Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 14815

 1                           Monday, 22nd July 2013

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.35 a.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone in and around this

 6     courtroom.

 7             Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  This is the case

 9     number IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

11             The Chamber was informed that there are no preliminary matters to

12     be raised, which means that we could start the examination of the next

13     witness which is Mr. Curtis.

14             MR. JEREMY:  That's correct, Your Honour.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.

16             MR. JEREMY:  Your Honours, while the witness is being brought in,

17     perhaps I might deal with a request to add three exhibits to the

18     witness's 65 ter -- to the Prosecution's 65 ter exhibit list.  Two of

19     those exhibits were the subject of a filing made in June and the third

20     exhibit is a CV of Mr. Curtis that we're seeking to add to the 65 ter

21     exhibit list.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic.

23             MR. IVETIC:  No objection to any of the three for the Defence,

24     Your Honour.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Any of the three.

Page 14816

 1             Could you list the 65 ter numbers?

 2             MR. JEREMY:  Yes, Your Honour.  The first one is 29111.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  The second is that 29112 and the third one

 4     29113?

 5             MR. JEREMY:  Correct.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Then leave is granted to add them to your 65 ter

 7     list.

 8             MR. JEREMY:  Thank you.

 9                           [The witness entered court]

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning, Mr. Curtis, I presume.

11             THE WITNESS:  Yes, good morning, sir.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning.  Before you give evidence, the Rules

13     require that you make a solemn declaration.  The text of which is now

14     handed out to you.  May I invite you to make that declaration.

15             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  I solemnly declare that I will speak the

16     truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

17                           WITNESS:  TIMOTHY CURTIS

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Curtis.  Please be seated.

19             THE WITNESS:  Thank you, sir.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Curtis, you'll first be examined by Mr. Jeremy.

21     You find him to your right.  Mr. Jeremy is counsel for the Prosecution.

22             Mr. Jeremy, you may proceed.

23             MR. JEREMY:  Thank you, Your Honours.

24                           Examination by Mr. Jeremy:

25        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Curtis.

Page 14817

 1        A.   Good morning, sir.

 2        Q.   Could you please states your full name.

 3        A.   Yes.  Timothy Joseph Curtis, last name is spelled C-u-r-t-i-s.

 4        Q.   And I see you've brought some materials into the courtroom.

 5     Could you just tell us what those are, please?

 6        A.   Yes.  It's a copy of my report, an envelope with two photographs,

 7     and a copy of the -- a submission 5 or request number 5.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  Mr. Curtis, what is your current profession?

 9        A.   I currently am the chief operations officer for laboratory

10     services for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

11        Q.   And how long have you been the chief operations officer?

12        A.   Since May of this year.

13        Q.   And before then what was your profession?

14        A.   I was also with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and

15     Explosives but as the chief of their

16     National Integrated Ballistic Identification Network.  The NIBIN

17     programme.

18        Q.   And could you tell us what the ATF is, please?

19        A.   I'm sorry.  The ATF is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms,

20     and Explosives.  It's a part of the United States Department of Justice,

21     one of the bureaus, and their primary function of -- for the laboratories

22     is to examine the forensic evidence recovered in arsons, bombings, and

23     shooting cases.

24        Q.   And you mentioned the NIBIN programme.  Could you tell the Court

25     what that is, please.

Page 14818

 1        A.   Yes, the NIBIN programme, National Integrated Ballistic

 2     Information Network, is a programme run throughout the United States in

 3     which they use the IBIS systems which are the integrated ballistic

 4     integrated systems.  They are ballistic computers.  And the NIBIN

 5     programme --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  May I ask you to slow down a bit for the

 7     interpreters and the transcribers.

 8             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  Yes, sir.

 9             Yes, the NIBIN programme is part of the bureau's ballistic

10     imaging programme where it links all the ballistic computers throughout

11     the United States into a -- several different computer databases where

12     they can be searched locally or nationally.

13             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, if I can just interject, I apologise,

14     but I just received a note that my client requires to have a break to use

15     the facilities.  So if he can be permitted to attend to that.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mladic would like to withdraw from the courtroom

17     for a moment or?  Leave is granted.

18             Any estimate as -- I mean, should we take a break?  Can we

19     continue meanwhile?  Or what's the --

20             MR. IVETIC:  I'm told five minutes, Your Honours.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  And are we supposed to continue or would Mr. Mladic

22     prefer to --

23             MR. IVETIC:  Yes, we can continue.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] We can continue in his

25     absence.  And the Chamber understands this as an explicit waiver of his

Page 14819

 1     right to be present in court.

 2             MR. IVETIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

 3                           [The accused withdrew]

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Please continue, Mr. Jeremy.

 5             MR. JEREMY:

 6        Q.   Mr. Curtis, you mention there the IBIS system, could you just

 7     give us a few lines about what that is, please?

 8        A.   Yes.  The IBIS system is a computerised network that will take

 9     digital images of the digital photographs of the cartridge case,

10     breechface, firing pin, and ejector marks.  It also -- you can take

11     images of fired bullets, and they are put into a database and they are

12     searched using an algorithm [Realtime transcript read in error

13     "algor ethnic"].  After the search results came back, and they are looked

14     at by the IBIS specialist to determine if there are any high confidence

15     matches.

16        Q.   And you mentioned a cartridge case.  Could you just provide

17     details about what a cartridge case is?  Yes.

18        A.   Yes.  A cartridge case is a part of the whole cartridge.  A

19     complete cartridge is a round of ammunition which has the case filled

20     with gun powder, a bullet on the other end of it, and on the head portion

21     there is a primer.  When the cartridge is placed into a fire-arm, the --

22     and the trigger is pulled, the firing pin will strike the primer on the

23     head of the case, that will detonate, igniting the gun powder.  Once the

24     gun powder is ignited it burns forming a gas.  The gas pushes the bullet

25     out of the barrel.  It also helps push the breech where the bolt of the

Page 14820

 1     fire-arm rearwards extracting the case which is now fired and empty out

 2     of the fire-arm and ejecting it onto the surrounding area.

 3        Q.   And is it correct to also refer to a cartridge case as a shell

 4     case?  Is that accurate?

 5        A.   Yes, that's accurate.

 6             MR. JEREMY:  Could the Court Officer please bring 65 ter 29113 to

 7     our screens.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask one clarifying question.  You said that

 9     they are searched using an algorithm.  If I say -- it says

10     "algor ethnic," but that apparently is a mistake.

11             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Algorithm, does that mean that the characteristics

13     of the material which is examined is -- is reduced to a numerical set of

14     data and then compared with others?  Is that how I have to understand it?

15             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  That is correct.  It becomes digitalised and

16     then numeric formulas and then it is searched that way.  You are correct.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

18             Please proceed.

19             MR. JEREMY:

20        Q.   Mr. Curtis, do you recall providing a copy of your CV to this

21     Tribunal, to the Office of the Prosecutor?

22        A.   Yes, I do.

23        Q.   And do you recognise the document on the screen now before you?

24        A.   I do.  It is a copy of my CV.

25        Q.   Does it detail your education, professional training, and

Page 14821

 1     professional experience?

 2        A.   Yes, it does.

 3        Q.   And I note from your CV that you have testified over 125 times as

 4     an expert in firearms in US courts; is that correct?

 5        A.   That is correct.

 6             MR. JEREMY:  Your Honours, I tender this document as the next

 7     Prosecution exhibit.

 8             MR. IVETIC:  No objection.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 29113 receives number P1816,

11     Your Honours.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

13             MR. JEREMY:

14        Q.   Mr. Curtis, has the ATF previously provided a report relating to

15     analysis of certain cartridge cases to the Office of the Prosecutor of

16     this Tribunal?

17        A.   Yes, it has.

18             MR. JEREMY:  Could the Court Officer please bring 65 ter 04613

19     [Realtime transcript read in error "01613"] to our screens.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  4613, is that it?

21             MR. JEREMY:  Yes, Your Honour.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

23             MR. JEREMY:

24        Q.   Mr. Curtis, do you recognise the document on the screen before

25     you?

Page 14822

 1        A.   Yes, I do.  It's an ATF, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms,

 2     laboratory report.

 3        Q.   And can you briefly just provide an overview of what this report

 4     is about?

 5        A.   Yes.  It's evidence that was received in our laboratory, both in

 6     November of 1997 and February of 1999.  The first several pages, nine

 7     pages, list the exhibits, and then the following pages, 9 through 14,

 8     will list the results of those comparisons of those exhibits.

 9             MR. JEREMY:  Can we please go to page 15 of this document.

10        Q.   Mr. Curtis, do you see your signature on that page?

11        A.   Yes, I do.

12        Q.   And were you involved in the preparation of this report and the

13     underlying investigation and that culminated in the production of this

14     report?

15        A.   Yes, I was.

16        Q.   And I see you're listed as a fire-arms tool-mark examiner.  Can

17     you tell us what that is, please?

18        A.   Yes.  Back in 2000, I was a fire-arm and tool-mark examiner with

19     the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, ATF for short.

20     And as fire-arm examiner, my duties were to do the microscopic comparison

21     of bullets, cartridge cases, or shell casings, and function testing of

22     firearms.  And the main purpose of doing these microscopic comparisons is

23     to determine if the cartridge cases or bullets were fired from the same

24     fire-arm or from a particular fire-arm if you have the fire-arm to

25     examine.

Page 14823

 1        Q.   And can you explain what it was that the Office of the Prosecutor

 2     of this Tribunal asked the ATF to do in connection with this report and

 3     the cartridge casings they provided to you?

 4        A.   Yes.  They asked us to enter these into our IBIS system and then

 5     do a physical comparison of any possible matches that may have come up in

 6     the IBIS system.

 7        Q.   And what was the basic aim of that analysis?  What was it to

 8     determine?

 9        A.   To determine if any of these cartridge cases that were submitted

10     had been fired in the same fire-arm.

11                           [The accused entered court]

12             JUDGE ORIE:  I put on the record that Mr. Mladic has returned to

13     the courtroom.

14             Please proceed.

15             MR. JEREMY:

16        Q.   And how were you able to make that determination as to whether

17     these cartridge cases had been fired in the same fire-arm?

18        A.   In this case we received a list of request from our IBIS

19     specialist who had entered the cartridge cases into the IBIS system, done

20     their correlations and reviewed them.  So they gave us a list of possible

21     matches.  And then as firearms examiners, we took the actual evidence

22     items, and using a comparison microscope, which is two microscopes with a

23     common eye piece, we were able to compare two cartridge cases at the same

24     time and overlay the images of the cartridge cases in the microscope to

25     see which markings are reproducing from one cartridge case to the next,

Page 14824

 1     and that's what we did in this case.

 2        Q.   Now you mentioned that you received a list of requests from your

 3     IBIS specialist?

 4             MR. JEREMY:  Can we please go to 65 ter 29111.

 5        Q.   Mr. Curtis, can you tell us what we're looking at here, if you

 6     recognise it?

 7        A.   Yes.  This is a copy of the list or the request that I received,

 8     request number 5, to inter-compare the exhibits that are in the left-hand

 9     column to the exhibits that are in the right-hand column to determine if

10     they were fired in the same fire-arm.

11        Q.   So these shell casings are the result of the preliminary IBIS

12     analysis and they identify the potential matching shell cases; is that

13     correct?

14        A.   That is correct.  That is what the IBIS personnel thought were

15     high confidence matches.

16        Q.   And I see a reference in this request to Zeleni Jadar and Kravica

17     warehouse.  Did you -- did those names mean anything to you at the time?

18        A.   No, they did not.

19        Q.   And in respect to the -- the potential matches identified the

20     high confidence candidates, what would -- what would happen to those once

21     they had been supplied to you by the IBIS examiners?  What was the next

22     step?

23        A.   The next step was for me to take the actual physical items, the

24     cartridge cases, and compare them on the comparison microscope to

25     determine if they were fired in the same fire-arm or not.

Page 14825

 1        Q.   And I see on this memorandum there are some manuscript markings

 2     on the right side.  Can you tell us what those are, please?

 3        A.   Yes.  They are markings I placed there during my examination of

 4     these items, such as in Exhibit 1627-10 when I compared it to

 5     Exhibit 0913-19.  I wrote next to it "negative," that I was not able to

 6     identify those two cartridge cases as being fired in the same fire-arm.

 7     And then as you come down there are several other negatives, and there is

 8     one LSM, which is "lacks sufficient marks."  In that case there were some

 9     markings there to indicate they may have been fired, but I did not have

10     enough to positively say they were fired in the same fire-arm.

11        Q.   And just --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask you, is it also that you couldn't say

13     that they were not fired from the same fire-arm?

14             THE WITNESS:  That is correct, sir.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  That makes it a special category against the

16     negatives and the positives.

17             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

19             MR. JEREMY:

20        Q.   Do you see your signature on that page, Mr. Curtis?

21        A.   I do.

22        Q.   Is that the signature on the right side?

23        A.   Yes.  It's on the bottom right-hand side with the date of

24     1-20-00.

25        Q.   And there is also a signature of a second person on that page.

Page 14826

 1     Whose signature is that?

 2        A.   That is the signature of my supervisor, and he signed that when

 3     he received the request from the IBIS specialist.

 4        Q.   So of the potential matches identified in this particular

 5     memorandum, there are only two positive matches that you were able to

 6     make; is that correct?

 7        A.   That is correct.

 8        Q.   Did you photograph the matches that you were able to make?

 9        A.   Yes, I did.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  If I might just ask a question.  I see the second

11     positive, there doesn't seem to be anything that 0913-47 is compared

12     with?

13             THE WITNESS:  On the left-hand column under Exhibit 1627-55, it

14     has the digital marks below it.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.

16                           [Trial Chamber confers]

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

18             THE WITNESS:  You're welcome, sir.

19             MR. JEREMY:  Could I tender this document as the next Prosecution

20     exhibit?

21             MR. IVETIC:  No objection.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 2911 receives number P1817,

24     Your Honours.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

Page 14827

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I have an additional question in relation to the

 2     signatures.

 3             Is it common in your system that first the supervisor signs a

 4     document and then you?

 5             THE WITNESS:  He was signing for receipt of the document from our

 6     IBIS specialist in this case, and for these -- the cases for this

 7     examination, yes, he would sign for them first.  And then after I did my

 8     examination, he would -- I would sign my results.  And after we did our

 9     report, after I signed my report, he would also review it and sign it

10     after me in that case.

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.

12             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

13             MR. JEREMY:

14        Q.   Staying with that question, if you made a positive match, would

15     that be verified by another member of your team?

16        A.   Yes.  All of our matches and non-matches are verified by a second

17     fire-arm -- qualified fire-arms examiner, as was in this case.

18        Q.   You mention that you photographed these matches.  What was the

19     purpose of photographing of the matching of the shell cartridges?

20        A.   Photographs, at the time we were doing them, just for our

21     recollection later on to refresh our memory as to exactly what we saw

22     under the microscope at that time so that later on if we have to go to

23     court we have a documented photograph of what we had seen.

24        Q.   In the process of determining whether two cartridge cases match,

25     would that be based on the photograph or what you saw through the

Page 14828

 1     microscope?

 2        A.   All our identifications are through the microscope.  We do not

 3     make identifications off photographs or off the IBIS computer screens.

 4     And when our second examiner confirms our verifications, they are also

 5     doing that through the comparison microscope.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  And could I ask you whether the image that you saw

 7     on the comparative microscope, whether that will be photographed again or

 8     stored in any other way?

 9             THE WITNESS:  It can -- if we had the items of evidence and put

10     them on a comparison microscope today, we can rephotograph them as well.

11     Yes.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  But not at the time, if I ...

13             THE WITNESS:  I'm not sure I understand, sir.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  You compared the items under the comparative

15     microscope.  I asked you whether you then photographed the image which

16     would be visible and then you said:

17             "It can -- if we had the items of evidence and put them on a

18     comparison microphone scope today, we can rephotograph them as well."

19             But were they photographed at the time?

20             THE WITNESS:  Yes, they were.  I'm sorry, sir.  We photographed

21     all our positive results.  We did not photograph any of the negative

22     results.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And they are still stored and available, if

24     need be?

25             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  I actually brought those two photographs with

Page 14829

 1     me today.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 3             MR. JEREMY:  We'll look at one of those --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 5             MR. JEREMY:  -- now, please.  65 ter 29112.  Could we rotate that

 6     180 degrees, please.

 7        Q.   Mr. Curtis, could you please tell us what we're looking at here?

 8        A.   Yes.  In this photograph we're looking at two different cartridge

 9     cases with the images overlaid.  On the left-hand side is exhibit number

10     1627-55, and on the right-hand side is Exhibit 0913-89.  In the area that

11     is of significance in this photograph is on the right -- lower right-hand

12     side at about 4.00 position on a clock, that would be the ejector mark on

13     the cartridge cases.  You can see a fine thin line coming down through

14     the photograph, that is the hairline that is within the comparison

15     microscope, and that separates the cartridge case on the left from the

16     cartridge case on the right, and I'm able to sweep that line back and

17     forth on the microscope to show those marks carry over from the one

18     cartridge case to the other, thus identifying them as being fired in the

19     same fire-arm.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  You are referring to 4.00.  Shouldn't we turn it

21     180 degrees in order to have it really at 4.00 or ...

22             THE WITNESS:  On mine, it's on the lower right-hand side.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  On mine, it may be -- oh, it's turned already.  I

24     had it on my own screen.  Yes.  I see.  Problem resolved.

25             MR. JEREMY:

Page 14830

 1        Q.   And, Mr. Curtis, is this one of the matching shell casing

 2     identified in request 5 that we looked at a few moments ago?

 3        A.   Yes, it is.

 4        Q.   And I see the writing "request 5" on the left side and the date

 5     and some initials.  Whose initials are those?

 6        A.   They are my initials.

 7        Q.   And I see "1.5 x" on the bottom of the screen, "1.5 x."  What

 8     does that mean, please?

 9        A.   That means this photograph was taken at 15 times the resolution

10     of the original size of the cartridge case, so ...

11        Q.   Could we go to the next picture.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Just for my understanding, if I look at this

13     picture - and could we still have the previous once - do I well

14     understand that what is found at approximately 2.00 that where, of

15     course, the -- what looks like a V but then horizontally, that that

16     doesn't match because the cartridge may be put in the weapon in whatever

17     position and, therefore, only marking made once the weapon is in position

18     will match, whereas any other letters or whatever is -- may not match at

19     all?

20             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  Once the cartridge is put in the fire-arm,

21     they can be put in at any position, and that horizontal V is actually

22     part of the manufacturing head stamp on the cartridge case.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Which may or may not well be found on the

24     other part as well if manufactured by the same factory but does not have

25     to match if you compare the two because the only relevant matter is the

Page 14831

 1     marking made by the weapon?

 2             THE WITNESS:  That is correct, sir.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 4             MR. JEREMY:  Could we go to the next picture, please.  Page 2.

 5     If we can rotate it so the 1627-55 is horizontal, please.

 6        Q.   And, Mr. Curtis, if you could tell us what we're looking at here,

 7     please?

 8        A.   Yes.  This is Exhibit 1627-55, comparing it to Exhibit 0913-47.

 9     Once again, two fired cartridge cases; one on the left, and one on the

10     right.  And once again down around the 4.00 position.  We're looking at

11     the markings from the ejector of a fire-arm that are imparted to the

12     case, and there is the hairline down through there, and if we sweep the

13     hairline, the microscopic markings would once again -- they all line up

14     indicating these two cartridge cases were fired in the same fire-arm.

15        Q.   Were the cartridge cases that you looked at the same calibre or a

16     different calibre?

17        A.   They were the same calibre.  They were all of the 7.62 by .39

18     calibre.

19        Q.   And is there a particular weapon that would discharge shell

20     casings of that calibre?

21        A.   Commonly the AK style of fire-arm.  It fires the 7.62 by .39.

22        Q.   And the matching shell casings in this picture, are those the

23     second match that we looked at in request number 5, the second of the two

24     matches?

25        A.   It is.

Page 14832

 1             MR. JEREMY:  Your Honours, I'd tender that as the next

 2     Prosecution exhibit, please.

 3             MR. IVETIC:  No objection.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 29112 receives number P1818,

 6     Your Honours.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

 8             MR. JEREMY:  Could we go to 65 ter 04613, please.  That's the ATF

 9     report.

10        Q.   Now, Mr. Curtis, we have the ATF report before us.  I see there

11     is a subheading "Exhibits" and then there is a list of cartridge casings

12     that goes on for the next nine pages in the report.  What are those?

13        A.   Those are the exhibits that were entered into our IBIS system

14     that came back as a possible high confidence match to another exhibit.

15     And there is a, I believe, eight and a half or nine pages of these.

16        Q.   So if a cartridge casing was entered into the IBIS system and it

17     came back with a negative match, would it be included in this list?

18        A.   No, it would not.

19        Q.   Can we go to page 9 of this document, please.

20             Mr. Curtis, half way down the page we see the results of

21     examination which states:

22             "Microscopic examination of the above-listed cartridge case

23     exhibits have been conducted.  Based upon that examination, the following

24     cartridge cases have been identified as having been fired in the same

25     fire-arms."

Page 14833

 1             And then there is a list of cartridge casings identified with

 2     other cartridge casings.  Can you just briefly explain this part of the

 3     report?

 4        A.   Yes.  The cartridge case in the left-hand column would be

 5     identified as being fired in the same fire-arm as the cartridge case in

 6     the right-hand column directly opposite it -- opposite of it.  And it's

 7     not saying that there was only one fire-arm, but those cartridge cases --

 8     as example 1488/A1-3 and in the right-hand column 1486/332-1 were

 9     positively identified as being fired in the same fire-arm.

10        Q.   So when we looked at the memorandum number 5 earlier and you

11     identified two matching shell cases, they would be included in these

12     results?

13        A.   Yes, they would.

14             MR. JEREMY:  Could we go to page 15 of this document, please.

15        Q.   Mr. Curtis, here we see your name and signature and the name of

16     three other persons and their signatures.  Can you tell us the role that

17     those three other persons played in the investigation and preparation of

18     this report?

19        A.   Yes.  Three of us were fire-arm examiners:  Myself, Mr. Danridge

20     and Mr. Ols.  And the three of us did the actual physical comparisons of

21     the cartridge cases using the comparison microscopes to identify or

22     eliminate cartridge cases being fired in the same fire-arms.  Mr. Wilson,

23     who is on the lower right, he was our section supervisor at the time and

24     his role was basically to review our paperwork and make sure it was

25     proper following all of our procedures.  And afterwards, after we'd

Page 14834

 1     signed off on everything and he saw it was correct, he would then sign.

 2        Q.   And as an example in respect of the two matches we identified for

 3     request number 5, do you know who it was that verified your own findings

 4     that there had been a match?

 5        A.   Yes.  Mr. Walter Danridge verified my positive identification on

 6     those two identifications.

 7        Q.   And how do you recall that?

 8        A.   After I verified it, I asked Mr. Danridge to look into the

 9     microscope.  He came to the same conclusion as I did.  I took a

10     photograph, marked the front of it as you had seen, but on the backside

11     Mr. Danridge initialled and dated the photograph to verify that he agreed

12     with my findings.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask one additional question.  Would

14     Mr. Wilson also look at the photographs or just at the -- if I could say

15     so, the procedural paperwork?

16             THE WITNESS:  In some instances he would look at the photographs,

17     but he was more interested in the paperwork and us following proper

18     procedures as far as the paperwork.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

20             Please proceed.

21             MR. JEREMY:

22        Q.   The methods of analysis employed by the ATF, both the IBIS

23     preliminary analysis phase and the microscopic analysis phase, were they

24     consistent with -- or are they consistent with prevailing industry

25     standards?

Page 14835

 1        A.   Yes.  The procedures we used back in 2000 are basically the same

 2     procedures that are followed today as far as comparisons of evidence on

 3     comparison microscope and working with the IBIS system.

 4             MR. JEREMY:  Your Honours, I would like to tender that report.

 5     However, the English report, the last three pages of it comprises an

 6     information report prepared by the Office of the Prosecutor.  Now, that's

 7     different to the report that the ATF prepared, and I would propose to

 8     redact those last three pages before the report is fully admitted.  The

 9     reason I've not done that redaction now is because the report was filed

10     in this form pursuant to the 94 bis procedure.  If we can go --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  If I can have a look --

12             MR. JEREMY:  Yes.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  -- you are talking about the last three pages.  The

14     last three pages follow the page we look at at this moment.

15             MR. JEREMY:  And those are an OTP information report that's

16     actually already in evidence as P01733.  So to ensure there is no

17     confusion, I would propose redacting those from this particular report

18     because it's a work product of the OTP rather than the ATF.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic.

20             MR. IVETIC:  No objection to either suggestion, so at

21     Your Honours' leave.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we'll assign an exhibit number to it and leave

23     is already granted to have the last three pages of the reports, that's

24     pages 16, 17, and 18 in e-court to be redacted, and in it redacted format

25     replace the original one.

Page 14836

 1             MR. JEREMY:  Would it be better to remove them, Your Honour, or

 2     redact them?

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Removing is a way of redacting.  I think if they do

 4     not appear at all in the B/C/S version and if they are more or less

 5     separate following the signature page, that removal would be acceptable

 6     as well.

 7             MR. JEREMY:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 8             That concludes my direct examination.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Jeremy.

10             But we still need a number.

11             Madam Registrar.

12             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 04613 receives number P1819,

13     Your Honours.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

15             Mr. Curtis, you'll now be cross-examined by Mr. Ivetic.

16     Mr. Ivetic is a member of the Mladic Defence team and you find him to

17     your left.

18             THE WITNESS:  Thank you, sir.

19             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

20                           Cross-examination by Mr. Ivetic:

21        Q.   Good day, sir.

22        A.   Good morning, sir.

23        Q.   Now before we begin with the actual questions, I do have to

24     remind you, since we both will be speaking English, to please observe a

25     pause between my question and your answer so as to permit the court

Page 14837

 1     reporters and translators to their job.  Is that okay, sir?

 2        A.   Yes, sir.

 3        Q.   All right.  Now I'd like to begin.  And to do so I'd like to turn

 4     to your CV which has now been admitted as P1816 in e-court.  And if we

 5     can look at page 3 in the English, page 4 in the B/C/S.  And, sir, at the

 6     bottom we have the court qualifications that you testified about in

 7     direct.  And by my count, it's 127 times.  But without getting caught up

 8     in the actual total number, would you tell us out of those total times

 9     that you were an expert in other proceedings, how many of those times did

10     you testify as to an examination of spent gun cartridge casings to try to

11     match them up with other spent cartridge casings?

12        A.   I cannot give an exact number, sir, but a majority of them --

13     because with the second bullet point where there is 118 testimonies, at

14     that time I was a fire-arms examiner and police officer in Washington DC,

15     and in that time-period there were a lot of shooting cases in the city,

16     many of them involved either cartridge casings and/or bullets.  So I

17     would have to say a majority of those would compare cartridge cases.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask one question.

19             Now if you have only one cartridge in a fire-arm, you would make

20     shots with that fire-arm and then again compare the shell casings?

21             THE WITNESS:  That is correct, sir.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  So to identify whether a cartridge matches with a

23     weapon would take an intermediary step of producing another cartridge and

24     then compare them?

25             THE WITNESS:  That is correct.

Page 14838

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  And to that extent, at least in this respect, there

 2     seems to be no major difference because what you're still doing at the

 3     end is to compare cartridges.

 4             THE WITNESS:  Correct, sir.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 6             Please proceed.

 7             MR. IVETIC:

 8        Q.   Sir, in relation to the approximately 127 times that you were an

 9     expert, how many of those times were in your capacity as an officer of

10     the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives?

11        A.   Sir, let's see.  If you could scroll the page up, please, to the

12     next -- the other way, please.  It appears six of those testimonies were

13     with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms.

14        Q.   Okay.  Now in relation to all of these court appearances as an

15     expert witness, have you been a court or defence expert or have you

16     always been an expert testifying as a witness for the prosecution?

17        A.   I've testified for both the prosecution and the defence.

18        Q.   Thank you.  Now I want to ask you:  Did you also have occasion in

19     this -- in this case to perform testing on rounds that were test fired

20     from weapons that were seized from the Army of Republika Srpska to see if

21     they could be matched to any of those that are the subject of the report

22     that has been entered into evidence today?

23        A.   I do not know, sir.  If they're on this list of request number 5,

24     yes, I did, but other than that I would not know.

25        Q.   Okay.  A former Prosecution investigator, Dean Manning, who is an

Page 14839

 1     Australian law enforcement official, testified at this trial that in 1998

 2     he participated in a mission to seize somewhere between 1.000 to 2.500

 3     rifles from the Bratunac and Zvornik Brigades of the VRS to test fire

 4     these rifles, and then that the investigation compared those spent rounds

 5     and casings to those which had been recovered at the graves, and that the

 6     results of those tests were a negative match.  Do you know if your office

 7     did that work trying to match the spent cartridges to those recovered

 8     from the grave-sites?

 9        A.   I do not.

10        Q.   Okay.  Now looking at your CV on this same page that we have up

11     in e-court, I see or note that you are a member of the AFTE,

12     Association of Firearm and Tool Mark Engineers [sic].  Are you also a

13     member of the IAI, the International Association of Identification?

14        A.   No, I am not a member of the IAI.

15        Q.   How about the ENFSI, the European Network of Forensic

16     Science Institutes.  Are you an accredited member of that organisation?

17        A.   No, I am not.

18        Q.   I'd like to take a few moments now to go over some AFTE issues

19     with you.  I take it, sir, that you are familiar with the AFTE criteria

20     for identification committee?

21        A.   Yes, I am.

22        Q.   Would you agree with me that the AFTE criteria for identification

23     committee has promulgated that an identification means:

24             "The likelihood another tool could have made the mark is so

25     remote as to be considered a practical impossibility"?

Page 14840

 1        A.   That is correct, sir.

 2        Q.   And would you agree that based on the AFTE theory of

 3     identification, there are four categories of examination outcomes which

 4     are also called "range of conclusions possible when comparing

 5     tool-marks," which are typically used by fire-arms examiners in the

 6     microscopic comparisons of cartridge casings and shot-shell casings?

 7        A.   That is correct.

 8        Q.   Would you be able to agree, then, that the first of these AFTE

 9     definitions is identification defined by the AFTE glossary as:

10             "Agreement of a combination of individual characteristics and all

11     discernible class characteristics where the extent of agreement exceeds

12     that which can occur in the comparison of tool- marks made by different

13     tools and is consistent with the agreement demonstrated by tool-marks

14     known to have been produced by the same tool."

15        A.   I would agree with that, sir.

16        Q.   Would you agree that the second of the AFTE range of conclusions

17     possible from an examination of a fire-arm is known as elimination which

18     is defined as:

19             "Significant disagreement of discernible class characteristics

20     and/or individual characteristics."

21        A.   I agree with that also.

22        Q.   And would you agree that the third possible range of conclusion

23     as defined by the AFTE is known as inconclusive defined as either:

24             "Some agreement of individual characteristics and all discernible

25     class characteristics but insufficient for an identification," or,

Page 14841

 1     "agreement of all discernible class characteristics without agreement or

 2     disagreement of individual characteristics due to an absence in

 3     sufficiency or lack of reproducibility," or, "agreement of all

 4     discernible class characteristics and disagreement of individual

 5     characteristics but insufficient for elimination."

 6        A.   I would agree with that.

 7        Q.   And just to finish up those AFTE range of conclusions, the fourth

 8     would be unsuitable for microscopic comparison.  Would you agree with

 9     that?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Were the tests that were conducted by your bureau on the spent

12     bullet cartridge casings that are the subject of these reports conducted

13     and accord with these AFTE identification and range of conclusion

14     parameters that we have just gone through?

15        A.   Yes.  Our cartridge case examinations were in compliance with

16     these AFTE accords.

17        Q.   Okay.  Now is it correct, sir, that some differences always exist

18     between cartridges that even are fired from the same gun?

19        A.   There are possibilities of differences.  Yes, sir.

20             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, I see we are at the time for the first

21     break.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  If this would be a suitable moment for you to

23     interrupt your cross-examination, then we'll take the break now.

24             MR. IVETIC:  It is, Your Honour.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  We take a break of 20 minutes and would like to see

Page 14842

 1     you back after the break.  You may follow the usher.

 2                           [The witness stands down]

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  We resume at 10 minutes to 11.00.

 4                           --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

 5                           --- On resuming at 10.54 a.m.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.

 7                           [The witness takes the stand]

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Please be seated, Mr. Curtis.

 9             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic will now continue his cross-examination.

11             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

12        Q.   Sir, now I would like to talk with you about some general

13     concepts that are paramount to your line of work to see if I am

14     understanding them correctly.  Now, first of all, am I correct that the

15     marks which identify the gross properties of a fire-arm including but not

16     limited to calibre, number of lands, number of grooves, direction of

17     rifling twist, would be considered that fire-arm's class characteristics

18     which are the marks that often are visible to the naked eye and that

19     these class characteristics will be the same for any bullet or cartridge

20     fired from any fire-arm of the same make and model and sometimes even

21     several makes and models of the same manufacturer?

22        A.   That is correct.

23        Q.   And is it correct that as to class characteristics there exist

24     reference works or resources that list these class characteristics for

25     each fire-arm a particular manufacturer makes which would enable an

Page 14843

 1     examiner such as yourself to determine the type of fire-arm by examining

 2     the classes characteristics of either a recovered cartridge case or a

 3     recovered bullet?

 4        A.   In my instances there are, yes.

 5        Q.   Can you tell me if any reference manuals listing any class

 6     characteristics were utilised in this case to identify what would be the

 7     source of those spent cartridge casings so as to identify class

 8     characteristics of that type of fire-arm so that one could be aware of

 9     them when doing the review and comparison?

10        A.   None that I know of, sir.

11        Q.   Now would you agree that fire-arms identification, as a line of

12     inquiry, assumes also that there are individual characteristics which

13     would be unique and consistent to one specific fire-arm because in theory

14     it is not possible to make two machined surfaces that are microscopically

15     identical?

16        A.   Yes.  There are the individual characteristics.

17        Q.   And then would you agree in your line of work that one must be

18     conscious of class characteristics, that they need to be known so as to

19     be ruled out as being identified as individual characteristics because

20     they can often times be mistaken for individual characteristics?

21        A.   Well, the class characteristics will basically get us into the

22     ballpark, but it's looking at the individual characteristics that will

23     get us to the identification.

24        Q.   Thank you, sir, for that, but my question was more related

25     towards knowing that a particular mark is a class characteristic of a

Page 14844

 1     particular run, manufacturing running of fire-arms, would be necessary so

 2     as to exclude those class characteristics from being mistakenly

 3     identified as individual characteristics of a specific fire-arm.  Would

 4     you not agree?

 5        A.   Yes, I would agree.

 6        Q.   Now, if no reference manuals listing class characteristics were

 7     consulted for purposes of this review for which we have a report now, how

 8     can we exclude class characteristics from being identified as individual

 9     or accidental characteristics?

10        A.   In our examination of these cartridge cases, we looked at class

11     characteristics even though we did not refer to a manual on class

12     characteristics, and the class characteristics we did look at were the

13     general shape of the firing pin impression, the basic lack of breechface

14     markings on the head of the cartridge case, and general shape of the

15     ejector marks.  Those are the class characteristics.  The individual

16     characteristics that we then further looked at -- yeah, once we aligned

17     all these other class characteristics were the individual markings within

18     each of those class areas such as firing pin, breechface, and ejector

19     mark.

20        Q.   Thank you.  I'm just waiting for the transcript to catch up with

21     us.

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Now I also want to talk with you about what's called subclass

24     characteristics.  Am I correct that those would be markings caused by

25     temporary conditions in the manufacturing process such as a chipped or

Page 14845

 1     broken tool and, therefore, are the same on many fire-arms in a given

 2     production run although they would not be a permanent feature of the same

 3     class of fire-arms?

 4        A.   Yes, there are those markings as well.

 5        Q.   And thus, sir, an examiner such as yourself must also decide if a

 6     mark that you see is an individual mark unique to a specific fire-arm or

 7     a potential subclass mark which may be shared by many fire-arms that were

 8     produced as part of the same production run.  Is that accurate?

 9        A.   That is correct.

10        Q.   Now the report that we have looked at in this case -- I guess

11     there's two.  There is the request number 5 and there is the more lengthy

12     15-page report that your bureau prepared for the

13     Office of the Prosecutor.  Do the reports prepared by your office

14     identify what the class or subclass characteristics are that were

15     identified for these cartridges such that they could be distinguished

16     from and excluded as being individual characteristics?

17        A.   On a -- request number 5, all that we noted were if it was a

18     negative identification or a positive or if it lacked sufficient markings

19     for an identification to say negative or positive.  We did not do

20     complete work-sheets that would take into account all the other general

21     class characteristics.

22        Q.   In the normal everyday functioning of your lab for other cases,

23     would such full work-sheets have been completed?

24        A.   Yes, sir.

25        Q.   So the work done in this case for the Office of the Prosecutor

Page 14846

 1     was not in full accord with the standard procedure that would have been

 2     followed by your office at the bureau for any other case; is that

 3     correct?

 4        A.   That is correct.  For this case, the items were first entered

 5     into the IBIS system, and the IBIS system was used to come up with the

 6     possible high confidence candidates.  And it was from those list of high

 7     confidence candidates that we had -- did our actual microscopic

 8     comparison.

 9        Q.   We'll get to the IBIS system in a second.  I want to ask just a

10     few more questions about the type of work that's normally done.  Is it

11     correct that some labs have in recent years instituted policies that

12     identifications cannot be reached unless the suspect fire-arm is examined

13     precisely to eliminate the possibility of subclass characteristics?

14        A.   I'm not absolute about that one, sir.

15        Q.   And also when examining spent ammunition, whether the bullet or

16     the -- actually, it would be on the casing, are there also what is called

17     proof markings which would designate a country of origin of a particular

18     munition?

19        A.   On the cartridge case there is the head stamp which normally

20     determines the manufacturer of the ammunition, and -- but it does not

21     specifically have to say which country it is.

22        Q.   Were any head stamps or proof markings reviewed or investigated

23     for purposes of your investigation in this case to determine the origin

24     of the ammunition that was being reviewed?

25        A.   No, sir.

Page 14847

 1        Q.   Now, thus far we've been talking about fire-arms that were

 2     produced in the traditional factory milling process and the distinctions

 3     that would result in the components when they were milled at the factory.

 4     Am I also correct that when talking about modern fire-arms, there are

 5     also now some nowadays that are cast or stamped rather than being tool

 6     milled and that those that are cast or stampeded can have components that

 7     have the same markings and thus can have fire-arms that have identical

 8     individual markings as well?

 9        A.   Even a cast and stamped fire-arms, a majority of those or their

10     parts do have some machining processes or processes done after the

11     stamping to rid them of burrs that are on the surfaces so that they will

12     also develop individual characteristics.

13        Q.   Was there any work done in this particular case to determine if

14     the fire-arms that were used to fire the cartridges that your bureau

15     reviewed, whether those came from milled fire-arms or fire-arms that have

16     been created with a casting or stamping process?

17        A.   I did -- I'm sorry.  I did not do any of that examination to look

18     at fire-arms.  I did not have a fire-arm to examine for request number 5.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, in one of your previous questions where

20     you were talking about "there are also now some nowadays that are cast or

21     stamped," could you either -- could you clarify with the witness or press

22     more -- be more precise in your question what you understand by

23     "nowadays."  These cast or stamped ones, they are produced since when if

24     you know?

25             THE WITNESS:  I am not sure, sir.  I believe it's after the 1960s

Page 14848

 1     but I am not positive.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But still before 1995?

 3             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Thank you.

 5             MR. IVETIC:

 6        Q.   I would like to now ask you a few questions about the IBIS system

 7     that we talked about.

 8             MR. IVETIC:  And if we can first of all look at P1818 together.

 9     P1819, I apologise.  Thank you.  And if we can turn to page 9 of the

10     same, I believe that's where the actual results of the examination are

11     specified.

12        Q.   Now, with respect to request number 5, it was very clear the role

13     that the IBIS examination played in that report.  Here we have discussion

14     of the cartridges being microscopically examined.  For purposes of this

15     report, can you tell us how we can tell from the report which ones would

16     have resulted from being identified by the use of the IBIS system as

17     opposed to being identified pursuant to a microscopic review of an

18     examiner or perhaps in addition to being identified pursuant to

19     microscopic review of an examiner.

20        A.   The exhibits on pages 1 through 9 were all examined through the

21     IBIS system, and they came up as possible high confidence matches to

22     another cartridge case.  And then as we got the separate request, in this

23     case request number 5, I looked at the exhibits from request number 5,

24     and that is the report I received from the IBIS examiner.  And I did the

25     microscopic comparison of those casings at that point.  But before that,

Page 14849

 1     it was done by the machine.

 2        Q.   Now with respect to the results and the review of the items on

 3     pages 9 through 15 of this report that we have in the system now, did you

 4     perform the microscopic examination and analysis of all of these or were

 5     there colleagues involved?

 6        A.   There were colleagues involved.

 7        Q.   Was your work limited to doing the microscopic examination or

 8     of -- of a certain number of these items, or did you also participate in

 9     the verification of items that your colleagues either identified or

10     excluded?

11        A.   I also participated in the verification of items that my

12     colleagues identified or excluded.

13        Q.   Do you have any way of knowing what percentage or what portion of

14     these would have been ones that you verified as opposed to ones that you

15     were the primary opinion on?

16        A.   No, sir, I do not.

17        Q.   Fair enough.  Now, just so that we are clear, we have been

18     talking about the IBIS system, and I want to know:  Are you referring to

19     the older identification system manufactured by

20     Forensic Technologies WAI, Inc. of Canada or some of the newer

21     modifications such as IBIS 3.0 or the newer brass tracks CD system.

22     Which IBIS was it that was used for purposes of preparing this report and

23     identifying these cartridge casings?

24        A.   In 1999 and 2000, they only had the older version, the original

25     IBIS system which is known to us as the heritage system.

Page 14850

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask you there a question.  The IBIS system,

 2     if I understand you well, is primarily used to make selection of those

 3     cartridges which deserve to be further examined microscopically by a

 4     person.  Is that well understood?

 5             THE WITNESS:  That is correct, sir.  In this case --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  So --

 7             THE WITNESS:  -- that's how we did it.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  So any shortcomings in the IBIS system as far as

 9     positive results are concerned would be immediately corrected by the

10     comparative microscopical review on the materials.  Negatives is

11     something different, but ...

12             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  Any positive results would be verified then

13     by the fire-arms examiner.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And in the IBIS system would have been --

15     well, whether wrong or not, identified the cartridges as, I think you

16     said, "confidence," well, at least as good candidates for a match, that

17     would result in a negative outcome of the microscopical examination of

18     those -- of that material, whereas if the IBIS system would not classify

19     them as good candidates, you most likely would never find out?

20             THE WITNESS:  That is correct.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

22             MR. IVETIC:

23        Q.   Now in relation to other work that your office at the bureau

24     would do for other similar cases, would it not also be part of the normal

25     procedure to compare the actual bullets that were recovered from a scene

Page 14851

 1     using the FBI's general rifling characterise or GRC file which is

 2     organised by number of calibre, number of lands and grooves, direction or

 3     twists, widths of lands and grooves, and other categories?

 4        A.   If we had bullets, we would measure the lands and grooves and

 5     compare them to the general rifle and characteristics database, yes.

 6        Q.   Do you know if in this case you were advised of the existence of

 7     bullets that had been recovered?

 8        A.   I have no knowledge of any bullets.

 9        Q.   If your bureau had received bullets to be analysed, am I safe in

10     assuming that either you or the other two individuals who signed this

11     report -- or actually three individuals that signed this report would be

12     aware of that process?

13        A.   One of the three of us may have been, but I was not aware of any.

14        Q.   Okay.  Now in relation to the IBIS system and -- well, first of

15     all, I presume that you have knowledge of the test performed on that

16     system known as AB 1717 in relation to California's consideration of

17     whether or not to implement that system in their jurisdiction.  Do you --

18     are you familiar with that particular study?

19        A.   I remember hearing of the study.  I don't recall exactly what it

20     was at this point.

21        Q.   Okay.  If we talk about other studies, I think we can step away

22     from IBIS for a moment since we've, I think, talked about the possibility

23     of errors and how those are then rectified by the microscopic evaluation,

24     but are you familiar with the 1955 study performed by Alfred Biasotti

25     which found that 15 to 20 per cent of the stria and bullets fired from

Page 14852

 1     different .38 special Smith & Wesson fire-arms matched.  Are you familiar

 2     with that study, sir?

 3        A.   Yes, I am.

 4        Q.   And have I accurately summarised the results of that particular

 5     study according to your recollection of the same?

 6        A.   I believe he also went on to say that you could have

 7     consecutively matching stria totalling, I believe, it was six to nine

 8     impressions, and that's all you would need for identification.

 9        Q.   And are you familiar with the 1997 study by Joseph J. Masson

10     based on the IBIS system which found that increasing similarities were

11     being discovered in the individual characteristics of tool-marks on

12     ammunition components known to have been fired by different guns of that

13     calibre?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   And am I correct that Masson's study found that similarities

16     between known non-matching tool-marks were sometimes so great that even

17     under a comparison microscope it was difficult to tell the tool-marks

18     apart and not erroneously attribute them to the same gun.  Are you aware

19     of that conclusion reached in that 1997 study?

20        A.   Yes, I am.

21        Q.   Now I want to turn to the actual investigation that was done.

22     And the first question I want to know is, am I correct that some of the

23     spent cartridge casings were actually collected by and brought from

24     Bosnia by ATF bureau staff, whereas other batches were brought and

25     delivered by staff of the Prosecutor of the Tribunal?

Page 14853

 1        A.   I am not sure who brought them in, sir.  I was not involved in

 2     that.

 3        Q.   Do you have knowledge of the methods employed to secure these

 4     cartridges and keep them separated from one another?

 5        A.   Once they're brought in -- once they were brought into our

 6     laboratory, they were entered into the evidence vault until the examiner

 7     or the IBIS specialists working them signed for them and then they were

 8     in their custody.

 9        Q.   You say, "Once they were brought into our laboratory ...," can I

10     take from that, sir, that your bureau would not be in a position to

11     verify or opine as to what manner they were secured in prior to coming to

12     your laboratory, except, perhaps, for the once instance where cartridges

13     may have been brought by a member of your staff?

14        A.   I cannot say how they were kept prior to our receiving them.

15             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness kindly speak closer to the

16     microphone.  Thank you.

17             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

18             MR. IVETIC:

19        Q.   With respect to this particular case, is this one that you would

20     consider a high profile case for your office?

21        A.   Yes, it was.

22        Q.   Was there any instruction or a concern to obtain results as

23     promptly and quickly as possible?

24        A.   No, sir.  It's just a -- as they got entered into the IBIS and

25     they were evaluated, after evaluation then they were assigned to a

Page 14854

 1     fire-arms examiner for comparisons.

 2        Q.   Now you've already told us earlier that the procedure for filling

 3     out work-sheets was not followed in full for this review.  What I'd like

 4     to know now is if there were any other protocols or procedures which your

 5     office would normally employ that were not complied with in relation to

 6     the review and investigation done in this case?

 7        A.   To the best of my knowledge, just the fire-arm examiner

 8     work-sheets were the only forms that were not followed.  And during

 9     the -- as well as entering the items into IBIS prior to the fire-arms

10     examiner looking at them, that was a different set in protocols.

11     Normally the fire-arms examiner examines the items first and then gives

12     them to the IBIS specialist to enter, but in this case we had the IBIS

13     machine doing the portion of the work for us to narrow it down our

14     microscopic examinations.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, if you allow me one clarifying question.

16             What would these fire-arm examiner work-sheets tell us if they

17     are full?  What kind of information is there contained in those

18     work-sheets?

19             THE WITNESS:  For a cartridge case, the -- it would have the

20     exhibit number, the possible brand, manufacturer of the cartridge case,

21     and any general characteristics on that cartridge case, shape of the

22     firing pin, if there were breechface markings, if there were parallel,

23     cross-hatch, granular, and then basically our conclusion from examining

24     that one cartridge case to others.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now that kind of information, could that still

Page 14855

 1     be obtained on the basis of the shell casings which have been preserved?

 2             THE WITNESS:  Yes, it can.  And I believe the IBIS personnel did

 3     partial work-sheets, so it may be on their work-sheet as well.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 5             Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

 6             MR. IVETIC:  And I think, for the record, we have not received

 7     any partial work-sheets.

 8        Q.   Do you know if the IBIS personnel actually did have partial

 9     work-sheets?  Are you -- is that a confident memory, or are you just

10     speculating, sir?

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jeremy.

12             MR. JEREMY:  Your Honours, just for the record, we did receive

13     some IBIS work-sheets from the ATF and those have all been disclosed to

14     the Defence.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, then --

16             MR. IVETIC:  I stand corrected.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  -- if you need the assistance, I take it that

18     Mr. Jeremy will help you out.

19             MR. JEREMY:  Of course.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

21             MR. IVETIC:

22        Q.   Now, with -- with respect to the normal procedure of examining

23     all the casings that were to come into your office in preparing your

24     work-sheet, wouldn't that also assist the examiner in determining

25     potential class characteristics that should be excluded from the further

Page 14856

 1     review and in terms of not being misidentified as individual

 2     characteristics?

 3        A.   Well, by looking at the cartridge cases, you can determine

 4     through the microscope what the class characteristics are, such as the

 5     shapes of the firing pin impressions and the breechface and the ejector

 6     markings.  So in a sense we did that examination in our mind's eye

 7     through the microscope but we just did not note it on our work-sheet.

 8        Q.   But the examination you would have done in your mind's eye that

 9     was not on the work-sheet would have only been for a smaller subset of

10     the cartridges; i.e., those for which the IBIS had already given a high

11     probability of match; is that accurate?

12        A.   That is correct.

13        Q.   Were any interim reports or bench notes maintained as part of the

14     review that your office performed for this case?

15        A.   Not that I know of, sir.

16        Q.   Okay.  Would it be a normal part of your work, procedure, and

17     practice within the laboratory to maintain interim reports or bench

18     notes?

19        A.   Can you define interim reports for me, please?

20        Q.   Sir, from my understanding of -- interim reports would be

21     anything that pre-dates the final report that is signed by the examiners

22     and by the supervisor.

23        A.   Yes, sir.  If there is a draft report prepared, normally they are

24     not preserved.  It is the final report that is our findings.

25        Q.   And could you tell us the process of what happens between a draft

Page 14857

 1     report being prepared and a final report being generated?  How -- how

 2     do -- how does -- who is in charge of creating the final report from the

 3     draft?

 4        A.   In this case since there were three examiners on this case,

 5     Mr. Ols prepared the final report from the draft, and the only changes

 6     that may have been made to that without any of our knowledge may have

 7     been typographical errors that were corrected.

 8        Q.   Okay.  Now has the normal work and methodology utilised in your

 9     laboratory been the subject of any peer reviewed or blind testing?

10        A.   Yes, sir.

11             MR. IVETIC:  If we can take a look at P1817, and I hope I have

12     the number right.  This should be the request number 5 memo report.

13        Q.   If we can have that in e-court, I'd have some questions for you

14     on that document.

15             Now, while looking at this document now, I'd first like to ask

16     you about the information contained at the top.  It comes from

17     Randy Hartman to Ben Wilson.  Am I correct that Mr. Hartman is not an

18     employee of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives?

19        A.   You are correct.

20        Q.   And is the company that Mr. Hartman is an employee of,

21     Forensic Technology Inc., in fact, a subsidiary company of the Canadian

22     manufacturer of the IBIS system?

23        A.   That is correct.

24        Q.   And now could you explain for us -- first of all, I assume that

25     he is the IBIS specialist that you've been referring to for -- at least

Page 14858

 1     for request number 5?

 2        A.   He is one of several, yes.

 3        Q.   Would the subject cartridge casings that were secured in the ATF

 4     vault, would they have been given to the IBIS specialist at this outside

 5     company for purposes of inputting them into the IBIS system?

 6        A.   Not to my knowledge.  We had four ATF IBIS specialists working

 7     within our laboratory doing the entries, and I do not know if Mr. Hartman

 8     was privy to those cartridge cases.

 9        Q.   Now the identifications that are handwritten -- pardon me,

10     withdraw that.  The notes that are handwritten on the right-hand side of

11     the document, sir, that you've identified as being positive, negative,

12     and lacks sufficient marks, could you tell me, since we talked earlier

13     about the AFTE guidelines and the ranges of conclusions that were

14     possible resulting from an examination, why weren't the AFTE standard

15     categories or terminology used for purposes of this review?

16        A.   For -- during my examination, negative is basically the same as

17     the second category of the AFTE, Association of Firearm and Toolmark

18     Examiners, range of conclusions.  The "pos" [Realtime transcript read in

19     error "pause"] is similar to the first one, where it was "positive

20     identification," and then the "lacks sufficient marks" was with the third

21     one.  Just in making my rough notes, everyone in my office, we all used

22     basically the same terminology knowing what we are referring to when we

23     say "negative," "positive," or "lacks sufficient markings."

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jeremy.

25             MR. JEREMY:  Your Honours, just a clarification of the transcript

Page 14859

 1     that might not get picked up when itself replayed.  Transcript 44, line

 2     12.  The -- it currently reads "pause."  I think the witness said "pos"

 3     as a shorthand for positive.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Yes.  It is not a word often used and perhaps

 5     not easily recognised, "pos" being p-o-s and stands for positive result.

 6             Please proceed.

 7             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.  And I also see -- I should

 8     have gone back to my prior method os spelling out the acronym.  Just to

 9     make sure it's correctly recorded, it's A-F-T-E, AFTE, but it's A-F-T-E

10     as the acronym.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, Mr. Jeremy, everything of course became

12     perfectly clear on page 44, line 16.  There the negative, the positive,

13     and the third category are mentioned as the three used.

14             Please proceed.

15             MR. IVETIC:

16        Q.   Now this particular report as considerably more detailed

17     information than the other report we looked at, the 15 pages.  Would this

18     report be an exemplar type of work or review that was undertaken for

19     purposes of doing the identifications -- or confirming the

20     identifications, I should say, that are reflected in the longer 15-page

21     report?

22        A.   This request number 5 with the notations on it were -- basically

23     are notes for this and they would be used for preparing the longer

24     report.

25        Q.   And so when we earlier talked about bench notes or interim

Page 14860

 1     reports, would such a document as this memo with your handwritten

 2     modifications qualify as a bench note or interim report?

 3        A.   Yes, sir.  I stand corrected on that.  This would be considered a

 4     bench note.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, the -- you say it's considerably more

 6     detailed.  Are you talking about the tables or are you talking about the

 7     text?

 8             MR. IVETIC:  Both, Your Honour.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  But the tables, as far as I can see them -- and

10     perhaps the witness could help us out.  What we see is that in the long

11     list, all the negatives and all the insufficient material or insufficient

12     markings are left out - that's the quintessence of that report, at least

13     where the matches are described - and apart from that, we only have

14     exhibit numbers on what seems to be in this table to be one-in-the-same

15     case.

16             THE WITNESS:  Your Honour --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm trying to understand exactly what we find in

18     this table, what apparently we do not find in the other report.  We

19     looked at the 15 pages.

20             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  In the first nine pages of the long report,

21     you would have all the exhibit numbers listed that are on request

22     number 5 because they were deemed by the machine as possible matches.

23     But from page 9 through 14, you would only have the positive matches --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

25             THE WITNESS:  -- that were verified by fire-arms examiner.

Page 14861

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So by -- the negatives are in -- and whatever

 2     other you could think of as to compare but did not match.

 3             THE WITNESS:  Correct.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  But not written out in any detail further.

 5             THE WITNESS:  That's correct, sir.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 7             Please proceed.

 8             MR. IVETIC:

 9        Q.   However, one difference is that here we can tell whoever did the

10     microscopic examination, whereas on the long list we can't tell and you

11     can't tell us right now which ones you did; right?

12        A.   That's correct.  Except for the ones I have note here we can find

13     in the long list.

14        Q.   Right.  Now the question I have is if any drafts would have been

15     destroyed as procedure why do we have request number 5, and does such is

16     a document exist for any of the other cartridge casings that would have

17     been reviewed and reported in the long report that we've looked at?

18             MR. JEREMY:  Your Honours, just --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jeremy.

20             MR. JEREMY:  -- again for the record, there are requests numbers

21     1 to 13.  Those have been provided to the Defence and translated into the

22     B/C/S.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Memos -- including memos such as this one?

24             MR. JEREMY:  Correct.  So 5 is an example, and there are actually

25     13 of those.

Page 14862

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. Ivetic.

 2             MR. IVETIC:  It's possible.  I am just trying understand the

 3     witness's earlier answer that if such things would have been discarded,

 4     why were they saved?

 5             THE WITNESS:  My draft report of the laboratory report itself, if

 6     there were typographical errors, would have been discarded and just the

 7     final report signed.

 8             MR. IVETIC:

 9        Q.   Correct.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  But now I'm confused.  I did understand from

11     Mr. Jeremy, but please correct me when I'm wrong, that for all the other

12     requests, all 13 similar documents, memos do exist and are disclosed to

13     the Defence?

14             MR. JEREMY:  Correct, Your Honour.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then I'm still confused by your next question,

16     Mr. Ivetic.  You're trying to understand the witness's earlier answer

17     to --

18             MR. IVETIC:  Previous answer today where he indicated that any

19     interim reports or drafts would have been destroyed as a part of their

20     procedure, and now he's, I think, clarified that these are not considered

21     draft report.  That a draft report would actually be the pre-proofing, I

22     guess, version of the longer report that would need to be

23     [Overlapping speakers]

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I understood it like that from the beginning

25     but then let's proceed.

Page 14863

 1             MR. IVETIC:  Now if we can go to the next page of this exhibit --

 2     no -- no.  Then let's turn to P1818, which now should be the photographs

 3     of -- thank you.

 4        Q.   Now, are these what would be called photomicrographs in your line

 5     of work, sir?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Now can you explain for me why these photomicrographs are not of

 8     the entire circumference of the cartridge casing?

 9        A.   This is photomicrograph was taken at what I have noted as 1.5 x

10     which is actually 15 times the size of the head of the cartridge case,

11     it's magnified, and the main area that I was concerned with here is the

12     ejector marks that appear on the right-hand and left-hand cartridge cases

13     that are in this photo at the 10.00 position.

14        Q.   Would you agree with me, sir, that normally the best and accepted

15     procedure is to photograph the entire circumference so as to get all of

16     the potential marks so as to identify or eliminate class markings,

17     et cetera?

18        A.   No, sir, I would not agree with you.

19        Q.   Do photomicrographs that were taken of all the other cartridges

20     which were positively identified or reviewed for purposes of your report

21     all taken focusing on the part that matches most closely instead of the

22     entire circumference of a shell casings breechface?

23        A.   To the best of my recollection that would be the case, but I have

24     not reviewed all of those photographs in many years, sir.

25        Q.   Is that a standing practice within your laboratory to only take

Page 14864

 1     photomicrographs of a particular section of a bullet casing as opposed to

 2     the entire circumference, or was that a decision that was made to do so

 3     in this particular case?

 4        A.   The taking of the photomicrographs in our laboratory, the

 5     procedures for it and policies, basically was so we would have something

 6     to refresh our recollection of the markings and the areas in which we

 7     made our identifications.  It was not required to take the full

 8     circumference of the cartridge case but just the areas where we felt the

 9     identification is.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, when you are talking about the whole of

11     the cartridge heading, are you talking about the big one or about the

12     other part?  I mean, you can't have the -- both?  They would overlap if

13     you had -- I mean, the whole system, the whole technique is to show a

14     specific part of a shell casing, put it next to a similar part of another

15     shell casing, and then see how any stria -- I don't know how you call it.

16             THE WITNESS:  Stria.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Stria are connecting.  So therefore when you are

18     talking about the whole of the shell case, certainly that could not be

19     done for either of them because it would contradict the technique you are

20     using.  Therefore, I'm asking whether you would expect, for example,

21     the -- more information from the -- from the one shell casing where we

22     see -- it looks something like perhaps AK or at least at -- or what you

23     meant by your question.  I mean, if you take the whole of the shell case

24     you can't overlay it any further with the portion of the other one.

25             MR. IVETIC:  I understand.  And perhaps we should go to the

Page 14865

 1     second page of this exhibit where there are two separate shell cases as

 2     two separate photographs.  I apologise.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  That's fine.  But I didn't understand the

 4     question entirely.

 5             MR. IVETIC:  I apologise, Your Honours.  In my version there is a

 6     page that has the --

 7        Q.   In any event, am I correct that in addition to the work done in

 8     doing the overlays that photomicrographs were taken of each individual

 9     bullet that was being reviewed and being matched and identified as a

10     positive match?

11        A.   I don't believe photomicrographs of each cartridge case

12     individually were done.  They were not done by me in this case for

13     request 5.  And to get the whole head into the photograph, I would have

14     had to go to a lower magnification and then I would not be able to see

15     the area clearly enough where I had made my identification.

16        Q.   Would it not be standard procedure to first make a

17     photomicrograph of the two shells with their full circumference, have

18     those photomicrographs side by side and then do a second at higher

19     magnification to discuss specific areas of either a --  for comparison

20     purposes either of match or of exclusion of difference?

21        A.   It was not the policy of our laboratory to do that work, sir.

22        Q.   Thank you, sir, for answering my questions.

23             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, I have nothing further for this

24     witness.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Ivetic.

Page 14866

 1             Mr. Jeremy, any need to re-examine the witness?

 2             MR. JEREMY:  Just a couple of questions, Your Honours.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 4                           Re-examination by Mr. Jeremy:

 5        Q.   Mr. Curtis, at transcript page 38 you were asked about methods to

 6     secure the shell casings.  Were the shell casings categorised by the ATF?

 7     Were they marked in order to keep track of those?

 8        A.   Yes.  As the IBIS specialist recovered the shell casings from

 9     their evidence vault, they cleaned them and then they marked them with

10     the exhibit number that they received them with.

11        Q.   And you've told us during the cross-examination that fire-arms

12     examiner work-sheets were not produced.  Now had they been reduced, could

13     they have changed the conclusions that you reached in respect to which

14     cartridge cases matched?

15        A.   No, they would not have changed the conclusions for the matches.

16        Q.   Thank you.

17             MR. JEREMY:  No further questions, Your Honours.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  I may have one question for you.

19                           Questioned by the Court:

20             JUDGE ORIE:  During cross-examination you were asked about class

21     characteristics and individual characteristics and the risk of

22     misinterpreting a class characteristic for an individual characteristic

23     and therefore come to a conclusion based on a class characteristic rather

24     than on individual characteristics, which would mean that the whole range

25     of shell casings in that class would then be mistaken for identical ones

Page 14867

 1     where they were only from the same batch.

 2             Did you have ever in your career the experience that you had to

 3     reconsider your identification because you had misinterpreted what you

 4     later found to be a class characteristic where you initially thought of

 5     them as individual characteristics?

 6        A.   No, sir.  I have not had to reconsider it.  And one of the

 7     reasons is we always have a second qualified examiner review our work and

 8     our identifications and non-identifications so that we are not making

 9     that mistake.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Is there anything published about the risk of

11     making such a mistake?

12        A.   I believe there are in the AFTE journals, which is the

13     professional publication for the Association of Firearm and

14     Toolmark Examiners.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, was the number of cartridges to be

16     compared in this case uncommon, exceptional, or was it normal that you

17     have so many even possible matches out of two series of cartridges that

18     were provided to your laboratories?

19        A.   This case was uncommon for our laboratory because of the number

20     of cartridge cases to be examined, and that is why we altered our

21     procedures to use the IBIS system to help narrow down the microscopic

22     comparisons that we would have to do, the inner comparisons.  And

23     otherwise most of our cases have, say, 20 cartridge cases or fewer, and

24     this one had up into the thousands, I believe.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for those answers.

Page 14868

 1             Any questions?  Further?

 2             MR. IVETIC:  None, Your Honour.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Then, Mr. Curtis, this concludes your testimony in

 4     this Court.  I'd like to thank you very much for coming and having

 5     explained to us the -- all these technical matters, more in general to

 6     have answered all the questions that were put to you by the parties and

 7     by the Bench, and I wish you a safe return home again.  You are excused.

 8             THE WITNESS:  Thank you very much, sir.  Thank you.

 9                           [The witness withdrew]

10             JUDGE ORIE:  I think it's time for the break.  After the break

11     we'll resume with the next witness who will testify in closed session, if

12     I am well informed.

13             Then we'll take the break and we'll resume at quarter past 12.00.

14                           --- Recess taken at 11.54 a.m.

15                           --- On resuming at 12.19 p.m.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber was informed that one of the parties

17     would like to raise a preliminary matter.

18             Mr. Stojanovic.

19             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours.  Just a

20     request.  We said that we would cross-examine the witness whose due to

21     arrive now for three and a half hours.  Yesterday we said it would be

22     less.  And now I have a request and a proposal.

23             We will cross-examine this witness for an hour and a half, but we

24     kindly ask that part of this time be a bonus for cross-examining the

25     expert who is due to arrive in two days since our assessment is that we

Page 14869

 1     will need somewhat more time, more than the two and a half hours we had

 2     originally said we would need.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You said the expert -- we have two experts

 4     still on our list, I think, for the remainder of the week.  Any one of

 5     the two is special?

 6             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours.  I don't

 7     think that there are any protective measures.  I am speaking of

 8     Mr. Haglund.  I think that it is all right for me to say his name.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I don't think there is any problem with that.

10     Well, the Chamber is usually not providing bonuses, but if you say

11     whether or not the Chamber will also consider that you have saved time

12     with this witness when you asked for more time, time in itself is not the

13     relevant thing.  Important is a relevant and focused cross-examination.

14     And if you can't do that in the time you estimated, then the Chamber

15     certainly will be more forthcoming even after you've saved time with the

16     present witness.

17             Is that an answer to your question, Mr. Stojanovic?

18             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] It is, Your Honour.  And we

19     shall do our best for it to be that way and we will honour our time

20     commitments.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  We turn into closed session to hear the evidence of

22     the next witness.

23                           [Closed session]

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 14870











11 Pages 14870-14904 redacted. Closed session.















Page 14905

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22                           [Open session]

23             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honours.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

25             We'll adjourn for the day and we'll resume tomorrow, Tuesday, the

Page 14906

 1     23rd of July, in this same courtroom III at 9.30 in the morning.

 2                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.13 p.m.,

 3                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 23rd

 4                           day of July, 2013, at 9.30 a.m.