates of

Page 6169

 1     birth, January 1st?  They all appear to be born on new year's?

 2        A.   Very good.  This is the way they call that unknown day and month

 3     of -- of date.  01, 01.  So I wouldn't take this 01, 01, as the 1st of

 4     January.  That would be wrong.  This is the BBD coding, and I know

 5     something a little bit, believe me.  So it is basically the year of birth

 6     that is known.

 7        Q.   Can you confirm the year of birth without having a census data to

 8     correspond to that?

 9        A.   Well, if I don't have the census record, I can only judge the

10     year of birth from the approximate age of the person.

11        Q.   And the reason I ask you that is that on several of the entries,

12     the estimated age from the indictment is actually a few years off,

13     sometimes close, but a few years off from the actual JMBG and census

14     data.  Can you explain that.

15        A.   I think I already gave this explanation, but I will repeat.  It

16     is because people don't remember dates.  People know approximately what

17     age the person was, but they don't remember the exact date of birth

18     unless it is --

19             JUDGE ROBINSON:  You also asked him whether he remembered the

20     dates of birth of his relatives, and he said, God, no.

21             MR. ALARID:  Dates of birth, no.  Ages, I tend to.

22             THE WITNESS:  But again, would be these ages -- exact ages.

23             MR. ALARID:

24        Q.   But my real point is, ma'am, is that the more data that actually

25     corresponds directly or exactly to the reported information gives you a

Page 6170

 1     greater comfort.

 2        A.   Oh, definitely.  I agree.

 3        Q.   Now, at the top --

 4             MR. ALARID:  Are we at page 4 of -- can we go to page -- the next

 5     page, please.

 6        Q.   Now, at the top is Latifa, and below is Lejla.  But you also list

 7     as the daughter again as Sejla; correct?

 8        A.   Not that I'm aware of.

 9        Q.   Just look in Latifa's L and L relatives, and that's where I'm

10     getting this from.

11        A.   There is a certain Sejla, but I suggest we check the family of

12     Latifa in the clarification, of course.

13        Q.   Now, in the clarification, I understand, but if there has been

14     testimony that Latifa had a 6-month-old daughter at the time, would

15     6 months versus two years be the kind of thing that you would say is

16     somewhat consistent, and therefore maybe a mistake was made with the name

17     or spelling as you stated?

18        A.   Well, two years, six months, who knows, but what's your point?

19     What is your question?

20        Q.   Well, my point is Latifa's alive and her daughter Lejla's alive.

21        A.   I am very happy for them.

22        Q.   Me too.

23        A.   Exactly.  What's the next question?

24        Q.   What significance is it that the next one, Majda, has no

25     corresponding biographical data?

Page 6171

 1        A.   Who doesn't have?  Majda?

 2        Q.   Majda after -- after Lejla.

 3        A.   Yes.  Yes, I see it.  Number 54, right?

 4        Q.   Yes, ma'am.

 5        A.   Well, this only means that this record wasn't found in the

 6     census.

 7        Q.   Okay.

 8             THE INTERPRETER:  Please remember to pause between question and

 9     answer.  Thank you.

10             MR. ALARID:

11        Q.   And if there's been sworn testimony and the only sworn testimony

12     related to Majda that never heard of this person, would that support your

13     not finding any census data?

14        A.   This has nothing to do with me finding or not finding this name

15     in the census data.  My job is -- you know, has nothing to do with

16     witnesses and their testimonies.  I have names and work with names and

17     other biographical details and search for them in my sources.

18        Q.   The reason I'm arguing with you is quite simply because how you

19     titled your document.  You title it as a proof of death, and that to me

20     is a very specific goal, if you will, or mantra for this particular

21     document.  And so call me strange, but I think you should be either

22     proving or disproving that fact based on your -- the job you've been

23     asked to do.  Do you see why I'm having trouble?

24        A.   But I don't think you should have any trouble here.  Because if

25     you would have read the clarification carefully, you would see that this

Page 6172

 1     is the Proof of Death Project of the demographic unit.  So this is the --

 2     how we call it, this kind of practices internally.

 3             JUDGE ROBINSON:  It's just a title.  Just a title.

 4             MR. ALARID:

 5        Q.   Well -- but then let me put this to you, ma'am.  I suggest that

 6     it's more important than that because if they're using you to prove or

 7     assist in proving death and someone could go to gaol for killing someone

 8     that's alive, would that be true?

 9             JUDGE ROBINSON:  I'm not going to allow that.  Ask another

10     question, and -- this is going on a bit too long now, Mr. Alarid.  Do you

11     have anything more?

12             MR. ALARID:  Your Honour, it's a long list.  The problem is if we

13     were dealing with five people, we'd be dealing with five people.  We're

14     dealing with 70.

15             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Does that mean that you intend to go through --

16             MR. ALARID:  Well, I've been skipping a lot, if you can't tell.

17             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Where are you now?

18             MR. ALARID:  I'm at victim number -- well, 57 on the list right

19     now.

20        Q.   And here again, there appears to be no corresponding biographical

21     data?

22        A.   For number 57, you are saying?

23        Q.   Yes, ma'am.

24        A.   Obviously no.

25        Q.   Yes, ma'am.

Page 6173

 1             And what significance is that to your -- because I guess what I'm

 2     asking you is, what statistical or demographical significance is this

 3     report if we cannot extrapolate an error rate of any kind from the data

 4     sets as compared to each other?

 5        A.   Well, sir, indeed there is no error estimate.  There is no

 6     statistics other than the few numbers in the clarification.  However, you

 7     must agree with me that the results of these searches have increased our

 8     knowledge about the victims.

 9        Q.   But I also think that some questions have been raised, especially

10     when people are found to be living or there's mistakes.

11        A.   And very good.  I like the questions, because this was a

12     challenge for us to double-check these records, and a lot of things have

13     been clarified.  Instead of 31 alleged survivors that you claimed in your

14     motion, we ended with far, far less.  You agree?

15        Q.   We'll agree to disagree, because I don't even know the final

16     answer yet, ma'am.

17        A.   We'll see.

18        Q.   But I'm willing to concede that we're -- we have differences.

19     But do you think it's significant that Mr. Lukic -- the Lukics are

20     accused of killing these people with specificity and that there are

21     errors in that?

22             JUDGE ROBINSON:  No, I am not allowing that.  Ask another

23     question, please.

24             MR. ALARID:

25        Q.   Now, the next --

Page 6174

 1             MR. ALARID:  Next page, please.

 2        Q.   I'd like to focus down on number 67 and 68.

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   The Ramizas.  Do you have any information with regards to why you

 5     would put -- because I misspoke.  You actually put double names on three

 6     people:  Hasans Kusturas, the Hasans Kurspahic, and now the

 7     Ramiza Kurspahic, two different ages.  Can you comment on why they would

 8     both be there, considering that only, I believe, one is mentioned on the

 9     indictment?

10        A.   I would have to check on the indictment, indeed, which I have and

11     can check immediately.

12        Q.   I have a copy for you, if you would like.

13        A.   Oh, I have it.

14        Q.   Okay.

15        A.   Yes.  I see one Ramiza, age 57 years.

16        Q.   Okay.

17        A.   So you might be right about this, indeed.

18        Q.   And again, why put two when the age disparity is so huge?

19        A.   Well, not that I'm sure I received two names, but I can check

20     this.  But as I said, the practice was to work with the names as receive.

21     So this is probably the most likely explanation.  Otherwise, if you look

22     at the age and the relatives, you most certainly must agree with me that

23     these are two different persons.

24             MR. ALARID:  [Microphone not activated] Just a moment, Your

25     Honour.  I'm just reviewing --

Page 6175

 1        Q.   If I were to put to you, though, that one of the VG witnesses

 2     that has testified here clarified a clarification that Ramiza Kurspahic

 3     were not victims and should not be on the list of victims, how would that

 4     impact the validity of this document?

 5        A.   I would ask which one?  In addition to these two here in the

 6     indictment list, there are more in the census as you can read on page 19

 7     of my clarification in the context of searches for Ramiza Kurspahic.

 8     There were at least four persons with these names registered in the

 9     census.  So, sir, you must remember that if a witness says

10     Ramiza Kurspahic, we don't yet know which Ramiza Kurspahic this witness

11     meant unless there is additional information provided.

12        Q.   Well, if there was only one on the indictment and one of the

13     named relatives says, Take her off, would you defer to that person?

14        A.   I, again, would work with the statistical data and the sources I

15     have because this is what I do, and I don't work with witnesses.  If

16     there was a witness, then I'm sure the Prosecution team will take care of

17     it at some point.

18             MR. ALARID:  A moment, Your Honour, to confer.

19                           [Defence counsel confer]

20             MR. ALARID:

21        Q.   I would point you out to one more, and it's Kada Kurspahic,

22     listed as victim number 35.  Alphabetically, I think that's back a couple

23     pages on the bottom of page 4 of 16.

24        A.   Thirty-five, the number 35 in the indictment, you mean?

25        Q.   In the indictment.  She's number 51 in your table.

Page 6176

 1        A.   Right.  Yes.

 2        Q.   Would it be significant and confirmed, also, by your table that

 3     she had the maiden name of Sehic?

 4        A.   Well, not that I can see it from this table.

 5        Q.   Will you go to the Sehic alphabetically on 84 of your table.  And

 6     looking just at the same, corresponding names and relations, can you

 7     verify that they're the same person by your own data?

 8        A.   Sir, I don't have enough information to confirm -- to agree or

 9     disagree with you, except for the fact that is a certain Kada reported

10     with two different family names; similar age, 39, 40.

11        Q.   But what about JMBG numbers?

12        A.   Well, there is no JMBG numbers for this Kada.

13        Q.   On --

14        A.   For the other one, yes.

15        Q.   Number 84?

16        A.   For the other one, yes.  There is a JMBG.

17        Q.   And so by simple cross-referencing, should you be able to see

18     that they're the same person?

19        A.   There is no simple cross-referencing.  I need to know more

20     details about the persons in order to agree or disagree, that these two

21     are the same person.

22        Q.   From an accuracy perspective, though, when you find out or

23     discover that there's a duplication by virtue of maiden name, married

24     name, shouldn't you make -- or shouldn't that be part of your reliability

25     coefficient?

Page 6177

 1        A.   Well, it is not how the people are reported in the census that,

 2     you know, you can have maiden names in the census reported together with

 3     husbands' names for women.  Women will be reported under husbands' names,

 4     and they are no more part of the parental household, so there is -- I

 5     really need more information about the persons.  I need the names.  I

 6     need the date of birth.  I need the place of birth, these kinds of

 7     things.  Then I can work with this information.

 8        Q.   Might it be more difficult also just for following up today

 9     simply because if even have you a survivor, they might be listed under

10     the husband's household, and there's been no other census since 1991?

11        A.   Well, there has been no census, we know that.  So there is no

12     reference source, as a matter of fact, for the post-conflict population.

13        Q.   And a follow-up, what's the CIPS system?

14        A.   Now, you tell me because what's in your list, right?

15        Q.   I'm just wondering if you've been made aware of it.

16        A.   I have made aware myself of this system until you raised your

17     list of survivors.

18        Q.   Okay.  What's your understanding of this list, and could it have

19     assisted you with your research?

20        A.   Well, on survivors, probably yes.  However, not the way you did

21     it, sir.

22        Q.   I have no doubt.

23        A.   Okay.  Great.  We agree.

24        Q.   But we did find them.

25        A.   Right.

Page 6178

 1             MR. ALARID:  I'll pass the witness at this time, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Ms. Marcus, I imagine to continue the pattern

 3     initiated by Mr. Alarid, you will now be either examining or

 4     re-examining, not cross-examining.  Proceed anyhow.

 5             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, thank you, Your Honour.

 6                           Cross-examination by Ms. Marcus:

 7        Q.   Dr. Tabeau, thank you very much for returning to testify again in

 8     this case.  Based on your lengthy experience working on matters relating

 9     to proof of death in many cases at the ICTY and according to your

10     particular expertise, victims lists in indictment schedules are often

11     based upon information from those who survived as to those who died.

12     Would you say that's correct?

13        A.   On survivors' recollections, that's right.

14        Q.   So would you say it is true that the purpose of the Proof of

15     Death Project, as you've titled it, is to corroborate the information

16     contained in the indictment schedules along with evidence of witnesses,

17     family members, victims, through the use of several sources available to

18     the demographics unit?

19        A.   That's right.

20        Q.   And you do this by using your expert skills in analysis of data

21     sources; is that correct?

22        A.   That's correct.

23        Q.   Now, would it be correct to say that the more detail provided by

24     survivors as to those who died, the better equipped the demographics unit

25     is to corroborate those victims in the data sources?

Page 6179

 1        A.   That's right.

 2        Q.   And so it flows from that that the more details provided by the

 3     survivors as to those who died and the better equipped your unit is to

 4     corroborate the deaths or disappearances of those persons, the more

 5     reliable the results; is that accurate?

 6        A.   Yes, it is.

 7             THE INTERPRETER:  Kindly pause between questions and answers.

 8     Thank you.

 9             MS. MARCUS:

10        Q.   Would you agree that in some cases due to a lack of extensive

11     information as to the precise date of birth, father's name of the victim,

12     you were not able to corroborate the deaths or disappearance of a few of

13     the names with complete certainty?

14        A.   Yes, that is correct.

15        Q.   Whereas in other cases you were, in fact, able to match, to

16     corroborate the deaths or disappearance of named victims with a higher

17     degree of certainty?

18        A.   Yes, it is correct.

19        Q.   So now logically, if a large number of persons were killed and if

20     there was no one who could provide information as to their names, dates

21     of birth, father's names, and information about other relatives, it would

22     be exceedingly difficult if not impossible for your unit to obtain

23     reliable matches which could corroborate the deaths or disappearance of

24     those persons.  Is that accurate?

25        A.   Well, if there are no survivors and no record from surviving

Page 6180

 1     family members, friends, neighbors, then it's hardly possible to find the

 2     victims, of course.

 3        Q.   So this means, therefore, that in war crimes cases where forensic

 4     evidence of death may not be available due to lack of access or

 5     destruction or deterioration of the physical evidence or lack of

 6     resources, the only way the deaths can be proven is through witness

 7     evidence --

 8             MR. ALARID:  Objection, calls for a legal conclusion, compound

 9     question, and argumentive.

10             MS. MARCUS:  This witness is an expert in exactly this area of

11     providing corroboration as to proof of death in war crimes cases.  I

12     think she is eminently qualified to comment on whether this is the common

13     practice in war crimes cases.

14             JUDGE ROBINSON:  I'm going to allow it.  Yes.

15             MS. MARCUS:  So I will go back.

16        Q.   In war crimes cases where evidence of forensic evidence of death

17     may not be available due to some of the factors I listed as well as

18     others, the only way that deaths can be proven is through a combination

19     of witness evidence corroborated through, for example, the very project

20     which your unit undertook in the Lukic case and in the Srebrenica case.

21     Would you agree with this?

22        A.   Most definitely, yes.

23        Q.   Would you agree that the bottom line in all of this is even in

24     the case of statistically reliable matches, until and unless there is

25     actual physical evidence as in actual remains exhumed and an autopsy

Page 6181

 1     performed with a DNA analysis, until that time an analysis such as the

 2     Proof of Death Project can merely serve to corroborate the witness

 3     evidence.  Is that right?

 4        A.   Yes, that's very correct.  Yes, it's correct.

 5        Q.   That said, however, you would agree that there is a possibility

 6     of reaching a high -- of reaching a certain number of highly reliable

 7     matches in a variety of sources; is that right?

 8        A.   Yes.  Yes, it is.

 9             MS. MARCUS:  Can I ask for P119 to be placed on the ELMO.  This

10     is just a colour version.  It's purely as a demonstrative exhibit.

11        Q.   Dr. Tabeau, in the Lukic and Lukic case, the Prosecution engaged

12     the demographics unit in a Proof of Death Project during the summer of

13     2008; is that right?

14        A.   Yes, that's right.

15        Q.   And it took three demographers in your demographics unit

16     approximately three weeks to complete this analysis; is that correct?

17        A.   Well, it would be three weeks for the first initial wave of

18     searches.  It took much longer than three weeks to go through the

19     records, results and analyse and summarise this.  And it took, again,

20     recently a lot of time three demographers, two additional rounds of

21     searches.

22        Q.   As we look at the coloured chart in front of us, which is a

23     coloured version of P119, you see the original results of the Proof of

24     Death Project; is that correct?

25        A.   Yes, it is.

Page 6182

 1        Q.   Now, in the case of -- sorry.  In the case of alleged --

 2             JUDGE ROBINSON:  I'm sorry.

 3             Mr. Cepic.

 4             MR. CEPIC:  Excuse me, could we have a hard copy of this material

 5     because it is not the same as P119, please.

 6             MS. MARCUS:  It's the same as P119, Your Honour, but I have

 7     copies to hand out.

 8             MR. CEPIC:  No, the bottom is not the same.  Actually, the top

 9     is.  Thank you.  And just for the record, just in the interest to speed

10     up all those things, I think that most of questions and answer is just

11     heard that we have in reports, which we have from this witness, actually,

12     expert.  Thank you.

13             MS. MARCUS:

14        Q.   Dr. Tabeau, in the case of alleged victims whose records could

15     not be matched in one or more sources, those cases could still serve as

16     corroboration of the death or disappearance of that victim; is that

17     correct?

18             MR. ALARID:  Objection, outside the scope of this person's

19     expertise.

20             THE WITNESS:  Excuse me, can I have the transcript back?

21             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Just a minute, please.  I have to rule on the

22     objection.

23             MS. MARCUS:  This goes to --

24             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Answer the question.

25             THE WITNESS:  Actually, the question is about the empty cells,

Page 6183

 1     what is the meaning of empty cells and no matches reported in P119.  No

 2     match obtained.  Does it mean that a person is fictitious?  Doesn't mean

 3     anything.  It only means that we did not find a record of this person in

 4     a given source.  There might be other evidence including witness

 5     statements, witness testimonies, whatever other sources that might be

 6     corroborating the fact that the person died at certain moment in certain

 7     circumstances.

 8             MS. MARCUS:

 9        Q.   Okay.  So then with the exception of the one typo that you cited,

10     which was that a zero was added onto the 6 next to Aner Kurspahic, which

11     is purely a typo, as said, there can be no errors, but rather, there can

12     indeed be inconsistencies in the matching.  Is that accurate?

13        A.   Well, inconsistencies can be -- yes, I agree, no errors, but

14     inconsistencies.  But I wouldn't think of on the first place of

15     inconsistencies in matching, although there might be some.  There will be

16     inconsistencies between the sources, how things are reported in the

17     sources.

18        Q.   Right so in other words, inconsistencies, which may be seen in

19     P119 represent accurately reported data from two sources which were

20     inconsistent?

21        A.   Yes.  There might be differences in how the date of birth is

22     reported in two sources, how the date of disappearance is reported.  That

23     is perfectly possible.

24        Q.   Now, the results of the Proof of Death Project, which are

25     represented in this Exhibit P119, began with a starting point which is

Page 6184

 1     reflected in yellow.  Is that correct?

 2        A.   Yes, it is correct.  This is information that was sent to us, and

 3     actually most of it comes from the indictment schedules.  Some records

 4     are additional as we heard today, but they are all included as were sent

 5     to us.

 6        Q.   And then following that initial starting point, there were

 7     essentially three steps to the Proof of Death Project conducted by the

 8     demographics unit.  Is that correct?

 9        A.   Yes, that's correct.

10        Q.   Now, the first step which is reflected in green on this

11     demonstrative exhibit was to search for data that this person may have

12     been present in Visegrad before the war; is that correct?

13        A.   Yes.  That is the reference source, the 1991 population census,

14     reporting on the population of Visegrad in the outbreak of the conflict.

15        Q.   Right.  Now, the second step reflected in blue was to search for

16     data tending to show that this person may have survived the war; is that

17     correct?

18        A.   Yes.  The blue colour relates to three voters registers from

19     1997, 1998 in 200 elections, and one more --

20             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Just a moment, please.

21             Mr. Cepic.

22             MR. CEPIC:  I'm sorry.  Just for the record, those blue columns,

23     we hadn't in a previous document P119.  So there is changes between this

24     document and the previous one, just for the record.  Thank you.

25             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honours, the way that the previous document was

Page 6185

 1     loaded into e-court, it had to be cut because of the width of the

 2     document.  So the P119 which is eight pages was rendered in e-court as a

 3     document with 16 pages, so in that respect it's correct.  And also, this

 4     has been colour-coded for the purpose of this methodology discussion.

 5     That's the only change that has been made to P119.  Otherwise it is

 6     exactly --

 7             JUDGE ROBINSON:  The contents are the same?

 8             MS. MARCUS:  The contents are 100 per cent the same.

 9             THE WITNESS:  And if I may add, I have been using this with

10     Mr. Alarid, and we had exactly identical information in his version of

11     P119 and in this colour of coded version I have.

12             MR. CEPIC:  May I, Your Honour?

13             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

14             MR. CEPIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  It is not 100 per cent the

15     same content because we have new columns now.  Survivor -- step 2, date

16     of survival of this person after the war.  In this column, we could find

17     for some of person that they survived after the war, such as Hasan

18     Kurspahic and some others, so I didn't have time to check everything.

19     That is the change, and that is the clear evidence that this table is not

20     the same as the previous one, especially not 100 per cent.  Thank you

21     very much.

22             MS. MARCUS:  Perhaps Mr. Cepic didn't look closely at P119

23     before.  And now that its highlighted in blue, it's more evidence, but

24     it's exactly the same columns.  What has been added is the three steps to

25     explain the methodology, which comes right from Dr. Tabeau's

Page 6186

 1     clarification.  This is just a simplified method of explaining the

 2     underlying methodology.  The contents in the column, the labeling in the

 3     column, everything in the chart was taken exactly from P119, and it --

 4     certainly if Mr. Cepic finds anything that's different in any entries,

 5     please call that to our attention.

 6             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Mr. Cepic, still not satisfied?

 7             MR. CEPIC:  Absolutely, Your Honour.  For example, number 52, we

 8     have --

 9             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Well, I'll tell you what, Mr. Cepic.  We're

10     going to take the break now, and you can discuss it over tea with

11     Ms. Marcus.

12             MR. CEPIC:  Thank you very much.

13             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour --

14             JUDGE ROBINSON:  And, Mr. Alarid, I am to ask you, are you still

15     calling Dr. Andersen?

16             MR. ALARID:  Your Honour, we are preparing his 94 quater motion

17     because of the Department of Defence's failure to give permission to

18     Dr. Anderson.  He's also a reserve colonel in the army, and they denied

19     permission of him, and under suspicious circumstances because they

20     approached him as to who are you going to testify for, and he couldn't

21     remember because he had only dealt with the burn victim, and the

22     Department of Defence handed him a hundred pages on Milan Lukic.  So it

23     seems to me that there was some prompting behind him being denied because

24     he didn't -- the impetus wasn't him.  So I'm not sure what our remedy is

25     at this point, but we would -- I mean I think his report is valuable.

Page 6187

 1             JUDGE ROBINSON:  He may not be with us, but if you're going to

 2     file a motion, then file it, and we'll deal with it.

 3             Mr. Groome.

 4             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, can I ask Mr. Alarid to confirm on the

 5     record that tomorrow morning we will have Jenkins and that he will be

 6     followed by Hough.

 7             MR. ALARID:  No, Hough and then Jenkins, in the afternoon.

 8             MR. GROOME:  Okay.  I'm sorry, in the afternoon.  So we are now

 9     switching the order an additional time, and we are calling Hough.  We

10     still have not received the final packet of what appears to be several

11     thousands of pages of source material.

12             MR. ALARID:  It's just everything that he brought with him.

13     That's what I brought.  That's what the Court ordered, and I didn't want

14     to short-change you.

15             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, I may be having an application after I

16     seen the total bulk of material we're receiving tonight.  It seems

17     impossible to read in preparation for tomorrow.

18             JUDGE ROBINSON:  I heard that argument about four or five years

19     ago in another case.  We're going to take the break now for 20 minutes.

20                           --- Recess taken at 6.00 p.m.

21                           --- On resuming at 6.20 p.m.

22             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Ms. Marcus.

23             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honours.

24        Q.   Dr. Tabeau, just before we took a break, you had told us of the

25     three steps, or you had -- I think you had concluded the second step, so

Page 6188

 1     you explained the starting point, you explained step 1, which is

 2     collecting data on the presence of the victim in Visegrad before the war;

 3     step 2, data on survival of this person or evidence of survival of this

 4     person after the war.  Now, the third step which is represented in violet

 5     on this demonstrative exhibit was to search for data which tended to show

 6     that the person was recorded in databases of the dead or the missing.

 7     Would that be correct?

 8        A.   Yes, it is correct.

 9        Q.   Now, the methodology behind the Proof of Death Project, both the

10     initial phase that was done to prepare P119, as well as the follow-up

11     clarification in response to the Defence motion, all of that is in

12     evidence, and the Chamber can consider any of that in more detail if they

13     choose to.  Is that accurate?

14        A.   Yes, it is.

15             MR. ALARID:  Your Honour, I'd ask for a clarification.  Is it in

16     evidence?  I don't believe it is in evidence.  I believe it's part of a

17     motion and it's attached to the motion, but that's the difference

18     between -- because I have not stipulated to the admission of her

19     clarification report from an evidentiary perspective, and we would have a

20     motion on that.

21             MS. MARCUS:  As far as I know, Your Honours, it was admitted as

22     Exhibit P300.

23             JUDGE ROBINSON:  It had been admitted as Exhibit P300, as you

24     say.

25             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honours.

Page 6189

 1             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Then it would be in evidence.

 2             MS. MARCUS:

 3        Q.   Now, Dr. Tabeau, the sources which your unit used in conducting

 4     these searches in seeking to corroborate the witness evidence are

 5     represented by the top row of the spreadsheet in green, blue, and the

 6     violet portions.  Is that correct?

 7        A.   Yes, it is.

 8        Q.   Now by comparison with these numerous data sources used by your

 9     unit in conducting its analysis, it's not fully clear from the Defence

10     motion precisely what the sources were which were used to result in their

11     submission.  Is that correct?

12        A.   As a matter of fact, it is, because the two lists the Defence

13     retained from the RS authorities included no explanation as to what

14     sources were used for the compilation of this list.

15        Q.   Okay.  Now, the sources which have been mentioned by the Defence

16     include the Visegrad MUP and the RS government and a personal

17     investigation conducted by the Defence team and the telephone book.  Is

18     that about right?

19        A.   Yeah, it's about right.  I think it's right.

20        Q.   Now, the sources used by the Visegrad MUP and the RS government

21     are similarly not known; is that correct?

22        A.   Yes.  There is nothing about what are the underlying sources used

23     for compiling these two lists, not in the correspondence that was

24     attached to the Defence motion.

25        Q.   And the requests sent by the Defence to the Visegrad MUP and the

Page 6190

 1     RS government did not contain any information about the relatives of

 2     those named; is that correct?

 3        A.   Yes, it's correct.  What was sent was just the indictment list

 4     for Pionirska and Bikavac, no more than that.

 5        Q.   Now, to your knowledge, neither the RS government nor the

 6     Visegrad MUP have access to the 1991 census; is that correct?

 7        A.   Yes, it's --

 8             MR. ALARID:  Objection, assumes facts not in evidence and calls

 9     for speculation.

10             MS. MARCUS:  This is directly in the area of Dr. Tabeau's

11     expertise.  It's also contained in the clarification.

12             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.  It's really an objection without merit.

13             Mr. Cepic.

14             MR. CEPIC:  With your leave, the speakers, have been speaking

15     quite fast, so the interpreters could not catch the ...

16             JUDGE ROBINSON:  I'm going to ask both of you to ensure that

17     there's a pause between question and answer.

18             MS. MARCUS:  Understood, Your Honours.  Thank you.

19        Q.   Now, as the telephone book lists nothing --

20        A.   But I didn't give the answer yet about the census, so the

21     question was whether the RS authorities do have access to the census

22     data.  They don't.  They don't have the individual census records.  Not

23     even the statistical authority of Republika Srpska in Banja Luka has the

24     individual census records.

25        Q.   Thank you very much.  Now, as the telephone book lists nothing

Page 6191

 1     more than first name and last name, the telephone book records have

 2     little to no value in an analysis such as this.  Would you say that's

 3     accurate?

 4        A.   Yes, of course.  We made it in a table in the clarification which

 5     shows the frequencies of certain surnames in the census.  So if you look

 6     for certain names, even if it is first name and surname, a combination of

 7     the two, there is no reason to believe that by using this first name and

 8     surname or just the surname as the Defence did, you would be able to ever

 9     narrow down your search.  It is simply impossible because many people

10     have the same names, and still there will be different persons.  There is

11     a surname included in our clarification which has a frequency in the

12     census of several thousand.  If I may refer to this table, this is table

13     15, and the name Jasarevic, table 15, page 31 in the clarification, the

14     surname Jasarevic in Bosnia has 6.436 individuals at least, with the

15     surname.

16             JUDGE ROBINSON:  With that surname?

17             THE WITNESS:  Yes, exactly.  And this is not taking into account

18     the possible misspellings, which would still represent the same name.  So

19     what I'm saying, there are even more than what I have in table 15.  So

20     searching in telephone books for a person using a surname or even a first

21     name in combination with a surname has no point because this is too

22     little information.

23             JUDGE ROBINSON:  But it might be a little more accurate or

24     helpful if you had the first name and the surname.

25             THE WITNESS:  What is really helpful is next to the first name,

Page 6192

 1     surname, father's name is needed, date of birth is needed, because this

 2     is how we uniquely identify individuals.  People are different, even

 3     though they may carry the same names.  But where they were born, where

 4     they live, household composition and stuff, this is what makes people

 5     different, and that is not what can be seen from telephone books.  It is

 6     just a coincidence that the surname of a given time is mentioned there or

 7     a combination of first name and surname is there.  This doesn't mean

 8     anything yet.  So the whole thing is about when searching for survivors

 9     to identify potential candidates and then to narrow down the search

10     results.  And it certainly cannot be done using the telephone book

11     records.  There is no point in doing this.

12             MS. MARCUS:

13        Q.   Dr. Tabeau, Exhibit P300, which is your clarification, is a

14     direct and detailed response to the Defence allegations contained in

15     their motion per victim.  Is that accurate?

16        A.   Yes, it is.

17        Q.   And in that clarification, in Exhibit P300, there is a table

18     called table 3 which essentially summarises your conclusions or the

19     results of your additional searches that you conducted for P119 but now

20     in response to the Defence allegations; is that correct?

21        A.   Yes, that's correct.

22             MS. MARCUS:  Can I ask the court usher to hand out a

23     demonstrative blow-up of table 3 from that exhibit.

24             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Mr. Cepic?

25             MR. CEPIC:  Just a copy, Your Honour.

Page 6193

 1             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.  I hope my assumption that this witness's

 2     testimony will be concluded today is correct.

 3             MS. MARCUS:  From my perspective, absolutely, Your Honours.

 4             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Are you going have any re-examination,

 5     Mr. Alarid?

 6             MR. ALARID:  I'm up to four questions.

 7             MS. MARCUS:

 8        Q.   Now, Dr. Tabeau, as we look at this table we see the names which

 9     were contested in the Defence motion; is that correct?

10        A.   Yes, it is.

11        Q.   Now, the yellow starting point is the direct excerpt from P119 in

12     relation to those victims named in the Defence motion; is that correct?

13        A.   Yes, it is.

14        Q.   And thereafter, we see the date of birth as reported in the 1991

15     census, also directly extracted from P119; is that correct?

16        A.   Yes, it's correct.

17        Q.   Now, the next columns reflected in rust colour reflect the

18     Defence claims as outlined in your clarification; and the final column,

19     peach colour, reflects the results of your analysis per victim mentioned

20     in the Defence claims.  Is that correct?

21        A.   Yes, it's correct.

22        Q.   Now, all these results per victim are included in P300 just to be

23     complete; is that correct?

24        A.   There are specific descriptions for every victim one by one in

25     the clarification, that's correct.

Page 6194

 1        Q.   The results of P119 are in fact bolstered and confirmed by your

 2     clarification, which is now admitted as Exhibit P300.  Would you say

 3     that's correct?

 4             MR. ALARID:  May I have a copy as well?

 5             MS. MARCUS:  It's table 3 from the clarification.  Did I -- I

 6     handed out six copies.  I have a few more.  They're a bit folded, but I

 7     have a few more.

 8        Q.   Now, Dr. Tabeau, the transcript did not record your answer to the

 9     last question.  I asked you simply whether the results of P119 are

10     bolstered and confirmed by Exhibit P300.  Would you say that's correct?

11        A.   Yes, it's correct.

12        Q.   Now, before I finish, I'd like to go back to your discussion

13     earlier of your policy of being conservative in your analysis.  So does

14     this mean, if I understand it correctly, that if you did not have enough

15     data to accurately distinguish between two potential matches, one a

16     potential victim and one a potential survivor, you erred on the side of

17     including the potential survivor in your results.  Is that correct?

18        A.   Yes, it is the correct answer.

19        Q.   So it is possible that someone listed on P119 as a potential

20     survivor might in fact be dead.

21        A.   Yes, it is possible.

22        Q.   Now, contrary to assertions, therefore, that the victim list has

23     been inflated, the methodology of your process, of your analysis, if

24     anything, would result in an underestimation of the number of victims.

25     Would that be correct?

Page 6195

 1        A.   That was the purpose of this exercise, to highlight the potential

 2     survivors.

 3        Q.   Thank you, Dr. Tabeau.

 4             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honours, unless you have any further matters

 5     for me to cover, I have no further questions.

 6             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes, Mr. Alarid.

 7                           Re-examination by Mr. Alarid:

 8        Q.   Is it fair to say that the only proof of death projects you've

 9     done were for this case and Srebrenica?

10        A.   No, it's not true.

11        Q.   Okay.

12        A.   For several other cases, and this is an ongoing work.

13        Q.   This is an ongoing matter?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Okay.  Are other cases ongoing matters?

16        A.   Yes.

17             THE INTERPRETER:  Would the speakers kindly not overlap.

18             MR. ALARID:

19        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... deal with?

20        A.   I actually missed your last question.

21        Q.   With this one having 80-some names, what were the numbers you

22     were dealing with in the other seven cases?

23        A.   Well, I didn't say seven cases.  I said several cases.

24        Q.   Several cases.

25        A.   Several, of which several still are ongoing, okay.

Page 6196

 1        Q.   What's several, if you can give us an exact number?

 2        A.   Right now two more cases at least and probably two more coming.

 3        Q.   How many people are you dealing with in those cases?

 4             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honours, this does not relate to anything

 5     covered in cross-examination.

 6             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Ask another question.  I agree.

 7             MR. ALARID:  And for reference, Your Honour, she made a

 8     comparison between Srebrenica and this case, for reference, and I was

 9     asking for --

10             JUDGE ROBINSON:  I rule it doesn't arise.  Please ask another

11     question, Mr. Alarid.

12             MR. ALARID:  All right.

13        Q.   Have you ever done this for a first-commission accused?

14        A.   I would say, sir, I do it whenever requested, and I don't really

15     distinguish between cases.  It is just a standard approach, so it really

16     doesn't matter what kind of case I'm working on.  It is still for me the

17     same type of work.

18        Q.   Okay.  That's not the question I asked you, though, ma'am.  Have

19     you ever done it for a first-commission accused versus something that's

20     more non-specific?

21             MS. MARCUS:  Objection.

22             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

23             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honours, this is not something that

24     Dr. Tabeau would have any reason to know.  It's not part of her

25     expertise, and it's not a matter that she can be expected to comment

Page 6197

 1     upon.

 2             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.  And it doesn't arise.  Did you examine the

 3     witness in this -- on this matter?

 4             MS. MARCUS:  No, certainly not, Your Honours.

 5             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Please ask another question.

 6             MR. ALARID:

 7        Q.   Isn't it true that every Yugoslav citizen was required to have a

 8     JMBG number?

 9        A.   Yes.  Yes.

10        Q.   And those JMBG numbers is a data set that can be accessed by the

11     1991 census?

12        A.   Yes.

13             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honours, these are all questions which could

14     have been covered in chief.  These just don't arise from cross.

15             MR. ALARID:  They came out of cross.  I mean, come on.

16             JUDGE ROBINSON:  [Microphone not activated] ... let's proceed.

17             MR. ALARID:

18        Q.   And of the JMBG numbers, every person should have one regardless

19     of changing their name from married to maiden or vice versa?

20        A.   Yes.  Yes.  The number JMBG was introduced around 1980, and since

21     then every child born from that moment on and later was receiving a JMBG

22     issued at birth.  All other persons were requested to arrange receiving

23     this number through other channels, but as a matter of fact since 1980

24     every citizen of the former Yugoslavia has a JMBG.

25        Q.   Now, let's just go to your table 3 from the clarification, and

Page 6198

 1     let's start at the bottom.  Sada Turjacanin.  She is a scheduled victim

 2     in the indictment; true?

 3        A.   Yes, she is.

 4        Q.   And she is named with that name originally?

 5             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Ms. Marcus.

 6             MR. ALARID:  Am I leading?

 7             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honours, I apologise.  Apart from leading, I

 8     presented table 3, but we did not go through the details of each victim,

 9     and this was something that the Defence extensively covered in chief,

10     victim per victim discussion.

11             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.  I'm not allowing it.

12             MR. ALARID:  Your Honour, you mean to tell me you're not going to

13     -- you don't want to hear about Sada Turjacanin's sister?

14             JUDGE ROBINSON:  I'm not allowing it.  Please, ask another

15     question.

16             MR. ALARID:  Your Honour, do you not want to hear about

17     Sada Turjacanin's sister?

18             JUDGE ROBINSON:  I have ruled.  Ask another question.  If you

19     have no more questions, we'll conclude.

20             MR. ALARID:

21        Q.   You talked about corroborating data; correct?  And you referred

22     to your clarification; correct?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   Okay.  What did you do to corroborate the assertions of the

25     Prosecution regarding to the -- that the Sada Turjacanin as alleged in

Page 6199

 1     the Defence motion is a different person?

 2        A.   There is a paragraph in my clarification.  We can refer to this

 3     paragraph.

 4        Q.   That's not the question I asked.  I go, What did you do?

 5        A.   I did search for this person in the census, and there is a table

 6     in Annex A of my clarification in which this record is reviewed.  This

 7     person is also known as Sadeta Turjacanin, and there is a date of birth

 8     of this person which is 9th July, 1963, which is fully consistent with

 9     the age of 29 in the indictment for this victim.

10             Moreover, I checked the census record and compared how this

11     person was reported in any other source, and there is no information

12     about that this person would register as a voter, and there is no

13     information that the person is reported as a dead person.  But this

14     simply means that I have no demographic evidence that I can use to

15     corroborate or reject what is in the indictment based on the witness

16     statement.

17        Q.   Did you confirm a JMBG number to correspond with the date of

18     birth as given?

19        A.   Well, sir, we can refer to that census record of this person,

20     which is in table 16.  And as we know, I hope you know, date of birth is

21     part of the JMBG.  In table 16 on page 31, we have the JMBG of this

22     victim of this person, which says we are speaking of Sadeta Turjacanin,

23     father's name Surijo [phoen], born on 9th of July, 1963.  Then you look

24     at the JMBG.  It's available.  Seven first digits represent the date of

25     birth.  It is all consistent.  Further, the region is consistent.  It is

Page 6200

 1     Visegrad.  Further, there is a number for sex coding.  It's consistent.

 2     So what's your problem with this?  I did check what I supposed to check.

 3        Q.   How about the difference in father's name?

 4        A.   In father's name?

 5        Q.   Yeah.

 6        A.   How do you know that her father has a different name?  I can't

 7     see it from the relatives column in the P119.  Perhaps you have

 8     additional information that you didn't share with me.

 9        Q.   What about what information that you have?

10        A.   My information is as in table 16.

11        Q.   And so that's all you did to confirm it?

12        A.   No, I did -- this is not all.

13        Q.   Okay.  What else did you do?

14        A.   I did check all other sources, and I told you, she didn't

15     register to vote.  She didn't register as an internally displaced person

16     or a refugee.  She wasn't reported as dead or missing person.  At the

17     same time, I know that there is a certain person, Zehra Turjacanin, who

18     gave a statement this person, and she's mentioning two of them.  One

19     being totally unrelated to a victim, and another one being the victim.

20     So it all comes together.  This is what I know.

21        Q.   So based solely on the testimony and by hearsay, you get this

22     information.  Is that what you're saying?

23        A.   No, that's not what I'm saying.  Based on my searches of

24     identifying this person in the census, on information about how the

25     person possibly was reported or not reported in other sources on

Page 6201

 1     survivors, on deaths, on missing persons, and in addition to this, based

 2     on the results of the investigation of the Prosecution team, my

 3     conclusion is that there is no reason to mark this person as a potential

 4     survivor or unrelated.

 5        Q.   What specifically did you do for the other Bikavac victims as

 6     alleged in your table?

 7             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honours, I just renew my previous objection

 8     that this is a victim-by-victim questioning which could have been done in

 9     chief and does not arise in cross.

10             JUDGE ROBINSON:  I'm not allowing it.  I'm losing my patience.

11     Bring this re-examination to a close.  You have asked more than enough

12     questions, and we're not getting anywhere.

13             MR. ALARID:  Your Honour, at this time I would pass the witness,

14     and I would move to strike the witness's clarification --

15             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Very well.

16             MR. ALARID:  -- based on the fact of her admission that there is

17     no --

18             JUDGE ROBINSON:  You move to what?

19             MR. ALARID:  To strike.

20             JUDGE ROBINSON:  What does that mean?

21             MR. ALARID:  To remove it from evidence as being unreliable, as

22     being statistically not relevant.

23             JUDGE ROBINSON:  You don't make that submission now.  Make that

24     in your -- make that at some other time.  That's not how we operate here.

25             MR. ALARID:  Your Honour, you --

Page 6202

 1             JUDGE ROBINSON:  You don't make a submission like that now.

 2             MR. ALARID:  You admitted it orally.

 3             JUDGE ROBINSON:  This is not the time to make submissions of that

 4     kind.  You can file a motion.

 5             MR. ALARID:  They moved it into evidence, orally, Your Honour,

 6     without a witness present.

 7             JUDGE ROBINSON:  We are going to adjourn until tomorrow

 8     afternoon.  If you wish to file a motion, then you can file it.

 9             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, just one matter.  It's seven hours

10     after I was told I would have the source material.  Throughout the

11     afternoon, we are getting copies of witness statements that we -- ICTY

12     statements that given the Defence.  All we want, I think the spirit of

13     the Court's order, all we need to prepare our examination are Dr. Hough's

14     notes, source material of his interview, and tests of Milan Lukic.  It

15     seems that we're playing some game here where we run the clock until

16     quarter to 7.00 and then we don't get it, and then tomorrow morning

17     perhaps we get it.  It's a simple matter -- now with a smirk on the face,

18     we now get announced that we have it in the court.

19             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honour, when are these personal attacks going

20     to end from Mr. Groome.  When are they going to end, Your Honour?  We

21     have limited resources in the Defence.  We have one copy that's been

22     working ever since we came in here non-stop with our legal assistant,

23     sitting there copying every document in the file.

24             JUDGE ROBINSON:  How far have you gotten in providing the

25     material?

Page 6203

 1             MR. IVETIC:  I have another two packets here, Your Honour.  I

 2     don't know, I've been sitting here listening to the witness, as you have,

 3     Your Honour.  I've just been acting as a courier to give this

 4     documentation to the Prosecution and complying with their request that I

 5     note when there are hand-written notes, I have noted that on every single

 6     packet that has hand-written notes from Dr. Hough, and I have presented

 7     it to them.  That's what I've been trying to do to facilitate the matter

 8     in the good spirit that the Court told us to do so.

 9             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Well, ensure that all the material is provided

10     as required by the order.

11             MR. GROOME:  Am I receiving the notes of Mr. Milan Lukic's

12     interview and the psychiatric test that were performed this evening?

13             MR. IVETIC:  You are receiving a packet of documents for which

14     there are hand-written notes from Dr. Hough.  I have not looked at every

15     page to see what they are.  I can't even read some of his writing.

16             MR. GROOME:  Is that all the material that we will be receiving?

17             MR. IVETIC:  No, it is not.  I just identified that there is

18     more --

19             JUDGE ROBINSON:  I don't want counsel to be speaking across the

20     courtroom to each other.  That's not proper.  We are going to adjourn.

21     That concludes your evidence, Doctor.  We thank you for coming to the

22     Tribunal to give it.  You may now leave.

23             In any event, we are adjourning until tomorrow at 2.15.

24             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

25                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.48 p.m.,

Page 6204

 1                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 25th day of

 2                           March, 2009, at 2.15 p.m.