1 Wednesday, July 15th, 1998

2 --- Upon commencing at 10.05 a.m.

3 (In open session)

4 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Good morning, ladies and

5 gentlemen. Can we have the appearances, please.

6 MR. COWLES: Good morning, Your Honours, my

7 name is Jim Cowles, representing the Prosecution. With

8 me is Mr. George Huber. I need to inform the Court

9 that Ms. McHenry experienced a death in the family and

10 had to return home for an emergency basis. So she'll

11 be absent from the Court for several days, so I will be

12 representing the Prosecution, thank you.

13 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much for

14 your information. The Trial Chamber expresses a lot of

15 sympathy for that.

16 MR. COWLES: Thank you, Your Honour, I will.

17 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: May we have the

18 appearances for the Defence, please.

19 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Good morning, Your Honours,

20 my name is Eugene O'Sullivan, and I appear on behalf of

21 Mr. Delalic my co-counsel and lead counsel, Ms.

22 Residovic, will be absent this morning. I would also

23 like to introduce the presence of our legal counsel

24 this morning, Mr. Michael Greaves.

25 MR. OLUJIC: Good morning, Your Honours, my

1 name is Zeljko Olujic, I appear on behalf of Mr.

2 Zdravko Mucic, along with my colleague, Djuric, both of

3 us are attorneys from Croatia.

4 MR. KARABDIC: Good morning, Your Honours, my

5 name is Salih Karabdic, I am an attorney from Sarajevo,

6 and along with Mr. Thomas Moran, attorney from Houston

7 Texas, I appear on behalf of Hazim Delic.

8 MS. McMURREY: Good morning, Your Honours, I

9 am Cynthia McMurrey, I represent Esad Landzo. Ms.

10 Boler will be absent from the courtroom today and Mr.

11 Calvin Saunders will be joining me as a second attorney

12 on the case today.

13 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much, Ms.

14 McMurrey. May we proceed now? Call your first

15 witness. Can you swear the witness, please. Swear the

16 witness so she might proceed.

17 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, the Defence calls

18 Marco Laggazi.

19 WITNESS: Marco Laggazi.

20 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will

21 speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the

22 truth.

23 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much.

24 THE INTERPRETER: I will interpret

25 independently, impartially and with full respect with

1 the duty of confidentiality.

2 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much for

3 the interpreter.

4 MS. McMURREY: May it please the Court?

5 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You may proceed as I

6 said.

7 MS. McMURREY: Thank you very much

8 Examined by Ms. McMurrey

9 Q. Good morning, Dr. Lagazzi. Will you please

10 introduce yourself to the Court so they know your full

11 name.

12 A. My name is Marco Lagazzi, forensic

13 psychiatrist, from the Genoa University, Italy.

14 Q. Now, we met for the first time last month in

15 June; is that correct?

16 A. Correct.

17 Q. And how did you come to be a part of this

18 Tribunal, this International Tribunal?

19 A. I was first asked by the register's office to

20 work for the Tribunal at the request of the Prosecutor,

21 Mr. Turone, for the first inquiry on examination of Mr.

22 Landzo, which took place in November, 1996. And there

23 was a three-person panel, Dr. Van Leuween and Dr. Loga

24 that worked with me on that panel. I then took another

25 assignment in January, 1997, together with the same

1 colleagues. In April, 1998, I was asked by the Defence

2 counsel to again examine Mr. Landzo at the request of

3 the counsel for the defence and notified the Tribunal

4 about that. And in May, 1998, I was granted

5 authorisation from the Prosecutor to carry out such an

6 examination, was retaining my status as neutral expert,

7 as an expert called upon by the Defence counsel, I have

8 carried out the inquiry which took place in the second

9 half of July, 1998, and which was then completed with a

10 written report on the case.

11 Q. I just wan to make a correction, I believe

12 that evaluation was carried out in the last half of

13 June, 1998, instead of July.

14 A. Correct, it was the second half of June.

15 Q. Thank you. And you, you wrote a letter to

16 the registry because you wanted to make sure that it

17 wouldn't affect your ability to remain an independent,

18 neutral, psychiatrist in this proceeding?

19 A. Yes, under the Italian law, a neutral

20 adviser, consultant, designated by the Prosecutor's

21 office, cannot carry out an evaluation for the

22 Defence. When I was told that there wouldn't be any

23 difficulty, that I would still retain my status as

24 neutral expert, I could take on the assignment.

25 Q. And this was further confirmed and explained

1 to you by a telephone call from Mr. Turone?

2 A. Indeed, I received several phone calls from

3 the Prosecutor, Mr. Turone and I did ask him to explain

4 exactly what I was supposed to do and when I was

5 clarified that this is what I was supposed to do, I

6 took on this assignment.

7 Q. Thank you. Can you tell the Tribunal, the

8 Court, what meetings you've had since you've been in

9 The Hague this week?

10 A. I have met the Defence counsel and the panel

11 for the Defence attorney, McMurrey, and attorney

12 Boler. I have met you on several occasions and I have

13 also met with the Prosecutor, Mr. Cowles and Ms.

14 McHenry. And I have had an informal meeting with

15 attorney, Moran, late last night. And I have discussed

16 with them more or less my opinion on the case. Sunday,

17 if I recall correctly, at the request of the Defence

18 counsel, we also had a meeting with Dr. Van Leuween and

19 Dr. Gripon, that is two experts that worked on the

20 case. Dr. Van Leuween worked with me on previous

21 assignments and I met the other colleague just on that

22 last occasion. The last meeting we've had on Sunday

23 was also attended by Dr. Verde, who testified

24 yesterday.

25 Q. Now, that meeting Sunday, when we met, nobody

1 knew what the conclusion was of the other psychiatrist,

2 whenever we met on Sunday, did they?

3 A. I was not aware of the conclusions drawn by

4 Dr. Gripon and Dr. Van Leuween. As to the conclusions

5 drawn by Dr. Verde, we travelled to The Hague together,

6 so I was informed about them and they were the basis on

7 which I wrote my report, part of my report.

8 Q. So on Sunday it was the first time that it

9 became clear to everybody that three independent

10 psychiatrists had basically come up with the same

11 conclusions?

12 MR. COWLES: Your Honour, I object to this

13 line of questioning as being irrelevant. I mean, it

14 has nothing to do with his opinion. It's as if she's

15 trying to support his credibility before it's even been

16 questioned.

17 MS. MCMURREY: Your Honour, I believe that

18 it's important for the Court to realise that each one

19 of these independently evaluated Mr. Landzo and

20 independently came up with their own opinions.

21 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Do you think we would

22 not get that when they've all testified?

23 MS. MCMURREY: There was a joint meeting on

24 Sunday, but all of their opinions had already been

25 confirmed and their reports before we met on Monday.

1 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: We will still get that

2 opinion after they've all testified, so you don't have

3 to put it to him.

4 MS. McMURREY: Okay. Well, I'll move forward

5 then.

6 Q. At this point, the Defence has filed a

7 curriculum vitae of Dr. Lagazzi before, and we just

8 recently received the English translation, so to assist

9 the Court when we're going through his qualifications,

10 I would like the usher to pass out the English version

11 of his CV. The Prosecution was just recently supplied

12 with one of these also.

13 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: These are matters which

14 you supply at the time you are nominating him and it's

15 not necessary for you -- we would have all got it

16 before now.

17 MS. McMURREY: We've had it in Italian, Your

18 Honours, but we haven't had it in a version that I

19 could read.

20 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Pass them around without

21 bothering to explain so much.

22 MS. McMURREY:

23 Q. So, Dr. Laggazi, I am going to let you

24 explain your qualifications, starting off with your

25 education?

1 A. I took high school studies and then I went to

2 the medical school, and so I am a medical doctor. I

3 took a medical degree in 1984. I did post graduate

4 specialisation in medical psychology until 1988. I

5 then took a PhD in forensic psychiatry and my PhD

6 dissertation was given in 1992. Whilst I was at the

7 medical school, I worked with the Forensic Criminology

8 and Psychology Department of the Medical School of

9 Genoa, which is part of the Genoa University. And I

10 have been working since 1986 as forensic psychiatrist.

11 I have had several training stages in Canada and I have

12 been working with the School of Forensic Psychiatry of

13 Lyon, France.

14 Q. That school in France, is it considered one

15 of the foremost leading universities in behavioural

16 sciences?

17 A. To qualify this, I would say that it is one

18 of the leading centres for forensic psychiatry in the

19 world.

20 Q. Does it specialise more in certain types of

21 behaviour?

22 A. In my capacity of forensic psychiatrist, I

23 deal especially with these areas, and this is also

24 something I have been writing papers on, and I deal

25 especially with problems dealing with mental illness,

1 criminal behaviour, interactions between psychiatric

2 services and Tribunals. And I do work in a number of

3 Italian cities with Prosecutor's offices and with the

4 law and order officials and in determining the profiles

5 of serial killers and I work on problems concerning the

6 perpetrators of major crimes. It is organised crime

7 and serial killers.

8 Q. And what exactly is your position at the

9 University of Genoa?

10 A. I am an Associate Professor of Forensic

11 Psychology at the post graduate School of Criminology

12 and Forensic Psychiatry at the Genoa University.

13 Q. And has the School of Forensic Medicine in

14 Genoa, has it changed recently to be more all

15 encompassing?

16 A. As I pointed out -- as was pointed out by Dr.

17 Verde, we have been set up as a department, which

18 covers medical psychology, forensic medicine,

19 Criminology, and forensic psychiatry.

20 Q. And you hold other positions at other

21 universities, don't you?

22 A. Yes. I do teach the same disciplines as

23 visiting professor on short-term contracts at the Milan

24 University, the Turin University and I teach the same

25 disciplines and subjects in a number of schools that

1 issue master degrees. And I have also received

2 assignments for the training of medical staff with the

3 Justice Department. And I am also responsible for

4 training of judges and magistrates at the request of

5 the higher counsel for the judiciary in Italy. And

6 also I am in charge of training psychologically and

7 psychiatry of various members of staff of Italian

8 administrations.

9 Q. When you work at the Department of Justice in

10 the local administrations, do you tend to specialise

11 more in violent behaviour?

12 A. Well, forensic psychiatry encompasses a great

13 many aspects and not necessarily just violent

14 behaviour. For a number of years now, I have been

15 working especially on problems related to severe

16 crimes, major crimes, violent behaviour, such as the

17 behaviour of a serial killer or linked to organised

18 crime perpetrators.

19 Q. Can you tell the Trial Chamber what some of

20 your scientific positions are? What boards you're a

21 member of, et cetera.

22 A. In scientific terms, I'll try and recap my

23 assignments and my qualifications. I am a member of

24 the International Society for Criminology, I am a

25 member of the Board of the Italian Academy of

1 Psychiatry, Psychology and Law. There are eight

2 members to this academy. I am a member of the

3 Scientific Committee of the Italian Society of

4 Criminology. It's a 20 person board. And I am a

5 member of the Board of the Italian Society of Forensic

6 Psychiatry.

7 Q. Thank you very much. Now, Dr. Lagazzi,

8 you're also a judge in Italy, aren't you?

9 A. Yes, I am an honorary judge of the so-called

10 Tribunal, which is responsible for probation and other

11 tasks of this nature on convicted detainees. And it's

12 a Tribunal that is composed of two experts and two

13 judges, two experts that are forensic psychiatrists,

14 criminologists that serve as judges and I have been

15 serving in this position since 1993.

16 Q. You also participate in military hospitals

17 through the army in Italy, don't you?

18 A. Yes. For a number of years, I have been in

19 charge as a civilian, medical officer for the selection

20 of those that wanted to join the Italian Army to

21 evaluate their ability to be in the military,

22 especially with respect to possible psychological

23 problems that it might have.

24 Q. So when you do this clinical, psychiatric

25 evaluation for recruitment purposes, you're

1 specifically looking for personality disorders; would

2 that be correct?

3 A. Yes, that is the case.

4 Q. I want to go on to another topic that you're

5 an expert in. You've written several books, but you've

6 also written several papers on the topic of malandering

7 (sic) -- malingering, I'm sorry. Would you explain to

8 the Trial Chamber what your expertise is in this area

9 of malingering?

10 A. Well, what I can say is, and I'll use the

11 English term, malingering, which is something that --

12 something more precisely in Italian term. In Italian,

13 we're forced to use the word simulation and

14 dissimulation, two terms. So people who pretend to

15 have psychological or psychiatric disorders and they

16 try to cover them up. I have been involved with this

17 as part of my activities on behalf of the Military

18 Hospital. Indeed, we've carried out a study and we

19 have published a study on the issue. And I have also

20 written papers on this subject as well. And we have

21 dealt with this in a number of different treatises.

22 The last thing I wrote on this subject goes back to a

23 forensic psychological handbook, which I carried out

24 with a colleague from the University of Genoa, which

25 will be published in October and where we deal

1 exclusively with the problems of simulation and

2 dissimulation.

3 Q. So this is a textbook to be published in

4 October and you wrote the chapter on malingering; is

5 that what you're saying?

6 A. Yes. I have written the entire book on this

7 subject, so of course there are chapters that deal with

8 this subject.

9 Q. Would you explain to the Court the two

10 different aspects of malingering. You call them

11 simulation and dissimulation, but exactly what does

12 that mean?

13 A. Yes. This is something that one finds not

14 just in the military field, but, basically, in all

15 psychiatric events. Let's just say that we often

16 encounter this in problems found in the military sphere

17 when your find people who don't want to do their

18 military service, for example, and therefore they

19 pretend to have psychological problems. And then, very

20 often, we work for the courts who have personality

21 disorders, people who try to simulate an attitude which

22 is probably better than the one that they actually

23 had. Simulation is often found in white-collar crimes

24 and what people try to do is try to simulate a

25 psychiatric disorder which they don't suffer from. And

1 almost on a daily basis, in organised crime we

2 encounter such cases, so the psychiatric symptoms, are,

3 in fact, non-existent.

4 Dissimulation is the opposite of this. In

5 other words, we're dealing with people who do have

6 psychiatric disorders, people who, to a certain extent,

7 are aware of having such psychiatric disorders, and,

8 therefore, this excludes the real psychotic who is not

9 aware of his illness. And this type of person tends to

10 hide his psychiatric disorders.

11 In the military field, we would encounter

12 cases where you have people in the armed forces or in

13 the police force who have alcoholic problems and try

14 and hide such alcoholism so that they can stay in the

15 force. We also frequently find it in such cases where

16 there is a person, for example, who may have senile

17 dementia and carries out certain acts on the basis of

18 pure pathological cause, but tries to defend what he

19 has done, and therefore, tries to hide his own

20 difficulties.

21 Q. And when someone has this dissimulation of

22 malingering, also you're looking whether they have

23 antisocial behaviour or schizoid or anything like that

24 that they're hiding?

25 A. Yes, we carry out a global psychological

1 evaluation, so we look at pathologies, and we see

2 whether they have psychological problems or not.

3 Q. Now, would you say that Mr. Landzo suffers

4 from both of these aspects of malingering?

5 A. To a certain extent I would say yes. But if

6 you want me to go into more detail, I think it would be

7 anticipating the entire discussion, so I would prefer

8 you to ask me that question later on, when I have

9 expanded the results from the various observations that

10 I have made and then I will be able to explain what are

11 the dissimulation or simulation aspects that I have

12 discussed.

13 Q. You're absolutely right, Dr. Lagazzi. I am

14 still right in the middle of your qualifications.

15 Would you explain to the Court how many expertises a

16 year you complete or you participate in?

17 A. Well, I am talking about an average. Let's

18 say, every year 100, 120, 130 expertises I carry out a

19 year. But that is an expertise carried out on behalf

20 of the courts, of course, as a court-appointed expert.

21 Q. And going further with that, the majority of

22 the time that you're performing expertise, you're

23 working on behalf of the Prosecution; is that right?

24 A. Yes, let me put it this way. In many cases,

25 I work directly as an expert appointed by the Court.

1 But there are cases where we're dealing with serial

2 killers and other cases involving organised crime. I

3 work directly with the Prosecutor. But not -- and not

4 just as a psychiatric expert to carry out an

5 evaluation, but I also carry out the examination of the

6 survey, so I work with the police force or the

7 Carabinieri, which is the military police in Italy.

8 And during the examination procedure, when we're

9 identifying the various profiles of the criminal, and

10 we're looking at the instruments which are most

11 suitable in order to identify the criminal and to

12 understand from a psychiatric and psychological

13 perspective if the personality of the person who has

14 been arrested is consistent with the crimes that are

15 laid at his door. So, it is an investigative role as

16 well that we play.

17 Q. So that in the investigative role that you

18 play, you're also trying to help them to solve the

19 crime; would that be accurate?

20 A. Yes, in this part of my work, yes. I think

21 it is right to say that in my role as an expert in

22 forensic psychology, appointed by the court or by the

23 Prosecutor, as part of a trial case, my role is that of

24 a neutral expert. The other part of my work,

25 obviously, is one that could be defined as being a

1 psychiatric consultant appointed by the police.

2 Q. Thank you. Now, you prepared three reports

3 dealing with Mr. Landzo and evaluating Mr. Landzo in

4 these proceedings before this Tribunal?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Would you take a look at your first report?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And would you explain to the Court the scope

9 of this report and what it is that you determine from

10 that evaluation of Mr. Landzo?

11 A. Yes. I was charged on the first of November,

12 1996, with a task of identifying whether or not there

13 was a psychiatric disorder, such as to prevent Mr.

14 Landzo from participating in the trial. In other

15 words, to determine whether he was able to participate

16 in the trial. Discussing things with the judge who

17 appointed me, Ms. de Sampayo from the registry office, I

18 was asked to carry out an urgent examination of the

19 suicide risk. In other words, the first question which

20 I have reacted to after visiting Mr. Landzo on an

21 emergency manner, was the measures that needed to be

22 adopted in order to prevent any new acts of

23 self-mutilation. And over the next two-day period we

24 discussed things with Ms. de Sampayo and President

25 Cassase of the most appropriate measures in and order

1 to allow us to manage the incarceration of Mr. Landzo.

2 I then continued the discussions in order to address

3 the issue which was asked of me, namely to determine

4 whether he could participate in the trial or not.

5 Q. But at the time that you did this evaluation,

6 you thought that the risk of suicide, was it real or

7 not real?

8 A. I think that there was a real risk and,

9 indeed, a high risk. And I advised that psychotherapy

10 be used and that it be provided to Mr. Landzo. Rarely

11 have I seen judges who are so aware of such problems.

12 And we work together to reduce this risk, so it has

13 been a very interesting professional experience for me.

14 Q. In other words, this was a very caring

15 Tribunal, who really was concerned about the life or

16 death or risk involved with their detainees?

17 A. Yes. In my experience, I can say

18 categorically, yes.

19 Q. I just want to cover one thing, and I would

20 like the registrar to know that I will provide them

21 with all three copies at the next break. The only one

22 I have in my possession right now is marked on, so -- I

23 want to go to something that Mr. Moran talked about

24 yesterday on cross-examination of Dr. Verde. Mr. Moran

25 was reading a part of your report to Dr. Verde,

1 asserting that Mr. Landzo was able to fool you

2 regarding his malingering. Now, on page 35 of this

3 report --

4 A. Sorry, the English version you're talking

5 about, are you?

6 Q. I am very fortunate, Your Honours, that Dr.

7 Lagazzi does -- speaks very good English too. Now,

8 would you further explain your findings from your

9 November 15th report to the Trial Chamber, indicating

10 that, of course, you recognised malingering.

11 A. I must say that it this was a simulation

12 attempt, which was a very course indeed. I've had

13 discussions with the gentleman in question in the

14 beginning and, looking at a number of problems that

15 were consistent with his personality, it was clearly a

16 person who was capable of remembering sufficient

17 details. They were logical details, reasoning links,

18 which he was able to follow. Now, obviously, there was

19 a lot of psychological suffering in all of this, but he

20 was able to express his opinions and he was aware that

21 an expertise was being carried out. He is aware of

22 time and space. He was aware of the criminal

23 proceedings being instituted against him. And then, in

24 one single interview, the one carried out on the 15th

25 of November, 1996, I think it was, then suddenly,

1 during a meeting in the presence of his Defence

2 attorney -- I say consultant because professor Loga, in

3 fact, was a member of our group of experts, but he was

4 designated as Defence attorney. And all of a sudden,

5 he started the interview saying that he didn't know

6 what the season was. He didn't know what day of the

7 week it was. And, therefore, this type of malingering

8 was quite evident. And in my report I have pointed

9 this out. But I think it's quite clear that if you

10 have a person who on the previous day is perfectly

11 aware of time and space factors, recognise people,

12 speaks to me and knows exactly whom I am, then we

13 discuss things together, and the following day, changes

14 his attitude in a way which is akin to somebody who has

15 been subjected to a real blow, a strong blow to the

16 head. As he didn't get such a strong blow to the head,

17 one can assume that this is a case of malingering.

18 These were things that were so inconsistent and so

19 clearly inconsistent with the rest. I have pointed all

20 this out in my report. I think it is impossible from a

21 clinical perspective for an individual without any

22 clinical, serious clinical effects taking place, and

23 who on the previous day is able to reason, is able to

24 reason, is able to talk in a logical manner, and the

25 following day shows that he is incapacitated, that he

1 cannot reason any more. So, that is not a real

2 clinical case and it's quite obvious in such cases that

3 this apparent cancellation of psychological skills,

4 unless there is a clinical reason to explain this

5 during the course of time, one has to assume that it is

6 a case of malingering. Indeed, his logical reasoning

7 capacity has always remained in tact, not perfect, but

8 I must say that they haven't been cancelled out.

9 Certainly not during the examination that we carried

10 out. Sorry.

11 And I concluded my report, pointing out that

12 we were dealing here with a person with problem

13 disorders. And I said that there was a symptom which

14 was evident of a post-traumatic stress disorder. And I

15 concluded, nevertheless, that he was quite capable of

16 standing trial, nevertheless. So, if the affirmations

17 that he made during that single interview regarding

18 that he was completely disoriented and had no idea

19 about time and space, if we had recognised that,

20 obviously he would not have been capable of standing

21 trial, but that was not the case.

22 I should also like to add that I made also a

23 recommendation here and I said that if one could have

24 psychotherapy treatment, we could, perhaps, prevent a

25 case of suicide.

1 Q. Now, going back to Mr. Moran's incomplete

2 statement yesterday, you didn't use the word,

3 malingering in your report, but you did notify the

4 Court that this cannot be clinically justified and it

5 was due to lack of cooperation by the subject?

6 A. Lack of cooperation on the part of the

7 subject is a term that is used and its somewhat more

8 elegant than the one we use in Italy to indicate

9 simulation.

10 Q. Now, when you were forming your opinion in

11 this report in November 15th, 1996, what documents and

12 reports did you review before forming your opinion?

13 A. I examined -- I would prefer, incidentally to

14 look back at my report, which is printed in Italian,

15 just to make sure that I am precise on this. But I

16 received a copy of the questioning of the accused in

17 July, 1996. And then --

18 Q. Excuse me, when you say a copy of the

19 questioning, that was the office of the Prosecution's

20 questioning of the accused?

21 A. Yes. I must say I don't have the documents

22 with me, but I think that these were the minutes where

23 we had the Prosecutor -- I am not sure what his name

24 was Niemann, could it have been?

25 Q. Bart D'Hooge and Teresa McHenry.

1 A. Then I got a copy of the three previous

2 reports which were prepared in November, 1996, the one

3 from the psychologist, Dr. De Man, one produced by

4 professor Logan, who carried out this in October, 1996,

5 and Dr. Van Leuween, who did his report in November

6 1996.

7 Q. And those prior reports, we're looking to the

8 issue of his compatibility with detention; is that

9 right? They weren't dealing with competency to stand

10 trial?

11 A. Yes, it was focused on the compatibility to

12 be incarcerated. Dr. Roorda and Dr. Van Leuween,

13 suggested that an expertise needed to be carried out on

14 responsibility in the light of the clinical data that

15 had been highlight.

16 Q. And did you rely on the clinical data

17 provided by Dr. Roorda de Man at that time also?

18 A. Yes, I took account of this. I took account

19 of the report produced by Dr. Roorda de Man. And I

20 pointed out that there were a number of psychological

21 tests, which she carried out. Some of these tests,

22 quite honestly, things which I am not familiar with, so

23 I wasn't able to compare my experience with the results

24 of these tests. The other tests are ones which are

25 currently used for psychological and psychiatric

1 testing, so there I was able to take into account the

2 data. I didn't get a copy of the minutes or the

3 protocol of the test, rather, I just saw the results

4 which actually mentioned in the report. The protocols

5 are the answers that are provided, the calculations,

6 all the data sheets, which I use during the test and

7 which normally are appended to the psychiatric report.

8 I just got the report from the psychologist.

9 Q. And going to the test that she performed that

10 you didn't know what they were, if a psychiatrist or a

11 psychologist from Italy were asked if why they didn't

12 know the Perdue Peg Test, can you give an explanation

13 for that, the Perdue Peg Test?

14 A. There are tests which are carried out

15 throughout the world, I would say, tests which are then

16 applied by habit in the different countries. And then

17 there are personal choices which applied by various

18 administrations. One can say that at least,

19 theoretically, that it would be advisable that any

20 expertise that is carried out, that one would carry out

21 all the tests carried out in the world, neurological,

22 laboratory test and the like, everything. Obviously,

23 each country has its own traditions. What I can tell

24 you, though, is that Dr. Roorda de Man carried out

25 this, the peg test, and I am not familiar with it. And

1 on the basis of my experience in Italy, I have never

2 seen such a test administered. I have never been asked

3 to administer such a test, either by a neurologist, or

4 a psychiatrist. And even in outpatient care for

5 medical psychiatric patients, we have never used a test

6 of this nature, so I don't know it. As for the other

7 tests, basically they're the standard tests, the

8 Rorschach test, memory scale test, visibility test or

9 visual memory tests, sorry, I should have said and

10 these produced the results that you have seen.

11 Q. And did you check the Kaplan and Sadock book

12 to see if the Purdue test was even mentioned in

13 neurological testing?

14 A. Yes, I looked at the chapter on Kaplan,

15 Sadock, that's what the interpreter heard, and I didn't

16 find that test. But I would like to point out that

17 this doesn't mean to say that this is an invalid test.

18 That is to say, it's not intrinsically not valid. Each

19 one of us can use particular tests because we may feel

20 that it is advisable to see a specific aspect which

21 that particular test will highlight, but it doesn't

22 mean to say necessarily that these tests will

23 necessarily have to be ritualised in a different case.

24 Each one of us will identify the tests that we want to

25 use and we tend to use the same tests over and over

1 again.

2 There are certain cases of violent

3 criminals. For example, it may be useful -- and in

4 Italy we use this, the Rosenzweig test, which is a test

5 that looks at the frustration tolerance level of the

6 individual to see what the trigger point, what is

7 the coefficient that will lead to a reaction of an

8 individual, when there are crimes triggered by an

9 activity of the victim. For example, everybody knows

10 you've got the classical case of homicide, where the

11 victim will tend to say, shoot me if you have a courage

12 to do so. In such cases, it is useful to use the

13 Rosenzweig test to see the frustration tolerance level

14 of the individual. The Rosenzweig test is not widely

15 used, at least not in many other cases. We wouldn't

16 use it ourselves, for example, in a case of somebody

17 trying to hide senile dementia. I am not familiar with

18 the test and I must say, if you would allow me to do

19 so, that all the other psychiatrists whom I have spoken

20 to don't know it either. And in my day-to-day work, I

21 have never been asked to carry it out, but that doesn't

22 mean to say that it is a bad test.

23 Q. Thank you. Now, you're the one who -- did

24 you look at Dr. Roorda de Man's psychological testing

25 and did you determine that they were incomplete and

1 that we needed to have been Landzo psychologically

2 tested again?

3 A. Now, I have been able to observe that Dr.

4 Roorda de Man and Dr. Verde, in fact, answered these

5 questions yesterday, but she came up with some very

6 partial answers to some of the tests, particularly to

7 the Rorschach test and these examinations were carried

8 out some two years ago. So I thought it might be

9 appropriate to ask that a new examination be conducted,

10 that is a psycho-diagnostic examination of Mr. Landzo.

11 Q. It was clear from Dr. Roorda de Man's report,

12 that the fact that she was unable to give any

13 projective testing results was not due to her, it was

14 due to a problem with Mr. Landzo's responses; would

15 that be accurate?

16 A. I would say yes. You have to bear in mind

17 that every psychiatric diagnosis in a psychological

18 evaluation, even when you're administering tests, will

19 really derive from a relationship from two persons. So

20 it's also possible that the answers to a particular

21 test may be influenced, either because of the

22 cooperation that exists of the person being examined,

23 or by other factors. So I thought it was necessary to

24 ask for a new examination to be carried out, so that we

25 could have comparative data with which to contrast the

1 earlier data.

2 Q. In your opinion, could those tests in 1996

3 been influenced by the PTSD disorder?

4 A. The post-traumatic stress disorder was the

5 evaluation made by my colleague, so I would say yes. I

6 think that to a certain extent, the test did confirm

7 this aspect.

8 Q. I would like for you to look at your first

9 report, also. And I want to refer to a few passages in

10 it that describe some things that Mr. Landzo told you.

11 And then I want you to relate them, if you can, to his

12 mental disorder that you have discovered.

13 Now, one is --

14 A. May I ask you the page you're quoting from,

15 please?

16 Q. I am starting on page 16, right now. And,

17 Your Honours, I will provide the Court with copies of

18 these at the break. Where he talks about throwing a

19 hand grenade into an apartment where some young girls

20 were there and holding them in there for two hours and

21 not allowing them out. Or where he says -- sorry. Or

22 where he says things like, "I would have killed my

23 father too, if he had appeared in front of me as the

24 enemy." Or where he says that he preferred close-range

25 fighting to a good lunch. Or where he says he

1 remembers seeing people being beaten and injured and he

2 remembers how somehow that seemed normal because in war

3 one learns not to see others as human beings, but as

4 animals that are always potentially dangerous. And I

5 am sure this report has other examples of this kind of

6 description. Can you relate these to the personality

7 disorders that you have found?

8 A. Yes, to do that, I will have to introduce the

9 discussion on the diagnosis, but in order to do so, I

10 must, indeed, inform the Court about a number of points

11 contained in my second and my third report. So you're

12 asking me to anticipate here by conclusive statement in

13 the diagnosis and then go back to the first report and

14 explain what's in the first report which I drew up.

15 Did I understand you correctly?

16 Q. I apologise for my lack of organisation in

17 this. Your presentation and your idea of how it should

18 go is much more organised than mine, so I defer to

19 you. It's just a little painful to read these out

20 again, but I will later on, so -- let's go on to your

21 second report.

22 A. I'll try and explain this point to the Court,

23 if I may. I carried out an examination on three

24 occasions over a year and a half of the accused. My

25 colleagues, who worked independently, and myself, we

1 have reached a different sort of understanding. We

2 first saw just on post-traumatic stress disorder, and

3 we had, indeed, understood some personality aspects of

4 that person concerned. We then were able to better

5 understand other aspects of his personality, a

6 dependent personality with a narcissistic component.

7 And in my third report, I have reconsidered, reread

8 what had been covered earlier on. So, I would like to

9 qualify this by saying that the diagnosis I have come

10 up with, was, indeed, the result of a number of points

11 that we gradually understood. So let me try and speak

12 in my personal capacity and tell you what my position

13 is. When I did write the sentences that were quoted by

14 the attorney for the Defence, I did write these

15 sentences, because I felt that these were points that

16 are related to a personality which was rather fragile,

17 relating the post-traumatic stress disorder condition.

18 With the present understanding and knowledge that we

19 have of Mr. Landzo, I can now express a view which

20 indicates that what he has stated can be more related

21 to his dependent personality and an attitude that he

22 has at acting out a specific role, rather than simply

23 being related the post-traumatic stress disorder. So I

24 would say that the sentences you have quoted could be

25 construed as being related, to some extent, to the

1 post-traumatic stress disorder, but, more importantly,

2 they can be related to the acting out attitude that he

3 has in his own personality. It's inherent in his

4 personality. It takes on this role as he has a

5 dependant personality. And I would like to give to the

6 Court a very clear example of that.

7 In my report, in my third report, I have

8 quoted Woody Allen's movie, Zelig, where the leading

9 character, when he was in touch with the given person,

10 he would, indeed, step in that person's shoes and will

11 become that person himself. And that's the whole

12 beauty of the movie itself. And so I could read it and

13 construe these sentences as being an indication of the

14 person that, indeed, acts out the role of an aggressive

15 -- perfect aggressive soldier and fighter. And that

16 was the role that Mr. Landzo, indeed, has taken on

17 whilst he served in the armed forces. When we met him

18 in 1996, he still retained such a role. So I would say

19 that these views expressed about his role are

20 consistent to the fact that he was a sort of a taking

21 on the role of a fighter, a mercenary that loves to

22 fight and loves to kill the enemy. At a later stage,

23 Mr. Landzo gave a different interpretation of the same

24 sentences that he uttered on those occasions and today

25 has a completely different position.

1 So apparently, today we're faced with a

2 person that seems to be quite different from the one

3 that we met at first in 1996. So in terms of the

4 psychiatric evaluation, which I have given, I would say

5 that the present attitude that Mr. Landzo has must be

6 interpreted simply as a new type of attitude which he

7 has taken on, which is consistent with his dependant

8 personality, which is basically inspired by the -- by

9 his reference to a dominant authority. Back in 1996,

10 when we first met him, the military frame of reference

11 was a dominant frame of reference at that time, so he

12 would emphasise this attitude at that point in time.

13 Whilst, today, he shows us a different attitude which

14 is excessively consistent with the role of an ideal

15 prisoner, detainee, that is, indeed, involved in his

16 own defence. But this speaks to his incompetence and

17 inadequacy. And it is on the basis of his inadequacy

18 that we, indeed, have come up with the definition of a

19 major personality disorder that he suffers from.

20 Q. In fact, I want to go back to your first

21 meeting with Mr. Landzo in 1996. I am going to

22 describe -- well, I am going to let you describe him.

23 Did he have his head shaved then?

24 JUDGE JAN: What relevance does that have in

25 this case?

1 MS. McMURREY: Well, Your Honour, it

2 identifies him with the military thing. And I have to

3 bring that up before the Court that he wore camouflage

4 clothes, he wore a cap with the skull and cross bones

5 on it and who he was able to visit with in 1996 and

6 versus who he is able to talk to now.

7 JUDGE JAN: How does that go to diminished

8 responsibility?

9 MS. McMURREY: It verifies the DSM IV,

10 personality disorder pathology of dependant personality

11 and mixed personality that every one of these

12 psychiatrists is going to talk about. If you'll allow

13 me, it's only a couple of questions? Thank you.

14 Q. Do you remember in 1996 that he was only

15 allowed to talk to one or two other people that he was

16 detained with?

17 A. Yes, he did say that he hated the Serbs, he

18 hated the Dutch. So on the one hand, he did say that

19 he hated almost everyone. On the other hand, he had a

20 sort of avoidance behaviour with respect to recalling

21 such events because he said if he were asked to recall

22 this, this made him suffer and it made him think about

23 the war. So this is one of the many inconsistent

24 behaviours that he showed us.

25 Q. I just want find out, if you know, can you

1 describe his appearance that you saw in 1996 and also,

2 do you know, if you know, whether he was allowed to

3 talk to other people or not, without mentioning any

4 names?

5 A. I don't recall this particular point. But as

6 far as I can recall, he was not allowed to talk to the

7 other accused. He could talk to some other people,

8 though. But I feel he did have the same problem with

9 the guards as well, guards that were coming from former

10 Yugoslavia.

11 Q. Let me ask you, you don't determine in your

12 evaluations whether the subject is telling the truth or

13 not, do you? Explain that to the Court, what it is

14 you're looking for.

15 A. This brings me to a far lengthier

16 presentation than I need to make and I'll try and be as

17 brief as possible, not to take too much of the court's

18 time. In any psychiatric evaluation, one has to

19 consider two levels of examination. First, a clinical

20 level, that is the medical, psychological level of

21 evaluation, which is conducive to a diagnosis. And the

22 second level is how we can incorporate such a level

23 into a legal dimension that is referring back to a

24 legal provision or a legal definition.

25 Now, it's quite obvious that if a legal

1 expert -- psychiatric expert, sorry, does have a frame

2 of reference, which is specific concerning the events

3 on which a trial is being carried out, then the expert,

4 the psychiatric expert is in a better position to

5 understand the consistency of statements made by the

6 person who is interviewed and the facts which are being

7 attributed to that person. If not, the truthfulness of

8 his statements in my three evaluation, I would say, I

9 could only take Mr. Landzo's words as a point of

10 reference. And this an is a very major limitation in

11 methodological terms. I could compare what he said to

12 the results of tests which were administered by Dr. de

13 Man. In the last report that I wrote, I could build on

14 the results of Dr. Verde's test as well. As a medical

15 doctor and as a specialist, I can recognise a major

16 gross simulation, malingering, as the one carried out

17 by Mr. Landzo, but I cannot tell whether or not he is

18 telling the truth. And I must assume that he is

19 expressing his own subjective truth, what, in

20 psychiatric term, is defined as his own perception or

21 one's own behaviour. So his perception of his life

22 experience, as it were. So we must, indeed,

23 acknowledge that this is a major limitation to this

24 type of expertise, of expert evaluation. So both

25 myself and Dr. Van Leuween did ask to examine the

1 person in a situation where we would be free to discuss

2 the events with him. So, as I said, this is a

3 methodological limitation that we have to consider. So

4 all I can do in psychological terms, is taking into

5 account the emotional level of the person, but I am not

6 in a position to tell what he says is true or not. So

7 it's quite clear that both myself and my colleagues had

8 to base our opinion on what he told us. For instance,

9 what he told us about his own personal history, his

10 relations to his mother and his experiences when he was

11 being trained in that Croatian training camp back in

12 1991.

13 Q. But you don't look to the truth of what he

14 says. And I am going to ask a fairly leading question,

15 so that we can get through this material, if you will

16 indulge me. You look to whether the clinical symptom

17 proposed is related to the clinical evidence; would

18 that be a fair statement, and how it applies to a

19 personality disorder?

20 A. Yes. Let's say that the person shows a

21 number of clinical symptoms. These clinical symptoms

22 may be true or not. So we as psychiatrists identify

23 them as true clinical symptoms if they do appear to be

24 related with the general picture of the individual, the

25 tone of the voice, his emotions, so if everything else,

1 seems to be consistent with his attitude. If, instead,

2 the clinical symptoms are not consistent to the

3 clinical evidence that we find, then we say that these

4 are not true symptoms which are not -- therefore,

5 they're not consistent with the clinical evidence. To

6 go back to the example I gave earlier on about

7 malingering, it's quite obvious that when he was

8 pretending to have a total lack of orientation in time

9 and space, when he was doing that, this was not in

10 keeping with the clinical evidence that we had found

11 earlier on. So I did feel at that time this was not

12 really true, so these clinical symptoms were not true

13 symptoms. In forensic psychiatry, we look constantly

14 for consistency between symptoms and evidence in order

15 to identify properly the symptoms.

16 When it comes to the second level of forensic

17 level of evaluation, then it's a far more complicated

18 exercise that we need to carry out there.

19 JUDGE JAN: Why don't you ask him right away

20 what his findings are with regard to his metal

21 disorder, with regard to his diminished ability. We've

22 heard a lot of theory. But let's come down to straight

23 to the case now.

24 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, I thought it was

25 important to see the different levels from '96 and the

1 changes, but I do want to --

2 JUDGE JAN: (Microphone not on)

3 MS. McMURREY: I want to ask him one that I

4 think is very important to the Court.

5 Q. You don't only base your conclusions on what

6 Mr. Landzo tells you, do you?

7 JUDGE JAN: If somebody wants to challenge

8 him, he can cross-examine.

9 MS. McMURREY: I always try to head off the

10 cross-examination ahead of time, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE JAN: Don't try to do that. Just get

12 your conclusions and someone wants to find out the

13 reason, he can ask the doctor to explain.

14 MS. McMURREY: Could he just tell you the

15 three criteria that he looks to when coming to a

16 conclusion?

17 JUDGE JAN: Why don't you ask him about the

18 conclusions about this particular case.

19 MS. McMURREY:

20 Q. Dr. Verde, I am going to jump over to the end

21 and then work backwards. After your three evaluations

22 of Mr. Landzo and the many hours that you've spent with

23 him, would you tell the Trial Chamber what it is that

24 you have concluded today about the personality

25 disorders or the pathology and explain that to the

1 Court that exists in Mr. Landzo now, when he was a

2 child, and that existed in 1992. Is that better, Judge

3 Jan?

4 JUDGE JAN: Just be a little more relevant,

5 more pointed. I'm more interested in the conclusions.

6 If somebody wants to challenge his conclusion, he can

7 cross-examine him and the doctor can give all of his

8 explanations.

9 MS. McMURREY: I want him to give the

10 conclusion that it's not a conclusion of just today,

11 it's a conclusion of what he was suffering in '92 and

12 before.

13 JUDGE JAN: Let him do it instead of going

14 roundabout it.

15 MS. McMURREY: I think, Your Honour, is a

16 bottle-line person, like I normally am except when I am

17 presenting my case.

18 Q. Okay, Dr. Lagazzi, would you explain to the

19 Court what it is you found in Mr. Landzo and how it

20 relates to this case.

21 A. I can certainly do that. Mr. Landzo does

22 have, at present, a very complex clinical problem. So

23 there are several levels that need to be considered in

24 that clinical picture. The first level, if we take the

25 DSM IV, could be rated as being S1, which is that of

1 post-traumatic stress disorder. I did attach more

2 importance to the post-traumatic stress disorder in my

3 earlier evaluation. In my first and second report was

4 now, I consider this to be of lesser importance,

5 because it's to be considered part and parcel of the

6 more global personality disorder, so it would be rated

7 2 in DSM IV. And I found there is a major personality

8 disorder with a person that has strong problems of

9 impulsiveness and narcissism. And, psychologically

10 speaking, he appears to be immature, so he has a

11 delayed psychological growth when compared to his

12 actual age.

13 And I consider that these conditions were

14 also to be found back in 1992. And specifically, the

15 time that we are discussing here, when he was at the

16 Celebici camp.

17 Q. Now, when you say DSM IV, you're not saying

18 that PTSD doesn't exist now, you're just saying that

19 it's part of a much larger personality disorder?

20 A. Yes. In my evaluation, the personality

21 disorder existed at the very outset. It then developed

22 to PS -- PTSD and we found -- we find in the literature

23 a more severe form or PTSD, when you have a dependant

24 personality disorder which is concurrent with it, then

25 there is further development of such disorders, and

1 they're all to be found in his present condition. Then

2 his specific experience has had a bearing on it. His

3 being in the camp. His being in prison in Bosnia at

4 the time. He has spent in detention now. This has

5 developed into very rapid changes in his position

6 vis-à-vis the outer world. So in clinical terms, these

7 are the changes which I have emphasised in my report

8 and which are borne out by the results of test, which

9 were carried out by Dr. Verde.

10 Q. So the Trial Chamber understands, this

11 immaturity that you talk about, that's not the sole

12 pathology, and would you tell the Court what pathology

13 means to you in your psychiatric terms?

14 A. We do have a definition of mental disorder in

15 international literature which applies to a stable

16 condition which causes suffering to the person, to the

17 patient and results into poorer self-perception, lesser

18 ability to relate to other people and behavioural

19 difficulties. When we refer to words, such as

20 pathology, or psycho-pathology, in psychiatric terms,

21 this is not a subjective term. Psychiatry has several

22 models that it goes by. The descriptive model, which

23 is DSM, is just one of the models. Both the DSM and

24 the classification, which has been worked on by the

25 World Health Organisation, ECD, go along the lines of

1 descriptive model. Whilst there are other models that

2 apply dynamic psychiatry, as it were, which attribute

3 to the world pathology a more relative meaning in that

4 it is applied to individual patterns of behaviour. And

5 we find one such example on a day-to-day basis in our

6 forensic psychiatric work in behaviours that refer to

7 the sexual behaviour. So if we use the word pathology,

8 the word pathology has a different meaning according to

9 the condition involved and it is taken to mean lack of

10 self-control on the part of the subject.

11 Q. Now, just for a bottom line definition, is

12 your definition of pathology and forensic psychology,

13 does that mean illness or disease?

14 A. The notion of disease, especially related to

15 something that is more limited in -- has a more limited

16 time frame, so we would rather use here the word

17 illness. So there is a difference between what is

18 meant by disorder and what is meant by illness, in that

19 disorder is a term which gives a generic definition of

20 a condition, whilst illness does cover through

21 pathology. This might create problems when I am going

22 to be cross-examined, but I think it's appropriate that

23 I try and define that more precisely.

24 Q. Just for clarity purposes, you have a copy of

25 the criteria from Kaplan and Sadock that was introduced

1 into evidence as D 484 before; the criteria, I believe

2 it's in that book on page 776 and 777.

3 A. We have not discussed this bottom line type

4 testimony yet, so -- 776 and 777.

5 Q. To make it clear for the Court, would you

6 point out what DSM IV disorders Mr. Landzo absolutely

7 suffers from. You can't use the word absolutely. I

8 take that back. In your opinion, what he suffers from

9 on this table of specific personality disorders. And

10 if you can't explain it through these, then use

11 whatever table you like.

12 A. Let me try and explain. Are you referring to

13 Table 27, page 776 of Kaplan? If you're referring to

14 that, that doesn't cover the criteria for DSM IV, but

15 ECD 10, rather, that is the other psychiatric

16 classification. The two have been more or less

17 combined, but in the Kaplan classification, in the next

18 page, you have the DSM IV forms for individual

19 disorders. So we could use the one you mentioned, but

20 this is not for the DSM IV. The criteria are more or

21 less the same, though.

22 Q. Since I was incorrect in presenting these to

23 the Court, could we ask the assistance of the usher to

24 turn on the ELMO so we can put the DSM 4 criteria, so

25 that everybody can see it on their monitors?

1 THE REGISTRAR: I would like to ask the

2 counsel to provide the registry with the copies of

3 these pages, because otherwise I will be obliged to

4 keep the book for the record.

5 MS. McMURREY: You have the page 777 and 776

6 as D 48/4. But this new one, I will most certainly

7 supply a copy as soon as we have our break in a

8 moment. I would like it clear for the registry, I

9 haven't seen it yet either, so -- yes, would you put

10 that -- can he sit closer to the ELMO so he can use the

11 book at the same time that it's displayed over the

12 ELMO. Your Honours, it may be simpler if we take the

13 break now and I make copies for everybody. Would that

14 be more appropriate? It is 11.30 and I have been

15 standing for an hour and a half.

16 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: When you choose to be

17 relevant in many areas, you have to spend that time,

18 wasting your time. I think we can have the break at

19 11.30 and come back at noon.

20 MS. McMURREY: Thank you very much, Your

21 Honours.

22 --- Recess taken at 11.30 a.m.

23 --- On resuming at 12.00 p.m.

24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours --

25 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Counsel may proceed,

1 please.

2 MS. McMURREY: Thank you very much. Mr.

3 Saunders is still down at the one Defence copying

4 machine, making copies. So if I might just cover one

5 other area real quickly before he returns, I expect him

6 any moment with those copies. Because I don't have the

7 book to put it on the ELMO because he has it down

8 copying at this point.

9 Q. Now, Dr. Lagazzi, you have described

10 pathology as an illness and, would you, please,

11 demonstrate to the Court exactly what a psychiatric

12 illness is based on your definition of pathology.

13 A. Well, in this particular case, we need to

14 speak of an abnormality of the personality. The term

15 illness is very clear. If you refer to psychiatric

16 pathology, such as the one we describe as being a major

17 problem, such as schizophrenia or delirium or some

18 other thing of that nature or what we call the bipolar

19 disorders, as such, as manic depressives, these are

20 evident pathologies. And these are very clearly

21 definable as illness. If we're talking about a

22 personality disorder, what we're talking about

23 basically is something that is abnormal in the

24 personality of the individual.

25 Q. Dr. Lagazzi, would you explain with your

1 diagram of what pathology is in a psychiatric disorder

2 situation. I believe we discussed something called the

3 red shoes?

4 A. This is an example that I have used with the

5 Defence and with the Prosecutor as well. I would like

6 just to point out that what we're talking about now is

7 a much less easily defined field than a personality

8 disorder. That is to say, abnormality in the

9 personality. If we're speaking of schizophrenia, for

10 example, it is very clear to everybody concerned that

11 this is always a pathology. That it is always an

12 illness. If we're speaking of a personality disorder,

13 we're speaking of something that is abnormal, so we

14 need to define the term. And we need to say when

15 normality becomes something that spills over into

16 abnormality and becomes a pathological situation. If

17 you want and if I am given the permission to do so,

18 perhaps I could just sketch out something just to

19 demonstrate the point.

20 JUDGE JAN: Pathology be concerned with the

21 change in the composition?

22 THE WITNESS: Even abnormality, it can be

23 defined, actually as an abnormality in the structure

24 and in the expression of a personality.

25 JUDGE JAN: -- in the chemistry of the pain?

1 THE WITNESS: That is a very interesting

2 question you asked me. Currently, the field of

3 neurobiology, neurochemistry in psychiatric fields is

4 something that is on an expansionary curve. But we're

5 dealing with a fact. The drugs that we use, either to

6 deal with psychotics or depressives are chemical

7 substances, and which, therefore, have an influence on

8 the chemical nature of an individual and modify

9 behaviour, of course. We are pretty sure of what

10 disorders come from direct cerebral lesions, that is

11 neurological problems.

12 In psychiatric areas, there are studies which

13 show that in certain pathological cases, there is a

14 change in the chemical composition. But if we're

15 speaking of personality disorder, it is very difficult

16 to speak of real changes in the brain chemistry.

17 Basically, what we're talking about in such cases is a

18 model of behaviour or behaviour pattern which develops

19 from the personality. In other words, we've got to

20 look at changes in chemical composition in such cases.

21 But that is something that is very difficult to do at

22 the present time.

23 My personal opinion, though, is that in 100

24 years time, psychiatry as we know today will be

25 completely different. It will be much more chemistry

1 focused and we will have much better knowledge of how

2 the brain functions. At the present time, we have to

3 resort to the things that we have available to us.

4 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Dr. Lagazzi, before you

5 go into your demonstrations, I would like to know

6 exactly the reference which was made to you, how you

7 relate the disorder to the mental ability of the

8 accused person to commit offences against which he is

9 charged and the extent to which he is responsible.

10 This is what I thought you are here to give your expert

11 opinion about.

12 THE WITNESS: Of course. Well, Your Honour,

13 I must admit that the whole question of responsibility

14 which I have set out in my report is an evaluation

15 based on probability. In other words, we're dealing

16 with an assessment, which is not based on certainty.

17 After all, we're dealing with personality disorders and

18 we're confronted with a person who probably committed

19 certain acts, but of which he hasn't spoken of with

20 me. So, what I have done is to assess the individual

21 and I believe that this kind of personality, in

22 specific circumstances of authority, may lead to the

23 acceptance of an order and lead, in turn, to certain

24 attitudes without using one's free choice. In other

25 words, where free will is absent.

1 But I should point out that the assessment

2 that I made was based on probability and only

3 probability. So I have looked at the clinical data and

4 without being able to know all of the facts, I said

5 what the probability was. In other words, Mr. Landzo

6 had a clinical condition and it was probable on the

7 basis of that condition that when he received very

8 specific orders, that he would then an act in a

9 non-free manner. That was the assessment that I made.

10 And I would just like to repeat that this is an

11 assessment which cannot be based on greater certainty

12 unless you have a free discussion of the facts. And we

13 have to ask Mr. Landzo how he experienced the facts.

14 And this was an exactly the same kind of situation when

15 the question was asked of Dr. Van Leuween. We've had

16 discussions and we've had tests and what we do is to

17 correlate the results, knowing his personality and

18 determine what the behaviour is going to be. But this

19 is always based on probability, I repeat.

20 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much.

21 MS. McMURREY:

22 Q. Dr. Lagazzi, you also include the third prong

23 of your consideration, which is your own personal

24 observations, not just what Mr. Landzo told you,

25 right?

1 A. Of course, I based all these aspects on my

2 own personal observations, on my discussions, on the

3 clinical examination and on the results of the test.

4 And I must say that my assessment is also very much in

5 line with the assessment made by my other colleagues,

6 particularly that of Professor Van Leuween.

7 But let me repeat, the reliability

8 coefficient of psychiatric evaluations is greater if

9 you've got more information fed to the psychiatrist, so

10 it's important too the amount of information they're

11 given. So if we were to have a discussion on the

12 facts, we would be able to say on the basis of those

13 facts, Mr. Landzo could have been in a condition of

14 diminished responsibilities and for other

15 circumstances, no.

16 Q. And, you know, absent the facts, you can rely

17 on collateral investigations in speaking to other

18 people and other sources of information about Mr.

19 Landzo too, right?

20 A. Yes, if the Court tells us that this is the

21 case.

22 Q. I think that this will become clearer about a

23 pathology or a disease of the mind if you demonstrate

24 the way you did to me and to the Prosecution about the

25 red shoes.

1 A. Obviously this is not a joke, huh?

2 Q. No, this is not a joke.

3 A. I just wanted to illustrate this point with

4 an example and it illustrates a kind of behaviour. I

5 want to use this example both with the Defence as well

6 as with the Prosecutor, in order to show how certain

7 types of behaviour in individuals have a pathology

8 threshold which has to be said to be relative. Let us

9 draw a typical graph. And this is very theoretical, of

10 course. Here we have abnormality, the abnormality of

11 an individual's behaviour. Let us just take as an

12 example, one of the borderline cases, so that you can

13 see better what I am trying to talk about. Let us just

14 take sexuality. We an all know that this is relative.

15 And it changes, obviously, very much from one

16 individual to the next.

17 We're talking about paraphilia on the basis

18 of DSM IV and the kind of behaviours which may differ

19 from physiology behaviours. You may deal with a person

20 who is sexually excited at work looking at a woman who

21 puts on red shoes, or black shoes for that matter. Now

22 if we take this as being a case of normality, theoretic

23 normality, it is possible that an individual who has

24 fantasies regarding a beautiful woman who wears a

25 particular type of shoe, these are fantasies which,

1 obviously, will not have an impact on their personal

2 lives or on their work. And it is part of the

3 subjectivity. This is something that is considered

4 part of a normal makeup of an individual. If that

5 person has relations with his wife who wears a

6 particular type of shoes, then we're dealing with less

7 free will in the behaviour of that individual because

8 there is a kind of conditioning that is taking place.

9 And his internal needs are reflected in this manner,

10 but you cannot speak of pathology.

11 JUDGE JAN: What does abnormality represent

12 in this chart?

13 THE WITNESS: Here, what we are representing

14 is the abnormality coefficient. And on this axis, this

15 is behaviour.

16 MS. McMURREY:

17 Q. And, Dr. Lagazzi, I believe something is lost

18 in the interpretation. If you don't use red shoes, if

19 you just say any shoes, then it's not as a specific

20 circumstance that triggers this need, so, you know, I

21 think you just said --

22 A. All right.

23 JUDGE JAN: There is a relationship between

24 abnormality and behaviour?

25 THE WITNESS: Exactly, but we can continue

1 with the red shoes, if you prefer. If we're dealing

2 with just something that is a fantasy which doesn't

3 actually influence peoples' behaviour, from a clearly

4 clinical perspective, we're not in absolute normality,

5 but we all know that there is no such thing as absolute

6 normality in psychiatry, everything is relative. If

7 this person asks his woman to wear shoes of a

8 particular nature when they're together, then his

9 behaviour is somewhat more conditional and it is

10 different from most of the population. If that person

11 is capable of meeting his -- or, having a relationship

12 with his woman only if she's wearing red shoes of this

13 particular type and in all other cases he is impotent

14 and cannot have any sexual activity, then one would say

15 that that person is moving further along the

16 abnormality curve. But we're not in a pathological

17 situation, we're talking about a situation which may be

18 of interest to the clinician and it may be useful for a

19 person to go through pyschotherapy in order to address

20 this problem that he may have.

21 However, if the person in question, in order

22 to satisfy his need to have sexual relations only with

23 woman wearing red shoes and if that person frequents

24 prostitutes who have a particular type of behaviour,

25 then that person is even more conditioned. If the

1 person in question then manages to get hold of a woman,

2 beat her and rape her, just because she's wearing red

3 shoes, then, of course, we're dealing with totally

4 abnormal behaviour and that is, therefore, the

5 abnormality, total abnormality of the personality.

6 What we're speaking is a continuum. We're

7 speaking of a continuum. In other words, we start with

8 things which are present in each one of us. In the

9 case of Mr. Landzo, you have got, obviously dependency,

10 narcissism and so on. And all of these things are

11 present in each one of us.

12 But if you want to define this as

13 pathological, you need to look at gradation. If we

14 take at this level a pathological threshold for the

15 behaviour change, it is obvious that everybody would

16 agree that any person who rapes a woman and putting

17 on -- or, puts on red shoes, obviously, is in a

18 pathological situation. All this has to be plotted

19 against a curve which is a continuum. So we look at

20 behaviour and define pathology on the basis of the

21 degree of conditioning which that behaviour will have

22 on the person in question. If we try and apply this to

23 personality disorders, and this is where DSM IV comes

24 in, we may have characteristic traits which are present

25 in each one of us in a stronger or less strong manner

1 and we wouldn't consider this to be pathological,

2 they're just part of our makeup. However, if these

3 characteristics lead to the structure of a personality

4 which is rigidly defined and guided in a certain

5 manner, then we would speak of abnormality of the

6 personality. When that personality/abnormality is such

7 as to seriously impair the way a person behaves, then

8 we would speak of pathology, a pathology of the

9 personality.

10 So, in this case, and I am repeating the

11 point. It's not as in the case of psychosis, paranoia,

12 schizophrenia, a clear term to work with, we need to

13 look at the disorder and the level of the disorder. If

14 you've got a borderline personality disorder and a

15 structured disorder where the normality threshold,

16 which may be present in one disorder is very limited

17 because we're dealing with a disorder that is very

18 close to psychosis by away of its characteristics.

19 So if we're speaking of a

20 histrionic personality disorder, then the pathology

21 threshold is higher because there are certain

22 manifestations which may be present in a very strong

23 manner and this may affect people who go about their

24 work. So in the case of paedophilia, the pathology

25 will depend on the type of disorder and the type of

1 conditioning which that condition will have on the

2 individual.

3 In the case of sexuality, let us leave aside

4 the red shoes for a moment, which is somewhat funny,

5 perhaps. But if we're speaking of paedophilia, the

6 pathology threshold is much closer to the left.

7 Because so only in real fantasies concerning small

8 children in itself is something that is already

9 pathological even in that level. So the pathological

10 threshold in the case of paedophilia would be placed

11 here. Just the fact that people would have a fantasy,

12 which in other fields would be acceptable, would be

13 indicative of a serious pathology.

14 Now, if we transpose that so the whole

15 principle of responsibility and taking the example of

16 paedophilia still, we can say that if you have an

17 individual who has a paedophilia problem and is,

18 therefore, a pathological situation and if we wants to

19 have a relation with a child who is in the street with

20 his mother, one can assume that his behaviour is

21 conditioned by a personality abnormality. But I think

22 that any forensic psychiatrist would call into question

23 his responsibility because it is obviously an

24 inappropriate behaviour. If you've got a person with

25 the same problem and it does nothing in his own town

1 and he takes a plane and goes on a sex tour in a

2 country where this is allowed and gets rid of his urges

3 there, then that person also has a pathology that the

4 organisation of the behaviour teaches us that very

5 likely this person is fully responsible.

6 In other words, in the case of forensic

7 pathology, we look at whether the behaviour is actually

8 organised. If that same person rapes a woman because

9 she's wearing red shoes or putting red shoes on the

10 women, he does so in a way which shows that he can

11 immediately be arrested. And if that is the case, one

12 would need to see what exactly his behaviours

13 involved. If that person rapes a woman in such a way

14 that he cannot be recognised, changes his car and

15 perhaps carries out the attack against a prostitute

16 because it's easier to kidnap her and he creates an

17 alibi, then that behaviour is much more organised and I

18 think that could, therefore, be considered free will,

19 compared with other types of behaviour. And that is

20 why I think it is necessary if we're going to make an

21 absolute assessment, even in the case of Mr. Landzo, to

22 be able to understand the facts and to be able to

23 discuss those facts with him.

24 Q. Now, those disorders that you have diagnosed

25 for, in your opinion, for Mr. Landzo, he is clearly on

1 the pathological side, above your line, not below it,

2 wouldn't you say?

3 A. Yes, yes.

4 Q. In fact, in your third report, you described

5 even another situation which would explain Mr. Landzo's

6 behaviour, which is very short, about the automobile?

7 A. Let me just take another example. In the

8 case of Mr. Landzo, what I have observed in the various

9 analysis that we conducted, a change, a change in

10 versions, change in the way he expresses himself.

11 Indeed, in the first examination we conducted, he was

12 obviously play acting. In the latest of one, he

13 introduced a series of facts in order to minimise his

14 previous experiences. It's as if he wanted to appear

15 totally normal now. So I think it's quite clear that

16 if we're dealing with an intelligent person, and this

17 has been shown in analysis, the person is aware of the

18 trial, the indictments made against him and I think

19 that he is basically involved in something that is

20 self-mutilating. He has constantly changed his

21 behaviour and this is probably due to the personality

22 disorders he suffers from. For example, if somebody

23 drives a car very fast and destroys the car in an

24 accident and immediately gets out of the car, takes

25 another car and does exactly the same thing over and

1 over again, that is a self-mutilating type of

2 behaviour. If it is conducted by or done by a person

3 who is mentally retarded or seriously retarded, then

4 you can explain it. But if it is done by somebody who

5 is reasonably intelligent and is aware of the risk and

6 of the situation, one has to assume that there is an

7 abnormality pathology of the personality, which is

8 conditioned by the personality.

9 Q. Thank you very much, Dr. Lagazzi, I think you

10 can sit down now. And that example of the car is what

11 you used in your third report. Just so I don't forget,

12 Your Honours, at this point I would like to ask Dr.

13 Lagazzi, you made a first report on November 15, 1996;

14 a second January 9th, 1997; and a third report on July

15 3rd, 1998. And in these reports you stated your

16 opinions based upon your evaluations, the psychological

17 testing and your observations of Mr. Landzo. And you

18 still believe that these opinions are accurate and

19 correct?

20 A. Yes, I do.

21 Q. Your Honour, I would like to have these three

22 reports entered into evidence at this point, please.

23 I'm sorry, this is the November 11th report, we didn't

24 have a stapler or paper clips.

25 THE REGISTRAR: The first report has been

1 marked D 63/4; the second one is D 62/4 and the third

2 one -- sorry, no, sorry, the first one is D 61/4, the

3 second one D 62/4 and the third one D 63/4.

4 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: These reports are

5 admitted into evidence.

6 MS. McMURREY: Thank you very much, Your

7 Honour.

8 Q. Now, what we were trying to go into before

9 the last break, I do have the correct copies of the

10 criteria that should be used with DSM IV. And I would

11 like to offer these to the registrar first. That's

12 it. Oh, it's already been marked. Okay, thank you.

13 If you could distribute these to the Court.

14 THE REGISTRAR: Page 791 has been marked D

15 58/4. And the page 619 is D 59/4.

16 MS. McMURREY: I'm sorry, do you have a copy

17 of that or do you have the book in front of you? Okay,

18 great. Thank you.

19 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, if we could have a

20 copy, we sure would appreciate it, just so we could

21 follow along.

22 MS. McMURREY: Mr. Moran, you have the DSM IV

23 book in front of you.

24 MR. MORAN: I would like -- she's been

25 introducing stuff out of various books and I would like

1 to know what I am dealing with.

2 MS. McMURREY: Yes, I think there is probably

3 enough copies, maybe.

4 MR. COWLES: Your Honours, if this is the

5 same document previously identified as D 48/4, then we

6 have it already.

7 MS. McMURREY: I think there is an additional

8 page on 791 that was not marked in D 48/4.

9 MR. COWLES: Then we do not have that page.

10 MS. McMURREY: Do you have the Kaplan and

11 Sadock book?

12 Q. Just to have a label for Mr. Landzo's

13 personality disorder, I would like for you to explain

14 to the Court or show the Court what personality

15 disorder in a pathological sense he suffers from in the

16 DSM IV?

17 A. I take it you have copies of this document.

18 In terms of the DSM IV, we have recognised the

19 following points: A post-traumatic stress disorder.

20 And, in our hands, this condition was brought about by

21 his experience in the training camp, paramilitary

22 training camp. And in our last interview, we

23 understood from that what Mr. Landzo said, and he

24 showed us a film showing that he had an experience that

25 was even worse than that of a training camp. So this

1 post-traumatic stress syndrome was caused also by the

2 images of destruction of his own land and killings,

3 which had been perpetrated.

4 The other major element had to do with a

5 dependant personality disorder. The criteria which are

6 set out here are the ones which are applied normally on

7 a routine basis by psychiatrists. And these are

8 criteria that I go along with, of course. But I would

9 like to qualify what I said as follows: There is

10 something which is of great significance in the way in

11 which DSM IV is being used. It's easy to use labels in

12 psychiatry to get to a common understanding of what is

13 involved. But the fact that the DSM IV is used for

14 forensic purposes has to be done with great care. And

15 this is being pointed out by the authors of the book

16 itself. We have in clinical terms, a multi-access

17 diagnosis, as it were, and that the person shows

18 several traits. He has a clearly symptoms of a

19 post-traumatic stress disorder and he has a dependant

20 personality disorder. In addition to that, he has this

21 impulsive behaviour and narcissistic behaviour. And,

22 as professor Van Leuween pointed out, and I would agree

23 with his diagnosis, you also find schizoid traits

24 present in that person. So over and above the kind of

25 labels that we could use for that case, we'll have to

1 think in terms of a complex personality picture. As is

2 true in every mixed personality disorder, we would

3 rather refer to a complex picture which has a number of

4 components that speak to that complex picture. So

5 they're very closely interrelated. So it's appropriate

6 that we use the DSM IV as a frame of reference. Having

7 said that, of course, each and every trait is closely

8 related and influenced by the other traits. It is

9 written in the literature that the post-traumatic

10 stress disorder, in some respects, is enhanced by the

11 fact that you have a dependent personality condition.

12 And by the same token, if you have a dependent

13 personality, some will be pertaining to the

14 post-traumatic stress disorder of being enhanced. If

15 you add to that the narcissistic trait and the

16 self-ego, which is added up to that, that enhances the

17 condition. So clinically speaking, you have to come up

18 with a suitable and overall comprehensive evaluation of

19 that person in light of all of these points.

20 Q. Now, I think Judge Jan has some labels we can

21 deal with. And the labels that you have described that

22 Mr. Landzo passed that graph on the pathological scale

23 as far as abnormality. I don't know if I was clear.

24 Tell me if I was clear?

25 A. It was very clear.

1 Q. I want to ask you about some testimony that

2 appeared in the courtroom yesterday. You are aware

3 that there was a witness here yesterday named Elmir

4 Hadzajlic, known as Miro. And Miro had stated to the

5 Court that he had tried to get Mr. Landzo to stay, but

6 Mr. Landzo left and joined the TO. Can you explain to

7 the Court how this is not inconsistent with the

8 personality disorder that you have described to the

9 Court?

10 A. If we take as a fact, Mr. Landzo's refusal to

11 stay with Mr. Miro, all I can give you in this respect

12 is an explanation based on my perception of facts. I

13 may assume that this could be explained, and this is my

14 personal view on it, this may be explained by the fact

15 that Mr. Landzo felt this need to identify with a

16 strong structure, stronger than the dependency he had

17 visiting Mr. Miro. That is a possible explanation, but

18 it's the way I can interpret this, my personal view of

19 it.

20 Q. And the stronger influence or force or

21 structure, as you call it, also had to do, maybe, with

22 the fact that his father and his brother told him that

23 he had to join the TO and defend his town?

24 JUDGE JAN: There is no such evidence.

25 MS. McMURREY: No, this is an assumption.

1 JUDGE JAN: You're just putting a

2 hypothetical situation, and one hypothetical situation

3 may lead to one conclusion and another one to another

4 conclusion, so let's not make --

5 MS. McMURREY: I will retract that

6 hypothetical.

7 Q. The truth is, Dr. Lagazzi, you don't know

8 what other stronger force or if there was another

9 influence on him, you're just assuming based on this

10 new opinion?

11 A. I take into account the way in which Mr.

12 Landzo described his feelings vis-à-vis wearing a

13 uniform, his being attracted by weapons and the fact

14 that it is quite clear that dependent personalities,

15 when there is a strong level of dependency, you wish to

16 relate to a strong structure, such as a military

17 structure and this has a considerable appeal to

18 dependent personalities.

19 Mr. Landzo reminded me of young boys that

20 would come to me, and before they were trained for the

21 Italian Army, they would be asked to be sent to the UN

22 troops in fighting areas. We had a great many

23 misgivings about their requests. And when we assessed

24 these young recruits in psychiatric terms, we found

25 that all of them had severe psychiatric disorders, so

1 we would not accept their request.

2 Q. Now, you also -- I want to take the examples

3 that I read out of his first report on November 15th,

4 1996 and relate them to his diagnoses. Can you

5 relate that behaviour and those expressions of Mr.

6 Landzo in 1996 to these disorders? Are they consistent

7 or are they inconsistent?

8 A. In the 1996 report, we stated that the

9 behavioural pattern of Mr. Landzo and his personality

10 was very much consistent with his earlier behaviour,

11 which then at a later stage changed radically. As I

12 said earlier on, he really appeared as if he enjoyed

13 being a mercenary fighter. And this is very much in

14 line with the fact that there is a strong dependency on

15 a specific model. But I would like to explain that

16 this is further confirmed that what he stated, "I want

17 to be the ideal soldier, a perfect soldier." So the

18 image you have of the perfect soldier, other than what

19 an ideal soldier should really be. Basically what he

20 was telling us, is his view of viewing a perfect

21 soldier and how he assumed a perfect soldier would

22 behave. That he would hate each and every person and

23 he would act the way he acted.

24 Q. In fact, you described this kind of disorder

25 in terms of a false self. Can you explain that to the

1 Trial Chamber, please?

2 JUDGE JAN: False self or ideal self?

3 THE WITNESS: False self is a false self.

4 THE INTERPRETER: Excuse me, can you repeat?

5 JUDGE JAN: I said false self or ideal self?

6 THE WITNESS: It's a very elegant question.

7 Let's say that in this particular case, it is more of a

8 false self situation, which is consistent with the

9 level of dependency on another person, which is

10 comparatively archaic, low in terms of development.

11 The ideal self here, would have been the true good

12 soldier attitude. But in this particular case, he has

13 adopted a false self approach. And was inspired, not

14 so much by the ideal soldier type, but he was inspired

15 by some examples that were close to him. So here we

16 shouldn't refer to an ideal self. We are talking in

17 terms of narcissistic approach. So it would be correct

18 to speak in terms of false self.

19 JUDGE JAN: I have a tendency towards

20 narcissism, when I said ideal self.

21 THE WITNESS: It's a very stimulating

22 question, a very challenging one.

23 MS. McMURREY:

24 Q. I want to ask you on the false self, does the

25 person create this false self because there is a void

1 inside?

2 A. Yes. That makes the false self different

3 from the ideal self. Here, we have this very strong

4 feeling of void, a vacuum on the part which is

5 perceived by the person on which you have this

6 overlapping narcissistic approach and at a later stage,

7 you have also this dependent personality trait that

8 comes in. I gave you the example of Woody Allen's

9 film, Zelig and as a result of this, you try and follow

10 the example of a person that has full authority without

11 a critical attitude, you perceive a number of

12 personality traits of your model and you try and

13 imitate your model. This is a far more less

14 sophisticated approach than the one that would, for

15 instance, would be followed by a person that would be

16 inspired to become a priest or to take up a military

17 career. You do have the same approach in that you take

18 as a model a strong structure as a reference model.

19 But this is a far more advanced way of modelling your

20 behaviour on somebody else's behaviour and it has this

21 ideal component, whilst here we have a far less

22 sophisticated and a more archaic type of approach when

23 it comes to following, imitating a model.

24 Q. And that empty false self that you've talked

25 about cannot exercise his free will when he has to

1 follow -- in order to become his false self, which is

2 totally different from Judge Jan who is looking for his

3 ideal self, I suppose. They can lead, they don't have

4 to follow, the ideal self?

5 A. Here the problem of the false self in a

6 condition of dependency is such that if the source of

7 dependency, the person you're dependent on, gives you

8 an order or shows you a specific model, pattern of

9 behaviour, you go along with the order, you execute the

10 order without discussing it. So there is no free will

11 in this respect, which is involved. But let me qualify

12 what I am saying by stating that the free will

13 consideration has got to be taken into account in terms

14 of general probability with respect to what happened

15 this Celebici. Then if he were willing to discuss with

16 me about these facts, then we would have to consider

17 for each and every behaviour what has triggered that

18 behaviour.

19 Q. Now, based on your psychiatric, forensic

20 psychiatric conclusions today, based on the diagnosis

21 that you have reached about Mr. Landzo, can you project

22 back that in all probability, Mr. Landzo was suffering

23 from an abnormality of the mind in 1992?

24 A. Yes, because the development of this

25 abnormality of the personality had taken place earlier

1 than '92.

2 Q. And then did this abnormality of the mind

3 influence his inability or ability to control his

4 behaviour in the setting as a guard in Celebici in 1992

5 from the forensic psychiatric point of view?

6 A. With the qualifications which I have already

7 given, I think I may say that in general, with respect

8 to that particular period in time, there is a

9 probability that it did influence his behaviour. But

10 we would have to go into discussion with the individual

11 facts with him in order to give a more considered

12 opinion.

13 Q. Based on the psychiatric -- forensic

14 psychiatric diagnoses that you have found in him,

15 excluding the facts at Celebici, and projecting back,

16 he still suffered from this lack of free will in 1992

17 and before that and today?

18 A. I can tell you that this lack of free will

19 was, in all likelihood, to be found at the time he was

20 in Celebici because of an earlier pathological

21 personality disorder he suffered as a result of the

22 post-traumatic stress disorder and because of the very

23 special relational situation that he ascribed. At

24 first, there was a personality disorder that he

25 suffered from, but I am not in a position, however, to

1 say whether or not he had a free will at an earlier

2 stage that he could exercise.

3 As to the present situation he is in, my

4 assessment did not refer to his free will. If I recall

5 correctly, the notion of free will and responsibility

6 are solely related to the fact that crimes had been

7 committed, so as far as I have been told, he had not

8 committed any crimes prior to 1992. Nor am I aware of

9 crimes that he had committed now. If you're asking me

10 if he can stand trial, I can answer, yes, he can stand

11 trial.

12 Q. I am not going to ask you that. I am going

13 to ask you, based on your evaluation of Mr. Landzo,

14 what is your projection and warning about the future if

15 he doesn't have psychiatric help?

16 A. Let me repeat, that for any further

17 evaluation and assessment on my part, I have a need to

18 meet with Mr. Landzo in a specific, well-defined

19 setting. Given his personality characteristics, I

20 think that there are major dangers of his going back to

21 an earlier condition with the risk of events that might

22 occur, similar to the ones that occurred similar to

23 1996 in the prison.

24 Q. Are you referring to that he, in your

25 opinion, would be a high suicide risk in the future

1 after all of this is over?

2 MR. COWLES: Your Honour, I pose an objection

3 at this point as to relevancy of that line of

4 questioning.

5 MS. McMURREY: I'll move on. I just thought

6 it might be of interest to the Court. I haven't heard

7 from the Court whether you can answer that or not.

8 THE WITNESS: In ethical terms I would rather

9 not answer to this point and I would rather give a

10 medical opinion on it.

11 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: The relevant period in

12 question is the time that he was in Celebici, so

13 anything beyond that time will not be relevant to the

14 position he is now.

15 MS. McMURREY: Well, Your Honours, I will

16 pass the witness at this point. In time for lunch. I

17 hope. Well, I can fill the next few minutes if you

18 like.

19 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: If you're not tired, go

20 on. You may still continue.

21 MS. McMURREY: Well, good, I have many other

22 areas that I wanted to cover earlier, but I cut right

23 to the bottom line.

24 Q. I would like for you to just discuss your

25 third report, which was the most current, July 3rd,

1 1998, report, with -- I know you came to the

2 conclusions, but can you explain to the Court the

3 things that you observed when writing this report,

4 especially the absolute contrast in Mr. Landzo that you

5 saw this time versus last time. And I know that the

6 Court heard that through Dr. Van Leuween, but he has a

7 little bit different twist to it, I believe.

8 A. In relational, behavioural terms, there is a

9 radical change in 1996, and to some extent in 1997. He

10 was a person that was very severely traumatised and had

11 difficulty relating to the environment. And this led

12 me to consider very closely his dependent personality

13 situation. And, today, he seems to follow a model

14 which is very strong to him, as strong as it was in the

15 past, this military model, but at present he is being

16 modelled along the lines of a judiciary, a prison, an

17 international prison. He has learned English and asked

18 to be sent to jail in the United States for a short

19 period of time. He asked that he be sent to college.

20 So he is now fitting in this international framework,

21 so he has a different relational approach. He seems to

22 be very keen on showing that he has full control of the

23 situation. Is very kind, very welcoming. He almost

24 gives orders to the guards, as it were. So the limited

25 adequacy of this behaviour seems to indicate a

1 condition of abnormality of his personality. So my

2 feeling is that the way he was inadequate in the past

3 is equally true for today. So this apparent change in

4 his behaviour is just one further stage in the

5 development of his personality. But it's not an

6 indication of greater maturity in his personality. He

7 has the same personality, he has taken as a model

8 something different, that is this international

9 structure that he is part of at present.

10 Q. While given this window of opportunity, would

11 you explain to the Trial Chamber, the consistency with

12 his personality disorder and the changing of his

13 stories every time you went to see him. How each

14 time he would say one thing --

15 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much,

16 witness. We can now break for lunch. It's one

17 o'clock. We'll resume at 2.30.

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 --- Luncheon recess taken at 1.00 p.m.

2 --- Upon commencing at 2.45 p.m.

3 MS. McMURREY: Judge Odio-Benito, I am just

4 moving my things, I am not going to talk again.

5 THE REGISTRAR: May I remind you, Dr.

6 Lagazzi, that you are still under oath.

7 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Any cross-examinations

8 for the defence?

9 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, Mr. Delalic's

10 Defence has no questions.

11 MR. OLUJIC: The Defence of Zdravko Mucic has

12 no questions for the witness.

13 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, I have got a few.

14 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes, you may proceed to

15 cross-examine.

16 MR. MORAN: May it please the Court?

17 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes, you may proceed.

18 Cross-examined by Mr. Moran

19 Q. Good afternoon, doctor did you have a good

20 lunch?

21 A. Enough.

22 Q. I hope the fire scare didn't bother you as

23 much as it might have, the fire that apparently

24 wasn't.

25 I have a few questions I want to ask you, and

1 they're going towards being general questions. Now, we

2 talked for, what, about five minutes, ten minutes, just

3 in general terms? And aside from exchanging

4 pleasantries, I think that's the only time we've ever

5 talked, isn't it?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Did anybody talk to you about your testimony

8 over the lunch break, by the way?

9 A. Absolutely not.

10 Q. Fine. Let me -- and this may seem like I am

11 jumping around and probably I am on what you talked

12 about, but I am going to try and keep it in some kind

13 of coherent order. First thing is, as I understand it,

14 you're suffering from a lack of third party

15 information, and suffering may be the wrong word,

16 operating under a lack of information and you're forced

17 to rely on what Mr. Landzo told you about his

18 conditions and how he felt and things like that.

19 A. Yes. And, in particular, if I were to carry

20 out a more complete assessment, I would need to be able

21 to discuss in a freer, more tranquil manner of what

22 happened to Mr. Landzo, just to be able to find out how

23 he felt and how he experienced the things that he might

24 have done.

25 Q. Well, if I were to tell you -- let me back

1 off. Did his lawyer give you access to the

2 autobiography that he spent the last year writing.

3 Your Honour, I refer to it as the "Life and Times of

4 Esad Landzo by Esad Landzo".

5 JUDGE JAN: (Microphone not on)

6 MR. MORAN: It's fairly well-known among the

7 Defence that this thing exists.

8 THE WITNESS: No.

9 Q. You never saw Esad Landzo by Esad Landzo?

10 A. No.

11 Q. And did you talk to any of his friends in

12 Konjic or his relatives or his --

13 A. No.

14 Q. That would have been helpful, wouldn't it?

15 A. Perhaps, yes.

16 Q. And --

17 A. But I would have needed to get the Court's

18 approval to be able to go into a more detailed

19 examination.

20 Q. You know, for instance, that Dr. Gripon has

21 been to Konjic a couple of times. You've talked to him

22 about that?

23 A. Yes, I spoke with the colleagues I met for

24 the first time on Sunday about the results of my

25 examination, but I haven't had any other information

1 with the exception, unless I am mistaken, of some news

2 about the figure of the mother, who seems to have been

3 the strongest person in the family group.

4 Q. Okay. Let's start off with talking about

5 what Esad Landzo is not, okay. You'd agree with me,

6 wouldn't you, doctor, that Esad Landzo's not psychotic,

7 he doesn't see snakes coming out of the wall or hear

8 voices from Mars telling him to do stuff, does he?

9 JUDGE JAN: You're talking about

10 hallucinations.

11 MR. MORAN: Yes, Your Honour.

12 THE WITNESS: No, he doesn't have any

13 psychotic disorder.

14 MR. MORAN:

15 Q. And Mr. Landzo knows right from wrong?

16 A. This presupposes being able to answer at two

17 levels. There is no psychotic disorder, which could

18 have an influence and distort his perception of

19 reality, so he doesn't have hallucinations, and to that

20 extent, from a psychotic, pathological point of view,

21 the point would be yes. But from a psychological point

22 of view, given his current situation, because I think

23 you're talking about the situation as it is currently,

24 I can answer you that he is in a position to stand

25 trial. As to his possibility of distinguishing good

1 from evil from a psychological point of view,

2 currently, as there is no reference to actual crimes

3 that have been committed, it's more philosophical than

4 a clinical question you're asking.

5 Q. Talking nothing about actual crimes, okay,

6 Mr. Landzo told you on one occasion at least, didn't

7 he, that he threw a hand grenade into a house where

8 there were a couple of girls and then shot it up with a

9 machine gun. And on another occasion he admitted to

10 you, didn't he, that he had beaten and kicked some

11 people in the Celebici camp?

12 A. What I do remember is the event of the hand

13 grenade, which was thrown into an apartment. And then,

14 this was corrected and I was told that he just shot

15 against the ceiling. I think that on the other point,

16 the 1996 report actually refers to this.

17 Q. Well, actually the 1996 report says there

18 were a couple of women in it. And I think your 1998

19 report says it was a man. It says it was a young man.

20 It's page 6 of the English version of your current

21 report?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. So, if Esad Landzo admitted on some

24 occasions, he punched or kicked detainees and on

25 another occasion, he hit a detainee because another

1 detainee had complained that first one had stolen his

2 bread, that wouldn't be a crime? That's on page 5 and

3 6 of the report, Your Honours, English report. If

4 that's not a crime, wouldn't you agree with me that --

5 A. I just need to check what I actually wrote in

6 the report.

7 Q. Let me you read one of them just right off

8 the top.

9 A. Yes, I can confirm that. Yes, I think that

10 these really are crimes.

11 Q. So when you say that he's never admitted to a

12 crime, you're saying he's never admitted to a crime

13 except on some occasions, kicking people or hitting

14 them?

15 A. What I meant to say is that he only referred

16 to certain aspects. We never actually had a discussion

17 about all the facts for which he stands accused.

18 Q. And then I can, as a lawyer, I can understand

19 very good reasons for that and I am sure, as a

20 part-time judge, you can understand the same reasons.

21 A. Confirmed.

22 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, I am going to

23 object to Mr. Moran testifying and offering his opinion

24 to the Court.

25 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I don't know in what

1 respect that is. I think he merely referred to

2 what was a crime or not. That's what I remember him to

3 have said.

4 JUDGE JAN: Mr. Moran.

5 MR. MORAN: Yes, Your Honour?

6 JUDGE JAN: Is there any evidence that he

7 allegedly committed those crimes, allegedly at the

8 instance of your client?

9 MR. MORAN: Yes, Your Honour, I think there

10 may be some evidence that I don't give credibility to,

11 but I think there has been some evidence during the

12 Prosecution case and the indictment.

13 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: No, I don't understand

14 you to have been putting it forward as a crime, but as

15 to what the expert reported in his own report. This is

16 what you are suggesting. If that was the case, yes,

17 one can admit it. But if it is your own opinion that

18 that was what happened, then definitely, it is not part

19 of the evidence which we can admit for the purposes of

20 your cross-examination.

21 MR. MORAN: And for the purpose of my

22 cross-examination, the witness testified that Mr.

23 Landzo had not admitted to a crime and I was just

24 suggesting that out of his report, there seem to me to

25 be considered to be an admission to a crime.

1 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: That's the only

2 condition under which that can be accepted.

3 MR. MORAN: Yes, Your Honour and that's the

4 only reason it was there. It was the only reason it

5 was offered.

6 Q. Now, doctor, I think we discussed this --

7 again, very shortly last night -- that under Italian

8 law and the law that I think most of us are familiar

9 with, there are two standards. One is whether someone

10 is competent to stand trial. That is, whether they

11 understand the charges against them and can aid in

12 their defence, know what their lawyer does for them and

13 things like that. And the other standard that

14 one would-- that I have asked you about is whether

15 someone is, for lack of a better word, legally insane.

16 And the standard I think you would use for that would

17 be the same one I would use, that they either do not

18 know right from wrong or cannot import their actions to

19 what is right or wrong. Can we agree on those

20 definitions?

21 A. Basically, I would say yes. But I would like

22 to point out that in Italy, we don't use the concept of

23 being able to distinguish good from evil. Italian law

24 uses the notion of reduced ability to understand and

25 the reduced ability to determine one's own -- to

1 self-development or to self-affirmation, I should say.

2 So I don't think you could compare really with the

3 US-based type approach.

4 Q. I was using the M'Naghten Rule from England,

5 but that's same as what most of us use in the United

6 States. And you don't have any problem, do you,

7 agreeing with me that Esad Landzo knows right from

8 wrong? He knows that it's wrong to steal. He knows

9 that it's wrong to do other things?

10 A. Now, with the psychological characteristics

11 of his personality, which limit that type of assessment

12 on his part, I could say, perhaps, the answer to that

13 is yes, but that only corresponds to his current

14 situation.

15 Q. You don't know anything at all about his

16 situation in 1992, do you? I'm just seeing what we

17 don't need to talk about?

18 A. No, but as far as his situation in '92, I

19 have already expressed my opinion and I said that

20 because of his personality, pathology, potentially,

21 probably he was not in a position to exercise his own

22 free will. But this could, of course, challenge his

23 ability to distinguish between good and evil over that

24 period.

25 Q. Let's talk about exercise of free will, okay,

1 just for just a second. There is a security guard over

2 in the corner there by the UN flag. You can't see

3 him. He is sitting down. He has got a pistol on his

4 hip. If I took that pistol and put it against your

5 head and gave you another pistol and said shoot Ms.

6 McMurrey, and you did it, would you be operating under

7 free will? Could we agree that you would not --

8 A. Probably I would try and get the pistol off

9 you and I would try and shoot at you. It's my free

10 will.

11 Q. Sure. But if you shot Ms. McMurrey while I

12 was holding a pistol on you, that would not be free

13 will, would it?

14 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, I think he is

15 confusing coercion and duress with free will, and

16 they're not the same thing. I object to this line of

17 questioning.

18 MR. MORAN: Okay.

19 Q. Let me go back to what you talked about when

20 you first met Mr. Landzo back in 1996. You don't need

21 to go the your notes, this is going to be fairly

22 general stuff. You testified earlier today that his

23 head was shaved and he was wearing a hat, a military

24 style hat. And he said to you that he hated the Serbs

25 and he hated the Dutch. Given the experience in the

1 former Yugoslavia, you might agree, wouldn't you, that

2 it would not be irrational to hate the Serbs if you

3 were a Bosnian? That would be in the realm of

4 normality?

5 A. Yes, certainly.

6 Q. How about the Dutch?

7 A. As far as the Dutch are concerned, if I

8 remember things correctly, he had a problem, perhaps,

9 because of the behaviour of the Dutch during the war.

10 I cannot remember that very well. I would have to

11 consult my papers.

12 Q. If I used the word Srebrenica, would that

13 help you, doctor? If I mentioned the word Srebrenica.

14 A. It may, of course, apply to the attitude of

15 the Dutch at that period, but I would have to look in

16 my papers to see what exactly this was used in context

17 with.

18 Q. Okay?

19 A. Could you give me the page number?

20 Q. No, I couldn't find it in your report. You

21 testified to it orally here. If it's in your report, I

22 haven't found it. I am just talking about what you

23 said on that witness stand.

24 A. I remember that he told me that he had

25 problems with the Dutch. So with the Court's

1 permission, can I have a moment just to check and see

2 whether it is in the 1997 report?

3 JUDGE JAN: It could also be due to the fact

4 that the Dutch were exerting authorities so far as he

5 was concerned.

6 MR. MORAN: Very well could be, Your Honour.

7 Q. My next question would be that is not outside

8 of the realm of reasonable?

9 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, I am going to

10 object. Mr. Moran has not spent as much time at the UN

11 detention centre as I have, and those guards are the

12 nicest guards I have ever seen.

13 JUDGE JAN: -- by these authorities --

14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

15 MS. McMURREY: If he is asking the expert's

16 opinion, I will agree with that. If he is using some

17 kind of hypothetical, I won't agree with it.

18 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Actually what he was

19 saying, if I understand him correctly, when the expert

20 testified in chief, he said one of the reasons why he

21 came to some of the conclusions was that Landzo told

22 him that he hated the Dutch and then the Serbs.

23 MR. MORAN: That's correct, Your Honour.

24 Your memory is very good, Your Honour.

25 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. But can I

1 just point out that the attorney couldn't find this

2 reference in my 1996 report because it is referenced on

3 page 7 of the English translation of my 1997 report.

4 It's on the third line where we talk of the Srebrenica

5 massacre and that's why he disputed the intervention of

6 professor Van Leuween because he is a Dutchman and then

7 a little further forward a few lines down, he says that

8 his assessment was that he had nothing against the

9 Italians, but that he hated the Dutch.

10 MR. MORAN:

11 Q. In fact, he said he never had nothing against

12 the Italians, but he kind of admired Benito Mussolini,

13 didn't he?

14 A. Yes, that's what he said.

15 Q. And given the fact of Srebrenica, that would

16 not be irrational for a Bosnian Muslim to hate the

17 Dutch as a group, would it?

18 A. That's not logical.

19 Q. That's not logical, but it's not -- it

20 doesn't show mental illness, does it?

21 A. Not necessarily, of course.

22 Q. Okay. By the way, you talked about a test in

23 direct called a Rosenzweig tolerance test?

24 A. Rosenzweig is the name of the test.

25 Q. Did you ever do that on Mr. Landzo?

1 A. No, I didn't administer the test. In the

2 first expertise, Dr. Roorda de Man had carried out a

3 number of tests. In the last expertise, we used the

4 standard test, that is to say, the Rorschach test.

5 Q. And when you were interviewing Mr. Landzo,

6 all the times you interviewed him, as I understand your

7 testimony this morning, you said not just with Landzo,

8 but with all people you interview, you assume that the

9 patient is telling his own subjective truth; is that

10 right, doctor?

11 A. Yes, that is the attitude that we use in

12 forensic psychiatry when we're involved in

13 discussions. In other words, we're not investigators,

14 we're not judges or prosecutors. So, we accept the

15 subjective truth and, of course, we compare that with

16 the clinical reality of the individual and we try to

17 take into account other data that are available.

18 Q. Again, in some general terms, you talked

19 about this morning and then we'll get to some more

20 specifics. At some point this morning, Mrs. McMurrey

21 asked you about what she called the red shoe example.

22 And your first reaction was, "Obviously this is not a

23 joke" and then she replied, "No, this is not a joke."

24 One of the examples you used about that was the example

25 of paedophiles. And for lack of a better term, child

1 molesters, and one of the things that you talked about

2 was if somebody molests children in his own town, he

3 calls into question his responsibility. But if he goes

4 on a sex tour in a country where this is accepted, then

5 he is showing that he is responsible. You'd agree with

6 me, wouldn't you, doctor, that paedophilia is not a

7 mental illness? You'd agree with that, wouldn't you?

8 A. It is paedophilia and in some circumstances

9 it could be a part of a mental psychological

10 situation.

11 Q. And you would agree with me that the example

12 you were using of paedophiles, they know what they're

13 doing is wrong, don't they?

14 A. Yes, in certain cases, particularly forensic

15 psychiatric cases. In Italy, we dispute the capacity

16 to wish something. In other words, a person may

17 understand that what they're doing is wrong, but

18 they're not in a situation to be able to decide whether

19 to do it or not to do. So that may compromise their

20 free will.

21 Q. Okay. So you would disagree that there is

22 nothing that would prohibit paedophiles from refraining

23 from their conduct, from getting help or from seeing

24 that they don't get around young children?

25 A. I don't really understand the thrust of your

1 question. You're saying that there is nothing stopping

2 a paedophile from going and getting treatment; is that

3 my -- the point of your question?

4 Q. That they know what they're doing is wrong

5 and that they could go get treatment for it or they

6 could just stop the conduct?

7 A. Basically that is true. But in reality,

8 there are many paedophiles who are really dependent on

9 their way of being. They believe that what they do is

10 not really that negative or it's not a crime. But,

11 basically, we can say that there is nothing preventing

12 a paedophile who understands the situation he is in

13 from getting treatment. In fact, that often happens.

14 Q. Well, in Italy, do you take someone who has

15 this paedophilia and doesn't seek treatment and say,

16 "Well, gosh he just, you know, he has got some kind of

17 reduced mental capacity and so that's okay" or do you

18 put them in the penitentiary like we do?

19 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour I am going to

20 object. First of all, what's correct and right in

21 Italy has nothing to do with what's correct and right

22 in this Tribunal. And Mr. Moran, continues to confuse

23 the issue of the M'Naghten Rule in law with insanity

24 and we're not claiming insanity and this court is not

25 determining insanity. And he continues to confuse

1 those two issues and ask this gentleman about

2 irrelevant theories and ideas.

3 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Mr. Moran, what is the

4 need for the parallel? Why are you trying to bring in

5 the paedophilia.

6 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, he is talking about

7 to reduced mental capacity and this is an example that

8 he used on what's psychopathic and I just wanted to

9 explore that a little bit about reduced mental

10 capacity. If the Court thinks that's unnecessary, I'll

11 move on to something else. That's no problem.

12 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Let's move on to

13 something else.

14 MR. MORAN: That's fine, judge.

15 Q. While you were preparing all of your reports,

16 you had access to Dr. Van Leuween's reports, didn't

17 you? Van Leuween, I'm sorry.

18 A. Well, I prepared my first report and I had

19 discussions as are shown in the report with

20 Dr. Van Leuween. That applies to the 1996 report.

21 Insofar as the 1997 report is concerned, I can't

22 remember whether I discussed this with Dr. Van Leuween

23 or not.

24 Q. What I am trying to get at --

25 A. I'm sorry, but to come back to the 1998

1 report, I conducted this in a completely autonomous

2 manner and I only met Dr. Van Leuween three days ago.

3 Q. What I am trying to get at is this: There

4 has been a lot of testimony about the supposed death

5 camp where Mr. Landzo saw people -- saw Croats cutting

6 prisoners throats and things like that. And I am

7 trying to get a time frame on when that occurred. In

8 the Dutch doctor's report, it seems to indicate and it

9 doesn't come right out and say, but seems to indicate

10 that he was conscripted for military duty in the --

11 well, it says conscripted, Your Honours, and hauled

12 up. It's not specific. In the hot months, presumably

13 the summer months of 1991. It says -- the exact

14 wording Your Honours, "This roughly describes his

15 situation when he joined the army as a conscript in

16 1991. The weather was warm at the time, hence it must

17 have been July or August." And I am trying to nail

18 down if this is the time he went to this supposed

19 Croatian training camp. If you don't know, you don't

20 know, doctor, and that's fine.

21 A. I can save you time just by saying that I

22 referred to the existence of the Croat camp only by

23 listening to the words said by Mr. Landzo. And he said

24 that this happened in 1991.

25 Q. Do you know about what part of 1991?

1 A. Let me just check. But what I can tell you

2 for sure is that he said that when he got word that war

3 had broken out between the Serbs and the Croats, he and

4 a friend decided to run away.

5 Q. Yes, Your Honour -- yes, doctor. I am just

6 trying to nail down first half 1991, second half of

7 1991, middle of '91, end of '91. If he didn't tell

8 you, he didn't tell you?

9 A. I cannot tell you that.

10 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Mr. Moran was it not the

11 same period when he was working for you.

12 MR. MORAN: Yes, doctor -- and this doctor

13 was sitting out in the public gallery when Miro was

14 testifying. Judge, you've asked my next question.

15 Q. You heard Miro testify? You were sitting out

16 there?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And couldn't have happened after the first

19 half of 1991, could it?

20 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, I am going to

21 object that was not the testimony. He said he could

22 not remember exactly when he came to work for him at

23 all. So I think he is mischaracterising the evidence.

24 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: No, what he really said

25 was, he wasn't sure actually about the particular

1 dates. What he knew, he was with him from 1991,

2 summer, but he wasn't exactly sure when he joined, he

3 left him in June of 1992.

4 MR. MORAN: Yes, Your Honour. In fact, the

5 testimony on cross was that he went to work there

6 around the second half of 1992 because both -- in fact,

7 I think he said it twice.

8 Q. Doctor, you talk about Landzo wanting to take

9 on the role as a perfect soldier; do you recall that?

10 A. Yes, I do.

11 Q. You said that he was inspired by some

12 examples who were close to him that may not have been

13 the ideal soldier.

14 A. Yes, I did make such a hypothesis.

15 Q. It's just as reasonable, isn't it, that he

16 thought the perfect soldier was John Wayne or Rambo,

17 from watching the movies?

18 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, I am going to

19 object. It calls for speculation. He certainly

20 doesn't know what movies Mr. Landzo watched or if he

21 saw any in Konjic.

22 JUDGE JAN: -- were there any heroes in

23 Bosnian history that he has to see the American

24 actors?

25 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, before I asked that

1 question, I checked with some of my Bosnian friends and

2 found out that both Rambo and John Wayne movies were

3 shown --

4 JUDGE JAN: -- in terms of Rambo and John

5 Wayne --

6 MR. MORAN: Pardon me, Your Honour?

7 JUDGE ODIO-BENITO: John Wayne is too old for

8 him.

9 MR. MORAN: Judge, you're dating me, I'm

10 sorry, you're making me feel old now. And my wife

11 would be very unhappy to hear you say something like

12 that. If there is a John Wayne movie, she'll be up

13 until three o'clock in the morning watching it.

14 Q. So this idea of becoming a perfect soldier,

15 that was -- you don't know what he was using for the

16 perfect role model?

17 A. I am afraid I don't know who he was using as

18 a perfect role model. All I can tell you is that he

19 did tell me that he wanted to be a perfect soldier.

20 Q. And what's a perfect soldier, of course, is

21 going to vary -- a person's view of that is going to

22 vary from person to person.

23 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think you need not

24 bother the doctor on those ones.

25 MR. MORAN:

1 Q. One of the reasons you thought he had a

2 dependent personality was that he felt like he had to

3 identify with a strong structure, stronger than Miro

4 and that he was attracted to the wearing of uniforms

5 and weapons?

6 A. Confirm what I said.

7 Q. And the army just happened to be where he'd

8 go?

9 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Actually, where are all

10 these questions leading to?

11 MR. MORAN: Actually, Your Honour, they're

12 leading to his diagnosis of Mr. Landzo.

13 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: All the factors taken

14 together assisted him to come to the conclusion he did,

15 not one isolated thing. He took so many things into

16 account before he came the that conclusion.

17 MR. MORAN:

18 Q. Doctor, you said that, I think your basic

19 hypothesis is that Mr. Landzo is a dependent

20 personality with other things floating around out there

21 like post-traumatic stress disorder, impulsive

22 behaviour and narcissistic behaviour?

23 A. Confirm that.

24 Q. Does someone who has a dependent personality

25 is that the same kind of person that would be an inmate

1 in a jail and would point out to the guards, taking the

2 time away from his visits or take control of the

3 situation in the jail? Does that sound like a

4 dependent person to you?

5 A. I wouldn't say that. I would say that a

6 dependent personality is something else. Rather than

7 talking about dependent personality -- what you

8 described is the personality of someone that tries to

9 get special terms or conditions in a specific

10 situation.

11 Q. Well, if he was described as having --

12 showing a marked tendency to control the situation and

13 was very careful to see that things were properly

14 understood and sometimes criticised the guards

15 pointedly, although always politely, that would not be

16 inconsistent with this kind of dependent personality

17 that you're talking about?

18 A. I wouldn't think so, because this personality

19 is a personality that also shows a strong narcissistic

20 component. The model of a dependent personality has

21 got to be combined with the narcissistic component and

22 the focus of this narcissistic attitude is that the

23 focus of attention that you want to be the focus of

24 attention and want to be the protagonist of what is

25 happening. So if you combine the aspects pertaining to

1 dependent personality and a narcissistic personality,

2 you can come up with a behaviour similar to the one

3 like you just indicated. That he would be a dependent

4 personality all in all, but he would try and be in

5 control of everything.

6 Q. I thought that dependent personalities lacked

7 self-consciousness and they needed help to begin to

8 carry through tasks?

9 JUDGE JAN: Self-consciousness or

10 self-confidence?

11 MR. MORAN: Self-confidence. Did I say

12 self-consciousness? I apologise. They lack

13 self-confidence and need help to begin and carry

14 through tasks. That is a diagnostic feature on

15 dependent personality disorder in the DSM IV and the

16 English version page 666.

17 A. Yes, what you're saying is correct. Yet, at

18 the same time, let me point out that the diagnostic

19 criteria at DSM IV for a dependent personality are

20 five, or more than five out of eight and this

21 dependency feature is not so strong or so evident. You

22 might come up with a person who is dependent and, yet,

23 when he is performing a task that he knows he can

24 perform, then he undertakes to do it perfectly so that

25 he is gratified and gratifies the person he is

1 dependent upon.

2 Q. Let's start off with those eight

3 characteristics. Did you find that Esad Landzo has

4 difficulty making everyday decisions without an

5 excessive amount of advice or reassurance from others?

6 I would suggest to you, doctor, that a man who is in

7 charge of his own defence in a major criminal case,

8 probably doesn't have difficulty making everyday

9 decisions without an excessive amount of advice and

10 reassurance from others. And I would suggest to you,

11 doctor, that criteria two, needs others to assume

12 responsibility for most major areas of his or her

13 life. The way you described Esad Landzo and in your

14 latest report about how he takes control of situations,

15 that isn't somebody who needs others to assume

16 responsibility, is it, doctor?

17 A. Respond to that?

18 Q. Sure.

19 A. I would like to point out that all such

20 features are to be found in Mr. Landzo's personality

21 because of his specific dependent personality, then

22 they might be combined with the narcissistic aspect.

23 All the criteria set out in DSM IV are correct. But

24 we're talking about the same person, so we're talking

25 about the fact that in the same person, you could come

1 up with elements which appear in the same person in a

2 more or less marked manner. Just to give you some

3 example. Criteria No. 1, difficulty in making everyday

4 decisions without reassurance on the part of other

5 people. We do have this image of a person that needs

6 to be reassured and that is a fact that is true. If we

7 do translate that into the narcissistic aspect, which

8 is also present in Esad Landzo, as indicated in

9 evidence by the test, we could tie in this element to

10 an expression of total dependency on a person.

11 Let me try and explain what I mean. The fact

12 that you need to be reassured by other people is

13 something that belongs to everyday life. But if you're

14 so much dependent upon a person that you have idolised

15 that person, and you have become basically that very

16 person, you feel reassured in your inner self on a

17 day-to-day basis. You don't have to ask for this

18 external reassurance, so this criteria is met and is to

19 be found in Mr. Landzo. And I could go over the other

20 criteria and I could -- what I said along the same

21 lines.

22 Q. Doctor, let me be frank. I am confused and

23 here is why I am confused. I look what someone who has

24 a dependent personality disorder is. And I start off

25 if he has trouble making -- difficulty making everyday

1 decisions and he wants others to assume responsible for

2 his life. And then I look at what makes someone a

3 narcissistic personality disorder and I see that this

4 person has a grandiose self-importance. He exaggerates

5 his achievement and talents and expects to be

6 recognised as superior. He is preoccupied with

7 fantasies of unlimited power and success. I don't see

8 how these two go together, doctor. I don't see how

9 someone, at the same time, can think he can't make

10 normal day-to-day decisions and at the same time think

11 -- have such grandiose self-importance or arrogant and

12 haughty behaviours and attitudes or -- you see what I

13 am saying, doctor?

14 A. Yes, I do understand what you're saying. All

15 I can tell you is that both myself and my colleague,

16 professor Van Leuween, whom you've heard earlier on,

17 have come to this assessment after several examinations

18 and several expertise have been carried out on the same

19 person. And this is a very special case because, as I

20 said earlier on, we have found this dependent

21 personality aspect, which is standing to a pre-existing

22 narcissistic component. So quite right in what you

23 said, in that if we stick to the individual labels and

24 the individual diagnostic criteria in DSM IV taken

25 individually, there are some points that do not seem to

1 tally. If we take these diagnostic criteria, which are

2 objective criteria as indicated by DSM and any

3 psychiatry manual, if we bring together all such

4 elements to try to understand the person rather than

5 writing up a diagnosis on a piece of paper, then we

6 realise that they are integrated and combined.

7 So, at this point, the feature of narcissism,

8 however paradoxical that might sound, it becomes

9 closely tied in with a dependent personality trait,

10 which, in turn, makes Landzo say, "I want to be a

11 perfect soldier." When a person becomes dependent on

12 the jail structure and the structure of this

13 international setting, he is no longer the detainee who

14 is openly dependent, who is asking for the advice of

15 the guards and is complaining or with a cause, but he

16 feels being part and parcel of the structure. So I

17 quite agree with you, this is a very complicated set

18 up, but that is something for which I am sure of in

19 clinical terms.

20 Q. Landzo doesn't like, does he? He would

21 rather not be in jail, wouldn't he?

22 MS. RESIDOVIC: We have been listening for

23 about ten minutes. This is an alarm signal. It really

24 disturbs our concentration. We can't concentrate.

25 MR. MORAN: I thought I might have heard it

1 coming from the computer. That little laptop in front

2 of me just went black and it could be -- it may be that

3 someone may have pulled the plug or something

4 accidentally and the thing may have just lost power, I

5 don't know. But the sound seems to have stopped.

6 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Are you able to discover

7 what is at fault?

8 MS. RESIDOVIC: The noise seems to have

9 stopped now.

10 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much for

11 alerting everyone.

12 MR. MORAN: Another fire alarm. I am just

13 winding it down, judge.

14 Q. Esad Landzo doesn't like jail, does he, he

15 would rather be free?

16 JUDGE JAN: Everyone likes to be free. It's

17 not peculiar to some mental disorder.

18 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, I believe that

19 Dr. Laggazi has a different explanation for this if you

20 will allow him to answer that question. I think it's

21 very relevant to this Defence.

22 JUDGE JAN: Claustrophobia or what.

23 MS. McMURREY: Not claustrophobia and not

24 asthma because my mommy didn't love me either.

25 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes, you may continue

1 with your question.

2 MR. MORAN:

3 Q. He wants to be free and to get free, he is

4 willing to do quite a bit to get out of jail, isn't

5 he? Let me give you an example. First time you saw

6 him, or the first couple of times you saw him back in

7 1996, whether he was successful or not, he was trying

8 to --

9 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, I am going to

10 object he asked the question whether or not Esad Landzo

11 wanted to get out of jail. I think he ought to allow

12 the witness to answer that question first before he

13 goes on to another one.

14 MR. MORAN: I thought I had an answer.

15 MS. McMURREY: No.

16 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I don't know the tactics

17 that I am observing now. When the witness has been

18 asked a question, he answers it. And when he answers

19 it, you can continue with any other question.

20 MR. MORAN: Yes, Your Honour, I thought I did

21 have an answer, but if I didn't, I would like an

22 answer.

23 THE WITNESS: Thank you. I think that at

24 this point in time, Mr. Landzo regards the UN jail, not

25 just any jail, as a kind of steppingstone, a

1 steppingstone to then spend some time in prison in the

2 United States, then go to college and possibly settle

3 down in the US. So at this point in time, he certainly

4 has a far less negative perception of a prison than the

5 overwhelming majority of detainees would have.

6 Q. Doctor, is that view of the future a rational

7 view of the future?

8 A. As far as I can tell, certainly not.

9 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Even in the

10 circumstances? I mean, even in the circumstances, you

11 think it is not a rational view?

12 THE WITNESS: I don't think it's a rational

13 view. There is a -- on his part he grossly

14 underestimates the actual conditions he is in. And he

15 underestimates the criminal implications. The feeling

16 that I have is that, in some respects, he doesn't feel

17 that he is in jail, at least insofar as his behaviour

18 is concerned. My impression is that he feels, and this

19 is my personal view, he feels in some respects the way

20 we feel when we move about in this building with many

21 guards, we need to be escorted, we know we're here

22 because we have a job to carry out. So my feeling is

23 that he perceives himself as being, say a co-protagonist

24 of this, rather than a detainee.

25 MR. MORAN:

1 Q. Where do you think, or if you know, fine,

2 where would a person like Esad Landzo get the idea that

3 at the end of this trial he was going to go to the

4 United States, spend a little time in a federal prison,

5 go to college and then live happily ever after?

6 A. I don't know.

7 Q. He never told you where he got that idea --

8 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, I am going to ask

9 that this line of questioning is totally irrelevant to

10 the events in 1992.

11 JUDGE JAN: It's unnecessary.

12 MR. MORAN:

13 Q. While you were testifying on direct -- let's

14 just get down to the diagnosis, go to the heart of the

15 matter. You testified that your first diagnosis was

16 post-traumatic stress disorder caused by the

17 paramilitary training in that Croatian camp, right?

18 A. Correct.

19 Q. And did, didn't you say in your report on

20 page 8 that the present examination, your most recent

21 report, finally makes it possible to limit the

22 significance of any PSTD, post-traumatic stress

23 disorder?

24 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: -- go to the conclusion

25 of all that.

1 MR. MORAN:

2 Q. Is it possible he was suffering -- or do you

3 have any evidence that he was suffering PTSD in 1992

4 sufficient to keep him from having a free will, other

5 than what he told you, other than what Esad Landzo told

6 you?

7 A. Well, the facts that we have are the ones

8 that we were related by the gentleman and it's also

9 based on the assessment I made and the assessment made

10 of my colleagues. And we had the same diagnosis,

11 myself and the colleagues in question. Now, as far as

12 PTSD is concerned, my opinion would be that this was

13 based on an assessment, according to which this was

14 imposed on a pre-existing problem disorder. And it is

15 not the only central factor. In my view, the elements

16 which characterise the entire life of Mr. Landzo are

17 features connected with total dependency and

18 narcissism. And we heard also reference of a

19 personality borderline case, which is a psychodynamic

20 state and this may be useful, but it's not something

21 that I have used in my diagnosis.

22 What I can tell you is that the main features

23 are narcissism and to the dependent personality which

24 are really things that characterise the entire life of

25 the gentleman.

1 On the basis of the facts in '91, we had PTSD

2 grafted upon it. But on the basis of my information, I

3 have gathered my data from clinical examination as well

4 as what Mr. Landzo himself has said. Clearly, if it

5 were shown that there were no training camp, then,

6 obviously, I would have to change the assessment

7 entirely and I would have to try and work out why we

8 observed what we did observe.

9 Q. Well, you have a patient who is incarcerated

10 and potentially facing a long time in jail, right?

11 A. That is possible.

12 Q. Well, it's up to these judges, these three

13 judges, what Esad Landzo's future is. It's not up to

14 either one of us. And you have a man who, in 1996,

15 acted out during examinations in such a way as, at

16 least to appear, to be psychotic and incompetent to

17 stand trial, right?

18 THE INTERPRETER: Can you repeat the last

19 bit?

20 MR. MORAN: And incompetent to stand trial.

21 THE INTERPRETER: Thank you.

22 MR. MORAN:

23 Q. And then a man who, admittedly with

24 psychological help, in 1998 emphasises that he was not

25 mad and said that he never simulated temporal and

1 spatial disorientation. And could that be because in

2 1996 nobody bought his story and maybe a different

3 story might be more helpful to him now?

4 A. I think I need to make one point clear. If I

5 remember well, he admitted that he simulated what he

6 did in our discussions in 1996. That is my

7 recollection. I hope I am not wrong, but I need to

8 look at my last report.

9 Q. And it's on page 3, the 1, 2, 3 -- 4th

10 paragraph from the bottom. It starts out, "He is

11 critical."

12 A. Yes, that he is not mad.

13 Q. And that, "He at no time simulated, temporal

14 or spatial disorientation, as he had been recommended

15 to do." That could be a translation error.

16 A. I'm sorry, but can I just check the original.

17 Q. I wish you could, because if it's a

18 translation error, we all need the take our pencils out

19 and fix that?

20 A. I have the text here of my report. I have

21 got it in Italian here. And I'll read it out.

22 "Expresses criticism regarding the defensive strategy

23 which was originally suggested by his first defence

24 counsel, and he underlines the fact that he is not mad,

25 and in that certain cases he simulated, with the

1 psychiatric examinations, temporal, spatial

2 disorientation because that was what he was advised to

3 do."

4 Q. So there is a translation error there,

5 doctor. So, basically, he thought it would get him out

6 of jail in 1996 if he tried to show everybody he was

7 nuts, right?

8 A. According to what I was told in 1998, that

9 was what he was suggested by his first Defence

10 counsel. But I can't give you any objective data about

11 that.

12 Q. And that didn't work. You didn't buy that he

13 was nuts, did you? Nobody bought that he was nuts, did

14 they?

15 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, I am going to

16 object. The issue that they were determining at the

17 time, not whether he was nuts, as Mr. Moran is stating,

18 but whether he was competent to stand trial. And there

19 is a big difference there and I would wish you would

20 ask the counsel to stop referring to it as nuts,

21 because that's not any kind of scientific term that

22 this forensic psychiatrist can identify with.

23 MR. MORAN: Actually, the question posed in

24 the report of January 9th, 1997, which is D 62/4.

25 Question No. 2 is, "Did the mental health of the

1 accused at the time of the events in the question

2 affect his ability to understand the wrongfulness of

3 his alleged conduct or influence that conduct and if

4 so, to what extent?"

5 JUDGE JAN: He didn't use the word nuts.

6 MR. MORAN: I am using shorthand, judge, and

7 if the doctor doesn't like me using that word, he can

8 stop me if he's uncomfortable with it.

9 JUDGE JAN: There are different degrees of

10 being nuts.

11 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, that's exactly

12 what my objection is here. I would really like to

13 object to the parallels that he's drawn because that

14 request, at the time, of knowing the wrongfulness or

15 the rightfulness of his actions has to do with

16 insanity. It has nothing to do with the issue of

17 diminished mental responsibility, which is a totally

18 different standard.

19 MR. MORAN:

20 Q. That's right. Insane did not work in 1997,

21 right?

22 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, I'm going to

23 object. They all stated that they couldn't come to a

24 conclusion because they didn't have the facts in order

25 to determine that issue.

1 MR. MORAN: If Ms. McMurrey would like to

2 testify, I would like her to be sworn.

3 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, the reports are

4 in evidence.

5 JUDGE JAN: This is going beyond what her

6 defence says, you know what her defence is. And you're

7 going much beyond that.

8 MR. MORAN: Yes, Your Honour, and I'm just

9 pointing out, if there was a previous defence that did

10 not work, and that's what I am asking the doctor.

11 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, I am going to

12 object. There was not a previous defence and the only

13 defence ever asserted has been diminished mental

14 responsibility. And if there was a requirement for an

15 evaluation, it is not a defence, so he's confusing the

16 issues.

17 JUDGE JAN: What she's trying to show is

18 there was no free will and he was subject to be led by

19 others.

20 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, I would suggest

21 this, that in 1996, prior counsel was looking at a

22 defence of insanity and, in fact, based on the

23 statements Mr. Landzo has made in 1998, coached, if you

24 would, and that's an unfair word, but encouraged,

25 suggested, and that defence didn't work. Nobody

1 thought that he was insane under whatever --

2 JUDGE JAN: Mr. Moran, aren't you playing the

3 role of a Prosecutor, rather than a --

4 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, I have got a bunch

5 of reports in sitting in front of me, and a defence

6 that someone, and my client's name comes up a whole lot

7 as attached to someone, that someone ordered this man

8 to do it.

9 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Well, Mr. Moran, we have

10 three reports in front of us, each of them was directed

11 to finding a different mental condition. First,

12 question of compatibility with staying in the detention

13 centre. Second, the question is whether he can stand

14 trial. And it was finally that there is a question of

15 mental responsibility based on diminished

16 responsibility was actually treated as a defence. That

17 was the last that came in.

18 MR. MORAN: Yes, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Now, I suppose unless

20 your contention is that all through the period these

21 three separate defences have been taken on, even if you

22 did that, the suggestion is that it has been taken on

23 for different purposes, not for the same defence of

24 diminished mental responsibility.

25 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, my contention is

1 this: The various things were done, and I am not

2 accusing Mr. McMurrey of anything, but previous things

3 were done in an effort to get Esad Landzo out of jail,

4 acquitted, out of jail because he is incompetent to

5 stand trial and --

6 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: The way you're

7 introducing it brings a different complexion into the

8 purpose of referring to the three defences.

9 MR. MORAN: And Mr. Landzo did what was

10 necessary or what he could --

11 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, I am objecting to

12 Mr. Moran testifying at this point. He is coming to

13 conclusions right now and presenting them to the

14 Court. If he wants to ask the opinion of the expert,

15 that's the proper way to go about this. But if he is

16 going to offer his opinions to the court, then he

17 should be sworn in and take the stand if he's an

18 expert.

19 MR. MORAN: I thought the Court was asking me

20 a question about why I was asking certain questions,

21 and I was responding to it. If I wasn't, I'm sorry.

22 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: The differences in the

23 conclusions reflect different purposes of the defence,

24 but that makes a different thing from what the Defence

25 is now pleading.

1 MR. MORAN: No question about it, Your

2 Honour. I agree with the Court 100 per cent, that in

3 early -- or first -- in 1996, there was a finding that

4 he was competent to stand trial, not incompetent. And

5 then there was at least an expertise and investigation

6 done to determine whether he was insane under -- which

7 essentially is the M'Naghten Rule.

8 JUDGE JAN: Your Defence, if he exchanges

9 pleas from time to time, how does it help the defence

10 of Delic?

11 MR. MORAN: Because, Your Honour -- well,

12 first, when you read these reports, it's got my

13 client's name all over it. Second --

14 JUDGE JAN: Evidence against your client?

15 Not sworn testimony.

16 MR. MORAN: Judge, we've got a lot of

17 evidence in this court, in this trial, that was not

18 sworn testimony.

19 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Against the accused,

20 against the other?

21 MR. MORAN: No, Your Honour, I was thinking

22 more along the lines of, and I don't want to use the

23 word because it's an Anglo-Saxon word, but it was

24 brought up a lot in the Tadic decision on hearsay.

25 JUDGE JAN: It's a statement of the accused.

1 It's not sworn evidence against another accused.

2 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, I don't --

3 JUDGE JAN: Are you working on that basis?

4 MR. MORAN: No. This court has made that

5 real clear that you're not going to hold this against

6 Mr. Delic. I don't know what the next witness is going

7 to testify to.

8 JUDGE JAN: When the next witness comes, you

9 can cross-examine him.

10 MR. MORAN: I just want to lay before the

11 Court that at least, at least, one person who has

12 talked to this doctor has a motive to fabricate.

13 JUDGE JAN: So you brought it out that he's

14 been changing his defences, so maybe the statements he

15 is making about the other accused are not reliable

16 because he has already changed it. That point you've

17 already made.

18 MR. MORAN: I would also suggest that a more

19 reasonable, a much more reasonable -- and I was going

20 to get into that, but I'll just shut it down now, I'll

21 get that through Dr. Gripon, a much more reasonable

22 diagnosis --

23 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, Mr. Moran is

24 testifying right now. He is telling you about the

25 evidence he tends to put forth. And I just want to

1 say, for clarity purposes, that the third report never

2 comes to any conclusion, whatsoever.

3 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: It's not the proper way

4 to intervene. I keep saying the same thing. That's

5 why I never said a word because you just walked into it

6 without even waiting for it. It's not the right

7 behaviour. If what counsel is saying is against your

8 interests, it's up to the Trial Chamber to protect that

9 interest.

10 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, I will make a

11 submission to the Court that if Mr. Moran will

12 stipulate that all the references to a superior

13 authority are his client, then I'll certainly let him

14 continue in any course of questioning that he would

15 like to and it may be relevant. But unless he is

16 willing to stipulate to that right now, then I don't

17 believe it's relevant.

18 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes, can we hear you,

19 Mr. Moran.

20 MR. MORAN: Well, Your Honour, my first

21 reaction would be that my client's name is typed into

22 one of these reports. Secondly, I am not going to, of

23 course, stipulate that -- I don't feel like being

24 disbarred for --

25 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: As counsel, even if

1 you're trying to anticipate what is coming here after,

2 the Trial Chamber can do nothing until that evidence is

3 submitted.

4 MR. MORAN: Yes, Your Honour, and I wanted to

5 get through this witness -- I guess I can wait until a

6 later witness, if the Trial Chamber prefers -- various

7 things about Mr. Landzo, including the fact that --

8 well, I won't go any further. I'll keep Ms. McMurrey

9 off her feet.

10 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: As I have kept on

11 saying, these witnesses have been invited to give

12 specific evidence. And whatever cross-examination you

13 should get through this witness is to try to bring your

14 questions within the parameters of the terms of

15 reference for which this witness is here. You don't go

16 outside of that because it will not be relevant for the

17 purposes of eliciting any information from him.

18 MR. MORAN: I am eliciting from him,

19 hopefully, one, the quality of his opinion. And, two,

20 what it's based on. And, three, that it is based on,

21 to some great extent, at least, on statements made to

22 him by a person who has a vested interest in the

23 outcome of this case.

24 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Are you answering for

25 the Court again?

1 MS. McMURREY: No.

2 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: The counsel is not

3 addressing you, he is addressing the Trial Chamber.

4 Now, much of your summary has already been in your

5 questions to the witness. And I think the Trial

6 Chamber will take that into account when they're

7 determining whatever is in issue.

8 MR. MORAN: And that's fine. And like I

9 said, the Court asked me why I was doing certain

10 things, and I thought I was answering those questions

11 and if I wasn't -- if I wasn't properly answering the

12 Court's questions, I apologise. I thought I was.

13 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you, thank you

14 very much. I think we've heard enough.

15 MR. MORAN: Okay. I pass the witness.

16 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: The Trial Chamber will

17 now rise and reassemble at 4.30 for further

18 cross-examination.

19 --- Recess taken at 4.05 p.m.

20 --- On resuming at 4.35 p.m.

21 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Please inform the

22 witness he still on his oath.

23 THE REGISTRAR: I would like to remind you

24 that you are still under oath.

25 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes, counsel may proceed

1 now.

2 Cross-examined by Mr. Cowles

3 Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Lagazzi.

4 A. Good afternoon.

5 Q. It's your testimony that it would have been

6 helpful to you to learn how Mr. Landzo may have

7 committed crimes to arrive at an opinion concerning

8 diminished responsibility; is that correct?

9 A. Yes, it would have been helpful.

10 Q. And, at this time, you do not know or have

11 any information as to how Mr. Landzo may have committed

12 crimes over a period of time in 1992, do you?

13 A. No, I do not. All I know is what he had

14 indicated concerning specific events, which are the

15 ones covered in my report.

16 Q. And so isn't it true that without knowing

17 that how he may have committed a crime, or crimes, your

18 opinion as to whether or not he had diminished

19 responsibility for a crime or crimes is theoretical;

20 isn't that correct?

21 A. I would like to explain that this is an

22 opinion and not a speculation. In other words, it is

23 my assessment based on clinical work done, which points

24 to a general probability. And, by that, I do not mean

25 that Mr. Landzo at the time those facts occurred had

1 diminished responsibility because this would have to be

2 checked against individual events. All I can tell you

3 in my capacity of forensic psychiatrist is that it has

4 substantive probability and this is a general

5 assessment, which would need to be further verified.

6 Q. And, in fact, isn't it true, in Italy under

7 your system and your profession --

8 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, I am going to

9 object, it's irrelevant as to what it is under Italian

10 law.

11 MR. COWLES: Your Honour, I am asking the

12 expert who has previously testified as to how he

13 operates as a forensic psychiatrist in his system. And

14 I am asking one question concerning that. And I think

15 it's fully proper cross-examination that counsel

16 brought out in her direct.

17 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You may proceed, please.

18 MR. COWLES: Thank you.

19 Q. Isn't it true in Italy you work closely with

20 the police, the investigating judge, the investigators,

21 to learn about to how an accused committed a crime to

22 arrive at a decision of whether or not the accused had

23 diminished responsibility?

24 A. True.

25 Q. And your last report, dated 3 July 1998, on

1 page 14 in the second to last paragraph, the English

2 version, which begins, "However, as the responsibility

3 of the subject has not yet been established," et

4 cetera, et cetera, that paragraph basically says what I

5 just asked you about; isn't that correct?

6 A. Yes, it does.

7 Q. And that is consistent with your report,

8 dated 9 January 1997, front page dated 15 November

9 1996, on page 13 of the English translation, paragraph

10 2?

11 A. I can confirm that. I can tell you that the

12 present examination has provided us with additional

13 clinical insight which enable us to come up with an

14 assessment of concrete probability in terms of

15 diminished responsibility. I am talking in my position

16 of neutral expert. So I think this has indeed has been

17 helpful to achieve a better level of understanding. We

18 could only come to a final assessment when we will be

19 in a position to discuss the individual events

20 specifically.

21 Q. So that if in some point in time you were to

22 learn the specific events or learned how the crimes

23 were committed, you could -- you may, change your

24 opinion; is that correct, as to whether there was any

25 diminished responsibility?

1 A. Yes, of course, I could. I did provide a

2 global assessment with respect to the specific points

3 in time. We'll have to consider the individual events.

4 Q. In fact, if you learned about the facts of

5 the case, the facts could, in fact, demonstrate that he

6 exercised complete free will, knowledge of right and

7 wrong and choice?

8 A. This is theoretically possible.

9 Q. So that he may have a personality disorder,

10 but that wouldn't mean that he didn't know right from

11 wrong and that he did not have diminished

12 responsibility when he committed a crime?

13 A. As I said earlier, the current report I have

14 drawn up is meant to emphasise the findings I have come

15 up with so far. All I can do is talk about the

16 findings that come up so far. We have seen that there

17 is a pathological disorder of the personality. And if

18 we accept the definition of abnormal personality set

19 forth in the provision that you have referred to, this

20 might be integrated as a condition for abnormal

21 personality. And it is on this basis that I have come

22 up with this evaluation.

23 Sorry, I want to elaborate a bit on this

24 point. For instance, you could have a schizophrenic

25 subject. Now, if this schizophrenic person kills a man

1 because he is convinced that this is a kind of a

2 monster that is after him and he has a hallucination, I

3 think everyone would say that he is not responsible for

4 that. Now, if the same person who is schizophrenic

5 wishes to watches a football match and steals the

6 tickets from the ticket office to get into the stadium

7 and watch the football match, well, he may be fully

8 responsible despite his schizophrenic condition.

9 So what I mean is, he does have a personality

10 disorder, which is of a pathological nature, which, in

11 global terms, we could say does have an influence on

12 his free will. If we then look at individual facts, we

13 see to what an extent there are facts which are

14 dependent on this condition and we could clarify that

15 there was a lack of responsibility or there may be

16 facts where he has full responsibility, appears to be

17 fully responsible.

18 Q. So isn't it true that without knowing the

19 facts, you can't tell if he did a crime because he was

20 obeying orders because he is dependent on somebody, or

21 whether he committed a crime out of sadistic pleasure?

22 JUDGE JAN: He has already answered that

23 question.

24 THE WITNESS: May I respond to that?

25 JUDGE JAN: You've already answered that.

1 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You've answered. He has

2 already answered.

3 MR. COWLES: Okay, I'll move on.

4 Q. Now, would you agree, Dr. Lagazzi, that he

5 has been diagnosed as a faucet of the narcissism that

6 we've heard discussed here, that that would mean that

7 he is a manipulator or a user of people, he uses people

8 as a tool, that, I think, is how Dr. Verde described

9 them. Do you agree with that assessment?

10 A. Yes, I do. I would rephrase this. I would

11 use a different form of words. Verde is a

12 psychoanalyst. I am not a psychoanalyst, so he used

13 forms of words, which are psychoanalytic language. I

14 would rather use a psychiatric language, more of a

15 concrete nature, but the meaning is the same.

16 Q. He can appear at times very personable, very

17 charming, very friendly; is that right?

18 A. I do not agree on that. The notion of a

19 person being charming, friendly, entails a relationship

20 of empathy between people. In other words, people that

21 do share common acceptance, and just to give you a

22 typically American example, two friends having a

23 whiskey together and they're sharing this kind of

24 relationship. A person who has an antisocial

25 personality disorder might try to be pleasurable,

1 charming and friendly person, but the psychiatrist that

2 relates to him can immediately feel the aggressive

3 attitude underlying this behaviour. Mr. Landzo was

4 extremely kind to us. He was more than ready and

5 available to discuss with us. I never perceived this

6 aggressive behaviour, which is typical of an antisocial

7 person, but nor did I perceive to empathy. Because the

8 sort of problems he has stands in the way of a proper

9 sharing of his self with other people. So he always

10 had this very kind attitude, very correct and very

11 kind. But I never felt to empathy with him because if

12 you wish to share something, you must have a number of

13 things which you share and you're having your inner

14 self. Psycho-pathological problems which stand in the

15 way of this sharing make it impossible. So this is how

16 I felt when I was with him.

17 Q. Well, he can still be, at least, I forget the

18 term you used, but at least it was pleasant being with

19 him. You didn't see a sign of aggressive personality

20 in the times you visited with him? Well, in 1996, was

21 there in any difference in how you related to him than

22 in 1998?

23 A. Yes, in 1996, he was definitely more

24 anxious. He showed greater suffering and he had

25 greater difficulty in interacting with other people.

1 In the early part of 1997, we still found that he was

2 in this condition, though, with a slight improvement.

3 In 1998, he was apparently changed and that is what I

4 indicated in my report. So we see a different attitude

5 on his part.

6 Q. Now, are you aware or did you have

7 information that during the time in question in 1992 he

8 was drinking and taking pills?

9 A. In the first interview I had with him, he did

10 say that in 1992, he was taking pills, alcohol,

11 stimulants. When I interviewed him in 1997, he

12 confirmed that, he said that he would drink. And he

13 said that after a traumatic event, he had seen a truck

14 with some of his friends being destroyed, so he was

15 drunk for a number of days.

16 In 1998, he denied having said that and he

17 simply said that he would -- that he was taking pills

18 and he couldn't give me the names of his pills.

19 Benzyl-Diazepam, I take, just ordinary Benzyl-Diazepam,

20 which I induce hypnosis and induce to go to sleep.

21 Q. He denied he'd been drinking during the time

22 in question in 1992 at this time?

23 A. He denied that, yes, if I recall correctly.

24 Q. Well, if he had been drinking and taking

25 pills during the time of any criminal activity in 1992,

1 that doesn't excuse criminal activity, does it?

2 JUDGE JAN: That's a question of law. That

3 is a question of law.

4 MR. COWLES: I believe the doctor can

5 testify, based as a forensic psychiatrist if whether

6 alcohol abuse --

7 JUDGE JAN: He may have the knowledge, I

8 think to a drunk person to do it, have knowledge, but

9 not intention.

10 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Well, actually, Mr.

11 Cowles, your question should lead to us his

12 responsibility for his acts.

13 MR. COWLES:

14 Q. Well, would being under the influence of

15 alcohol and drugs, in your position as a forensic

16 psychiatrist, ever arise to diminished responsibility?

17 JUDGE JAN: That again is a question of law.

18 MR. COWLES: I believe -- I don't want to

19 argue with Your Honour, but I think an expert like this

20 could give an opinion on that.

21 JUDGE JAN: It's a question of law.

22 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, we have asked

23 for mental capacity, but not for mental responsibility,

24 so maybe that's what Mr. Cowles is referring to.

25 MR. COWLES: Now I am confused. Rule 67 uses

1 the term "diminished responsibility" and that's what

2 her filing, her legal filings have claimed as a defence

3 is diminished responsibility.

4 MS. McMURREY: As a psychiatrist and a mental

5 health expert, though, we asked about the mental

6 capacity that he had in 1992. Now, he was asked this

7 time to determine mental responsibility, but he said he

8 couldn't without the facts.

9 MR. COWLES:

10 Q. Is it your opinion in 1992, Mr. Landzo

11 understood his behaviour, he understood right from

12 wrong?

13 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, I am going to

14 again object that that is irrelevant. Right from wrong

15 is not the issue we're dealing with before this

16 Chamber. It's whether he had a diminished capacity.

17 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: What is diminished

18 capacity?

19 MS. McMURREY: Diminished responsibility

20 under the definition of the British law, Homicide Act

21 of 1997, which has nothing to do with being able to

22 recognise the M'Naghten Rule.

23 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: No, I don't think you're

24 right. Let him put his question to him. It's not a

25 question of capacity, it's a question of

1 responsibility.

2 MR. COWLES: Can you answer that question,

3 doctor?

4 A. Could you repeat the question, please? Could

5 you repeat the question, please?

6 Q. I'll try.

7 A. Sorry, I found it. Whether I feel that in

8 1992 Mr. Landzo understood the behaviour he had and he

9 could tell right from wrong. That is the question that

10 you were asking me earlier on.

11 I believe that 1992 is a time on which I have

12 expressed an opinion. It was a general opinion because

13 we haven't -- we have talked about the time he spent in

14 Celebici. And insofar as the time he spent there is

15 concerned, I could say that he had great difficulty in

16 telling right from wrong. If we think in terms of a

17 dependent personality and, as I said, this is an

18 assessment which demands additional evidence, but if we

19 consider a dependent personality of this sort, who has

20 given a specific order and finds that it is his duty to

21 commit a specific act because this is going to be

22 gratifying to someone he is psychologically dependent

23 upon, then his ability to tell right from wrong under

24 such conditions is certainly very limited or

25 non-existent. We would have to refer back to specific

1 facts though, however.

2 Q. Which you've never had?

3 A. No.

4 Q. So you believe that this man was incapable of

5 exercising free will over a period of, say, two to

6 three months in the summer of 1992? I mean, was he

7 just a helpless puppet under somebody's influence with

8 asthma?

9 A. Sorry, but let me once again go for the

10 logical sequence of work which I have got into. I do

11 have clinical findings to prove a pathological

12 personality disorder. I do have a legal definition,

13 which I have been given, which refers to abnormal

14 personality as possible cause for diminished

15 responsibility. And this has led me to say that if we

16 combine these two elements, we could say that there is

17 a probability that there is diminished responsibility.

18 I can't take this further. To say that he

19 was a helpless puppet might be perfectly true in light

20 of some facts. It could be totally wrong, false, if

21 related to other facts. So the problem I have is that

22 I would have to discuss about these facts with him. So

23 it wouldn't be appropriate on my part to come up with

24 an assessment and an evaluation which go beyond the

25 methodology followed in my expertise, it would be

1 speculation at that stage.

2 Q. Because you don't know the facts of how he

3 could have committed a crime?

4 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think he said that so

5 far.

6 MR. COWLES:

7 Q. Now, you still maintain your diagnosis of

8 post-traumatic stress disorder in Mr. Landzo in 1992?

9 A. Yes, support it.

10 Q. And you do you agree with the criteria set

11 fourth in the DSM IV for post-traumatic stress

12 disorder?

13 A. Yes, I do.

14 Q. Isn't it true for a person to have PTSD, that

15 he had to have experienced a stressor, the traumatic

16 event, correct?

17 A. This is the primary criterion. Without a

18 traumatic event there is no PTSD.

19 Q. And the traumatic event Mr. Landzo is

20 allegedly to have undergone is that experience in this

21 Croatian orientation or training camp in 1991?

22 A. Yes, I have reached this opinion and I am

23 speaking also for my colleagues because we found there

24 were some signs and indications of PTSD. Mr. Landzo

25 told us he had such an experience, so I tied in these

1 two elements.

2 Q. And that experience, though, in the camp was

3 watching some videos of people being killed and he

4 claims to have seen people actually killed in the camp,

5 is that right? Is that your understanding of what this

6 experience was?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Now, isn't it true that the first criteria in

9 the DSM for PTSD, is the traumatic event has to have

10 happened to him or people very close to him, would you

11 agree with that?

12 A. Yes, I do.

13 Q. But this event that we're talking about that

14 he claims to have traumatised him, he was never in any

15 danger himself, was he?

16 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: It doesn't matter now.

17 JUDGE JAN: Maybe you're not being

18 slaughtered, would that not been a trauma?

19 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You feel so bad and

20 revolting that it affects your (inaudible), it affects

21 you in that sense.

22 MR. COWLES: Yes, Your Honour, but the

23 problem is whether that is --

24 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Well, that's what they

25 say.

1 THE INTERPRETER: Judge Jan, could you switch

2 on your microphone, please.

3 JUDGE JAN: You don't have to ask an expert

4 about it. Look, if you see somebody being killed just

5 in front of you, would you get a trauma?

6 MR. COWLES: Yes, of course, anybody would.

7 JUDGE JAN: But the thing has to happen to

8 you. You must be slaughtered first before you can get

9 a trauma, is that your question?

10 MR. COWLES: No, Your Honour, because the DSM

11 specifically says that it has to be an actual or

12 threatened death or serious injury or a threat to the

13 physical integrity of self.

14 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: It's what ordinary human

15 experience teaches us.

16 MR. COWLES: I'll move on.

17 Q. Now, do you know what his reaction was? Can

18 you describe what his reaction was to this alleged

19 event?

20 A. He said that his reaction was one of intense

21 fear. That he experienced terror.

22 JUDGE JAN: That answer your first question?

23 MR. COWLES: I'm sorry, Judge Jan?

24 JUDGE JAN: That answers your first

25 question?

1 MR. COWLES: Yes, yes.

2 Q. And do you know what he did as a result of

3 this experience, Dr. Lagazzi?

4 A. As a result of this experience -- well,

5 again, in his words, he went back home and then he

6 joined the army.

7 Q. And then subsequent to that, shortly

8 thereafter, he puts himself in a position as a guard

9 voluntarily at a camp, is that right?

10 A. Correct.

11 Q. Where he is involved in violence?

12 A. Yes. But can I just point out one detail?

13 And this helps me just to flush out a bit what I was

14 saying earlier on. At the last discussion, the accused

15 said that he was enrolled in the army and then he was

16 sent to the camp because younger people with limited

17 motor experience were asked to go to the camp. So I

18 needed to make that qualification regarding the earlier

19 statement I made. I'm sorry if I interrupted you. The

20 other question you asked was whether he could have been

21 involved in violent acts. The answer to that question

22 is, yes. So he went to a camp where he could engage in

23 such acts.

24 Q. Voluntarily, no one forced him to do that, is

25 that your understanding?

1 JUDGE JAN: He was posted there, not as a

2 voluntary act. He was posted in the camp, that is what

3 the doctor is saying.

4 MR. COWLES: He voluntarily joined the army,

5 to serve.

6 JUDGE JAN: I am not even sure of that,

7 because there was a draught. He had to report. There

8 was a law there.

9 MR. COWLES: He didn't run away. I don't

10 want to argue with Your Honour.

11 JUDGE JAN: Thank you for not arguing with

12 me, but this is quite obvious.

13 MR. COWLES:

14 Q. Otherwise, doctor, he didn't avoid the

15 wartime experiences later in 1992 as a result of what

16 may have happened in the Croatian orientation camp in

17 1991, did he?

18 A. On this point you are referring to criterion

19 C of the DSM IV criteria. And this says that the

20 fundamental issue at stake is the stressor situation

21 which is maintained and which is associated with a

22 trauma. And then there is a series of other elements

23 as well that have an effect.

24 Perhaps I should answer in the same way as

25 when he says that he didn't stay with Miro, but,

1 rather, joined the army. If you just take the PTSD

2 alone, I think one could confirm that Criterion C is

3 not upheld regarding, of course, the general premise

4 that you have posited. But the problem is that, in

5 this case, there were ambivalent stimuli. Because, on

6 the one hand, there was a tendency to avoid something.

7 But, on the other hand, because of the narcissistic

8 dependency type of personality, to look for such

9 gratification deriving from the dependency of the army,

10 of the ability to wear a uniform and so on.

11 And, by the same token, there are analogous

12 situations where people who have sustained serious

13 stress and who have had traumatic experiences or very

14 high degrees of stress and then react in the opposite

15 manner to Criterion C. For example, when you have

16 young adolescents who may be beaten or poorly treated

17 and then, in turn, they act in an aggressive manner

18 later on and become violent themselves. So there isn't

19 an avoidance of violence, but, on the contrary, people

20 try to look for that violence. You could also say that

21 there are certain children who are beaten at home who

22 then become violent as adults or become abusers

23 themselves as they get older.

24 Q. Isn't it true, though, that if you don't have

25 avoidance, you don't have PTSD?

1 A. I beg to differ. The DSM indicates these

2 criteria and, of course, these criteria are important.

3 But each criterion has to be read and attached to

4 specific circumstances. So we have a diagnosis on a

5 number of different axes and then we have a descriptive

6 continuum. And everything has to be seen in the light

7 of a global evaluation. And that's how I explain this

8 aspect.

9 Q. Well, what made Mr. Landzo's traumatic

10 experience so unique? I mean, hundreds of thousands of

11 people experience the same sort of horrors, what made

12 his experience so unique that that now excuses or

13 diminishes his responsibility or free will or whatever

14 terms you want to use for conduct that he later does

15 six months later?

16 A. Let me repeat. If we are talking only about

17 PTSD, then, from that perspective, you all know that in

18 forensic psychiatry, PTSD, as such, and I have recently

19 read an article by Croat psychiatrists on the problem

20 and linked with war crimes and this may not

21 automatically represent something which will have an

22 impact on diminished responsibility on not. But it is

23 equally true that if you take into account PTSD and tie

24 it in with the other elements that make up the

25 personality of Mr. Landzo, we can make a more global

1 assessment. And that assessment may allow us to assume

2 diminished responsibility with all the methodological

3 limitations, of course, which should apply and which

4 have already been mentioned.

5 Q. You assume the diminished responsibility

6 without knowing the facts?

7 A. I have to answer yes. Let me just repeat

8 once again that what I have tried to do is to give you

9 an assessment which takes into account what I believe

10 to be -- I am starting to tire, I was talking about

11 concrete responsibility but actually I meant

12 probability, concrete probability regarding the

13 clinical situation. I think it is clear that to be

14 able to say that somebody is responsible of a

15 particular crime or is not responsible for a different

16 crime, I have got to know what the individual crime in

17 order to be able to determine that I need to I have a

18 long discussion with Mr. Landzo.

19 Q. You haven't had that?

20 A. I have had discussions, long discussions, as

21 well, but not on this aspect, not dealing with these

22 aspects.

23 MR. COWLES: Thank you, Your Honours, that's

24 all I have.

25 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much.

1 Any re-examinations?

2 MS. McMURREY: Yes, Your Honour, there is

3 re-examination. May I proceed?

4 Re-examined by Ms. McMurrey

5 Q. Mr. Cowles just asked you about -- I mean,

6 No. C of the post-traumatic stress disorder. PTSD -- I

7 am tired too, excuse me, Your Honours. In 1996, when

8 you interviewed Mr. Landzo -- would you go to page 16

9 of your first report, if you don't mind. And in the

10 middle paragraph, on page -- oh, I'm sorry, that's the

11 English version, page 16. He says he remembers seeing

12 people beaten and injured and he remembers how this

13 somehow seemed normal because in war, one learns that

14 other human beings are but animals, they're not like

15 people and potentially dangerous.

16 In No. C, doesn't it say, persistent

17 avoidance of stimuli with trauma and numbing of general

18 responsiveness, would this be not exactly what a

19 numbing of general responsiveness is?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And all of these criteria that are listed for

22 DSM IV and PTSD, when they list the criteria, they

23 don't say that they have to fit every one of these

24 criteria. Like in No. C it says, indicated by three or

25 more of the following, but not all seven; isn't that

1 right?

2 A. This is a standard aspect of a DSM. Any

3 disorder will look for the presence of a determinate

4 number of indicators.

5 Q. Now, Mr. Moran and Mr. Cowles have both said,

6 well, if you'd known the facts, you would have been

7 able to determine responsibility. But as you've said

8 before, you didn't limit your opinion based strictly on

9 what Mr. Landzo told you, you had other criteria that

10 you used in order to arrive at your ultimate opinion,

11 didn't you?

12 A. I used my clinical observation method. And I

13 used in the diagnostic tests and I also relied on the

14 earlier observations that had been made. So what I did

15 basically was to take account of all these data.

16 Q. Which is, really, normally, how you form an

17 opinion in your expertise because you don't always have

18 the luxury of talking to the person about what actually

19 happened?

20 A. Basically what we can say is that unless, or

21 if one doesn't speak to the person about what happened,

22 you try and form an opinion which, obviously, is much

23 more limited, much more limited than one could get from

24 a direct discussion. Even in the case of diminished

25 responsibility, I think that this has to be seen in

1 conjunction with concrete facts. So to that extent, if

2 you don't talk about specific facts with a person and

3 not just in order to find out how the person actually

4 experienced these facts, you cannot really understand

5 how or what was the psychiatric state of the person is

6 when he committed a particular act.

7 So my opinion, of course, is an opinion which

8 covers a relatively large period. It deals with

9 questions which involve a number of different types of

10 situations. And it's intended to have been a

11 contribution allowing us to have a better understanding

12 of the case. So it is a broad answer, based on what I

13 consider to be a concrete probability. But, as I said,

14 if we're talking about responsibilities about

15 individual events, I would need to talk to the

16 gentleman about those individual events.

17 Q. When you come up with a diagnosis of a

18 disorder in 1998, you are able to understand that

19 disorder or abnormality of the mind and relate it back

20 to a certain period of time and come up with a

21 probability; is that what you're saying?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And Mr. Moran had asked you, had intimated

24 that you had discussed with Dr. Gripon, his trips to

25 Bosnia or something like that. You never discussed

1 with Dr. Gripon any interviews or any collateral

2 sources of information that he had, did you?

3 A. Actually not. I spoke to Dr. Gripon about

4 this. But during the meeting which we had together, we

5 only just referred incidentally to this question of the

6 preponderance of the mother in the family unit, in Mr.

7 Landzo's family. I don't know exactly what are the

8 sources of collateral information. After all, I didn't

9 work with Dr. Gripon.

10 Q. Now, Mr. Moran also said that in one of your

11 statements you say that he went to the Croatian camp

12 when the weather was warm. And Mr. Moran, or somebody

13 drew the inference that that must be July or August?

14 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, that's a

15 misstatement of the record. That came out of Dr. Van

16 Leuween's report and that's what I said when I read it

17 to him.

18 MS. McMURREY: Well, I am asking this

19 question as a response to Mr. Moran's

20 cross-examination.

21 Q. In Italy, which is on the same latitude as --

22 or, longitude, I don't know which one it is, as Bosnia,

23 there can be warm weather in April and May too, can't

24 there?

25 A. I am not a meteorological expert. Obviously

1 that will vary depending on the year in question and

2 the climate. But from what I have seen from

3 television, Bosnia seems to be much colder than the

4 centre and southern part of Italy, so I really can't

5 answer your question.

6 Q. You talked earlier in response to Mr. Moran

7 about Mr. Landzo's role in the UN Detention Centre.

8 And I want to ask you a set of facts. You know for a

9 fact that he was in Celebici sometime in 1992 and in

10 the military through '94 and he was in prison from '94

11 to '96 and at the UN Detention Centre from '96 to '98.

12 Do you know that, Dr. Lagazzi?

13 A. Basically, yes.

14 Q. So would it be safe to say that he is

15 comfortable in that environment and he is basically

16 become institutionalised, as we would say in my

17 country?

18 A. Referring to the United Nations Detention

19 Unit, is that what you're referring to?

20 Q. Yes.

21 A. Or are you talking about the Bosnia prison as

22 well?

23 Q. About since the time he became a young man,

24 from the time he was 19 years old, he's basically been

25 in custody of one sort or another. Does he feel more

1 comfortable in custody or out of custody, would you

2 say?

3 A. Well, the gentleman has developed a very good

4 rapport with the United Nations Prison Centre. I

5 cannot say the same for his time in Bosnian prison.

6 Nor do I know how he'd react in a prison of another

7 nation. But I can tell you that in the UN environment,

8 he has managed to find a good basis for developing the

9 behaviour he has developed and I think it he is in line

10 with his subjective situation.

11 Q. Thank you. Now, Mr. Moran kept, even though

12 he didn't say the term malingering, he kept referring

13 to and accusing Mr. Landzo of manipulating the system,

14 manipulating you, using ulterior motives for his, you

15 know, for his statements to you. And just to

16 demonstrate to the Court how you're not able to be

17 manipulated, I would like, with the help of the usher,

18 to show Dr. Lagazzi these paintings that he has already

19 seen before -- there is only the three of them -- by

20 Mr. Landzo.

21 MR. COWLES: I object to this line as not

22 being proper re-direct examination, Your Honour.

23 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, they challenged

24 him about not being able to recognise malingering.

25 This just shows that he recognises this and he stated

1 that these were photographs, portraits made in a

2 malingering setting -- not portraits -- art work,

3 paintings.

4 JUDGE JAN: What does art work have to do

5 with malingering?

6 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, if you would see

7 them, they're made for the purpose of manipulating the

8 situation.

9 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: He has answered this

10 malingering situation several times, both during

11 examination-in-chief and even in cross-examination. He

12 even has even admitted that to inconsistent statements

13 to satisfy his situation in each case. He is not

14 telling you whether he is so susceptible to being

15 deceived or not, but that was the situation which

16 occurred at that time.

17 MS. McMURREY: This is just a demonstration

18 that he was not able to be manipulated or fooled.

19 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: How does that it show

20 that? It doesn't show that. Show him the photographs

21 if you think that paints anything.

22 MS. McMURREY: I'll lay the predicate first.

23 Q. Dr. Lagazzi, did you see this art work by Mr.

24 Landzo? And, if you did, did you recognise it ahead of

25 time as something made in anticipation of trying to

1 manipulate you?

2 A. Let me just say that, obviously, with these

3 premises, all I can say is that I have not been

4 manipulated. So the only answer I can give you is no.

5 Obviously from a logical point of view, I can't say

6 that I have been manipulated. However, if I could have

7 a look at the pictures. Can I show them to the Court?

8 These are paintings which I was shown for the first

9 time, I think, on Sunday by the attorney. This is a

10 typical painting for me. And I have seen many similar

11 paintings done in prison by young persons, adults, who

12 take inspiration from a certain culture with heavy

13 metal type of influence, a rock influence, et cetera,

14 and nothing more than that. So this is nothing which

15 can be termed psycho-pathological.

16 I don't have anything to say about this one.

17 Perhaps you can identify under the flag a body, but I

18 can't say more than that.

19 And this shows a similar scene. But again, I

20 would have very little to say about it. It just shows

21 something to do with suicide. It might show a certain

22 disdain for life, but I can't say anything more than

23 that.

24 Q. But that last one with the scale of justice

25 up above, didn't you say that that was an example of

1 malingering?

2 A. This one, yes. Because let me say that a

3 picture always transmits to the observer a message from

4 the person who has created it. So I think it is quite

5 clear that all this is very much at the conscious

6 level. In fact, it almost seems stereotypical. It is

7 not of a projection of subconscious ideas. It is a

8 kind of attempt to project an image of oneself. An

9 image of one's future, a kind of edict situation. And

10 here, of course, you have justice represented.

11 Referring back to what was said by Dr. Verde yesterday,

12 this is, perhaps, subconscious manipulation, an attempt

13 to describe an image of oneself, which is as positive

14 as possible. But I would like to say that these are my

15 observations, which I made off the cuff and I could

16 have been manipulated in a thousand other manners.

17 Q. Well, thank you very much.

18 Mr. Moran had described this scene where you

19 work with the Prosecutor's office and you go out and

20 investigate and try to determine whether somebody had a

21 state of insanity or didn't know right from wrong, but

22 what you really did, when you're investigating with the

23 Prosecutor's office, before you get to the court stage,

24 are you trying to find out, to solve the crime to

25 assist them in find finding this person and describing

1 their type of personality that way?

2 A. When you work with the police as a

3 consultant, psychiatric consultant of the police, you

4 work on a case of a serial killer to try and understand

5 when is it that he is going to hit someone on the basis

6 of findings available and try and work out a profile.

7 So you would work with the Prosecutor and the

8 investigators. Or you could also work as an adviser to

9 the Prosecutor in a forensic psychiatric inquiry, which

10 is conducted on behalf of the Prosecutor in order to

11 determine the mental capacity or the insanity of the

12 person. There are more police investigations which we

13 are involved in as well as typically forensic

14 psychiatric investigations, which are carried out on

15 behalf of the Prosecutor's office.

16 Q. Thank you. Doctor, Esad Landzo, is not

17 antisocial, is he, he doesn't fit under that DSM IV

18 category, does he?

19 A. I wouldn't say he is antisocial. There is no

20 evidence of any other behaviour of this nature. It

21 certainly doesn't fit under the criteria of social

22 disorder of the personality. And over and above the

23 labels that one might have for that behaviour, he

24 doesn't appear to be antisocial in the interview. He

25 has different sorts of problems.

1 Q. Now, in your years of evaluating Mr. Landzo,

2 Mr. Cowles had said, oh, he was drinking and taking

3 drugs and trying to explain that as the reason that

4 maybe some crimes were committed at Celebici, but

5 during all this time of your evaluation, he has always

6 denied drinking while on duty in a military setting?

7 A. I'll try and be more accurate in my answer.

8 In my last report I state that he denied having used

9 drugs and taken alcohol. In the report that I wrote

10 back in 1996, he did refer to his being drunk and

11 taking drugs. But he said that he wouldn't do that

12 whilst he was in his service hours. But then in '97,

13 he said he wouldn't drink whilst he was working, but

14 quite often he was drunk for a long period of time. As

15 to the possible influence of drugs and alcohol on his

16 behaviour, I take it you're all aware of that. But, in

17 conjunction with the facts which are alleged to have

18 been committed in 1992, I am not in a position to give

19 any further indication with respect to drugs and

20 alcohol.

21 Q. Can you tell the Court how the fact that Mr.

22 Landzo has changed his stories and his reality that he

23 conveys to you, how it relates to his personality

24 disorder, to the pathology that you have found?

25 A. All I can say is that I was very much

1 impressed by the fact that right now, Mr. Landzo seems

2 to minimise, downplay, many of the things which he

3 earlier on said were very significant, which is just

4 the reverse of the sort of simulation which is usually

5 gone into by those who wish to bail out of jail,

6 assuming that they're having mental disorders. So I

7 was sort of wondering, and I was wondering why earlier

8 on he was trying to simulate a neurological disorder

9 concerning his state of consciousness, whilst, at this

10 point in time, it seems to minimise these very

11 aspects.

12 Well, on this particular point, I felt that

13 this might indicate his dependent personality. This

14 made me think over this question of a dependent

15 personality because he was trying to minimise

16 importance of such facts. So he now appears to be very

17 strongly involved in the setting he is in, in this

18 international setting and he tends to minimise a number

19 of points that he raised earlier on. And this is very

20 much inconsistent with his dependent personality.

21 Q. Now, Dr. Lagazzi, there was a lot of talk

22 about him playing the role of a protagonist now, but,

23 in your opinion, that he is just a continuing victim?

24 A. If we are speaking of a person that has

25 severe personality problems and disorders and has gone

1 through a number of experiences in the past, and, more

2 recently, if you consider Mr. Landzo's age, as a

3 medical doctor, just as a forensic psychiatrist,

4 obviously, I have to say that we're faced with a person

5 who is a victim, a victim of a given situation. And,

6 by the same token, there are many others who are to be

7 viewed as victims: Those that have personal background

8 which is dramatic.

9 Q. Was he taken advantage of by those people

10 that he --

11 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Not whether it is your

12 last, does it arise from cross-examination?

13 MS. McMURREY: Yes, I believe it does from

14 Mr. Moran's cross-examination and he asked about Miro.

15 Just one example.

16 Q. Did Miro take advantage of Mr. Landzo and his

17 illness?

18 A. Mr. Landzo was working for him and was very

19 strongly committed to that work that he was doing, so

20 it may well be that we're talking about a very young

21 boy who is working full-time, doesn't sleep at home,

22 but he sleeps at work, so you could, indeed, assume

23 that there is a relationship of dependency in that

24 respect, that he would be taken advantage of. It's

25 very difficult to pinpoint this. Where do you draw a

1 line between dependency or taking advantage of a

2 person? So I can't answer to this question, I'm

3 sorry.

4 MS. McMURREY: Dr. Lagazzi, thank you very

5 much for being here and giving us your whole day and

6 all the time you've evaluated him.

7 Thank you very much, Your Honours.

8 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Now before we go, I want

9 to find out one thing. Your testimony, and perhaps

10 your conclusion agrees, that the circumstances in which

11 he was, you believe, he suffered diminished

12 responsibility?

13 THE WITNESS: The limitations I stated, yes.

14 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Are you, by that, also

15 suggesting that excuses him from legal responsibility?

16 Does that excuse him from responsibility?

17 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, it is not my task

18 here to excuse a person from his or her

19 responsibility. I was asked to form a forensic

20 psychiatric opinion and I answered on the basis of my

21 own findings that if the legal frame of reference is

22 the following: That is, normal personality can,

23 indeed, show diminished responsibility or cannot show

24 diminished responsibility. I said that this person has

25 an abnormal personality and, therefore, might, indeed,

1 create a situation of diminished responsibility. So

2 that is the answer that I could honestly give you.

3 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Now, let me tell you why

4 I have asked this question. You know, there are at

5 least two other particulars. There are the

6 psychopathic personalities who are normal persons, as

7 your present subject, who you also regard as abnormal,

8 the earlier category is excused from responsibility and

9 the present category, you have now included enjoys

10 diminished responsibility. Now this is why I am asking

11 whether this diminished responsibility also enjoys that

12 category of being excused from responsibility.

13 THE WITNESS: On psychopaths, ordinarily,

14 psychopaths, which, according to the DSM have what we

15 define as an antisocial personality disorder, as a

16 rule, psychopaths are not considered as being eligible

17 for diminished responsibility in Italy.

18 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Any responsibility, not

19 diminished. Now, the semantics of this category is

20 that they are -- responsibility is diminished, this is

21 what it says.

22 THE WITNESS: I have used this category

23 because this was the one I was being asked to consider,

24 so I have used the same term as a reference term. If

25 we take the condition of the person at hand, I can

1 confirm what I said. If we refer to the so-called

2 psychopaths, to my knowledge and in my experience, in

3 Italy, for instance, in no way do we regard them as

4 being subject to mental insanity.

5 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Well, thank you very

6 much. Well, all I wanted to get from you what was your

7 understanding of what diminished responsibility means.

8 Because semantics is responsibility is diminished, it

9 means there is still some element of responsibility.

10 THE WITNESS: In this respect, I would

11 certainly say yes, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much.

13 The Trial Chamber --

14 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, I have just a

15 housekeeping matter to ask the Court. And if the

16 Prosecutor has no objection to it. Tomorrow morning,

17 my children fly 11 hours --

18 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: When you have made the

19 proper application and it has been attended to, I don't

20 see any point.

21 MS. McMURREY: I am asking to start court an

22 hour late because I have to go to Schipol to sign for

23 the unattended minors.

24 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You have very capable

25 counsel to sit in for you. But the Court will sit at

1 10.00 a.m. The Trial Chamber will now rise.

2 --- Whereupon proceedings adjourned at

3 5.55 p.m., to be reconvened on the

4 16th day of July, 1998, at 10.00 a.m.

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25