1 Tuesday, 13 May 2008

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2.18 p.m.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome back to the

6 courtroom as we approach the last lap of the evidence.

7 Before we resume the evidence, there are a couple of matters I

8 ought to deal with administratively. The first of these is to ensure

9 that I have the order of witnesses this week correct. We anticipate

10 hearing from Professor Zivojin Aleksic, Dr. Zoran Stankovic, Professor

11 Radomir Lukic, and General Milan Djakovic, who is to be called as a

12 Chamber witness.

13 I see no one rising to correct me on the order, so I assume that

14 that is accurate. The Chamber has been trying for some time to sort out

15 the issue of which edition of the VJ rules of service applied at the

16 relevant time. It appears to be agreed now that the edition of 1996 is

17 the relevant edition. However, the Chamber does not have a full copy of

18 the 1996 edition. Does anyone possess that item?

19 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, what we've done to save having CLSS

20 translate the entire 1996 edition is simply check to see if there's

21 anything in the 1996 edition that differs from the 1994 edition in any

22 relevant area, and we spent quite a lot of time going through that

23 process and discovered that there is only one section, and I sent that

24 off to Grant Dawson an hour or so ago explaining that there is this one

25 section that we've sent off to CLSS which should be finished with

1 translation today. And we'll offer that as a separate exhibit;

2 otherwise, 1994 is either irrelevant or authoritative because there is no

3 change in the language.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: I think there remains the problem, Mr. Ackerman,

5 that 1994 has been referred to from time to time in a context in which it

6 may be identical to 1996, and it's being sure that the evidence

7 accurately reflects the terms -- or at least the judgement accurately

8 reflect the terms of the 1996 edition.

9 MR. ACKERMAN: We were aware of that --

10 JUDGE BONOMY: That concerns us. And what would be -- are you

11 saying you have a full copy of the 1996 version?

12 MR. ACKERMAN: Yes, but it's a fairly large book, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah. I'm not suggesting it needs to be

14 translated, but the Chamber would like to have that document to see which

15 parts of it ought to be translated, if any, beyond those that you've

16 already made arrangements for.

17 MR. ACKERMAN: I can make arrangements to deliver it to you.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, could you do that in the first instance

19 informally?

20 MR. ACKERMAN: Yes.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: And secondly, we would require the parties, and I

22 don't think this is controversial, to stipulate that the 1996 version is

23 the accurate one. And we may require a stipulation in due course about

24 the extent to which 1996 and 1994 are identical, but that would require

25 our review of the situation. But if you will in the first instance give

1 us the 1996 version informally, we will then issue an order that deals

2 with the resolution of this.

3 MR. ACKERMAN: All right. I've been in touch with Mr. Hannis

4 about this, and we basically agree, and if you want a stipulation on the

5 record, I think we can do that now rather than something in writing.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis.

7 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I have no reason to doubt that the 1996

8 version is the applicable authoritative one. I'm willing to do that. I

9 haven't seen it myself to see how the numbers differ, but if

10 Mr. Ackerman's going to deliver that to the Court and you're going to

11 look at it, I have no reason not to stipulate to it.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Let's make that stage one, Mr. Ackerman. If you

13 would deliver that to Mr. Dawson, we will then issue an order. It may be

14 an oral order tomorrow in the course of this week that clarifies the

15 position about what's expected of the parties.

16 MR. ACKERMAN: I'll see that it is delivered by tomorrow, Your

17 Honour.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. And that leaves so far as

19 administrative issues are concerned anything that needs to be said before

20 Professor Aleksic gives evidence.

21 Mr. Ackerman.

22 MR. ACKERMAN: Just one thing, Your Honour, I had indicated that

23 I might be requesting that my cross-examination be postponed until

24 tomorrow because I was awaiting some information. It came earlier than I

25 expected, so I'm ready to go forward.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, that's very helpful. I can indicate that

2 the Chamber was sympathetic to your request, and that's why arrangements

3 were made to try to advance the evidence of Dr. Stankovic in case there

4 was a gap, but you reassure us, so we can now proceed.

5 Mr. Visnjic, your witness, is he ...

6 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my witness is here,

7 and he's in the witness room. Before the witness comes in, I would just

8 like to say a few words with regard to procedural matters. Mr. Ackerman

9 said that they would be calling their own handwriting expert, but he

10 didn't say anything about it now. Could he please state whether they

11 will be calling such a witness or not so that we can organize Professor

12 Aleksic's stay here, if necessary.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Ackerman.

14 MR. ACKERMAN: We're not, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

16 Mr. Visnjic.

17 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Our next

18 witness is Professor Zivojin Aleksic.

19 [The witness entered court]

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Good afternoon, Professor.

21 THE WITNESS: [In English] Good afternoon.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Would you please make the solemn declaration to

23 speak the truth by reading aloud the document which will now be shown to

24 you.

25 THE WITNESS: Yes.

1 [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth,

2 the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. Please be seated.

4 THE WITNESS: [In English] Fine. Thank you. I have some problem

5 with the right leg.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: You're comfortable sitting, though, are you?

7 THE WITNESS: [In English] Yes, yes.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Which language are you going to use?

9 THE WITNESS: [In English] I prefer Serbian.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, feel free to choose yourself which language

11 you wish to address us in, but you may feel most comfortable with your

12 first language, and we understand that.

13 You'll now be examined by Mr. Visnjic on behalf of Mr. Ojdanic.

14 Mr. Visnjic.

15 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

16 WITNESS: ZIVOJIN ALEKSIC

17 [Witness answered through interpreter]

18 Examination by Mr. Visnjic:

19 Q. [Interpretation] Professor, good afternoon yet again.

20 A. Good afternoon.

21 Q. Professor, on the 26th of February, 1998, you gave your own

22 opinion with regard to certain questions put to you by the Defence?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. That is 3D -- I'm sorry. I meant 2008, the 26th of February,

25 2008. During the proofing, you looked at these findings?

1 A. Yes, I did.

2 Q. Then on the 11th of May, you submitted some additional

3 information to the Defence in relation to your own findings?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. They have been admitted as 3D 1148, whereas your basic findings

6 are 3D 1140. Professor, you also provided some basic information in

7 respect of your CV. That is 3D 1141. And then you submitted additional

8 information by way of Exhibit 3D 1146. Have you had a look at this?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. I meant these documents. Also, you submitted to the Defence a

11 decision of the Ministry of Justice appointing you a court expert. That

12 is 3D 1147. Professor, do you have any objections in relation to these

13 documents that you had during the proofing for this testimony?

14 A. No, except that there has been this rejuvenation; that is, at the

15 age of 77 I've been asked to prove that I'm a court expert.

16 Q. Now I'm going to show you some exhibits, and you're going to tell

17 me whether those are the documents that you used when working on your

18 expert opinion. I would like the witness to be shown 3D --

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Before we lose track of this, Mr. Visnjic, let us

20 be clear.

21 Professor, the original report, which was 3D 1140, is that an

22 accurate account of the findings you made?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, we were given a document which I think is 3D

25 1148 called a supplemental information sheet. Have you seen that

1 document?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think so, or did we? I

3 really don't know by way of these numbers. What is this all about?

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, indeed I got the impression that we were

5 going through a ritual rather than looking at the terms of your

6 investigation. Would you have a look, please, at 3D 1148.

7 THE WITNESS: [In English] Please. [Interpretation] What was

8 that?

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Do you see it?

10 THE WITNESS: Yes, yes.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, does that also accurately record your

12 findings?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes. When working on the

14 first document, I provided my basic findings, but now since I had time

15 before arriving here, I used some modern optical equipment, and I

16 established certain things, so I thought it might be right to present to

17 the Court these findings of mine, as well, if it would assist the Court

18 in its deliberations and decision-making.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

20 Mr. Visnjic.

21 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation].

22 Q. Professor, now I'm going to show you a few exhibits, and could

23 you please confirm to us whether these are the exhibits that you used

24 while working on your expert opinion and findings.

25 So could I please have 3D 1108 called up.

1 A. I don't see anything over here.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: It will appear in a moment or so on your screen --

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Oh, yes, yes, yes. This is one of

4 the documents that I looked at.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Our electronic court exhibit system is not quite

6 as sharp as some brains.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, thank you, but I've slowed

8 down myself.

9 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown

10 3D 1130.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I have had a look at that

12 document too.

13 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]

14 Q. Professor, can you explain to us the procedure involved. How did

15 it come about that you had a look at the document that is before you now?

16 A. Well, as you know, you made a request to me with regard to four

17 questions, I believe, and since you obtained a permit, I accompanied you

18 to the military archives or part of the military archives where I was

19 shown some originals. And while you were talking to them, I stayed there

20 for about three or four hours and had a look at the originals. Actually,

21 in my profession, one pays attention to the originals, especially the

22 back page of the original to see whether it had been scanned. When I was

23 assured that what I was looking at was not a scan, I asked for

24 photocopies to be made of the document that I saw, and after less than

25 two months I got the original, too, and then I worked on my expert

1 opinion. Before that, I had a look at the originals, but then I got

2 these excellent photocopies, in colour, at that.

3 Q. Let's just clarify this because in line 23 in the transcript it

4 says something. What did you get in colour, the photocopies or the

5 original?

6 A. Photocopies, photocopies. You know what it's like when you're in

7 archives. I looked at archives that are not open to the public. I had a

8 look at the original there under some very vigilant eyes.

9 Q. Thank you. Then I'd like you to have a look at 3D 1109.

10 A. Yes, I had a look at that log-book, too, in the original.

11 Q. Thank you. And right after that, 3D 1131, please. Professor,

12 can you recognise this?

13 A. Yes, that's the log. This is the cover page of the log that I

14 examined in the original, like the rest, and then I received photocopies.

15 Q. Thank you.

16 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] And finally could the witness

17 please be shown P1459.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I have had a look at this and

19 another document of the same content.

20 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] 3D 1106.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. It's actually two

22 documents of identical contents.

23 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. Thank you. And you also said to us that you received colour

25 photocopies of these documents?

1 A. Yes.

2 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, these are documents

3 3D 1132 and 3D 1133.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: The photocopies are 3D 1132 and 33; is that what

5 you're saying?

6 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] These are colour photocopies,

7 colour copies of the exhibits; or more specifically, 3D 1132 is a colour

8 photocopy of 3D 1106, and 3D 1133 is a colour copy of Exhibit P1459.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: The ones with the earlier numbers P1459 and 3D

10 1106, what are they? Are they scanned copies or what?

11 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, these are black and

12 white copies, out of which one was a Prosecution exhibit, and the other

13 one was a Defence exhibit, General Ojdanic's Defence exhibit. Both were

14 obtained.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Just to show us the difference, would you put 3D

16 1132 on the screen, please.

17 Thank you.

18 Please continue, Mr. Visnjic.

19 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we also wish to

20 submit or to have admitted into evidence a conclusion of the Government

21 of Serbia along with a decision of the national committee on submitting

22 documentation, and the number would be 3D 1134. So I would just like to

23 have that recorded in the transcript.

24 Q. Professor --

25 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Ackerman.

2 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, I'm confused about this last

3 document, 3D 1134. If it could be put on the screen, maybe I'll know

4 what it is, but it doesn't sound like something that has anything to do

5 with this expertise, but I don't know until I see it. I just don't know

6 what it is, but I don't think you can get a document admitted just by

7 saying, Here's the document number, please admit it.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Apparently this document is already admitted,

9 Mr. Ackerman.

10 MR. ACKERMAN: Yeah, I know what it is now.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: You're content with that?

12 MR. ACKERMAN: Yes, I am.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

14 Mr. Visnjic, please continue.

15 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Professor, your expert report contains sufficient information. I

17 will not ask you in detail about these issues, but could you provide

18 additional information, please, about the supplemental information.

19 So could we see 3D 1148, please, the last page of that document,

20 which is a table that you prepared.

21 A. Yes. This has to do with a numerator; is that what you had in

22 mind?

23 Q. I think -- I see that here we see the black-and-white version.

24 We will try to find you the colour one.

25 A. Well, the colour is crucial here, and I used a microscope, a

1 stereo microscope with a light that comes at an angle, so that is quite

2 important. Could we please see the colour picture -- well, actually,

3 wait, I have a copy if that is of assistance.

4 Q. Yes, yes, perhaps we could put it on the ELMO.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Is there an exhibit that's coloured with a

6 different number?

7 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours. I was surprised

8 when I saw the black-and-white version. I thought that we would see a

9 colour version on our screens because that's what we have provided,

10 distributed, to everyone. When we forwarded it electronically, we sent

11 the colour copy to everyone, and I see that on the screen we have the

12 black-and-white copy. We'll probably have to replace it.

13 THE WITNESS: [In English] Yes, on the left side.

14 [Interpretation] I produced a number of these copies, so if you

15 can't find them I can leave you my copies or at least this copy.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic, do you have a spare colour copy I

17 could have, please?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Here, I have it.

19 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I have it too, Your Honours.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: It's just I was surprised that the one in front of

21 me from the ELMO is described as in colour, whereas the one that I'm

22 shown is much more colourful, and you don't need to substitute anything.

23 Once we see this on the ELMO, we can give it an IC number as long as we

24 are sure we're using the right one.

25 So please continue, Mr. Visnjic.

1 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

2 Q. Professor, could you explain briefly what did you find in

3 comparing these copies?

4 A. Well, yes. If you look at the colour copy, I don't think it is

5 necessary to speak to the Chamber about the numerator. That's the

6 equipment that puts stamps on documents, and if you want to use it

7 additionally, then you use a needle to move the number. Sometimes you

8 use the same numerator, sometimes a different one. If you look at the

9 first two, you see that there is a change in calibre, very visible one,

10 in relation to the others, and figure 2 is especially prominent. Figure

11 6, partially prominent, but if you look at 2 and 6 in the third semble,

12 you will see that they are much narrower and slimmer. What is the case

13 here? People who use numerators also occasionally antedate something.

14 When they use a needle to change the date or the month or the year - in

15 this particular case number 2 is the most prominent one - then this

16 moving with the needle takes figure 2 back into its original location,

17 but it's very hard to put it in its exact original location, to pin-point

18 it. In my practice, I have never come across a situation where when one

19 moves the numerator, figure 2 goes back to its original position.

20 Your Honours, I would like to point out that between these two

21 first samples, figure 2 did not go back to its original position. So

22 even between the first two samples, you could see that there is a

23 difference or a discrepancy there. Unfortunately, when you're dealing

24 with secret documents from archives, then you can't really insist on

25 going into even deeper analysis. However, I think, with all due respect

1 to the Chamber, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that this

2 figure 2 in the date 26 is really prominent; it sticks out. I selected

3 figure 2 because you can see an optical -- rather, figure 26 because

4 there's an optical difference, and, also, there's a difference in colour.

5 Initially I thought that these dots -- or rather, full stops after figure

6 6 and figure 5 could indicate that these full stops or dots are not

7 completely identical. You have to bear in mind that these figures can

8 also be affected by the ink-pad containing more colour but can also be

9 affected by the surface that they land on. However, in this particular

10 case we have a different situation. The colour is completely different

11 in the first two samples, then figure 2 is of a prominently different

12 calibre, and when you compare that to how it's written and if you compare

13 it to this line that goes on top of the figures that I drew, then you can

14 see how slanted this is, this line going from 2 to 99, which leads me to

15 conclude, Your Honours, and it's not always easy to do it when analysing

16 handwriting, but it leads me to conclude that these two dates were

17 antedated and that they were done after the following six samples.

18 If you need additional explanation, I'm available to provide it.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: I take it you meant -- well, could you repeat the

20 last part of your answer. It led you to conclude that these two dates

21 were ...

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could you speak up, please? The

23 volume is not right. I'm addressing the interpreter now. Could you

24 please speak up.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: The translation into English doesn't make sense.

1 The first part is contradicted by the second part. Could you explain

2 again what conclusion you reached about these first two.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. The conclusion that I came to

4 concerns 26.05.1999, the first two samples, the ones in the colour

5 version. They differ both in terms of calibre and the ink colour --

6 JUDGE BONOMY: But you then you said something about the time at

7 which they were applied to the page. Could you tell us again your

8 conclusion on that.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's very hard to say, but one

10 thing is certain. The stamp was not placed at the time when the date was

11 set in the numerator; rather, it was done afterwards, after some time had

12 passed. Perhaps if we're provided a spectrum analysis, we could

13 establish more, but it wasn't possible to establish more based on a copy.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

15 Mr. Visnjic.

16 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't have

17 additional questions for the witness. All the questions I wanted to put

18 and answers to them can be found in Professor's report. Thank you.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

20 Could you clarify one thing for me. Is this table on the screen

21 part of the supplementary information sheet?

22 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] It's part of the supplemental

23 information sheet.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

25 Now, can we give an IC number to the exhibit that's been used?

1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, page 3 of 3D 1148 in colour would

2 be IC196.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Visnjic.

4 [Microphone not activated]

5 Mr. Ackerman.

6 MR. ACKERMAN: Thank you, Your Honour.

7 Cross-examination by Mr. Ackerman:

8 Q. Good afternoon, Professor Aleksic.

9 A. Hello.

10 Q. I want to begin talking a little bit about your CV and the things

11 that are contained in there. As near as I can tell by reading it, you

12 spent most of your career as a professor of law at the University of

13 Belgrade. Is that correct?

14 A. Well, yes, but in 1963 I received a master of art level type

15 by -- from Professor Bishof in Lausanne who is one of the greatest

16 experts in the field of criminology and also handwriting. So I received

17 this title from three schools in Lausanne: Medical school, law school,

18 and that of political sciences. And then I received a Ph.D. title. If

19 it can be of assistance, I published 28 books, out of which at least

20 three or four were devoted to handwriting and document analysis. I hope

21 the Chamber will understand that I, while I taught at the law school, did

22 not also want to work as a court expert, although it's been more than 50

23 years since I received that title. However, I made myself available to

24 the state authorities, and in that time I was involved in almost all

25 trials against Ustashas and terrorists attacking our diplomatic staff and

1 I provided various reports to the state authorities --

2 Q. You're going way, way beyond what I asked you. The only question

3 I asked you was, are you a professor of law? Now, you can just say yes.

4 You don't have to give me the story of your life. I'm not asking for

5 that, okay?

6 A. What do you mean? We are discussing my life here, and I'm quite

7 grateful to -- for all the questions put to me because you're giving me

8 an opportunity to praise myself starting from 1977. Not only am I a

9 professor, but all of these lawyers here were my students, and they can

10 confirm that to you, and I am quite proud of them because all of them are

11 better than I am.

12 Please go ahead. I'm really proud of them, and they are much

13 better than I ever was.

14 Q. Well, I feel sort of deficient and abused that I didn't get to be

15 one of your students.

16 A. It hasn't been translated to me what you said.

17 Q. I want to ask you some more questions --

18 A. Sir, Mr. Ackerman, you have such a reputation that you ought not

19 to have been able to acquire had you been my student.

20 Q. All right.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: There's an answer for analysis.

22 THE INTERPRETER: Can Mr. Ackerman come closer to the microphone.

23 The interpreters can barely hear him.

24 MR. ACKERMAN:

25 Q. You became a court expert only after you retired from Belgrade

1 University as a law professor, true?

2 A. Yes, that's correct. I did not want to fail as an expert and

3 thus disappoint my law students.

4 Q. Now, it says that you have lectured on criminalistics in America.

5 Where did you lecture on criminalistics in America?

6 A. To tell you the truth, I taught in many places, from Japan

7 through Asia and Africa to America.

8 Q. No, no, no. I just want to know where in America did you lecture

9 on criminalistics? Just answer the question I ask you, please.

10 A. Well, you are now attacking my memory. You are attributing great

11 importance to the United States. I respect that. But let me tell you, I

12 worked for the United Nations as an expert for narcotics back in 1968 or

13 1969. Then I attended several congresses where I gave lectures, and I

14 lectured with the late Milton Helpern in New York, who is a chief medical

15 lector, and I also taught at Berkeley's, and I could probably if I tried

16 hard enough remember where I taught in other countries. At any rate,

17 while I was an active professor --

18 Q. Did you teach handwriting analysis in America? Did you lecture

19 on handwriting analysis in America?

20 A. On that topic as well. There was a congress devoted to that

21 topic with people from Canada and the United States attending, but with

22 Their Honours' leave I would say just this before the cross-examination

23 process. I was given a task to provide an expert report. I provided

24 expert report, and I think that it is a better testament than everything

25 I have done in my career, everywhere I went, travelled, and taught. I

1 received a number of awards in Germany, from various other associations.

2 I taught, as I said, at the invitation of Milton Helpern, who died, and

3 you're probably familiar with Joe Hazard who taught at the Columbia

4 University. He and I were co-chairmen of the World Association of Law

5 Professors. I taught at his school, as well, I lectured on different

6 topics. I couldn't really remember all of the topics right now.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Professor, you're plainly a multi-talented

8 individual, but the concern of this Trial Chamber is in relation to the

9 matter of handwriting analysis, and the questions you're being asked are

10 quite rightly confined to your expertise in that field. And it's

11 perfectly legitimate for counsel to explore the extent to which you are

12 recognised as an expert in this field, and Mr. Ackerman is, therefore,

13 asking you the extent to which you have lectured in the United States on

14 the subject of handwriting and document analysis.

15 Could you deal with that specifically because it would be of

16 great help to us also.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, first of all, let me start

18 from the beginning. I'll start from the beginning. Why would --

19 JUDGE BONOMY: [Overlapping speakers] -- Professor, please don't

20 start from the beginning. Please answer Mr. Ackerman's question. Where

21 have you lectured in the United States on the subject of handwriting and

22 document analysis?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't give you an accurate answer

24 to that question. As a visiting professor in Japan, I went there to

25 teach one topic, and I ended up teaching six others. I simply can't

1 remember --

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Professor, if you haven't done so, please just say

3 so, and if you can't remember, please say so. But that would be rather

4 strange, I think.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I taught with Milton Helpern

6 in New York and also with Larry Alanbear who was a chief on drug

7 addiction. I taught there about forgeries.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. So these were lectures about handwriting and

9 document analysis, were they?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Forgeries of prescriptions, medical

11 prescriptions, to obtain narcotics. What I wanted to show you is the

12 diploma awarded to me by Mr. Bishof, who is the top expert for

13 handwriting. He issued this diploma to me. His institute was in

14 existence for 50 years, and at that point only nine of us had graduated

15 from that institute. But forgive me, I am old, and perhaps I go into too

16 much detail. Thank you.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well.

18 Mr. Ackerman, please continue.

19 MR. ACKERMAN:

20 Q. Milton Helpern was an pathologist in the medical examiner for the

21 city of New York, wasn't he? He didn't have anything to do with

22 handwriting, did he?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Now, you said in the --

25 A. Larry Alanbear did have to do with it.

1 Q. You said in the CV that in the 11 years you've been doing this

2 work, you have written 1.200 expert reports. Now, that works out to

3 about eight or nine a month or about two a week. Do you write two expert

4 reports a week?

5 A. I don't think that you can count it that way, but let's see.

6 Starting from 1976 -- or rather, from 19 -- I retired in 1996, so let's

7 say starting from 1997, it's been 11 years. I have over 1.000 expert

8 reports, some done independently by me, some done within a team.

9 However, starting in 1974, when I graduated from this institute in

10 Lausanne in Switzerland, I was invited to provide expert opinion in

11 various cases whenever needed, including handwriting issues --

12 Q. I'm asking you about what you say in your CV, and what you say in

13 your CV in paragraph 4 of the supplement is that since you became a

14 permanent court expert on documents and handwriting for that 11 years,

15 you have written 1.200 expert reports. Now, did you just tell us that's

16 not true and some of those were written by some team and that you really

17 haven't written 1.200 reports? Because if you have, you have written two

18 a week. Have you done that?

19 A. Well, looking at the figures, yes, but the work is not evenly

20 distributed. Some weeks there's more work; some weeks there's less work.

21 I also included in this figure private expert report work that I did in

22 Belgrade. In Belgrade, the court can ask an expert to provide a report,

23 and occasionally parties in a case very frequently want handwriting on

24 last wills to be analysed by an expert. So let's say that I was a

25 fashionable expert for a while.

1 Q. All right. You want to stand by this 1.200 that you've written

2 in 11 years?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. All right. You say in paragraph 1 of your supplement that you've

5 published two books relating to the subject of graphoscopy. Tell me, the

6 first of those, what's the name of it; where was it published; what year

7 was it published?

8 A. The first title was "Expert Analysis Of Handwriting And

9 Documents," and it was published by let's say Partenon or Glossarium

10 publishers. The second such document was published --

11 Q. [Previous translation continues]... published where?

12 A. Well, in Belgrade. Partenon or Glossarium, one of these two

13 publishers, because the other books on that topic were published by

14 Partenon -- no, Glossarium, then this must have been done by Partenon.

15 Your Honours, that is a specialised title of the book, and later on --

16 Q. And that was written by you, was it? Did you write it? Did you

17 write all the words in it?

18 A. Well, you know, we use various sources. When you write about

19 Roman law, you use sources including what famous experts on the topic

20 said. Now, in your question I suppose there's more curiosity than

21 anything else, any other motive, and naturally I condensed or used the

22 latest findings that kept changing over time. The second book, since one

23 of the greatest handwriting experts from Zagreb came to Belgrade and got

24 his Ph.D. title with me - his name was Sabor - he was an inspiration for

25 me, and then I produced the new book. There are two books in total with

1 that title. Perhaps the second one is somewhat expanded because I saw

2 that expert analysis of handwriting is done more often in civil cases and

3 before commercial courts than in criminal cases. So this other book was

4 called "Establishing The Truth By Way Of Analysing Handwriting In Civil

5 Cases And Criminal Cases." So these are the two books, so one publisher

6 was called Partenon, and the other publisher was called Glossarium.

7 Q. What year was the first one published?

8 A. Well, I'll tell you, but I have to try to remember. When I

9 published the first ten of my books, the ones I wrote completely on my

10 own, then this manuscript was published as the third book --

11 Q. [Previous translation continues]... graphoscopy, when was that

12 first took that you told us about published? When? Just tell us what

13 year. If you don't remember, say so.

14 A. One was published just before I retired, and the other one was

15 published once I retired, if that's what you're really interested in. I

16 do reserve the right to give a more extensive response to this, but I

17 don't want to upset you or the Judge. But when one writes in the field

18 of criminalistics, and my book on criminalistics had 15 editions, a

19 considerable portion was devoted to handwriting analysis. Then in a

20 separate writing, I wrote about that too. This -- these books were

21 written up until 1996, and the others afterwards. If I -- or rather,

22 1992, if I remember correctly now.

23 Q. If someone says that what you did is simply translate books

24 written by other people in the field and publish them, would they be

25 wrong about that?

1 A. Well, you know what, there is vanity among opera pre-Madonnas,

2 and there is vanity among scholars too. I'm sorry that you came across

3 such a person. You could have come across quite a few other people.

4 There's other people like this, too, but I really cannot protest against

5 a phantom.

6 Q. Well, is -- what's the answer to my question? Would that person

7 be wrong if that's what they said about you?

8 A. Well, sir, you are challenging or questioning my integrity, but I

9 am going to reply because I respect this Court. I was not somebody who

10 copied other people's work. I never did any such thing, and that's for a

11 simple reason. People believe that I am the founder of criminalistics in

12 Yugoslavia and that I introduced that subject at the law school of our

13 university. That would be my basic answer. If you have something else

14 to say, please go ahead. Truth to tell, if I may say so, I cannot wait

15 to assure you through my expertise that I did not copy anything and that

16 I indeed know how to provide this expertise.

17 Q. I think maybe we're working at cross purposes here. What I was

18 suggesting to you was not that you stole and copied and published under

19 your own name, but you had actually translated the work of other people

20 and gave them credit for it but published in Serbian your translation of

21 their work. Now, if that's incorrect, just tell me it's incorrect. You

22 can say it in one word.

23 A. Well, that's undoable. There is the public, the scholarly

24 public. There are re-appointments of university professors. Do you

25 really think they would have kept me at university if I did things like

1 that?

2 Q. People translate the work of other people all the time so it can

3 be published in their language. There's nothing wrong with that. That's

4 perfectly honourable. If one of your books had been translated by

5 someone into English, they wouldn't have been stealing from you. They'd

6 have been translating so it could be published in English. All I want to

7 know is, did you write them or did you translate them from someone else?

8 And you can just say, I wrote it myself, and then we're done with this.

9 A. Sir, I'm not going to take your question as an insult. I'm going

10 to tell you that I wrote all of this on my own and others copied from me.

11 Out of my 28 books, several -- most of them or all of them were published

12 three or four times, and the ones that you asked me about were published

13 four times. I really don't know. This is something that does not go

14 hand in hand with the ethics of a university professor as far as I'm

15 concerned. Quite simply, I don't know how you came about such

16 information.

17 Q. Were they ever published in any other language but Serbian, these

18 two books?

19 A. Yes. My doctorate on the polygraph and personal --

20 Q. No, I'm talking about the two books on graphology, graphoscopes.

21 Those are the two books we're talking about. We're not talking about

22 anything else. Were those two books ever translated into any other

23 language?

24 A. No, but had you allowed me to finish, I would have said where all

25 those other books had been translated. But all right. These two had not

1 been translated anywhere. They are originals, though.

2 Q. All right. That's what I was trying to get to. We could have

3 gotten there a long time ago. I want to ask you --

4 A. All right.

5 Q. -- when you approach your work as an expert, and please

6 understand I'm not making any effort here at all to make any accusations

7 against you. I'm just trying to learn some things, and I'm not trying to

8 insult you. And if you take that -- anything I say as an insult, I

9 apologise. But when you approach this work --

10 A. May I respond in kind, then?

11 Q. Go ahead.

12 A. [In English] Okay. Okay. Okay. Give me question, please.

13 Q. Now, as you approach your work as an expert, do you feel like you

14 are independent and you make your judgements independent of the person

15 that has asked you to do the work, or do you make an effort to tell that

16 person what it is they want to hear? In other words, do you become an

17 advocate for that side of the case?

18 A. [Interpretation] Never. I always write what my own findings are.

19 I stand by that, and in the times of communism I had quite a few

20 difficulties on account of that.

21 Q. Okay. Now we're going to get to what you actually did, and what

22 you did were the things that Mr. Visnjic requested of you to do. That's

23 a fair statement, isn't it?

24 A. Yes. He is the one who commissioned my work.

25 Q. And if we put 3D 1130 up on the screen so you can see it, and go

1 to page 7 in the colour B/C/S version. Now, if we could zoom in on line

2 82, please, just so we can see a little better. That's good enough.

3 Now, what Mr. Visnjic asked you to do with regard to this

4 document was to look at that line 82 and give him your opinion as to

5 whether the person who entered the written information on that line was

6 the same person who made changes in the rest of the document, correct?

7 A. No.

8 Q. No?

9 A. No. Sir, I received this document with the following question

10 being put to me, to establish whether any corrections had been made in

11 hand in relation to the printed text, and I established that corrections

12 were made by hand by two persons at that. Who these persons were, I

13 don't know, and I'll let you know what the secret is, how I came to that

14 conclusion. According to the way of writing, there is a swan-like way --

15 oh, all right.

16 Q. Do what I ask you to do when I ask you a question. I'm not

17 asking you for any more information than what I ask. Just listen to my

18 question, and answer my question. We'll get where you're going, right.

19 We will get there.

20 Your expert report says that you were asked this question: Was

21 the amendation made on page 7 in number 82, columns 4, 5, and 6, made by

22 the same person who amended the figures in the other numbers in this

23 document in columns 4, 5, 6, and 7? Now, that's what your report says.

24 I asked you if that's what you were instructed to do, and you said no.

25 Now, what is it? Isn't that exactly what you were asked to do? Yes or

1 no?

2 A. What is written here, at least in my copy, in line 82 on page 7,

3 this was compiled by the person who made the other numerical changes. My

4 understanding was that there were two persons involved, and I have no way

5 of establishing who these persons were because then I'd have to go to the

6 military archives and examine all the signatures and handwriting of all

7 the persons who made changes. However, I thought that unusually so,

8 there are two handwritings in this document in terms of the number 2, and

9 I dwelled on that. I'm sorry if I disappointed you.

10 Q. Professor, it's not a question of whether you disappoint me or

11 not, but you could help me a lot if you would listen to the question I

12 ask you and answer that question instead of telling me something you want

13 to tell me. Now, I mean, that would -- and I know you can do that. I

14 know you can understand the language, you can understand the question,

15 and you can understand what I'm asking you, and if you would just answer

16 the question, we'd finish this in a reasonable amount of time.

17 Otherwise, we're going to be here the rest of the day, and you'll get

18 tired, and I'll get tired, and then we'll get snippy at each other, and

19 who knows what'll happen next. But if we just try to do this in a

20 reasonable way so you can answer the question that I ask you, we'll get

21 through this. Okay?

22 A. This time I would not like to use commonwealth -- or rather,

23 common law terms such as reasonable. I'm going to resort to our own

24 system. I see that two persons made these corrections. To this day, I

25 don't know how Mladenovski who signed this writes the number 2 and how

1 this other person writes and who writes in this swan-like way, so I

2 cannot give you an answer. But I absolutely can respond if the Court

3 deems this necessary. There were two persons who made changes on this

4 document --

5 Q. Tell me, what question of mine are you answering right now? What

6 question of mine are you answering?

7 A. I -- please don't hold this against me. You put your questions

8 to me, and I'll answer them, but I really don't want to be questioned in

9 this way.

10 Q. Well, you just answered a question I didn't ask you.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Professor, you've caused us a great deal of

12 confusion --

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Then please be so kind as to put

14 your question again.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Professor, if you would just pay attention for a

16 moment. You're causing us a great deal of confusion by claiming that

17 what in the report you have said is not accurate, and that's what

18 Mr. Ackerman is trying to clarify. You've set out the questions you were

19 asked by Mr. Visnjic, and when Mr. Ackerman asked you just to confirm

20 that as a prelude to something else, you've denied it. So you've caused

21 confusion. Now, if you start from that point of view, bear in mind that

22 if you don't listen very carefully to the question and answer only what

23 you're asked, you are liable to cause confusion, which is not in the

24 interests of Mr. Ojdanic. So let's proceed from there.

25 Mr. Ackerman.

1 MR. ACKERMAN:

2 Q. Professor, the second thing you were asked to do with regard to

3 this document, and we need to look at the last page of it now. And

4 there's some vertical handwriting down there in the bottom right-hand

5 corner of this page. According to your report, you were asked if the

6 person who wrote that note on the last page was the same person who made

7 the changes we've been looking at in line 82. Now, all I'm asking you is

8 if you understand that's what you were asked to do, not what you did.

9 Just what you were asked to do.

10 A. Mr. Visnjic asked me to do the following. This text was received

11 in the military archives by Mladenovski, and was it Mladenovski who

12 changed columns 4, 5, 6, and 7? That's what he asked me about. And my

13 answer to him was that what Mr. Mladenovski signed was what I compared to

14 his notes in writing in hand that says not written and so on and so

15 forth. So it is the same man who wrote this, but I did not establish

16 whether he himself had made the changes except for what I said already,

17 that there were two persons who made corrections. However, the

18 handwritten text was provided by Mr. Mladenovski, the notes he made in

19 hand, and finally his signature.

20 Q. All right. The third thing you were asked to do was to add up

21 the number of documents in the columns and the number of pages in the

22 columns and see if they matched the number on page 1 as to how many pages

23 they were. Now, what part of your expertise makes you an expert on

24 adding up numbers? That doesn't have anything to do with handwriting or

25 document analysis, does it?

1 A. Well, this is a well-known method applied in arithmetic, adding.

2 Q. Why didn't you tell Mr. Visnjic, Anybody can add, you don't need

3 an expert to do that? Why did you agree to do this? You're this big

4 fancy expert, and he's turning you into somebody that's adding up

5 numbers.

6 A. Well, you know what? There is one thing that came up at least in

7 our practice. There are people who come before a court of law and who

8 are more familiar with weapons and, say, a Judge is very knowledgeable

9 about weapons, but then he asks for an expert nevertheless. It is one

10 thing if a lawyer indicates this adding, and it's a different thing if an

11 expert indicates it. I think that is what it has to do with. I was not

12 offended by that, that particular part, though.

13 Q. Yeah, I agree with you because, you know, sometimes people will

14 make mistakes in adding up numbers, and maybe he was just asking you to

15 double-check this and see if the person who did that made a mistake,

16 right?

17 A. Well, you're probably going to check it.

18 Q. You can be certain that I already have.

19 A. I'm sure you did.

20 Q. Okay. We're going to go to another document. 3D 1131 is another

21 document you were asked to look at, and I need to get it on the screen

22 and look at the line that's number 248 in the Serbian version. It should

23 be the next page.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Can we just have the Serbian and the next page of it, please. I

1 don't think we need to see the English. It's not relevant, so get rid of

2 it, and just give me line 248 blown up. There we go.

3 All right. What you were asked to do was to determine if the

4 stamp 26.05.1999 in line 248 there was the same or identical to the

5 26.05.1999 date stamp in columns 250, 323, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329,

6 correct?

7 A. Yes, yes.

8 Q. Were you asked to make a comparison between the handwriting that

9 appears under number 2 in line 248 with the other handwriting in this

10 document? You weren't, were you?

11 A. Mr. Ackerman, in Yugoslavia court experts are used to the

12 following. When they're involved in civil cases, then they --

13 Q. You're not answering my question --

14 A. -- they are directly related to what it was that they are

15 supposed to do. I want to answer you. I really do.

16 Q. The question was simple.

17 A. Oh, all right.

18 Q. You weren't asked to compare the handwriting in 248, line 2, with

19 the other handwriting in the document, were you? You weren't asked to do

20 that?

21 A. This is what the request was. Warrant Officer Dusan Mladenovski

22 in the military archives, did he make changes in such and such columns

23 and in terms of the signature on the last page? I admit that apart from

24 that request I established that Mladenovski made written corrections in

25 the document, and I identified them. As far as I've been informed,

1 Mr. Mladenovski testified here and admitted that, so that has been a

2 source of satisfaction for me, the fact that I said something that was

3 correct although I didn't even know him. So that is what I have to say

4 in relation to Mladenovski's signature. Could you just tell me

5 this other --

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Professor, that's absolutely nothing to do with

7 the question you've just been asked. There's a limit to the Court's

8 patience on this. We have a very large agenda of what to get through

9 this a case as gross as this, so please, concentrate on the question.

10 It's a very simple one. Were you asked to compare the handwriting in the

11 second line of 248 with the other writing in other parts of that

12 document? Yes or no?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

15 Mr. Ackerman.

16 MR. ACKERMAN: I need to learn how you do that, Judge.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is the first time

18 in this expertise that it seems to be detrimental if I establish more

19 than originally requested.

20 MR. ACKERMAN:

21 Q. Now, yesterday we got a supplement, and it was up on the screen

22 here, all the numbers in colour that we saw earlier.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. You know what I'm talking about --

25 A. Numerator, yes.

1 Q. Now, was this analysis requested by Mr. Visnjic, or is this just

2 something you decided to do on your own?

3 A. Let me just have a look at the request. In the request, it says

4 that the date of the 26th of May, 1999, in columns 248 -- or rather, in

5 column 248, is what is requested and then the same date, and then the

6 rest is listed. So it was my understanding that, yes, that was the case.

7 Q. Yes, that was part of what you were asked to do?

8 A. It was my understanding of it.

9 Q. I want to ask you about your visit to the archives. When did you

10 and Mr. Visnjic go to the archives and look at these documents? When?

11 The only question I'm asking you is when.

12 A. I think it was in December, last year.

13 Q. December of 2007?

14 A. Yes, yes.

15 Q. And you said something in your direct that you looked at them

16 under very vigilant eyes. What do you mean by that?

17 A. Well, you know what it's like. It's this very long room. The

18 way in which the originals are brought in is very complicated. So then I

19 looked this up in the books, and then I isolated this, and I looked at

20 the book. All the time next to me there were, say, four or five

21 employees of the archives, and then there was Visnjic, and I don't know.

22 Somebody else, too, perhaps. So in a way, I isolated myself in thoughts

23 from them, jotted this down, and decided that I would make my basic

24 findings once I received the copies. However, as I was looking at the

25 originals, I was looking for possible traces of scanning or some other

1 technique of dealing with documents. That was my objective.

2 Q. And the question really was was what do you mean by vigilant

3 eyes, and you told us that there were four or five people there watching

4 you. So I take it if you had wanted to make some kind of a change in one

5 of these original documents, you wouldn't have been able to get by with

6 it. They would have caught you doing it, right?

7 A. Well, I wouldn't do such a thing, would I?

8 Q. But you would have gotten caught if you tried, wouldn't you? I

9 know you wouldn't do such a thing, but if you tried they would have seen

10 you doing it, wouldn't they?

11 A. I am not stopped from committing a crime by the possibility of

12 somebody seeing me committing a crime. I have devoted my entire life to

13 things like this.

14 Q. Did you have any of your instruments with you when you went to

15 the archive to use to examine these documents, or did you just visually

16 examine them?

17 A. First of all, as an expert, my examinations are not simple. I

18 did not have an apparatus next to me, and I devoted --

19 Q. [Previous translation continues]...

20 A. -- attention to the possibility of scanning or some kind of other

21 change, and that can be seen only on the back of the original document

22 because of the relief.

23 Q. The question is, did you have any instruments with you or not? I

24 think your answer is, no, you didn't, right?

25 A. Well, yes, it's a bit ridiculous. With all due respect, and I

1 really am sorry because of the Judges, but I'm not a man who strolls

2 about and does this and that. When I look at documents, there is always

3 an objective involved. The first time I went there was whether I could

4 see what is visible on copies and originally whether I could establish

5 whether the documents had been scanned or not. That has to be determined

6 on the basis of the original. I'm sorry if I took up too much time

7 answering.

8 MR. ACKERMAN: I'm told it might be break time, is it?

9 JUDGE BONOMY: You don't even, for example, carry a magnifying

10 glass with you?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I had a pocket magnifying glass;

12 however, Your Honour, sir, when an expert in graphology gets an object

13 and if he's just exploring it initially, he is looking at the relief and

14 looking at the light as it falls on the document. I had a pocket

15 magnifying glass, but that didn't really mean anything. It just meant

16 that I could rely on the copies once I received; however, what I

17 established was that although today it is possible to tamper with

18 documents electronically, these had not been tampered with. My

19 stereomicroscope weighs 60 kilogrammes, and I don't carry that around. I

20 brought a photograph of that device if you wish to see it.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: No, I think we can leave it to the counsel -- we

22 can leave it to counsel to ask any necessary questions about the

23 equipment.

24 We need to have a break at this stage, Professor. It's routine

25 in our proceedings. That break will be for 20 minutes. While we have

1 the break, could you please leave the courtroom with the usher, and we

2 will see you again at five minutes past 4.00.

3 [The witness stands down]

4 --- Recess taken at 3.46 p.m.

5 --- On resuming at 4.07 p.m.

6 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, the 1996 Rules of Service have

7 arrived; they're in the hands of your assistants.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

9 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

10 [The witness takes the stand]

11 MR. ACKERMAN: We need to have 3D 1130 put back on the screen,

12 and just the Serbian version, please. We don't need the English.

13 Q. Professor, when did you first meet with or talk with Mladenovski?

14 A. I don't know Mladenovski, and I've never met him.

15 Q. Did you figure out some way to get handwriting exemplars from him

16 without talking to him?

17 A. Well, in the document itself, the one that I analysed, I found

18 his notes and then signature at the end. And then when I heard that he

19 accepted it here and admitted it here, I was quite content.

20 Q. Well -- but, before you'd heard that he accepted it here, you had

21 no idea that that was his writing, did you, because you hadn't compared

22 it with anything?

23 A. In over 90 per cent of the cases when those giving the last will

24 are dead, I establish the authenticity of last wills by comparing the

25 signatures in documents presented to me.

1 Q. I'm just guessing, but in my experience with people who do the

2 work that you do, I suspect that when you lecture about this and in the

3 book that you wrote or in the books that you wrote, whatever you've done

4 in that regard, that one of the things that you have emphasized is the

5 necessity of getting detailed handwriting exemplars if you're going to

6 compare handwriting to an unknown sample. You've done that, haven't you?

7 You've said that's important, haven't you?

8 A. Well, that's the basic rule; however, in certain cases when you

9 have a number of possibilities of making conclusions based on available

10 documents and if it is difficult to obtain handwriting samples from all

11 of the employees, in this particular case I had sufficient evidence and

12 sufficient skill so that it wasn't necessary for me to explore the

13 subject further than this document.

14 Q. You don't know when any of the handwritten imprints on this

15 document were made, do you?

16 A. No, I don't know.

17 Q. Now, the conclusion you drew with regard to this document was

18 that - and we could go to page 7, please - was that a different person

19 made these changes in line 82 from who had made changes in other parts of

20 the document, and I think I'm being fair to you when I say that you based

21 your decision primarily on the way the number 2 is shaped. You said that

22 the number 2 in that line 82 has what you called a swan's neck

23 termination, and if you look at other number 2s written in the document,

24 they have what you called a level termination. Is that a fair statement?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. And, for instance, if we look at line 84 there, we see the 2s

2 there that have those, you know, kind of straight lines coming out the

3 back of them, right, and that's the level termination you're talking

4 about, true?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And if we looked at line 79, just go up just a tad, we'd also see

7 a 2 there with a -- what you call a level termination?

8 A. Yes, because what I described as a swan-like figure 2 --

9 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the answer.

10 MR. ACKERMAN:

11 Q. She wants you to repeat your answer, so say it again, what you

12 described as a swan-like 2 or something.

13 A. In this document, there are just several. Most of them have a

14 flat termination.

15 Q. All right. Let's go to the first page of this document, please,

16 and go to the bottom of the page, line 6. Line 6, please. Try to blow

17 up line 6 there so we can see the 2 there really good. There we go.

18 Is that a swan's-neck termination, there? It's not a flat

19 termination, is it?

20 A. No. A swan-neck's termination pertains to the head and the neck,

21 if I may say so. The termination is flat in this particular case, and

22 it's not extended as it normally should be as in column 1 because figures

23 1 and 7 follow. When people write in these columns, they tend to amend

24 their handwriting because there's no sufficient space. As an example,

25 one never analyses a signature on a pay stub because there's not enough

1 room in the column to put a signature there.

2 Q. All right. Let's go look at -- this does have a little loop

3 there where the bottom of that 2 is made that we don't see on these other

4 level terminations that you were showing us. But let's go to another

5 one. Let's go to line 29, and I think that's on page 3. We'll just have

6 to check. Yeah, it's on page 3 about two-thirds of the way down. Now,

7 look at that 2 there. That's a definite swan's neck, isn't it?

8 A. Yes. Thank you for accepting this term.

9 Q. Yeah. It's a good term. I like it. And so we can conclude that

10 the person who made that 2 in line 29 is the same person who made the

11 changes in line 84 that we were looking at -- 82 that we were looking at

12 earlier, can't we?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Okay. Now let's look at line 93, and we'll find that over on

15 page -- that's on page 7, and it's at the very bottom.

16 A. Yes. In this case here, there is a rudimentary swan form there,

17 if I may say so. Your Honour, may I make a comment, something very

18 briefly, that will clarify certain things. I did not count the instances

19 of one number 2 and the other number 2; I simply took the figure 2 as a

20 prominent one to confirm my thesis that two people made corrections. I

21 didn't analyse this further. I believed that it was up to the Court to

22 decide whether it was important or not, and if so, that it could be

23 further analysed.

24 Q. Now, the other thing you did with regard to this document is you

25 looked at that handwriting on the last page where it's signed with the

1 name of Mladenovski. Now, in that handwriting on the last page, there

2 aren't any numbers, are there?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. No numbers in that handwriting?

5 A. I didn't analyse the numbers. I analysed something else, and I

6 wrote that down. I analysed letters, J, K, and so on. At any rate, I

7 was certain that there was sufficient, both general and individual

8 features, in this group, which turned out to be correct, and I wrote this

9 accurately.

10 Q. Okay. Let's go to the next document, then, 1131. And again, we

11 only need the Serbian. We don't need English. Were you ever in the room

12 at the General Staff Supreme Command where documents were being entered

13 into this log-book in 1999? Were you ever there?

14 A. No.

15 Q. So of your own knowledge, at least, you have no knowledge as to

16 whether or not the people working at that location and in that room were

17 actually entering every document in the log-book that they were

18 receiving, do you? You don't know that they were being totally accurate

19 about that, do you?

20 A. No.

21 Q. Did you ever speak to anybody who was there at the time, who was

22 working there at the time?

23 A. I think that the person who was in charge there, he wore a

24 camouflage uniform, and he addressed me as Professor Aleksic, and I

25 thought that he knew me from the law school because we had a lot of

1 people from the military attending our law school. However, I didn't

2 introduce myself to him because it wasn't the right time, and I was too

3 busy analysing what I have just described to you.

4 Q. You didn't ask him any questions about what went on there in

5 1999, I take it?

6 A. No, no.

7 Q. So you have no idea how many different date stamps they had there

8 in 1999 that they were using, do you? As far as you know, they could

9 have had ten?

10 A. I don't know what methods are used in working with military

11 documents.

12 Q. That's not my question. You don't know --

13 A. However, I can identify and recognise -- I know it's not your

14 question, but I feel the need to tell you that.

15 Q. Well, why don't you answer my question?

16 A. I've answered your question. I have none. I don't know. I

17 didn't do anything. I didn't do any work there, and I'm not interested

18 in that. Why would I at this age study the methods of using stamps in

19 the military archives? I would not accept such an assignment.

20 Q. Well, I think if I was going to come and sit in front of a Court

21 under oath and tell Judges conclusions that I've drawn from looking at

22 date stamps on a document, I would want to know whether there was more

23 than one date stamp available to the people that did it. That makes

24 sense, doesn't it? That's why you would want to know that. Do you know

25 how many ink-pads they had?

1 A. It's obvious that you are more diligent and better than I am.

2 Q. Do you know how many ink-pads they had there at the time?

3 A. No.

4 Q. You made conclusions about ink colours without knowing how many

5 ink-pads they had there and what colours they were, haven't you?

6 A. Yes, you're fully right, but bear in mind the document that I

7 provided. There you can see how calibrated 2s differ from each other,

8 both in terms of calibre and colour, and that's sufficient for me. At

9 that point of time, it was sufficient.

10 Q. That's sufficient to show they were made by a different date

11 stamp using a different stamp-pad. That's all that shows, isn't it? It

12 doesn't show anything else. Any other conclusion you made is one as an

13 advocate, not as an expert.

14 A. I don't know whether you agree that I added there that the

15 calibre of figure 2 was greater and that the location, the original

16 location, of figure 2 in the numerator was disturbed. I think that's of

17 importance to the Court, perhaps even to you, but definitely to the

18 Chamber.

19 Q. I agree. That would be important if you knew what kind of

20 stamp-pads they had and what kind of numerators they were using, what

21 kind of equipment they were using, but you didn't know any of that.

22 You're just assuming that kind of thing, aren't you?

23 A. No, that's not speculation. That's my claim. It is my position

24 that the numerator was predated or antedated and that when the numbers

25 were moved around, a different ink-pad was used, and the figures did not

1 go back to their original position. I think that that's clear enough.

2 MR. ACKERMAN: I need the usher to come see me.

3 Q. I'm going to have the usher show you something and ask you if you

4 know what it is.

5 A. I hope that you're not testing my skill again. This is the

6 numerator, and here the figures can be moved either using a needle or

7 using the button on the side, depending on the numerator. This is a more

8 modern type. The Chinese produce them nowadays.

9 Q. Now, that's the kind of numerator you had in mind when you were

10 writing this report, isn't it?

11 A. Numerators come in different shapes, but the principle is the

12 same. The numbers are rolled around and adjusted. Today, I finished

13 stamping 26, and starting tomorrow, I will stamp 27, and if I need some

14 other date, then I can look for numbers 23 and 24 in the archives. If I

15 use an inadequate numerator, then everybody will know that I did it

16 afterwards. I did it subsequently.

17 Q. Now, did you go back to the archives and look at this document

18 after December?

19 A. No, and they wouldn't have let me in.

20 Q. And it's also true, isn't it, that in your original report in

21 this case you said nothing about a difference in colour of those stamps?

22 A. Yes, you're right. I said at the outset that I first analysed

23 the dots and provided explanation, but now just before coming here I went

24 to see people at the police who gave me a special piece of equipment

25 which enabled me to establish this additional feature, which I thought

1 would be of assistance to the Court.

2 Q. Looking at copies not the originals, right?

3 A. Correct, but one cannot obtain originals from the military at

4 all.

5 Q. And you know that the ink you were looking at on the copies was

6 not ink from a stamp-pad but ink from a copy machine. So you're

7 comparing ink colours from a copy machine and translating that into ink

8 colours from a stamp-pad. I don't think that works, does it?

9 A. You know what, it is not my profession to use spectrum analysis

10 of colour and so on. My profession was of assistance to point to a

11 suspicious piece of information here. One can apply spectrum analysis to

12 analyse colour and so on, but at this point in time I thought that this

13 was sufficient because this is an official archive and not a place where

14 some local, low-level clerks perhaps used inadequate methods when keeping

15 books.

16 Q. You know that this is a serious court of law where you're

17 expected to do what scientifically you should do, and you're in here

18 telling us you've compared colours from a copy machine, and that makes

19 some sense to you, and that's something this Court should draw

20 conclusions from? Is that what you're saying? I thought you would flunk

21 any student that'd do what you did.

22 A. I have to tell you that I was an expert before this Court at

23 least in one other case if not more cases, and fortunately, I did not

24 come across such objections as yours, and I leave it up to your

25 conscience to draw your own conclusions. I know that this is a serious

1 court. I have a great deal of respect for it, even though this court

2 deals with numerous crimes committed by people in my country.

3 Q. Well, I want to look now at that document you created recently

4 that has all the 26.05s on it. I think it maybe got an IC number, did

5 it, or do we have to put it back on the ELMO or what? If we can get it

6 where we can see all eight numbers at once. Zoom out a little bit.

7 That's seven. There's one more down there, I think, isn't there? Number

8 8 -- no, that's all. Okay.

9 A. Eight.

10 Q. Okay.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank goodness for the expert in arithmetic.

12 MR. ACKERMAN:

13 Q. Now, you make an issue out of the 2s that are in the first two

14 lines, that they're, you know, big, bold, and thick, and 62 in the first

15 line. If you go down to the next-to-the-last line, look at that 2. That

16 one's kind of big and thick, too, isn't it?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Oh, it isn't. Okay. Look at --

19 A. No.

20 Q. -- 326 and 327. The 2 is thicker in 326 than it is in 327, isn't

21 it? And why is that?

22 A. It's because of the ink-pad and the material underneath.

23 However, if I dare use this term again - I see that you like my terms -

24 they are Gullivers.

25 Q. I like that one. Let's look at 325. Look at the 9s in 325,

1 especially that last 9. Do you see that?

2 A. 9 was not a subject of expertise because there was no reason for

3 that. Everything is 1999 --

4 Q. I'm not asking you --

5 A. The problem is only in the first part of the date --

6 Q. [Previous translation continues]...

7 A. Well, I know I'm answering -- I mean, I'm answering to the

8 illogical nature of your question.

9 Q. Well, the Judges will decide whether I'm being logical or not.

10 Look at 325 and the 9s in there, and compare that with the 9s down in

11 327. They're much thicker and heavier, aren't they? How do you explain

12 that?

13 A. Your Honours, I explain it by the fact that the first two 2s are

14 really Gullivers compared to all of the others. Everything else in the

15 stamp varies in terms of thickness; however, that is not relevant for our

16 conclusions.

17 Q. I think you would probably agree with me, because otherwise we've

18 got a problem here, that the way the impression looks depends on how the

19 stamp is used. So if, for instance, you ink it and press straight down,

20 you get one kind of impression. If you ink it and roll it on, you're

21 going to get a different kind of impression. If you put more force on

22 the left side than the right side, you'll get another different kind of

23 impression. It depends on how you're using the stamp, not necessarily on

24 the stamp itself, what the impression is going to look like, right?

25 A. You are quite right. However, you can roll it, press it, do

1 whatever you want, but you cannot get this kind of a gigantic 2. I want

2 to draw your attention to another thing now that we're talking about

3 this. Since this 2 was moved at a later stage, it did not fall in its

4 place, so to speak, and that can be seen very nicely. I thought about

5 that a lot, whether the stamping took place twice along with the move

6 because it seems that the second 2 was better put. Now, whether that had

7 to do with additional activity -- well, but then that would just be

8 story-telling. However, this is the way it is. As you put it, an expert

9 would know that, and this is an enormous difference that gives me a

10 certainty that I believe somebody like Mladenovski will admit to, and

11 then you will probably forget about your objections in respect of my

12 expert knowledge.

13 Q. Mladenovski had nothing to do with this document.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: You've used two expressions here, which I would be

15 helped by you clarifying. You talked about a giant 2 -- a gigantic 2.

16 What are you referring to as a gigantic 2?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, the calibre; and then

18 secondly, this line that you can see up here that is drawn up here and

19 then the one down here, the white one, show --

20 JUDGE BONOMY: You'll need to --

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- that the positions were moved.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: You'll need to point these out. It's the

23 expression "gigantic." Gigantic is to do with size, isn't it?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: So what do you mean by gigantic?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Oh, over here. Right. This is the

2 first one, the first number 2, and may I jump to the other 2s here now.

3 Already here, you see that it's different. There can be an augmented 2,

4 as Mr. Ackerman said, through surface, different kind of using the

5 ink-pad, and so on. However, the difference is so big here that my

6 assertion is that it was antedated. Look at these two 2s. You'll see

7 it.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: By gigantic, do you mean thicker?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Calibre, the calibre.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: All right --

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I beg your pardon. When you go up

12 here from -- when you draw this line from the top of the 2, it goes down

13 and touches the 9s; however, that's not the case with the other numbers.

14 All things considered, the calibre tells us here that this is not an

15 effective manipulation but of another numerator.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, you referred a moment ago to a white line.

17 Which white line were you talking about?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Down here, down here. Do you see

19 it here, and then here as well. Underneath every number, there are white

20 lines.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Now, you also used an expression,

22 calling something Gullivers, but --

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The number 2. Take the last one,

24 for instance, where there is this thin 2 and then the one up here. It

25 really does look as if it were its uncle.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: What --

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The 2 down here in the last line.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, it's the word that's concerning me. I'm not

4 following this. Is the word you're using Gulliver?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, yes, yes. I studied that

6 a long time ago.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: And how does that have a bearing on the shape or

8 size of these numbers?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. If I can use the phrase,

10 it looks like a man who weighs 150 kilogrammes and another man that

11 weighs 50 kilogrammes.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: So it's a difference that you're talking about.

13 Now, can I just briefly have --

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Calibre, calibre.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: But let me ask the usher to bring over the

16 document from the ELMO, please.

17 Now, this is -- as I understood it, this was a colour copy of 3D

18 1148, page 3, but 3D 1148 has eight rows of 26.05.1999, and this one has

19 only seven.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Can we have that clarified by someone who knows

22 about these things? It would appear the bottom one from column 329 is

23 missing from the colour --

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 329. I have it here. I don't

25 know.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, you shall have this one back, and it's a

2 matter for Mr. Visnjic to try to clarify, but it's causing further

3 confusion.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could you please take this.

5 [In English] That's right, you have -- [Interpretation] This

6 document has all the numbers. With your permission, perhaps the usher

7 could take it to you. Seven.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: What was the source of the one that became the IC

9 number? Was it Mr. Hannis or was it -- it wasn't. What was the source

10 of that coloured copy, Mr. Visnjic?

11 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, now I really don't

12 know who gave you a copy: Was it Mr. Hannis, or was it me? I have a

13 copy here with eight, eight. This is probably a document where the last

14 page had not been printed. That's the only comment I can make. I have

15 another copy with eight.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, but the evidence has been given on the basis

17 of a document with seven on it, and that will continue to be the case for

18 our assessment. That's the way the evidence has been presented. As long

19 as you know the position, you can take steps to try to deal with it if

20 necessary in re-examination.

21 Please continue, Mr. Ackerman.

22 MR. ACKERMAN: Well, the one we have on the screen now, Your

23 Honour, is a new one with eight --

24 JUDGE BONOMY: No, no -- unless you want it and want to give it a

25 new number, we should go back to the one we had and were working on.

1 MR. ACKERMAN: It's totally out of focus. If it can get in

2 focus, it might be more useful because I thought -- I thought we had a

3 document with eight numbers. That's what I had. I was kind of surprised

4 when it came up with seven. I thought maybe it was my inability to add.

5 I don't know if we can get it in better focus. That's okay.

6 Q. The -- Professor --

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Are we now moving to this document?

8 MR. ACKERMAN: Yeah, we can -- I'd like -- let's put the old one

9 back -- let's put the old one back with seven since we were using it. It

10 doesn't make any difference. It works just as well for me.

11 Q. Professor, these stamps that these dates are made out of --

12 stamped on there with are made out of rubber like the one I just showed

13 you. And I know you will agree with me that the more pressure you put on

14 a rubber number the bigger it gets; it expands, doesn't it?

15 A. Yes, but this involves an enormous expansion.

16 Q. And if you push hard, it will expand, and if you just touch it

17 lightly, it will hold its original shape, correct?

18 A. Well, you're not quite correct because there is a limit to this

19 explanation, and this goes beyond that.

20 Q. Look at all the 05s here. All the 05s that we see here are

21 nearly identical. The first one's a little darker, might be an ink

22 problem, but the rest of them are all identical, aren't they, or nearly

23 so?

24 A. Well, yes. The month and 1999 is obviously the log from that

25 period; however, the 2 is the problem.

1 Q. Yeah, so if somebody had that stamp that's made out of rubber and

2 made that top stamp by pushing down real hard on the left side, that

3 would enlarge the 2 and the 6, leave the 5 and the 1999 looking like all

4 the rest of them look, wouldn't it?

5 A. I don't think you're right. The 2 comes from a different type of

6 numerator. You said yourself that in big archives there are certainly

7 countless numerators, whereas this is a different one that wasn't used

8 for the others.

9 Q. Yeah, and you might be right about that. I'll hand that to you.

10 And if somebody used a different numerator --

11 A. Thank you.

12 Q. -- if somebody used a different numerator to enter that date, it

13 doesn't mean it was antedated. It just means they used a different

14 numerator. So your conclusion about antedating holds no water at all,

15 does it?

16 A. That's what you think, but I'll tell you how it does hold water.

17 First of all, the numerator -- I mean, the question is, why would a

18 different numerator be used? Why would a different --

19 Q. [Previous translation continues]... two different people are

20 entering the documents in the log. That's one reason it could happen

21 that way, or if the same person is doing it and just picks up a different

22 numerator. There's a lot of documents going through there, a lot of them

23 being logged on the same day. They're busy.

24 A. Could you tell me how you'd explain that only those two numbers

25 do not match? And as far as I know --

1 Q. I'm going to show you in a minute. Trust me, I'll show you. I

2 want to know if -- this is something I found that's written. I want to

3 know if you agree with this statement that's written here.

4 "The date stamp is not a stable device. It's a mechanically

5 unstable item which is not appropriate at all for exact expert analysis

6 on the basis of which someone could give an opinion with 100 per cent

7 certainty."

8 Do you agree with that statement?

9 A. No, because this involves extreme magnitude that shows a

10 completely different picture rather than a mistake in manipulation. If

11 you wish, you can add to that that subsequent movement of the dial,

12 either with a needle or in another way, the number can never fall into

13 the same place, the number that's being changed. That is my opinion.

14 Q. A subsequent movement doesn't change its size, does it? A

15 subsequent movement doesn't make the 2 bigger?

16 A. It will if a different calibre of numerator was taken. For

17 example, the one that you showed me just now, your numerator, for an

18 archive it can be of tiny dimensions. There's a lot of work that has to

19 be done during the course of a day, so there's a big difference.

20 Q. I want you to watch what I'm going to do. Watch me. I've got

21 the numerator in my hand. This is a red ink-pad, okay? I've touched it

22 to the ink-pad, and I've put it on the page. I've touched it to the

23 ink-pad, and I've put it on the page. I've touched it to the ink-pad,

24 and this time I'm going to put a lot of pressure on the left side, 2, and

25 touch it to the page. And this time, I'm going to do that again. I'll

1 ask the usher to show you this.

2 Put it on the ELMO.

3 Now, this is all the same numerator and the same ink-pad, but

4 look at that third 2 down there. Is that what you would call one of

5 those gigantic 2s?

6 A. First of all, let me answer that question. No. No, because look

7 at this. The third one is blurred, smeared, and this one here is clear.

8 Then the upper one was not printed right, but you have general

9 characteristics here that are identical. So any expert would say that it

10 is the same numerator. The smear is something for which the person doing

11 this is to be blamed. Now look at this here. Look, if you can see it

12 now -- just a moment, please. Let's try to do it this way. Look at

13 this. Look at this -- oh, you can't see it.

14 Q. Bring that paper back to me a minute because I did make a mistake

15 when I smeared it.

16 A. With pleasure. So I do know how to establish something, don't I?

17 Q. Okay. Take it back now. What I did was push down real hard on

18 the left side again, and I think you'll see that it made the 2 bigger

19 than the other 2s, still a bit of a smear but not as much, correct?

20 A. This number 2 is smeared, sir, Mr. Ackerman. And secondly, do

21 you notice that the base did not change in terms of its dimensions.

22 Your Honour, I said what I had to say. I'm sorry that this has

23 not reached its destination, but I leave that to the Court.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: What do you mean by saying the base did not change

25 in terms of its dimensions?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Have a look at this down here, the

2 third one, the third one that Mr. Ackerman said that he pressed hard on

3 purpose to the left and therefore smeared it. Do you see it? It's quite

4 different. This is an artificial increase, but this is a different

5 numerator altogether. It's not the same.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm asking you what you meant by saying the base

7 did not change in terms of its dimension. It looks --

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The base of this number 2 that

9 Mr. Ackerman, as he says himself, pressed to the left down here. You see

10 that the ink moved, but still the number 2 is thin, nevertheless, at the

11 bottom.

12 MR. ACKERMAN: That needs an IC number, I guess --

13 JUDGE BONOMY: But before you -- and I don't see that. It seems

14 to me that the 2 is clearly fatter at the bottom. I'm obviously not

15 looking at the same thing as you.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Are you asking me? Are you

17 addressing this question to me?

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sorry.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm not understanding what you mean by saying that

21 the dimension at the base is the same.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I may call for your patience a

23 bit more. Practically if somebody looks at this, the dimensions are more

24 or less the same. However, any expert would tell you that this third

25 number is actually something that has to do with a lack of concentration

1 or attention, but the 8s and everything else are the same, the 9s too.

2 But if you look at this number 2, it has a different position, a

3 different slant, and its size is considerably different, whereas here, in

4 spite of Mr. Ackerman's effort, I think that it would be no use to him if

5 he tried to use that.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm sorry. You have lost me on this. If you look

7 at 3D -- sorry, IC 19 --

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am sorry about that.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: If you look at your original, IC196, with the

10 26.05 on it, the top two 2s are just the same -- the bottom of them's

11 just the same as the others only a bit fatter, and that seems to me to be

12 what's on the one that you've just been shown. Am I missing -- am I

13 misunderstanding it?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, if I may say so, the

15 2 has a different material on which it was put and what shows that this

16 was done subsequently; and secondly, it has to do with a different

17 machine that leaves a different imprint. You cannot --

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Hold on. Which are you talking about at the

19 moment?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The first two big 2s, not

21 Mr. Ackerman's.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah. Well, I'm not asking you about them. I'm

23 asking you about the other one. Put them side by side on the ELMO,

24 please, and come out so that we can see it all clearly.

25 Now, if you look at the last of these 2s on the right-hand side,

1 the red one, 26 and then the word -- followed by the word "Mei," and if

2 you look at the third one, are you telling me that the bottom line of

3 these 2s is the same dimension as the bottom line of the other three on

4 that list?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Judge, sir, if an expert were to

6 look at only these five stamps made by Mr. Ackerman, not a single one

7 would tell you that it's not the same one --

8 JUDGE BONOMY: That's not my question, Professor --

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- it would be described to

10 manipulation --

11 JUDGE BONOMY: I understood that, but that's not my question.

12 You made a very clear statement that the dimensions of the bases of the

13 2s were identical, and I just don't understand that statement, and that's

14 what I'm trying to clarify because to me they look different. Now, what

15 is it that makes you say that the bases of these 2s are the same as the

16 other three 2s when they plainly are fatter?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, I have to say to

18 you - you will probably agree with me - that the first and second one

19 from the top -- stamps from the top are practically the same for the most

20 part. The third one is smeared, and obviously it shows that there was a

21 mistake in terms of manipulation. The fourth stamp, one, two, three,

22 four, the fourth one is a normal one. I mean normal in the sense of what

23 was expected of the numerator, the device. And the fifth one, again, in

24 terms of the original position and general characteristics, we see that

25 it comes from the same device except that in case of the 2 the blanks are

1 filled; however, it doesn't make it a gigantic 2 yet again. Sorry, I

2 don't seem to be responding properly. I hope that I have given an answer

3 to what you had asked me about.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, you haven't answered my question, but I

5 think we've exhausted it.

6 Mr. Ackerman.

7 MR. ACKERMAN:

8 Q. Professor, I want to read you your opinion on your supplemental

9 information sheet. You say this: "In the log-book in question, the

10 traces of the date 26.05.1999 in columns 248 and 250 differ from the

11 traces of the same date in columns 323, 268, 325, 326, 327, 328, and

12 329," and all of us looking at that can agree that they differ.

13 But then you take this leap: "Which indicates counterfeiting,

14 that is that the dates in columns 248 and 250 was not printed on the same

15 day when the dates in the other said columns were printed."

16 Now, as I understand your testimony, and you tell me if I'm

17 wrong, what you claim happened here was that the 2 on the stamp was moved

18 to subsequent numbers and then later some day moved back to that 2, and

19 you couldn't ever get it back the same way so that when you made a stamp

20 with that 2 the second time, it's this big fat stamp that you see in 248

21 and 250. Now, is that the basis of your conclusion? Is that what you're

22 making this broad conclusion on, on that kind of testimony?

23 A. You're fully right. This first imprint and the second one were

24 made with the same numerator. However, this first one, in it the number

25 2 has a somewhat different position than in the other one. I do not have

1 sufficient elements to claim that this figure 2 was moved twice; however,

2 I have sufficient elements for saying that these 2s come from different

3 stamps and are not of the same date as the others in the document. How

4 am I making this conclusion? I'm making it because all numbers have a

5 similar shape except in the first two imprints. I don't know whether

6 this is sufficient explanation or not for you.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: I wonder if we have an interpretation problem.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Would you like me to repeat?

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, you've been translated into English as

10 saying that these 2s come from different stamps, and that needs to be

11 clarified.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. The first two 2s, or rather,

13 that entire imprint, they come from a different numerator. Now, whether

14 they changed the dates twice, I wouldn't be able to say, but they were

15 definitely changed, and they were stamped separately from the others,

16 which created this prominent difference in calibre. This is what gives

17 me the basis for claiming what I have claimed.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Sorry, I have -- I have misunderstood you all

19 along then. I did not understand we were talking about two separate

20 pieces of equipment being used here.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that just by looking at it

22 without a looking-glass, just using a naked eye, one can tell that these

23 two imprints differ from the other ones, and this came about because a

24 different numerator was used, and in the first two cases the imprint was

25 made that way. It is possible that the imprint was made once and that

1 the 2 was moved and then stamped again, but I can't go as far as to

2 actually claim that. It is clear, however, that it is not consistent

3 with other numerators, and, Your Honours, it seems to me that this is

4 quite clear just by looking at this with the naked eye.

5 JUDGE CHOWHAN: Well, Professor, I have a question just to

6 clarify my own thoughts. I would request you to help me in this respect.

7 Now, you are firm on this that two numerators were used. Okay. But

8 could they have been used on the same date? How are you getting the

9 conclusion with respect to the use of different numerators on different

10 dates? Now, that I'm not able to understand. I'm sorry for that. Thank

11 you.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the first and the second

13 imprint come from a different numerator as compared to the rest, six or

14 seven, of them; that's clear. And in the first one and in the second

15 one, you can see that between themselves they differ. First of all, in

16 the position of figure 2 in its thickness, and one would need a very

17 sophisticated and labour-intensive method to establish whether this has

18 been changed twice. At this point in time, however, I can confirm that

19 the first and the second numerator is of a different kind than in the

20 rest of those imprints and that its use in this particular document was

21 something that pointed me in the direction of predating.

22 In addition to this, there are also dots after 6 and 5. If you

23 look at these clear, uncontested imprints, then one can see that these

24 dots are very close to the imprint line in all of these cases except in

25 the first two imprints where there is a distance between the imprint line

1 and the dot, and this is what prompted me to do this other analysis and

2 present it to you. I regret that I'm not convincing enough.

3 JUDGE CHOWHAN: I'm just seeking a clarification, but kindly tell

4 me, how do you say that this was antedated? I mean, what are the basis?

5 I mean, there could be two numerators used on the same date. If you

6 could help me knowing this, that would be very useful.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You know, it is easy to recognise

8 an instrument, a type and other features, and this is what I used to draw

9 my conclusion. Please bear in mind one thing, that this list that was

10 created came from our basic list and compiled that way just to draw your

11 attention to this. Otherwise, the order in the document itself is quite

12 different.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, but, Professor, you're being asked why you

14 say they could not both have been done on the same day. The fact that

15 they are different does not mean that they were done on different days.

16 Now, what is your reason for saying they were done on different days?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I think that only the head of

18 the institution in charge of this could give you an answer to that. I

19 can't give you an answer. They all know each other. They recognise each

20 other's stamps, and they know these things; however, I can't gain access

21 to that information.

22 JUDGE CHOWHAN: So therefore, it is possible that two numerators

23 may have been used on the same date. What would you say on that? And

24 there was a question whether you were good enough in checking the number

25 of numerators available with the repository of this, which of course was

1 not done, and now we have to then guess what it could be. Thank you very

2 much.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You know what? I can't know that

4 fact, how many numerators there were. Everything that one wanted to

5 obtain in that archives had to be made -- requested in writing, and then

6 permission had to be sought, and one had to wait for, like, a month.

7 However, it is normal to use a numerator if one works in the archives,

8 and then if another one is used on the following day, then it's quite

9 clear why it was done. And here it seems that there were just a total of

10 two numerators, and one should look into the issue of which documents

11 were covered by this, if I may call it, gigantic numerator.

12 JUDGE CHOWHAN: Now, as I see these lines, because of which you

13 were able to distinguish between the sizes of the -- of the digits, I

14 find these going slanting one way or going slanting the other way. What

15 is the scientific method then used? Because these lines do not appear

16 facsimile. These appear different, some going in a tangent, some going a

17 little different. That confuses me, and may I request you to kindly,

18 because of your learning, explain this position.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I worked with a stereomicroscope,

20 Olympus, with a mobile head, and that kind of equipment gives the best

21 results in these situations. I can give you this picture of -- the

22 photograph of the Olympus. However, I wasn't able to take this equipment

23 to the archives because it weighs between 45 and 60 kilos.

24 JUDGE CHOWHAN: So where did you draw these lines?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I drew the line at the top, the

1 first one. I connected the 2 and the tops of the 9s. The line at the

2 bottom is less slanted. You see that the angle is less sharp, and then

3 in the third instance you see that these lines connecting 2 and 999,

4 there's very little discrepancy there. As for the dots after 6 and after

5 5, they're in a way different, whereas with the rest of the imprints, all

6 these dots are parallel, and they touch the line.

7 JUDGE CHOWHAN: And, learned Professor, then you got the

8 impression that there was rotation on the -- on that instrument, is it,

9 is it because of this?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, because the figure 2 did not

11 go back to its original position, and this -- in this entire sample,

12 regardless of the size, the 2 is always in the same location and does not

13 oscillate, except in the case of these two, which points me in the

14 direction of a subsequent imprint. Thank you for your questions. I

15 think that you help me be more clear.

16 JUDGE CHOWHAN: And thank you.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Ackerman, I hope we're nearing the end.

18 MR. ACKERMAN: We might be, Judge.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, there's a limit to the time that can be

20 spent on this one subject.

21 MR. ACKERMAN:

22 Q. Professor, the Judge wants me to hurry up, and I'm going to, but

23 I need your cooperation in that regard. In your original report, the

24 basis for your conclusion was that the one numerator had been changed to

25 new dates, and then at some later date taken back to the 26th of May and

1 stamped that way, and you said that's why the 2 is bigger, because it

2 didn't get put back in the same place.

3 Now, today you've decided to change that testimony and say that

4 it was two different numerators that made these stamps. I'm going to

5 give you an opportunity that I probably shouldn't give you, but I will.

6 I'm going to give you an opportunity to withdraw from your opinion the

7 language which says -- which indicates counterfeiting that the dates in

8 the columns were not printed on the same day when the dates in the other

9 columns were printed. I'm going to give you a chance to withdraw that

10 opinion because it's clearly wrong.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Well --

12 MR. ACKERMAN:

13 Q. Would you like to withdraw it?

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, before we do this, Mr. Ackerman, I don't --

15 unless I'm again misunderstanding it, I don't think you've presented the

16 position accurately. Because now that I read the original report in the

17 light of the recent exchange, it does say on page 5: "It may be

18 concluded from this that the stamp which was used for columns 323," et

19 cetera, "was different from the date stamp used in column 248."

20 Now, I agree, I thought having reading the supplementary

21 information sheet that that in fact meant the stamp had been changed in

22 some way in its format, but that seems to be presupposing originally two

23 stamps, and then the confusion I think comes in in the second report.

24 MR. ACKERMAN: I thought the supplemental was replacing the

25 original in that regard. Maybe I was wrong.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: No, but you've put them the wrong way around, I

2 think. That's all I'm saying, or have I -- just a second. In your

3 original report, you say your conclusion was that one numerator had been

4 changed.

5 So you're regarding the original report as the supplemental

6 information sheet because we've got on the second page of it, we go into

7 the detail about the difference between 248 and 250, and the conclusion

8 that is then drawn about counterfeiting and the dates is another leap

9 forward.

10 MR. ACKERMAN: Well, the original report says that the date stamp

11 to make the 248 and 250 was a different stamp from the others.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.

13 MR. ACKERMAN: And then the supplement says, No, that's not what

14 it was, it was because this was moved and then brought back, and that's

15 how I conclude that it was made after the fact.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: That's what I thought it said.

17 MR. ACKERMAN: And I think that's what he was saying. And now

18 I'm giving him a chance to simply withdraw his conclusion that what you

19 see in front of us indicates counterfeiting, and I don't know if he wants

20 to do that or not, but I invite him to do it.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: What's your answer to that, Professor?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I think that you're fully

23 right, that this supplement derogates the initial information. As for

24 Mr. Ackerman's gift, I cannot accept it because you know that old

25 proverb: Fear of the Greeks even when bringing gifts.

1 MR. ACKERMAN:

2 Q. I know that you are highly trained and highly skilled, at least

3 that's what you tell us. And everybody in the courtroom that's looking

4 at this document can see that the 2s in the first two lines there are

5 different from the rest of the 2s, so nobody's arguing with you about

6 that. Nobody. What nobody can understand is how the fact that those 2s

7 are larger than the other 2s means that they weren't put there on the

8 26th of May. That's a leap that no one understands and that I suggest to

9 you you simply cannot make. Now, that's right, isn't it?

10 A. No, I don't understand that. I'm trying to say this. What you

11 have on the screens right now on the left has been cut out in order to be

12 shown here, but if you look at the original document with these stamps,

13 you will see that this fat figures of 2 and 6 have been imprinted in

14 several places, in two places, in fact.

15 Q. You know, I think we can ask you this question 25 times here

16 today, and we're going to get the same nonsense answer from you --

17 JUDGE BONOMY: The matter's been exhausted, Mr. --

18 MR. ACKERMAN: And I now want to look at 3D 1131 --

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we need an IC number for the red-stamped

20 document.

21 MR. ACKERMAN: Oh, we need an IC number for that --

22 THE REGISTRAR: That will be IC 197, Your Honours.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

24 MR. ACKERMAN: I think I've got, like, one or two more questions,

25 Judge, and I'm done. 3D 1131, please. Just the Serbian version. We

1 don't need the English. The second page, please. And I just want to

2 blow up the top part of that document, the first two columns, 247, 248.

3 That's probably as good as we're going to be able to get.

4 Q. Professor, I want you to look at line 248, the second entry

5 there. Look at the 872 and the 1, okay?

6 A. You said 248. What do you want me to look at there?

7 Q. The line 2, column -- I can't read that -- column 6 --

8 A. Yes, 28th of May.

9 Q. Yes. There's an 872, and then there's some other numbers and a

10 1. Those are the numbers I want you to concentrate on. Do you see them?

11 A. I see 248. Do you want me to discuss that first?

12 Q. No, I don't want you to discuss that at all. I want you to go to

13 the second entry in 248, and go over to column 6, and you should see

14 handwritten 872 --

15 A. Very well.

16 Q. 872-94/1-2. Do you see that?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Go straight above that, and you see an 872-137/1. Now, isn't it

19 the case that the person who wrote the 872 in 248 is the same person who

20 wrote it in 247? It's the same writing, isn't it?

21 A. It is very difficult to say because it is a limited space. All I

22 can say for a fact is that this is a different writing implement.

23 Q. Let's see if we can blow up those two numbers more and get kind

24 of tight in on that part of the thing so you can see them better. Look

25 at how distinctive that 1 is. That 1 is made in a distinctive way, isn't

1 it?

2 A. You mean 153 or at the top?

3 Q. Those 1s -- in both those boxes, the 1s are very, very

4 distinctive. They've got a little tail there toward the bottom. You see

5 them?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And the 872 look virtually identical, don't they?

8 A. 872. Where have you seen that? What date is it?

9 Q. Are you looking at the screen? It's right in front of you under

10 number 6. Don't you see the two 872s there?

11 A. Will you please show it. Point it to me, please.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Professor, look at your screen.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am. 872-94/1-2. What do you

14 want me to do with that?

15 JUDGE BONOMY: If you go above that, you'll see 872-137/1 at the

16 top of the page.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The same person wrote this. You

18 mean column 6, the first entry, 872, and then the second 872 under the

19 26th of May. This was written by the same person, and 1 and 2 are quite

20 prominent. I did not analyse this, but I can look at it now, and most

21 likely this was done by the same person.

22 Now, what's the purpose of this question?

23 MR. ACKERMAN:

24 Q. You don't need to know. I'm through asking you questions. Thank

25 you very much.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Just to end on consensus.

2 Professor, we need to have another break at this stage --

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We have the last one remaining.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Just leave everything in front of you there. We

5 have to have a break now for half an hour. Again, would you leave the

6 courtroom with the usher, please, and we will see you again at five

7 minutes past 6.00.

8 [The witness stands down]

9 --- Recess taken at 5.33 p.m.

10 --- On resuming at 6.05 p.m.

11 [The witness takes the stand]

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Professor, you'll now be cross-examined by the

13 Prosecutor, Mr. Hannis.

14 Mr. Hannis.

15 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour.

16 Cross-examination by Mr. Hannis:

17 Q. Professor, I just have a handful of questions for you, really.

18 One of the first ones I had was at page 8, line 15, today. You were

19 talking about when you went to the archives with Mr. Visnjic and looked

20 at the documents, and one of the things you were looking for was to see

21 whether or not any of the originals had been scanned, and you talked

22 about the importance of looking at the back page of the original. Can

23 you explain to me what that's for, why you do that?

24 A. Well, you see, let me tell you, scanning considerably imperilled

25 my profession. You get a handwriting that is completely authentic;

1 however, there are about eight ways of establishing whether the document

2 had been scanned. That can be done by examining the original and the

3 back side of the original document. Light is cast on the document. You

4 look at a testament, a last will, and you look at the front page, and

5 then on the other side you look at the back side, and then say the lady

6 leaving, this is her last will and testament wrote flatly, now, why was

7 that -- well, anyway, I'm just giving you an example. Never mind. I

8 have to be very careful. I do take colour photocopies, but before that I

9 have to establish that I'm working on the basis of originals that were

10 copied in colour. That would be it.

11 Q. [Microphone not activated]

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

13 MR. HANNIS:

14 Q. Are you looking at the document to see if what you have is a

15 scanned copy? Is that what you're trying to check for? You'll have to

16 answer out loud.

17 A. Scanning is one of these forms. There have been many

18 improvements, especially now that there are electronic signatures in

19 banks and elsewhere, so that has to be ruled out. There are eight ways

20 of doing that. I don't want really want to educate you about that now,

21 but then there is relief, and then there is -- if you look at the edges,

22 there are imperceptible lines when a document is scanned and so on.

23 Q. Were you able to satisfy yourself that the documents you looked

24 at in the archives were originals rather than scanned copies?

25 A. Absolutely.

1 Q. Okay. Thank you. [Microphone not activated]

2 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Hannis, please.

3 MR. HANNIS:

4 Q. I had some questions about the numerator, but I think that's been

5 covered. You did talk about Exhibit 3D 1130. If we could have that on

6 the screen, please. Mr. Ackerman was asking you about some of the

7 handwritten number 2s or numeral 2s, and at page 39 of the transcript

8 today at --

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. -- at line 6, Mr. Ackerman asked you a question, and in your

11 answer you said that you could -- "we can conclude that the person who

12 made that 2 in line number 29" -- I think we have to go to page 2 or 3 of

13 this document to get line 29. If you'll bear with me for a moment,

14 Professor, while we pull that up.

15 A. Very well.

16 Q. Yes. You agree with Mr. Ackerman that that appeared to be one of

17 what you referred to as a swan's-neck ending on the numeral 2. And you

18 said: "So we can conclude that the person who made that 2 in line 29 is

19 the same person who made the changes in line 84 that we were looking

20 at -- 82 that we were looking at earlier, can't we?" And you said yes to

21 that question. I'm asking you, is it your opinion that just by looking

22 at that one number you're able to say that the same person wrote that

23 number in line 29, that same person also wrote the number that you see in

24 line 82. If we could go to that page in this document.

25 A. Honourable Prosecutor, before we see this, let me say something

1 else. I said that with a bit of reservation, if I may remind you. When

2 people fill out very small questionnaires, forms, they usually split the

3 numbers up. So as for handwriting expertise in little boxes in

4 documents, that changes the way documents are written -- or rather,

5 numbers are written to such a degree that it really cannot be done.

6 Let me tell you another thing. I'm against what you would call

7 en passant expertise because as my Professor Bishof said, it's like if

8 you're reading somebody else's newspaper in the underground, over his

9 shoulder. I hope you understand me to be saying this with the best of

10 intentions.

11 Q. I think I do understand, and that's the reason I'm asking you the

12 question because it seems to me that even the best or maybe even

13 especially the best handwriting expert would be reluctant to express that

14 kind of opinion based on one number written in a small box and looking at

15 another numeral 2 written in another small box to conclude that they were

16 written by the same person, but that seems to be what you did in

17 answering that question to Mr. Ackerman. Are you comfortable that that's

18 a sufficient sample upon which to conclude that the same person wrote

19 both numeral 2s, the one you saw in line number 29 and the one you see

20 here in line 82?

21 A. Thank you for that question. I have to tell you one thing. It

22 is quite clear that this kind of list should not have any handwritten

23 corrections. However, now that they're there, that they're anyway, I

24 simply had to observe that it was done by two persons. If someone were

25 to go to the archives and if you'd talk to these people, then they'd

1 quickly tell you who did what because obviously one number 2 was made by

2 Mr. Ademovski -- Mladenovski, whatever his name was, and the other 2 is

3 someone else's. But I thought that it is important that the Court should

4 know that two persons had intervened there, and of course what I'm

5 telling you now about these boxes and how they're filled out, of course

6 that has an effect too. For example, in case of the number 2, that can

7 be a simple one, if it is entered in a box like that, then the

8 termination is a bit abbreviated in a way.

9 Q. Well, let me tell you what I understand the evidence from

10 Mr. Mladenovski was regarding these handwritten changes in this document.

11 As I recall his evidence, and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I state it

12 inaccurately, but he claims that he made all the handwritten changes on

13 this document except for the changes in line number 82. Now, if that's

14 the case, it seems that he's saying he's the author of the handwritten

15 numeral 2 that we looked at a little bit ago in line 29 and not the

16 author of anything handwritten in line number 82. That seems to be

17 inconsistent with what I understood you to say your opinion was that the

18 handwritten numeral 2 in line 82 and in line 29 were by the same person.

19 Do you have a comment about that?

20 A. Of course. Thank you for that question. Please look at number

21 82. It has that romantic name, doesn't it, if we can put it that way.

22 There's that swan. 84 is different already. I think that you don't have

23 to be a rocket scientist to realize that these are two different persons.

24 I don't know what Mr. Mladenovski said, but not both of those entries are

25 his. One is, but ...

1 Q. Okay. But I understood him to say that the entry in line number

2 29 that we looked at was not his, even though upon viewing it, it does

3 appear to have a bit of a swan's neck, to use your term. Now, is it

4 still your opinion that the handwritten numeral 2 in item 29, line number

5 29, was written by the same person who wrote the handwritten numeral 2s

6 in line 82 that's on the screen right now?

7 A. Well, I see 82, and that number 2 is not the same like the 2 in

8 84. I think that you will easily agree to that.

9 Q. I do agree to that. Could we go back for a minute, though, and

10 look at the handwritten numeral 2 in line 29 --

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Let's see if we can get them side by side,

12 Mr. Hannis.

13 MR. HANNIS: That's a great idea, Your Honour. Thank you.

14 Q. [Microphone not activated]

15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Hannis, please.

16 MR. HANNIS:

17 Q. Is that big enough, or should we try to enlarge it a little bit

18 more?

19 A. It's fine. Just tell me the number, please, 82 or 2 -- or

20 rather, 84?

21 Q. Could you look at first line number 29, that handwritten numeral

22 2.

23 A. Very well.

24 Q. And then line number 82, the handwritten numeral 2s in that line.

25 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We cannot hear the

1 witness. Interpreter's note: We cannot hear the witness.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Professor, Professor, the interpreters cannot hear

3 you. Could you start the answer again, please.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you very much.

5 What was the other number after 782?

6 MR. HANNIS:

7 Q. Line number 29 on the left.

8 A. [In English] 29.

9 Q. I want you to look at that numeral 2 and compare it to the

10 numeral 2s in line number 82, and when you speak your answer, you may

11 have to lean back from the screen a bit so the microphones will pick you

12 up.

13 A. [Interpretation] Let's do it in the right order. 29 that you

14 referred to.

15 Q. Yes, compared to 82.

16 A. [In English] To 82. [Interpretation] I think -- of course it

17 would be better if I had my instruments here if I were doing this

18 properly, but I think this has to do with an abbreviated writing of the

19 numeral 2 in the case of 29, 2. As for 82, the 2 is crossed out and it's

20 too wide. I think that there is a certain difference, but I would have

21 to do this properly in peace and magnify it 20 times, up to 40 times, so

22 that I could see the end in 29. Yes, 29. Yes. It's hard to compare,

23 but I think it can be done. But right now I cannot because number 2, the

24 numeral 2, in number 29 is written in an abbreviated way. Yes. Yes.

25 Please go ahead.

1 Q. I understood from your written report and supplement and what you

2 said before that your review of the handwritten changes, numbers, in this

3 document led you to conclude that there were two different writers of all

4 of those handwritten changes. Is that correct?

5 A. Yes, correct.

6 Q. Is it your opinion that there were only two different writers, or

7 could there have been more than two?

8 A. Well, I have to tell you that this number 2, the one without any

9 ornaments, the horizontal one, whereas this other 2 that has romantically

10 been termed swan-like is only in a few other places. I haven't found

11 others. Now, you can look at 3 and number 8, but I think it's only two

12 persons that were involved in doing this.

13 Q. Thank you. You used another term when we were talking about the

14 numerator and the stamp-pad. You talked about Gullivers. Can you tell

15 me, is that a literary term from Gulliver's Travels?

16 A. Yes, yes, yes. Gulliver.

17 Q. And what are you referring to? You're referring to an

18 exceptionally large number --

19 A. [In English] Calibre.

20 Q. Large calibre.

21 A. [In English] Calibre.

22 Q. Thank you. I think just two more areas. In connection with -- I

23 think it was the Exhibit -- I guess we were looking at the entry for

24 number 248, and this is in Exhibit 3D 1131, item number 247 and 248. If

25 we could have a look at that. Mr. Ackerman asked you to look at some

1 digits that were written there and render an opinion about whether the

2 same person wrote those.

3 Can we enlarge the upper left quadrant as much as possible.

4 Okay.

5 Professor, you see that on the right-hand side of your screen at

6 the very top, there is a handwritten 872-137/1, and about five lines

7 below that in that column there's an 872-94/1-2. Do you recall looking

8 at that earlier?

9 A. [Interpretation] Of course I do. Of course I do. I am grateful

10 to you for going back to that question that I did not manage to answer

11 because of the break. General similarity is established in terms of

12 handwriting expertise, and it is eliminatory, and then there are

13 individual characteristics that confirm who the scriptor was. In this

14 case there is a general similarity; however, as for individual ones, I

15 mean, I hope you won't hold it against me. I wouldn't dare do this

16 without a proper instrument, but I would do that because the general

17 similarity would compel me to do an expert report on that.

18 Q. Well, that's what I wanted to clear up. Would you agree with me

19 that's really a pretty small sample to try and reach a conclusion that

20 those two entries were written by the same person?

21 A. Yes, but the general similarity is there. As for individual

22 similarity, that would require the peace and quiet of a lab and proper

23 instruments so that I could tell you with a greater degree of certainty.

24 As I told you, en passant expertise is not advisable in this profession.

25 Q. And one possible reason for that similarity is because, indeed,

1 they may have been done by the same person. That's one explanation,

2 right?

3 A. Yes, yes.

4 Q. Another possible explanation is the second one, the 872-94, is

5 written by someone who's trying to duplicate the handwriting in the

6 earlier entry. That's possible too, isn't it?

7 A. Well, yes. If I may just analyse it this way. Now, although I

8 said that this should be studied in particular. Please look at 248, this

9 872. Look at the 7. It is quite slanted, whereas the 7 up there is

10 relatively vertical. However, I'm just referring to a finesse here that

11 would have to be confirmed. Also, you should bear in mind that they're

12 handwriting variants of the same script. No one writes the same way

13 twice, but they do preserve their basic original characteristics.

14 Q. I agree with you, Professor. Looking at my own signature, it

15 varies from month to month, year to year. But I note in the 872-94 entry

16 that I think you said before it appeared to be a different writing

17 implement, but it appears that at least portions of that number appear to

18 have been gone over more than once --

19 A. A bit slanted, yes.

20 Q. And --

21 A. The 7 is a bit slanted, don't you think? Down here.

22 Q. Yes, but it looks to me as though perhaps part of the number 8

23 and part of the number 4 and perhaps part of the number 9 have been gone

24 over more than once?

25 A. Yes, but that is something that involves a new job.

1 Q. Okay. And the last area I wanted to ask you about, I guess, was

2 that -- I think you already answered. That's really too small a sample

3 to try and reach an expert opinion on sitting here in the courtroom,

4 right?

5 A. Certainly.

6 Q. Thank you.

7 MR. HANNIS: I have no further questions for the witness.

8 Q. Thank you, Professor.

9 A. Thank you for your understanding.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic, one of the exhibits you put to the

11 witness at the beginning of your evidence was 3D 1109, which is a

12 log-book.

13 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Correct, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, where does that feature in his reports or

15 evidence?

16 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, 3D 1109 is the same

17 document as 3D 1131.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: You've previously withdrawn 3D 1109 as an exhibit.

19 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Correct, because we had a problem

20 with translation. At that point in time, the translation section didn't

21 want to translate what was not clear. Later on, we received the

22 translation, we uploaded it into the system, and it is there now.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: But if it's the same as 3D 1131, why do we have

24 it?

25 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] We need it, Your Honours, because

1 this page, 248 -- or rather, page 2 on which you can see both documents,

2 so page 2 in both documents, this line in the first document, 1109, was

3 not covered. We received the document without any restrictions

4 whatsoever. We believe this to be important because it shows that in

5 column 250, if you look at it, on that page in column 250 where the date

6 is, 26th of May, no entry was made about the document, which means that

7 it was a test of something similar. We will be drawing appropriate

8 conclusions about that later on. So if you look at 1109 --

9 JUDGE BONOMY: But don't move just for the moment. Is this not a

10 redacted version?

11 MR. VISNJIC: [No interpretation]

12 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm getting no interpretation. I'm sorry.

13 MR. VISNJIC: [In English] Oh, I'm sorry. [Interpretation] We

14 have 1130 here, but if you look at 1109 -- [In English] 1130.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: But 1130 is an archive list. 1109 is a log-book.

16 Let's concentrate on the issue. My concern is with the log-book, 3D

17 1109.

18 MR. VISNJIC: [In English] I'm sorry, that's my mistake.

19 [Interpretation] The log-book 1109 is the same document as 1130.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Is this the situation where --

21 THE INTERPRETER: 1131, interpreter's correction.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: -- one of them was redacted and the other one was

23 simply a few -- page 1 and then a leap to page 7 or something like that

24 of the same document?

25 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, that happened in both

1 cases, both with the log-book and the archive list. We had the same

2 situation there in both cases. In the first version, we received

3 unredacted documents; and in the second version, we received redacted

4 documents but complete ones.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Why did you withdraw 3D 1109 and now try to

6 introduce it?

7 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] We withdrew 1109 because at that

8 point we still did not have the translation from the CLSS because the

9 copy was bad, illegible. Later on, they produced the translation, and it

10 is attached to the document now.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

12 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

13 JUDGE BONOMY: So that document will be admitted through this

14 witness.

15 Do you have re-examination?

16 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Just a couple of brief questions.

17 Re-examination by Mr. Visnjic:

18 Q. [Interpretation] Professor, Mr. Ackerman questioned you. He put

19 a number of questions to you about how could you work with colour

20 photocopies, whether the colour depended on a printer, and whether it

21 changed in various printing instances and so on. Would you now please

22 look at the last page of 3D 1134, please. It will come up on the screen

23 before you. This is the decision of the National Council and conclusion

24 of the government cabinet, and on the last page one can see what it is

25 that you actually received. Did you work on the basis of a CD which also

1 had a scanned colour document?

2 A. Yes, scanned in the proper sense of the word, not doctored. So

3 these were authentic copies, quite appropriate for expertise, but had I

4 not seen them in the original, I would not have been as firm as I was

5 about saying that the document had not been abused.

6 Q. All right. So the government did not provide to us a colour

7 photocopy but, rather, a document that was scanned?

8 A. Yes, scanned, but different type of scanning. Today, when one

9 uses that term, scanning, that means transferring somebody's signature

10 from one document to another. In the case that you're describing,

11 scanning refers to a very good quality of copying.

12 Q. Thank you.

13 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could we now please see the last

14 page of both documents.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: We're -- are we not on the last page?

16 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I just

17 wanted to draw your attention to the last page of the document where you

18 can see what it is that the cabinet -- government cabinet of Serbia

19 provided to the Ojdanic Defence and we later in turn to Professor

20 Aleksic.

21 Q. Professor, my next question deals with document IC -- I

22 apologise, IC 196. I will kindly ask that it be put on the ELMO --

23 rather, a different copy be placed on the ELMO. Thank you.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Hold on, please, Mr. Visnjic.

25 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Please continue.

2 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. Professor, you talked to me about similarities and differences of

4 numerators. You showed it in a copy containing seven rather than eight

5 of dates. Now, this eighth column that can be seen on the picture before

6 you, does it change anything in --

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic, the one on the screen only has seven.

8 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, on the ELMO we have

9 the one with eight.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic, the last record of a reference here

11 to an exhibit is to document IC 196. Now, that is if you press your

12 e-court button on the screen. What is it you're now showing the witness?

13 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours. I'm showing to

14 him another document that contains a total of eight imprints rather than

15 IC 196, which has seven dates.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I reply?

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Is it a coloured copy? Is it black and white?

18 What is it?

19 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] It's a coloured copy.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. So that's now on the ELMO, is it?

21 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Correct.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I may answer. The most

23 important ones for analysis are the first two imprints. The remaining

24 ones, regardless of whether there were a total of seven or eight, they

25 only serve the purpose of showing the difference in the calibre in the

1 first two. So that's the only difference. The first two are absolute,

2 and the remaining ones show what a typical, a regular, imprint looked

3 like, whether it was the seventh or the eighth, it's -- it makes no

4 difference from number 2 down. Everything is typical.

5 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Thank you. Let me ask you directly. What you see on the ELMO in

7 front of you --

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. -- and what you testified about today concerning Exhibit 1C 196,

10 you actually make no difference or no changes when it comes to the

11 substance of your testimony?

12 A. Yes, absolutely. As I've told you, everything below the second

13 imprint is there just to serve as an illustration.

14 Q. Professor, today you testified and said that you heard the

15 testimony of Witness Mladenovski, that you followed it. Can you tell me,

16 what did you hear?

17 A. Well, I heard it when I arrived here, and then I checked some

18 internet sites, and I found some information. But to tell you the truth,

19 as soon as I saw that Mladenovski admitted to everything, as I've told

20 you, I was quite satisfied. And if I may say so, I expected to have an

21 easier time testifying here today.

22 Q. Thank you.

23 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further

24 questions for this witness.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We still have this remaining.

1 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Can we be given the IC number,

2 please.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.

4 THE REGISTRAR: That will be IC 198, Your Honours.

5 JUDGE CHOWHAN: I have just a question for him.

6 Questioned by the Court:

7 JUDGE CHOWHAN: Well, learned Professor, it's a question more to

8 deal in the territory of academics. I've always been of the -- I've been

9 thinking that this science of handwriting expertise, of finding out

10 handwriting or identifying handwriting is not a perfect science as

11 compared to the finger-prints, and that is why we find that on documents

12 you require witnesses to say that this is the handwriting of such and

13 such person. Do you agree with that statement, or would you like to

14 enlighten me on this subject? Thank you very much.

15 A. First of all, we have the following terms: Graphology,

16 graphoscopy, graphometrics, and all of that speaks of how that field

17 developed. As the new implements or means were brought in, it became an

18 uncertain -- or rather, it used to be an uncertain discipline that caused

19 numerous problems in French legislation, and then it became sort of more

20 sure of itself, if I may say so. And what is difficult in this field is

21 that it is impossible to establish the date of handwriting [as

22 interpreted] and that it is possible to give several interpretations. So

23 from that point of view, you are right. It is not an exact science, but

24 many things can be established by handwriting expertise. For example, if

25 people are not satisfied with last wills, they ask for a psychiatric

1 evaluation without going into handwriting or signature evaluation.

2 However, there are sufficient elements to believe that handwriting

3 expertise will maintain its place in the evidentiary proceedings.

4 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Line 85 -- or rather, page 85, line

5 7, Professor said age of ink -- or rather, date of ink, and it says here

6 the date of handwriting.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Professor, that completes your evidence. Thank

10 you for coming here to assist us. You may now leave the courtroom with

11 the usher.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President and members of the

13 Trial Chamber, thank you for allowing me to sit while I testified.

14 Please accept my apologies if I created any difficulty for you rather

15 than assisting you through my testimony. I devoted my entire life to

16 expertise, and I was an expert in many courts, and Aristotle used to say

17 when you go to court, you go to get justice. I hope that I was true to

18 that role on this occasion as well. Thank you to the Prosecutor and to

19 the Defence. Good-bye.

20 [Microphone not activated]

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Professor, I don't think anyone would disagree

22 with me when I say that we found your evidence very interesting.

23 JUDGE CHOWHAN: But, Professor, I have a suggestion. Would you

24 like to suggest Mr. Ackerman as a student in the future?

25 THE WITNESS: [In English] No. I think Mr. Ackerman and me, we

1 are really different. Okay.

2 JUDGE CHOWHAN: And you don't want to indoctrinate him --

3 THE WITNESS: [In English] You know, but I must tell you

4 something, because sometimes coming in a situation to the accused, I take

5 advocate Mr. Ackerman.

6 [The witness withdrew]

7 JUDGE BONOMY: The Professor's influence is probably even greater

8 than he thinks himself because for him, time has stood still, and the

9 clock will now allow us to have another two witnesses, I think, tonight.

10 It is, in fact, after ten minutes to 7.00, so there is little point in

11 trying to commence the evidence of another witness tonight. So we shall

12 now adjourn -- sorry, Mr. Visnjic wants us to stay.

13 Mr. Visnjic.

14 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours, just briefly. In

15 the meantime while I was questioning Professor Aleksic, your decision

16 arrived, your ruling, on the motion to withdraw the expert on behalf of

17 General Pavkovic's Defence, and for the record I'd like to say two

18 things, the first one being that we haven't received the correspondence,

19 which must be a technical error, and that's why we were unable to respond

20 to it; and the second one is that on the following day after Witness

21 Mladenovski testified, so on the following day, his mobile number was

22 delivered to the Defence of General Pavkovic, and he received a call for

23 the first time on the 5th of May to provide samples, which is what he did

24 right away. So I'd like to say that in no way did we affect or influence

25 any conclusions relating to that because I see that that is listed down

1 as one of the reasons for withdrawing this expert.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, once you've had time to digest the decision,

3 I'm sure you will discover that it deals with all the situations that you

4 might have been concerned about, Mr. Visnjic.

5 MR. ACKERMAN: There was absolutely no claim in that regard, Your

6 Honour. It was holiday season in Belgrade, and you couldn't find

7 anybody.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well. We shall adjourn now until tomorrow at

9 9.00 in Courtroom I.

10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.53 p.m.,

11 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 14th day of

12 May, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25