Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 15398

1 Thursday, 30 July 1998

2 (Open session)

3 --- Upon commencing at 10.08 a.m.

4 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Good morning, ladies and

5 gentlemen. May we have the appearances, please?

6 MS. McHENRY: Good morning, Teresa McHenry

7 for the Prosecution appearing with Mr. Huber.

8 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: May we have the

9 appearances for the Defence?

10 MS. RESIDOVIC: Good morning, Your Honour.

11 My name is Edina Residovic. I appear on behalf of

12 Zejnil Delalic, and my co-counsel is Eugene O'Sullivan

13 from Canada.

14 MR. OLUJIC: My name is Zeljko Olujic, and I

15 appear on behalf of Zdravko Mucic, and co-counsel is

16 Mr. Tomislav Kuzmanovic.

17 MR. KARABDIC: Good morning, Your Honour. I

18 am Salih Karabdic from Sarajevo and I appear on behalf

19 Hazim Delic. Co-counsel is Mr. Thomas Moran from

20 Texas.

21 MS. McMURREY: Good morning, Your Honours.

22 I'm Cynthia McMurrey, and along with Nancy Boler and

23 Calvin Saunders, we represent Esad Landzo.


25 understand you have some rebuttal evidence.

Page 15399

1 MS. McHENRY: Yes, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Let's hear you. Please

3 swear the witness.

4 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will

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

6 truth.

7 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You may take your seat.


9 Examined by Ms. McHenry:

10 Q. Good morning, sir. Would you please state

11 your full name and spell your last name?

12 A. My name is Landy Sparr, S-P-A-R-R.

13 Q. Can you tell us, are you a doctor?

14 A. Yes, I'm an MD

15 Q. Can you give us briefly your educational

16 background?

17 A. I received a bachelor of science and history

18 at the University of Wisconsin, a Master in Arts in

19 American Intellectual History at the University of

20 Wisconsin, an MD from the University of Wisconsin

21 School of Medicine. And I did my psychiatry residency

22 at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.

23 MS. McHENRY: As the witness goes through his

24 background, maybe it would be helpful for the Judges to

25 have his CV. May I ask that a copy of his CV be

Page 15400

1 marked. Defence counsel have previously been given

2 copies of this.

3 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution document 264.

4 MS. McMURREY: Your Honours, the Defence has

5 been provided a copy of this before. Unfortunately, I

6 have misplaced mine. I would like to ask if the

7 Prosecution has an extra copy, if I might be provided

8 one.

9 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think she will.

10 MS. McMURREY: Thank you.


12 Q. Now, sir, do you recognise Prosecution

13 Exhibit 264 as a copy of your CV?

14 A. Yes.

15 MS. McHENRY: Your Honour, at this time, I

16 would ask that the doctor's CV be entered into

17 evidence.

18 MS. McMURREY: No objections.



21 Q. Sir, how are you currently employed?

22 A. I'm employed by the Veterans Administration

23 in the United States. I'm at the Veterans

24 Administration Hospital in Portland, Oregon. I'm the

25 acting chief of psychiatry there, and I'm the acting

Page 15401

1 clinical director of the mental health division. I'm

2 also an associate professor of psychiatry at Oregon

3 Health Sciences University School of Medicine.

4 Q. In your capacity as acting chief and clinical

5 director, do you supervise a staff? If so, could you

6 just give us an idea of your --

7 A. Yes, it's a large mental health division. We

8 have a staff of 150. We treat 6.000 patients. These

9 are veterans. The staff includes nurses,

10 psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers. We have

11 a 30-bed acute psychiatry in-patient unit, a 20-bed

12 substance abuse unit. We have an extensive disability

13 programme, and we have out-patient clinics. We have a

14 PTSD programme, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. We

15 have a geriatric psychiatry programme. About half of

16 the 6.000 patients, approximately half are Vietnam

17 veterans.

18 Q. Are you also engaged in any private practice?

19 A. I have my own case load at the VA. I have

20 about a 100 patients. Some of them are Vietnam

21 veterans and some of them have serious problems with

22 PTSD.

23 Q. Are you licensed, and if so how are you

24 licensed?

25 A. I'm board certified in general psychiatry.

Page 15402

1 Q. Do you have any certifications or awards as

2 part of your professional career?

3 A. Well, I'm a fellow in the American

4 Psychiatric Association, and I received the

5 distinguished service award from the Oregon Psychiatric

6 Association. That was because of my work in setting up

7 continuing medical education programmes throughout the

8 state. One of the books that I was involved in

9 received the Guttmacher award in 1992 for forensic

10 psychiatry. It received the award as the best book in

11 forensic psychiatry that year.

12 Q. Okay. The Judges have your CV, so I won't

13 ask you to go through all your publications, but can

14 you give us a brief idea of the amount of publications

15 and --

16 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Don't you think we could

17 skip that?

18 MS. McHENRY: Yes, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: It's not in issue.


21 Q. Sir, as part of your work, does your work

22 undergo peer review and, if so, can you briefly explain

23 that?

24 A. Well, I have 81 publications. Most of them,

25 probably 90 per cent of them, have been peer reviewed,

Page 15403

1 which means that some people, some colleagues, that the

2 journal designates, they review the work. It can be up

3 to six different reviewers. Also, the talks I've given

4 have essentially been peer reviewed. We have to submit

5 abstracts. The American Psychiatric Association or the

6 American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, if you want to

7 give a talk, you have to submit an abstract, and it's

8 peer reviewed by a committee. It's accepted or

9 rejected based on that peer review. So most of the

10 stuff I do has been peer reviewed.

11 Q. I'm going to ask you if have any areas of

12 special interest in your work, but in answering that, I

13 think maybe it would be helpful if you would just focus

14 on the areas that may be relevant to your testimony

15 here today, your areas of special interest.

16 A. I've worked a lot with PTSD and various

17 aspects of it. One thing has been the forensic

18 aspects, also, spiritual aspects of PTSD, the

19 assessment of PTSD in disability cases. One of the

20 first papers I wrote was entitled "Factious PTSD,"

21 which essentially had to do with malingering. I've

22 also done a lot of work in the area of victimisation,

23 in America what we call the blame game, where people

24 claim to be victims in order to gain something.

25 I've also done work on the management of

Page 15404

1 violence and violence in a hospital setting and

2 violence against women.

3 Q. As part of your professional work, do you

4 have significant experience in the diagnosis of

5 personality disorders?

6 A. Personality disorders were an early interest

7 of mine. I used to teach a course in personality

8 disorders. I've written a couple of things about

9 personality disorders, and because when we evaluate

10 people for disability, we have to decide exactly what

11 their diagnosis is, if they are personality disordered,

12 they do not receive disability. So we've had to

13 develop protocols to evaluate these individuals, and

14 personality disorders is a big aspect of that.

15 Q. It's correct, isn't it, that you were

16 contacted by the Office of the Prosecutor in June of

17 this year to help on issues related to the mental

18 health of the accused Esad Landzo?

19 A. Right. Jim Cowles contacted me.

20 Q. Did you prepare a report that lists the

21 information that was provided to you, as well as your

22 findings?

23 A. Yes, I do.

24 MS. McHENRY: With the assistance of the

25 usher, I'm just going to ask, sir, that a copy of that

Page 15405

1 report be shown to you and a copy given to Your

2 Honours. I have an extra copy for Ms. McMurrey if she

3 needs it.

4 MS. McMURREY: I found a copy of that. Thank

5 you, though.

6 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution document 265.

7 MS. McMURREY: Actually, Ms. McHenry, if I

8 might have another copy. If you are volunteering, I

9 will accept it. Thank you.


11 Q. Sir, do you recognise that document, and is

12 it a copy of your report?

13 A. Yes.

14 MS. McHENRY: Your Honour, just while we're

15 going through it, I would move into evidence a copy of

16 the doctor's report.

17 MS. McMURREY: Your Honours, the Defence has

18 no objection.

19 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes, it's admitted. If

20 the witness recognises it, it's admitted.


22 Q. Sir, as part of your evaluation, did you

23 travel to The Hague in the early part of July and

24 examine Mr. Esad Landzo?

25 A. Yes, I did. I saw him on July 6th and 7th.

Page 15406

1 Q. Can you, both with respect to your

2 examination and any other work you did, just briefly

3 describe what you did as part of your evaluation of

4 Mr. Landzo and the issues?

5 A. I interviewed him for probably about three

6 hours, and I saw him twice. When I saw him, I was

7 focusing on PTSD because that was the issue at the

8 time, but I also had a fairly good sense of his

9 personality. It seems like that might be a short

10 period of time, but when we interview people, in order

11 to get board certified, we're given a half an hour.

12 And in a half an hour, we're supposed to come up with

13 some kind of a sensible diagnosis. So I did have three

14 hours with him, and I went over a number of things with

15 him, including his background. I also talked to him

16 about the indictment against him.

17 Q. In addition to examining Mr. Landzo, is it

18 correct that you examined a number of prior evaluations

19 and examinations conducted by other mental health

20 professionals, as well as some other material which is

21 set out in your report. So I won't bother to go into

22 that.

23 A. Right, right.

24 Q. Can you just please tell the Judges your

25 findings concerning Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome with

Page 15407

1 respect to Mr. Landzo?

2 A. First of all, the diagnosis of PTSD, what you

3 want to find is what they call a biphasic response of

4 avoidance and re-experiencing. This work was developed

5 by Marty Horowitz about 20 years ago. Then they also

6 added the symptoms of increased arousal. It's a cyclic

7 pattern, so people generally avoid and they

8 re-experience that breakthrough re-experience, and then

9 they avoid. It goes up and down like that.

10 They also have symptoms like startle and a

11 lot of physiologic symptoms. He didn't have those. I

12 mean, he was not -- he didn't appear to have PTSD at

13 all. He did not endorse most of the criteria or any of

14 the criteria.

15 Q. Okay.

16 A. So that was my finding now. Then the rest of

17 the evaluation would have to be retrospective.

18 Q. Can you please tell the Judges your opinion

19 concerning whether Mr. Landzo had PTSD in 1992?

20 A. Well, that was difficult, of course, because

21 I wasn't there, but there are some things about his

22 actions in 1992 that you would not expect to see with

23 somebody that had PTSD. The primary problem was he

24 wasn't avoiding. In fact, his actions in '92, some of

25 his actions were about 180 degrees different than

Page 15408

1 somebody that would have PTSD.

2 He was actually anxious to get to the

3 frontlines. I mean, that's what he wanted to do.

4 That's what he told me. That's what he told others.

5 He was trying to get to the frontlines. He was proud

6 to get a rifle and a uniform. If somebody had PTSD,

7 this isn't what they would want to try to do. They

8 would try to avoid.

9 Now, you could say that he couldn't avoid

10 being in the military, but he could have avoided

11 wanting to be on the frontlines. I mean, he could have

12 asked to be a clerk or something like that, but he

13 didn't do that. I don't think he had PTSD. I

14 understand that there was this stressor that he

15 supposedly underwent prior to his experiences in

16 Celebici, and I think it was approximately 10 months

17 prior or something like that.

18 Q. Are you referring just to the stressor of the

19 training camp?

20 A. Yes, the orientation camp. I think that

21 bothered him. I think he got over it.

22 Q. Let me move forward. Do you have an opinion

23 as to whether or not Mr. Landzo had a personality

24 disorder in 1992?

25 A. Well, this is more difficult. In fact, I'm

Page 15409

1 going to try not to be too provocative here, but every

2 person -- practically every personality trait in the

3 book has been thrown at this guy. I don't think it's

4 that complicated a situation, but I think it's been

5 made relatively complicated.

6 If I could just talk a little bit about

7 personality disorders, personality disorders are

8 actually the -- it's the old idea of neurosis, and they

9 put these disorders on Axis II, they have their own

10 axis, because they are considered non-biologic. So

11 most of your Axis I diagnoses, like affective

12 disorders, schizophrenia, are supposed to be -- most

13 people believe that they are biologic disorders. There

14 is some correlate, genetic correlate. But personality

15 disorders, no.

16 So they have their own axis. Now, we don't

17 really use personality disorders in mitigation. And we

18 don't -- either when we consider disability or

19 generally in the court system, we don't use them in

20 mitigation, and there are two reasons for that. One is

21 that personality disorders --

22 MS. McMURREY: Your Honours, I'm going to

23 object. First of all, he is saying "we don't." Can we

24 be allowed to know --

25 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Psychiatrists, he

Page 15410

1 means.

2 MS. McMURREY: What standard is he applying

3 to that? If he's applying it to a legal system --

4 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: When the expert

5 finishes, you will have a right to cross-examine.

6 A. I'm talking about the American system.

7 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Your purpose is to

8 cross-examine whatever opinion he has volunteered, not

9 to interrupt his opinion itself.

10 A. Most people consider this behaviour

11 volitional. People have control over their

12 personality. And actually the other problem is the

13 diagnosis is difficult to make because the diagnosis

14 has to do with how a person interacts with others. And

15 so if you're talking with somebody or trying to

16 interview them, it's actually more instructive to see

17 them over time and how they interact with other people

18 in non-artificial settings. If somebody is in gaol,

19 it's hard to really see how they interact with others

20 much.

21 So they are difficult to diagnose, but there

22 are criteria developed, and they are rigorous, the

23 criteria, and they are rigorous on purpose. One of the

24 reasons they are rigorous is because when you have a

25 disorder, a personality disorder, you are at the end of

Page 15411

1 the continuum. So you're, like, two standard

2 deviations from the norm. I mean, everybody has these

3 personality traits. Everybody does. There isn't

4 anybody that doesn't have a personality. So these are

5 common traits. I mean, they are traits that everybody

6 shares. So there's a continuum. You get way out on

7 the continuum, then you have a disorder. That's why

8 the criteria are so rigorous.

9 What they did is they clustered these

10 personalities. There are three clusters. One cluster

11 is what they call the odd personalities. This is

12 schizotypal, schizoid and paranoid. These are more

13 rare. These people are odd, and they call them the odd

14 personalities.

15 The second cluster is a cluster of

16 uninhibited personality types. These people are

17 relatively uninhibited. This would be narcissistic,

18 anti-social, borderline, and hysterical. That's the

19 second cluster.

20 The third cluster is the inhibited

21 personalities, and that's probably the most common.

22 These people are relatively inhibited. The uninhibited

23 people are grandiose, expansive. These people are more

24 circumspect, careful, et cetera. The inhibited

25 personalities, that would be avoidant, obsessive

Page 15412

1 compulsive, and dependent. So those are clustered

2 together.

3 Now, people don't usually cross clusters.

4 It's not like somebody is borderline and obsessive

5 compulsive, because that would imply that they are

6 uninhibited and inhibited at the same time. So you

7 just don't see it. It doesn't happen. Usually the

8 traits are within the cluster. You might see somebody

9 that is avoidant and dependent, et cetera, but ...

10 So that's one of the problems here is that,

11 you know, when we're talking about Mr. Landzo, there

12 are a lot of things that don't make sense. I mean, we

13 are crossing personality clusters, and we get a

14 situation like, on the one hand, we have this

15 information that this is a peaceful -- he was a

16 peaceful boy who was shy and was afraid of goats,

17 okay? And he liked small children and he tried to help

18 others. So we get that information. But then, at the

19 same time, we get the information that he was sort of a

20 semi-thug. It just doesn't make sense.

21 Also, the way he describes it, everything he

22 did at Celebici, and also to a certain extent beyond,

23 was because of Delic. I mean, Delic told him to do all

24 this stuff. In fact, Delic even told him to commit

25 suicide. He couldn't even commit suicide without

Page 15413

1 somebody telling him to or trying to. But on the other

2 hand, he is supposed to be anti-social, which is

3 this cunning and clever person. It just doesn't make

4 sense.

5 The other thing is there's been information

6 presented that he's supposed to be schizoid which means

7 he doesn't like to be around people. He's real odd,

8 and he just doesn't like to be around people at all.

9 On the other hand, he is complaining because he's going

10 back in isolation again, and he won't be around

11 people. So, you know, there's these contradictions and

12 he's supposed to be schizoid, but he's supposed to be

13 narcissistic. He doesn't like to be around people.

14 He's isolated. He's detached from human relations, but

15 he's narcissistic, and that means that he is real

16 grandiose and likes to be on stage. It just doesn't

17 make any sense.

18 Q. Sir, given that you don't believe, sort of,

19 all the various psychiatric evaluations of Mr. Landzo

20 have made sense and have been contradictory, can you

21 give us your opinion about what you found concerning

22 whether Mr. Landzo had a personality disorder and

23 whether or not he had certain personality traits, even

24 if he didn't have a disorder, and just explain your own

25 findings a little bit.

Page 15414

1 A. All right. See, I didn't find that he had

2 any specific personality disorder. He just didn't meet

3 the criteria. I didn't find he met the criteria for a

4 disorder, but he did have personality traits. My sense

5 of him is his traits are around this cluster sea which

6 is avoidant, dependent, obsessive compulsive. That's

7 the way he comes across. He's a guy that was

8 relatively -- when he was growing up, and I'm not

9 offering this in mitigation because he did have free

10 will, but -- by the way, this kind of constellation of

11 traits, this cluster sea of avoidant, dependent,

12 obsessive compulsive, you often see that. I've seen a

13 lot in Vietnam veterans who have been involved in

14 wartime misbehaviour. I mean, it's not that unusual.

15 There can be considerable underlying anger within this

16 cluster, within this profile.

17 And the anger in his case is because of his

18 sort of chronic passivity and his feelings of impotence

19 and shame. That's something he has always had. He's

20 always been sort of a weakling. You know, he couldn't

21 engage in sports. He had asthma. His big brother

22 dominated him. There's a lot of -- you know, the

23 passivity sort of underlies the anger that eventually

24 came out. I mean, he has a lot of hostility. He is

25 sort of overcontrolled. He tries to look bad at

Page 15415

1 times. He tries to look good. He refuses to take

2 responsibility. He blames others.

3 These are all part of this cluster. These

4 are his traits. I won't go so far, though, as to say

5 that he meets criteria for any disorder. He's along

6 the continuum, but in any of the actual personality

7 disorders in this cluster, I don't think he meets the

8 criteria. But he did -- he does, I'm not saying he's a

9 perfectly normal person. I'm saying that he has

10 problems. But, for the purposes of the Tribunal and

11 for the purposes of what he's charged with, I don't

12 really think it's applicable. I mean, it's just his

13 personality. And I think -- go ahead.

14 Q. Do I take it, then, sir, that you would

15 disagree with the opinion of others if they found he

16 had an anti-social personality disorder, or whether or

17 not he had a schizoid personality disorder?

18 A. Now, the problem I have with anti-social

19 personality disorder is it's very hard to diagnose that

20 because, well, for two reasons: The main reason, I

21 mean, he was in a war. So, you know, he's going to

22 exhibit some aggressive traits.

23 And what I would like to see, and what you

24 have to see for anti-social personality, is you have to

25 see a conduct disorder prior to age 15. And you know,

Page 15416

1 I know one of the expert witnesses says let's not

2 nit-pick. Well, I mean that's what the criteria are

3 for, we have to nit-pick. And the criteria say that

4 prior to age 15 he has to engage in this kind of

5 behaviour.

6 Well, I have no evidence that he did. What

7 they were talking about, you know, he was with some

8 gangs of boys, that was after he was age 15.

9 What you see in anti-social, you used to see

10 a triad of behaviour which was torturing animals, fire

11 setting and bed wetting. Those are three things that

12 you usually saw in the development in the anti-social

13 personality. When the person was young.

14 He was, he was a friend of animals. I mean,

15 he loved animals. He wasn't -- he should have been

16 torturing the animals, not taking them in. So, I don't

17 -- he just doesn't meet the criteria.

18 Q. Now, as part of your evaluation, did Mr.

19 Cowles give you an issue of diminished responsibility

20 coming from English law that has been proposed by

21 Defence counsel for the accused?

22 A. Well, he didn't, I mean I found some stuff, I

23 don't know a lot about that, but I found some stuff

24 about it.

25 Q. Without for one minute suggesting that

Page 15417

1 definition should be adopted by this Court or even that

2 it will be adopted by this Court, can you just apply

3 that definition to your findings concerning Mr. Landzo

4 and explain that a little bit?

5 A. One thing, apparently it has something to do

6 with the abnormality of the mind. It isn't, you don't

7 have to have a defined psychiatric diagnosis, per se.

8 But an abnormality of the mind, the abnormality of the

9 mind was defined in this 1960 case as a state of mind

10 so different from that of ordinary human beings that

11 the reasonable man would term it abnormal.

12 Well, interacting with Mr. Landzo, I don't

13 know if the reasonable man would term him abnormal.

14 You know, setting aside psychiatric diagnoses, would

15 the reasonable man term this man abnormal?

16 Q. And thus, do you have an opinion as to

17 whether or not the accused had diminished

18 responsibility in 1992? And would you then please

19 explain your opinion?

20 A. No, I don't think he did. I mean, whatever,

21 whatever you invoke, if you invoke PTSD, if you invoke

22 personality disorder, whatever you try to invoke, he

23 still had free will, he still had a choice. We have

24 developed some criteria that link PTSD to criminal

25 behaviour, and it's in my report.

Page 15418

1 And basically, you know, when it's been

2 applicable, it's been an isolated incident where the

3 choice of the victim was accidental, it was

4 unpremeditated, his behaviour was systematic over time.

5 He was systematically -- that's not, that doesn't link.

6 PTSD has nothing to do with it. So I don't think that

7 any of these things we're talking about are, other than

8 the underlying dynamics which make it understandable,

9 at least it's understandable to me, other than that, I

10 don't think diminished responsibility is applicable.

11 Q. And would you agree with me that the

12 personality traits that you indicated Mr. Landzo had

13 are, in fact, not uncommon in large numbers of

14 criminals?

15 A. They are not uncommon, period. I mean, I

16 don't know about criminals, but certainly they are not

17 uncommon in Vietnam veterans who have been involved in,

18 I wouldn't say similar experiences, but wartime

19 misdeeds.

20 In fact, I would like to add they used to

21 recruit people like this for what they called the

22 Phoenix Squadron, they would recruit people like this

23 for that. It was a counter-insurgency,

24 counter-terrorist assassination squadron. They used to

25 recruit people like Mr. Landzo.

Page 15419

1 JUDGE JAN: They purposely recruit persons of

2 such traits, recruited to carry out these assignments?

3 A. They wanted anti-authority people, they

4 wanted people with underlying hostility. They wanted

5 smart people, too, so, I don't know if -- but they, you

6 know.

7 One of my best friends is one of the guys

8 that was in this thing, and, yeah, they used to -- and

9 they were young. I mean, they are young, he's

10 malleable, I mean, 18 years old.

11 MS. McHENRY: Thank you, Your Honours. I

12 have no further questions.

13 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much.

14 Any cross-examination of this witness?

15 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, I have some, but if

16 Mrs. McMurrey wants to go first, I have no problem.

17 MS. RESIDOVIC: The defence for Mr. Delic has

18 no questions, Your Honour.

19 MR. OLUJIC: No questions, Your Honours,

20 thank you.

21 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, I appreciate the

22 offer of Mr. Moran, but we are going in the order of

23 the indictment.

24 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Actually, he is your

25 witness that is being rebutted.

Page 15420

1 MS. McMURREY: No, Your Honour, he is a

2 witness for the Prosecution.

3 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes, but rebutting your

4 own medical evidence.

5 MRS. McMURREY: But, Your Honour, if

6 Mr. Moran is going to cross --

7 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: If you choose, but

8 definitely the evidence about the medical fitness of

9 Landzo is the subject matter of this rebuttal.

10 MS. McMURREY: And, Your Honour, I have

11 plenty of cross-examination for this witness, but the

12 Defence has chosen to follow the order of the

13 indictment, and I will go along with that.

14 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Let him do what --

15 MR. MORAN: May it please the Court.

16 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes, you may proceed.

17 Q. Hi, Dr. Sparr.

18 A. Hi.

19 Q. We chatted about two minutes right where

20 you're sitting before we started?

21 A. Two minutes.

22 Q. You said a couple of things that intrigued me

23 and I would like to follow up on them a little bit.

24 You talked about a stressor about ten months before

25 Celebici. What you had in mind, was the alleged

Page 15421

1 Croatian death camp?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Do you have any independent evidence that

4 that thing existed?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Even if it did exist, he got over it?

7 A. I believe he got over it.

8 Q. Two other things I want to kind of put

9 together: You said that he's a person who refuses to

10 take responsibility for his own actions?

11 A. Right.

12 Q. And he blames other people for his wrongs?

13 A. Right.

14 Q. And then you said he blamed Mr. Delic for

15 these kind of wrongs?

16 A. He did, constant, yes.

17 Q. This would be consistent with finding an

18 excuse for one's own actions?

19 A. Right.

20 Q. And pointing the finger at someone else just

21 to look for some way to take this guilt away from

22 yourself for what you did?

23 A. Right, it's shame. I mean, he wants to, he

24 doesn't -- he's trying to -- in this particular

25 personality cluster, I mean, people don't like to be

Page 15422

1 criticised, they don't like to take responsibility.

2 The problem is if they don't take

3 responsibility, then they, they feel passive and

4 impotent. So they are caught; on one hand they don't

5 want to responsibility because they are afraid to be

6 criticised or make a mistake; but on the other hand, if

7 they don't take responsibility, then they are passive

8 and feel impotent and feel anger and hostility.

9 So, I mean, he's in the impotent passive kind

10 of --

11 Q. This is kind of consistent with, for

12 instance, you saw in the reports that he blamed his

13 father for him not being able to go to art school.

14 A. Right, he's always blaming people. Until he

15 takes responsibility, I mean, he just doesn't take

16 responsibility.

17 Q. So, for instance, it wasn't his dad's fault

18 he couldn't go to art school, but he blames his father?

19 A. Right.

20 Q. Even though his father is not at fault for

21 anything.

22 A. Right.

23 Q. And the other thing that you said that was

24 kind of intriguing to me, and I'd like to just follow

25 it up just a bit is this: You said that when the

Page 15423

1 personality disorder, the clusters, he is kind of all

2 over the place.

3 A. Right, he's been put all over the place.

4 Q. Well, did you find that there was evidence

5 that he was all over the place, if you would?

6 A. No, I don't, no, I don't think so. To me

7 he's not all over the place. He's a pretty inhibited

8 guy, you know.

9 Q. Again, having read some of the reports from

10 Lagazzi and some of the others, with the attempts of

11 manipulating the system, would that be consistent with

12 what you found to take this blame away from himself?

13 A. He's trying to deflect criticism and he will

14 lie to do that.

15 Q. Convincingly?

16 A. I don't know how convincingly it is. I don't

17 -- it's not that convincing.

18 Q. But it is, he will lie to deflect this

19 criticism?

20 A. Right.

21 Q. Out of the whole cloth?

22 A. Out of the what?

23 Q. Whole cloth. Just have nothing to do with

24 reality.

25 A. He has a goal.

Page 15424

1 Q. What's his goal?

2 A. His goal is to deflect criticism, but I

3 don't, you know, I don't think he just lies to lie,

4 just because he likes to lie. I think he doesn't like

5 to get caught.

6 Q. And so, he will lie to avoid blame?

7 A. Yeah.

8 MR. MORAN: Pass the witness, Your Honours.

9 Cross-examined by Mrs. McMurrey.

10 MS. McMURREY: May it please the Court.

11 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You may proceed.

12 MS. McMURREY: Thank you.

13 Q. Good morning, Dr. Sparr.

14 A. Hi.

15 Q. We have met before, we met when you came to

16 interview Mr. Landzo a couple of weeks ago, didn't we?

17 A. Yeah, for 30 seconds.

18 Q. Right, we never discussed this case or your

19 evaluation of Mr. Landzo before, have we?

20 A. No.

21 Q. And you went to see Mr. Landzo, I believe,

22 the day that I ran into you, it was about seven o'clock

23 p.m. in the lobby of the Bel Air Hotel, wasn't it?

24 A. Yeah, approximately, right, because I saw

25 him, both times I saw him was like 7 to 8.30.

Page 15425

1 Q. Well, if the records at the detention centre

2 said you were there for an hour and 15 minutes on that

3 day and one hour the next day; would they be incorrect?

4 A. I don't know. I thought I was there longer.

5 Maybe that's because he is obsessive or something, but

6 I thought I was there longer. My sense was I was there

7 an hour and a half. It seemed longer, I don't know.

8 I'm sure they are correct.

9 Q. When you say he's obsessive, are you

10 referring to this hour and 15 minute and one hour that

11 I have just cited?

12 A. No, I'm referring to the fact that he gives a

13 lot of detail, elaborates quite a bit.

14 Q. Now, Mr. Sparr, I mean Dr. Sparr, excuse me,

15 I know that you were hired, in fact in your report,

16 your report states that you were contacted by

17 Mr. Cowles of the office of the Prosecutor and asked to

18 evaluate Mr. Landzo particularly in regard to the

19 presence or absence of a psychiatric condition known as

20 Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

21 A. Yes, that's correct.

22 Q. And your examination could hardly be

23 considered neutral when your sole purpose was to look

24 for the presence or absence of PTSD; wouldn't that be

25 accurate?

Page 15426

1 A. I don't understand, why. I mean, its

2 presence or absence. So --

3 Q. Right, but you weren't there to evaluate him

4 and look for, to completely evaluate him as far as his

5 mental condition; you were there to look for the

6 presence or absence of one condition.

7 A. I was there to do a psychiatric evaluation.

8 We're focusing on PTSD because that was the focus of

9 the reports I saw previously. But I was basically

10 there to do a psychiatric evaluation.

11 Q. But your report says that you were there to

12 look for the presence or absence of PTSD, doesn't it?

13 A. It says particularly.

14 Q. Particularly in regard to the presence or

15 absence of PTSD.

16 A. Uh-huh.

17 Q. And you just referred to those prior reports

18 which did refer to PTSD, but that's not the sole

19 diagnosis of those reports, is it?

20 A. No, it isn't.

21 Q. Now, you say you specialise in general

22 psychiatry, don't you?

23 A. Right.

24 Q. And so, you are not representing to this

25 Court that you're a forensic psychiatrist, are you?

Page 15427

1 A. No.

2 Q. And you know the difference in a forensic

3 psychiatrist and general psychiatry, don't you?

4 A. Yes, a forensic psychiatrist takes a

5 three-hour multiple choice exam, and if a person --

6 excuse me, a general psychiatrist takes a three-hour

7 multiple choice exam, and if that person passes the

8 exam, they can say that they have added qualification

9 in forensic psychiatry.

10 Nobody ever watches them interview a patient

11 or anything, it's a multiple choice exam.

12 Q. So, you don't give much credence to people

13 who claim to specialise in forensic psychiatry?

14 A. No, I give them a lot of credence. I said

15 that's the process for being a forensic psychiatrist.

16 Q. Is that the process in Oregon or is that the

17 process --

18 A. It's the process in the US

19 Q. And so being a forensic psychiatrist doesn't

20 have anything to do with your experience in evaluating

21 people and applying it to the criminal or legal

22 systems?

23 A. Well, no, not, not before you take the exam.

24 Once you take the exam the assumption is that you will

25 be engaged in forensic psychiatry. You know, I suppose

Page 15428

1 some people are and some people aren't.

2 Q. But the main difference between you and a

3 forensic psychiatrist is a forensic psychiatrist passed

4 a three-hour multiple choice test?

5 A. Uh-huh.

6 Q. Now, you deal mainly with veterans as the

7 chief of psychiatry at the Department of Veterans

8 Affairs Medical Centre in Portland Oregon, don't you?

9 A. Right.

10 Q. In fact, you've written numerous articles

11 discrediting the claims of PTSD on veterans involved in

12 the Vietnam War, haven't you?

13 A. The focus of the articles is to be careful

14 when you evaluate people and, you know, PTSD or

15 whatever, and use the criteria.

16 Q. And are you talking about the criteria that

17 you have cited in your report, which is a three-step

18 criteria, or are you referring to the criteria under

19 DSM-IV?

20 A. DSM-IV.

21 Q. Which is a seven-step criteria?

22 A. In DSM-IV there is three, three clusters.

23 There's avoidance, re-experiencing and arousal.

24 Q. But those are not the only criteria.

25 A. No, under each one there are several.

Page 15429

1 Q. Right. But in your report you only listed

2 three, didn't you?

3 A. Right, I listed the main.

4 Q. I think the Prosecution has introduced into

5 evidence P264 and I just want to go to your CV that is

6 now in evidence. And I happen to have read one of the

7 articles you listed on there, it was the only one I had

8 access to. But there's an article where you call it a

9 mine field, and you talk about PTSD and expert

10 testimony in the field of torts.

11 Do you know what article I'm talking about?

12 A. Right.

13 Q. And in that article --

14 A. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in Tort

15 Actions, Forensic Mine Field.

16 Q. Right, that's the article. And in that

17 article you basically have accumulated other doctors'

18 opinions as far as DSM-IV, and then you have said that

19 expert testimony should not be relied upon; isn't that

20 what you said in that article?

21 A. That expert testimony should not be relied

22 upon? Actually I haven't seen the article in a long

23 time, so you're going to have to quote Sparr to Sparr,

24 I think.

25 MS. McMURREY: Well, Your Honours, I have a

Page 15430

1 copy of the article if it would refresh his memory.


3 MRS. McMURREY: With the assistance of the

4 usher I would like to provide Dr. Sparr a copy of his

5 article.

6 THE REGISTRAR: Defence Exhibit D90/4.

7 Q. Now, in that report, isn't it mainly an

8 accumulation of other doctors' opinions as far as

9 DSM-IV goes?

10 A. Well, I don't recall that, but -- where are

11 you?

12 Q. I think the highlighted parts would show you

13 the doctors.

14 A. Okay.

15 Q. Isn't it mainly an accumulation of other

16 doctors' opinions?

17 A. Well, I don't know if I would characterise it

18 that way. You're looking at page 290, is that what

19 you're --

20 Q. Well, unfortunately I don't have another copy

21 of the article in front of me, but it's highlighted.

22 A. I'm basically referencing other opinions.

23 Q. And isn't it --

24 A. I mean, yeah.

25 Q. Isn't it true that in that report you say

Page 15431

1 that expert testimony with regard to personality

2 disorders and anxiety disorders should not be offered

3 in the courtroom? Isn't that basically what you say?

4 A. Let's see. Can you point to where that --

5 Q. No, but Dr. Sparr, you wrote that article,

6 didn't you?

7 A. Yes, yes.

8 Q. And it's one that's --

9 A. Actually I wrote this article ten years ago.

10 So, I mean --

11 Q. But it is one listed on your CV for your

12 accreditation, and everything, isn't it.

13 A. Yes.

14 MS. McHENRY: Your Honour, I think she's

15 arguing with the witness. She asked him a question, he

16 asked her to point out the section to which she's

17 referring to, and I believe if she wants to ask him a

18 question about a specific conclusion, she should be

19 able, she should show him that.

20 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: She is not, she is

21 merely referring to his opinion in that article which

22 he now says was an opinion which might have been

23 expressed ten years ago. This is what he said.

24 A. I don't know if, I'm trying to -- I'm not

25 trying to be difficult, but I'm trying to figure out

Page 15432

1 what -- I mean this sort of -- go ahead.


3 Q. Okay, thank you, Dr. Sparr.

4 Anyway, you wrote that article and it

5 expresses your opinion with regard to DSM-IV and expert

6 testimony; and is that correct, Dr. Sparr?

7 A. Right.

8 MRS. McMURREY: I'd like to offer that

9 article into evidence as, to show his tendency and bias

10 in this field of DSM-IV and expert testimony. And he

11 has verified that he wrote it. I would like the Court

12 to accept it into evidence.

13 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: It's admitted.

14 A. I still don't understand how it's -- I mean,

15 somehow the way you're characterising it is not

16 resonating with me, so, I don't know. I mean, you're.

17 Q. Dr. Sparr --

18 A. I'm trying to find where you --

19 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Counsel is only

20 suggesting that you in past gave such opinions from

21 ideas.

22 A. But I've got nothing against expert opinion

23 or anything. I mean, it's just not, I mean, I'm not --

24 Q. I appreciate that, Dr. Sparr and I believe

25 now that it's in evidence the Court can draw their own

Page 15433

1 conclusions. So I will move onto another subject.

2 Actually, I do want to cover this. This is in relation

3 to tort actions in the United States; isn't it, this

4 article?

5 A. Yeah, this article, right, correct.

6 Q. And you do know the difference between the

7 standard and burden of proof in tort actions and a

8 forensic application to criminal cases, don't you?

9 A. Uh-huh.

10 Q. Thank you.

11 MS. McMURREY: Just one second. I'm sorry,

12 Your Honours.

13 Q. Now, it appears from your report that you

14 applied a test in your report which you claim was

15 developed to validate a link between PTSD and the

16 criminal act in question; is that true?

17 A. Right.

18 Q. And that test that you have written about is

19 AS - blank in 1985, blank being a name, not that I

20 forgot it, and it was applied in the trauma of war:

21 Stress and Recovery in Vietnam vets; isn't that what

22 you applied here?

23 A. Right.

24 Q. Let's just take a look. Let's say -- by the

25 way, by the way, Dr. Sparr, are you familiar with this

Page 15434

1 book by Kaplan and Sadok?

2 A. Right.

3 Q. The Synopsis of Psychiatry?

4 A. Uh-huh.

5 Q. Is this a well-known authority in the

6 psychiatric field?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And do almost every psychiatrist, even

9 internationally, rely upon this book?

10 A. I don't know about internationally, but

11 people have it. I mean, yeah.

12 Q. Do you have this book?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And if I were to tell you that nowhere in

15 this book is there a mention of this blank test, AS -

16 blank test relating PTSD to criminal activity, would

17 you believe me?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Now, that test, I want to take your report,

20 if you don't mind. Do you have your report right there

21 in front of you?

22 A. Uh-huh.

23 Q. Let's go to page 3 of your report where you

24 refer to this test.

25 A. All right.

Page 15435

1 Q. And on page 3, don't you, I mean, assuming

2 this is a valid test, even if we were assuming this is

3 a valid test, I would like to take each one of these

4 one through nine and discuss them with you.

5 A. All right.

6 Q. In order to develop a link between PTSD and

7 the criminal act in question: Number one, the act

8 represents spontaneous unpremeditated behaviour,

9 uncharacteristic of the individual. Now, that could

10 absolutely fit Mr. Landzo; couldn't it, as far as 1992,

11 which you've read about him in the Celebici camp?

12 He was not violent before, he was a timid

13 boy, he was quiet, he was sickly; so that could

14 possibly fit him, couldn't it?

15 A. The first time he did it, yes.

16 Q. Okay. Now, number two, coherent dialogue,

17 appropriately related to time and place is lacking.

18 Now, you read all of these statements, all of the

19 different statements, all of the contradictory

20 evaluations, all of the, not contradictory evaluations,

21 but all the relations of Mr. Landzo. Now coherent

22 dialogue appropriately related to time and place is

23 lacking; that could apply to Mr. Landzo, too, couldn't

24 it?

25 A. I don't think so. I mean, what that is

Page 15436

1 saying is that basically the person thinks they are

2 somewhere else. So, they are not, I mean, if they are

3 instructing somebody to do something, it shouldn't make

4 any sense. I mean, what they are doing shouldn't make

5 any sense to that person because they think they are

6 somewhere else.

7 Q. Dr. Sparr, of course, we don't have anything

8 to base this questioning on, because you only have it

9 as a footnote. But what you're relating to is more of

10 a psychosis than PTSD, isn't it?

11 A. No, I'm talking about a disassociative state,

12 where a person is -- I mean, they think they are

13 somewhere else, and they are acting as if they are in a

14 combat situation or some situation that requires

15 violence or something, which in fact it doesn't.

16 Q. Okay. Let's go on to number 3. The choice

17 of victim is fortuitous and accidental, you read in

18 some of your reports that these people he didn't think

19 of as human beings, they were thought of things that

20 had to be dealt with. So couldn't Mr. Landzo fit under

21 the category of number 3?

22 A. Well, I don't really see how, because, I

23 mean, he knew who the victim was, so, I mean it's not

24 like he's going to get somebody, he's calling them out.

25 Q. You don't --

Page 15437

1 A. He's not randomly -- you know, he's got

2 specific people in mind.

3 Q. Well, so you're discounting the fact that he

4 was following orders, in several of the reports it says

5 these people no longer were human beings to him?

6 A. I'm saying that he's looking for specific

7 people, and that he's not just indiscriminately finding

8 somebody -- I mean, the orders part of it is not part

9 of this, but I'm just saying that his choice of a

10 victim is not fortuitous or accidental.

11 Q. Let's go on to number 4, the response is

12 disproportionate to the provocation. Surely you can't

13 say that did not exist in Mr. Landzo, even if you were

14 to evaluate him from 1996 and go back to the injuring

15 of his hand in 1991.

16 A. Yeah, I would agree with that.

17 Q. And number five, the act is rationally

18 inexplicable and lacks current motivation; that can

19 apply to Mr. Landzo, too, can't it?

20 A. Yeah, it could.

21 Q. And number six, the act recreates in a

22 psychologically meaningful way elements of the original

23 traumatic stressor?

24 A. Uh-huh.

25 Q. And I think that one is absolutely key. The

Page 15438

1 stressor was violence, and now what is he doing? Is he

2 recreating that same thing? Isn't that child abuse?

3 If you were an abused child, you're more likely to be a

4 child abuser as you get older? Isn't that the same

5 kind of a premise?

6 A. He was not abused.

7 Q. I'm just talking about the stressor being a

8 violent act, in Celebici he was recreating another

9 violent act. That can apply to him, too, can't it?

10 A. Are you talking about the stressor in the

11 camp, the supposed camp?

12 Q. Yes.

13 A. Okay. The stressor in the camp, I mean, he

14 was not in danger himself. He was a spectator, so ...

15 Q. Thank you, Dr. Sparr. Number 7: "The

16 defendant is unaware of the ways in which he has

17 re-enacted traumatic experiences." Mr. Landzo didn't

18 tell you, "I was re-enacting that Croatian camp every

19 time I beat somebody at Celebici"?

20 A. No.

21 Q. Number 8: "The act is precipitated by events

22 or circumstances that realistically or symbolically

23 force the individual to face unresolved conflicts."

24 That applies to Mr. Landzo too, doesn't it?

25 A. I'm not sure. I would have to think about

Page 15439

1 that. I'm not sure.

2 Q. Let's go on to number 9, the last

3 one: "There is amnesia for the episode." I don't know

4 if you read all the reports, but if you did, you would

5 know that in 1996 he was unable to remember every event

6 which he did remember later after therapy?

7 JUDGE JAN: Despite the passage of time.

8 MS. McMURREY: Yes, the passage of time, yes,

9 Your Honour.

10 A. That's probably true, that he -- I'm not sure

11 the reason is because of PTSD. I mean, I won't say

12 that it isn't, but he probably -- yeah.

13 Q. Thank you very much, Dr. Sparr. In your

14 evaluation of PTSD, have you had an opportunity to look

15 at Defence Exhibit 81/4, Defence Exhibit 82/4 and

16 Defence Exhibit 48/4? I'll just tell you what they

17 are, because I'm sure you've had them. One is

18 Dr. Gripon's summary of PTSD and the personality

19 disorders that was introduced into evidence?

20 A. I briefly looked at that.

21 Q. And D82/4 is a grid which has the different

22 names for the ICD-10, the DSM-3R and the DSM-IV. Have

23 you had a chance to --

24 A. No, I haven't seen that.

25 Q. And D48/4 is a diagnostic criteria from

Page 15440

1 DSM-IV on the personality disorders. I'm sure you're

2 familiar with that.

3 A. Right.

4 Q. Thank you. When you looked at your three

5 basic tenets of PTSD, the traumatic event -- just one

6 second. I need to find my book. You say, "The

7 traumatic event is persistently re-experienced. 2)

8 Persistent avoidance of the stimuli associated with the

9 trauma and the numbing of general responsiveness. 3)

10 persistent symptoms of increased arousal."

11 I'm sorry. There's a D47/4 which is the

12 criteria for PTSD. Do you have that in front of you?

13 I mean, not that, but if you have it in your book, I'm

14 sure it's the same diagnostic criteria. It's one that

15 looks like this but it says "PTSD" on it.

16 A. I have the diagnostic criteria.

17 Q. Thank you. In the diagnostic criteria for

18 PTSD, you claimed that he didn't fit any of the

19 symptoms for PTSD, didn't you?

20 A. I didn't say that he didn't fit any of the

21 symptoms. I said he didn't fit -- this is when I

22 interviewed him last or this month, actually.

23 Q. You just stated that he was not suffering

24 from PTSD in 1992, didn't you?

25 A. No, I didn't think so.

Page 15441

1 Q. Okay. Let's go through this a little bit.

2 Of course, "A," he was or was not exposed to a

3 traumatic event, but assuming that he was, that fits

4 "A" under DSM-IV, doesn't it?

5 A. I'm assuming that he did experience that the

6 way he describes it, yes.

7 Q. Let's go into that detail a little bit more.

8 There's something known as the zone of danger, isn't

9 there?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. What is the zone of danger?

12 A. Well, that means that somebody is in -- they

13 could potentially be in harm's way. In other words,

14 they are within an area where there is something going

15 on that is adverse, and they are within striking

16 distance.

17 Q. In PTSD, the zone of danger is not just one

18 occurrence. It can be a continuing experience if you

19 feel like you are still existing in that zone of

20 danger, can't it?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Okay. Let's go on to "B." "The traumatic

23 event is persistently re-experienced in one or more of

24 the following ways," and there's five listed there,

25 isn't there?

Page 15442

1 A. Mm-hmm.

2 Q. I really don't want to read each one to the

3 Court, but can you yourself just pick out a couple

4 where you think Mr. Landzo might fit under, 1 through

5 5?

6 A. When are you talking about? Are you talking

7 about now or --

8 Q. I'm talking about after your review of all

9 the reports in 1992. "Recurrent and intrusive

10 distressing recollections of the event." He had to

11 take sleeping pills to sleep, didn't he?

12 A. No, I'm not sure that he did. That pills

13 thing, I'm not sure when he took them, when he didn't

14 take them. That's -- the information about that is

15 very erratic. I'm not sure. I don't know if he was

16 taking it right after he came back from the camp. I

17 sort of recall -- I'm not sure.

18 Q. Thank you. "Recurrent distressing dreams of

19 the event." Now, that has been rampant in every one of

20 the reports, hasn't it?

21 A. I'm not sure in '92. I think that he was

22 probably experiencing some of this for awhile, but it

23 appears that it went away.

24 Q. And it appears that it went away when,

25 Dr. Sparr?

Page 15443

1 A. Certainly before he got to Celebici.

2 Q. So the reports that you did didn't have that

3 he was suffering from recurrent dreams over here in the

4 U.N. detention centre in 1996?

5 A. That's '96.

6 Q. Okay. That would be after --

7 A. We're talking about '92.

8 Q. Right.

9 A. See, I'm not saying that he wasn't affected

10 by this orientation camp. I'm just saying that I'm not

11 sure the effect lasted that long.

12 Q. Okay. Number 3, did I already say number 3,

13 acting or feeling as if the traumatic event were

14 recurring. I think I already covered that. Number 4,

15 "Intense psychological distress at exposure to

16 internal or external cues that symbolise or resemble an

17 aspect of the traumatic event." Now, distress is

18 expressed in many different ways, isn't it?

19 A. Mm-hmm.

20 Q. Number 5, "Physiologic reactivity on exposure

21 to internal or external cues." Now, physiologic

22 reactivity can be recreating, can't it?

23 A. Well, a physiologic response can be startle,

24 high heart rate, you know, things like that.

25 Q. Let's go to number "C" and about the

Page 15444

1 avoidance issue. Your statement is that because he

2 went directly into the Territorial Defence and asked to

3 be sent to the front-line, that he was not experiencing

4 avoidance of the issue; isn't that what you're saying?

5 A. Right.

6 Q. Avoidance can come in many different ways,

7 can't it? In fact, the precursor here that it can also

8 be a general numbing of responsiveness, can't it?

9 A. Right.

10 Q. You do remember in the reports that he no

11 longer even saw people as human beings; don't you

12 remember that?

13 A. Well, yeah, but, see, at the same time, I

14 mean, he was trying to help people. I don't know if

15 you can go that far that he didn't see people as human

16 beings. I think there was some numbing when he

17 originally came back from the orientation camp, but

18 once again, it went away. I mean, I'm saying that he

19 experienced an acute stress reaction from that

20 experience but that it subsided.

21 Q. Okay.

22 A. And that he did not develop chronic PTSD from

23 that experience.

24 Q. Let's just go on to C-4, "Markedly diminished

25 interest or participation in significant activities."

Page 15445

1 After the Celebici camp, did you read the testimony of

2 the people who said that he was there but he was alone,

3 that he didn't participate or hang out with other

4 people, that he stayed by himself only with his dogs?

5 Did you read that testimony?

6 A. After the Celebici camp?

7 Q. Yes.

8 A. But he also joined the military police. He

9 started relationships with two women.

10 Q. That's another thing I want to ask you. Does

11 a relationship with a woman mean that he doesn't have

12 PTSD?

13 A. No.

14 Q. Okay. Let's go on to number 5, "Feeling of

15 detachment or estrangement from others." Under letter

16 "C," it says you only have to have three or more of

17 the following. We've already gotten to five. We

18 already have five, but let's go on --

19 A. I know we've gone through the five, but I'm

20 not saying that he had all of those things.

21 Q. I understand that. You're not saying that.

22 A. Right.

23 Q. Number 5, "Feeling of detachment or

24 estrangement from others." Did you get that from the

25 reports that were written by everybody else and the

Page 15446

1 evidence that you've seen and the testimony that you've

2 read?

3 A. He had that at times but, you know, at times

4 he didn't.

5 Q. Let's go on to number 6. "Restricted range

6 of affect. Unable to have loving feelings." Did every

7 one of these people say that they thought he was

8 detached and cold and unable to express his emotions?

9 A. They were talking about their evaluation of

10 him now, you know, when they saw him, whenever they

11 evaluated him, '96, '97. And that was their opinion.

12 Q. Let's just go on to number 7. "A sense of

13 foreshortened future. Does not expect to have a

14 career, marriage, children, or a normal life span."

15 Would you say that trying to commit suicide in 1994 and

16 1996 and asking for a firing squad, would that indicate

17 that he has a foreshortened future, that he only sees a

18 foreshortened future?

19 A. At times, he has had a foreshorted future.

20 Also, the suicide attempts are more like suicide

21 gestures rather than attempts. I mean, he has had that

22 feeling. When I interviewed him this month, he did not

23 have a foreshortened future, and my question has always

24 been if he had PTSD, what happened to it?

25 Q. Well, Dr. Sparr, are you saying in July of

Page 15447

1 1998 when you interviewed Mr. Landzo that if he had

2 therapy and 18 months of trying to overcome this

3 condition, that he didn't have it 18 months before or

4 four years before or five years before? Is that what

5 you're saying?

6 A. No, I'm -- no, I'm not saying that

7 necessarily. I don't know about 1996. I'm more sure

8 of 1992 and 1998. I'm not sure about 1996. I know he

9 was depressed in 1996. There are certainly some things

10 that are consistent with PTSD in 1996 specifically.

11 I'm not saying that he won't again develop PTSD. In

12 fact, I would expect him to develop PTSD. I don't

13 think he had it in '92. He certainly doesn't have it

14 now. He could have had it in '96. And I think he

15 probably will, once he starts taking responsibility, I

16 think he will develop symptoms again.

17 Q. Dr. Sparr, you just said you're absolutely

18 sure he did not have PTSD in 1992?

19 A. Let me qualify that.

20 Q. That's after your evaluation for two hours at

21 the U.N. detention centre that you've come to that

22 conclusion?

23 A. Yes, and I read all the other reports too.

24 Q. All the other reports say he had PTSD, don't

25 they?

Page 15448

1 A. No, they don't. They don't all say he had


3 Q. In 1996, they all say he did?

4 A. I don't think they all do. No, I don't think

5 so.

6 Q. Let's go on to "D." "Persistent symptoms of

7 increased arousal." This only has to be indicated by

8 two or more of the following. Number 1, "Difficulty

9 falling or staying asleep." He could fit under that

10 category, couldn't he?

11 A. By the way, a lot of these symptoms, in fact,

12 most of them, are also associated with depression.

13 Q. Right, but we're going through the criteria

14 right now --

15 A. I know, but they are also associated with

16 depression.

17 Q. But you just told me that you can't jump

18 axis, that you can't have one from one cluster and one

19 from --

20 A. Depression is an Axis I.

21 Q. Right, and this is Axis II.

22 A. No, you can certainly, certainly have Axis I

23 and Axis II diagnosis.

24 Q. Thank you. I'm glad you clarified that for

25 me.

Page 15449

1 A. Okay.

2 Q. Number 2 under "D": "Irritability or

3 outbursts of anger." Now, in 1992, you have to admit

4 that Mr. Landzo, in all psychiatric probability, did

5 experience that?

6 A. Yes. That's part of his personality.

7 Q. Number 3 -- well, I don't know about

8 difficulty concentrating. Number 5: "Exaggerated

9 startled response." I guess we cannot go to those.

10 But out of all of these that you've seen, he certainly

11 could, in psychiatric probability terms, have fit into

12 three or more of "C" and two or more of "D," couldn't

13 he have?

14 A. Not in '92 or '98, as far as I'm concerned.

15 Possibly in '96.

16 Q. Dr. Sparr, I will absolutely agree with your

17 diagnosis in 1998. I do not believe that Mr. Landzo is

18 suffering from PTSD at this time. But I wanted to ask

19 you about how you're absolutely positive he was not

20 suffering from PTSD in 1992?

21 JUDGE JAN: He has given his reasons so many

22 times.

23 MS. McMURREY: Okay.

24 A. It's just because of his behaviour. It's

25 just not consistent with PTSD. It's because of his

Page 15450

1 behaviour.

2 Q. I believe you said that the stressor that was

3 described, he probably just got over it quickly. Now,

4 you're not saying that having someone brutally murdered

5 in front of you when you're 18 years old, because he

6 didn't participate in it, that that stressor was not

7 valid under PTSD, are you?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Okay. I'm sorry. I have to find your report

10 that I have here. Now, in your report, the bottom of

11 page 3, you say: "When I first interviewed Mr. Landzo

12 on July 6, 1998, it was immediately apparent that he

13 now does not have PTSD"?

14 A. Right.

15 Q. Now, how was that immediately apparent?

16 A. Because of the next sentence. He was so --

17 you know, he was so optimistic and he was kind of -- I

18 mean, he was hopeful. He was looking for the future.

19 Q. But being hopeful and looking for the future

20 doesn't mean that they have PTSD at that time. It's

21 just one of the criteria, isn't it?

22 A. That's just one of the criteria, but people

23 with PTSD, they are just not hopeful. They are just

24 not, so ...

25 Q. Now, you're saying that he wasn't suffering

Page 15451

1 PTSD because he wasn't avoidant at the U.N. detention

2 centre. What is it that he was supposed to be avoiding

3 at the U.N. detention centre? That is at the top of

4 page 4. "Rather than avoidant, he was actively engaged

5 in his current situation." What was he supposed to be

6 avoiding at the U.N. detention centre?

7 A. Oh, I was saying, you know, just like

8 avoiding the trial and not -- you know, not

9 participating. I mean, he was like another -- as

10 Dr. Lagazzi said, he was like another attorney or

11 something.

12 Q. Is that what you --

13 A. Yeah, that's what I meant.

14 Q. You referred to that as "hyper-adjusted"?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And hyper-adjusted could be another avoidance

17 mechanism, couldn't it?

18 A. Yeah, I mean, you know, he's trying to look

19 good and competent and proactive. I mean, he likes

20 that. He's not being passive.

21 Q. But my question was: Hyper-adjusted could be

22 another avoidance mechanism, couldn't it?

23 A. Avoidance of what?

24 Q. Well, that's what I was asking you. You're

25 saying he was avoiding the trial.

Page 15452

1 A. But you're the one that's saying it's an

2 avoidance mechanism.

3 Q. You said in 1998 he did not have PTSD, but

4 you're claiming that he was engaged in activity that

5 showed that he was not avoidant. You said something

6 about avoiding the trial. Is that something he would

7 be avoiding if he were suffering from PTSD at the U.N.

8 detention centre in 1998?

9 A. He certainly could be, sure. I mean, if he

10 wasn't hopeful, yeah. I mean, I don't think he would

11 be that involved.

12 MS. McMURREY: Your Honours, I have a couple

13 more pages here. I was wondering if it might be

14 appropriate to take a break now.

15 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: We will break and come

16 back at noon.

17 MS. McMURREY: Thank you

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

19 --- On resuming at 12.07.

20 THE REGISTRAR: I remind you, sir, that you

21 are still under oath.

22 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Proceed, Mrs. McMurrey.

23 MS. McMURREY: Thank you, Your Honour.

24 Q. Dr. Sparr, I want to go back to your

25 testimony today.

Page 15453

1 A. All right.

2 Q. And I think Mrs. McHenry's question was, you

3 were here to answer the issues of the mental health of

4 the accused; isn't that what Mrs. McHenry asked you?

5 And you said yes?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. But you were really here to determine PTSD,

8 weren't you?

9 A. Well, no, I already answered that. I mean.

10 Q. You're right, you have answered it.

11 Now, you also said in your direct examination

12 you determined that he didn't have PTSD because of the

13 way he interacts with others. Now, you didn't see how

14 he interacted with others in 1992, did you?

15 A. No, I didn't.

16 Q. And you talked about personality disorders as

17 the end of a continuum, that all people have

18 personality disorders.

19 A. No, I didn't say that, I said personality

20 traits, personality traits.

21 Q. Personality traits of the listing of the

22 criteria?

23 A. Right, that's correct.

24 Q. But the difference between DSM-IV and

25 personality traits and personality disorders would be

Page 15454

1 that personality disorders are pervasive in a

2 personality and excessive; wouldn't that be accurate?

3 A. And they cause symptoms. In other words, the

4 person is suffering in some respects. They cause

5 symptoms. They cause dysphoria.

6 Q. Could you explain what dysphoria is?

7 A. It means feeling bad.

8 Q. And all personality disorders cause

9 dysphoria; is that what you're saying?

10 A. Most of them do eventually. Not all the

11 time, but eventually, yes.

12 Q. Well, people with severe personality

13 disorders might not recognise that they are feeling

14 bad, would they?

15 A. They might not for a time.

16 Q. Now, you also stated in your direct

17 examination that there was no crossing of the clusters.

18 And then on cross-examination you said, oh, you didn't

19 mean there was no crossing of the clusters. So, which

20 one is it?

21 A. No, no, you were talking about Axis I versus

22 Axis II. And, I mean, those are different axis; so,

23 you know, there can be diagnosis in Axis I and Axis II.

24 Q. Okay.

25 A. In Axis II there is -- I'm not familiar with

Page 15455

1 any crossing of the clusters. I mean, I suppose it's

2 possible, but not in my experience.

3 Q. Okay. Thank you. And your experience mainly

4 has been writing about PTSD with regards to Vietnam

5 vets, hasn't it?

6 A. No, my experience has just been with

7 patients, evaluated patients, I've evaluated thousands

8 of patients.

9 Q. What articles have you ever written about

10 personality disorders under DSM-IV?

11 A. There was an article about paranoid

12 personality. There was an article about paranoid

13 personality.

14 Q. What year was that?

15 A. It's in there.

16 Q. But was it within the last ten years?

17 A. It was an article in General Hospital

18 Psychiatry. Let's see, 1986.

19 Q. Thank you very much. Now, in your direct

20 examination you also stated that the accused refused to

21 accept responsibility. Now, did you hear his testimony

22 before the Court on Monday and Wednesday of this week?

23 A. Not on Wednesday. On Monday.

24 Q. But did you hear it on Monday?

25 A. Right.

Page 15456

1 Q. And you're still claiming that he refuses to

2 accept responsibility?

3 A. I'm saying that he avoids responsibility.

4 Yes, I didn't hear anything -- I didn't hear anything

5 that led me to believe that he accepts full

6 responsibility. I mean, --

7 Q. Now, you also, I believe, misstated the

8 evidence in your direct examination. You stated that

9 he claims that Delic ordered him to commit suicide.

10 That isn't what he said, was it?

11 A. He said something about Delic in his taking

12 of the pills, that Delic had something to do with that,

13 either gave him the pills or was instrumental in that

14 particular incident.

15 Q. But he never said that Delic ordered him to

16 commit suicide; did he?

17 A. I don't know if he said he ordered him.

18 Q. And you also made a blanket statement that

19 Mr. Landzo blamed Delic for everything. Now, that's

20 not --

21 A. That's right, that was a blanket statement.

22 Q. And that's not true?

23 A. No, that's not true.

24 Q. And you also did state in your direct

25 examination that Mr. Landzo is by no means anti-social,

Page 15457

1 doesn't fit into that personality disorder.

2 A. I don't believe he does.

3 Q. And you also said that one of the other

4 expert witnesses said let's not nit-pick. Who was that?

5 A. That was Dr. Gripon.

6 Q. He used the term nit-pick?

7 A. Right, he did. I remember that.

8 Q. He also referred to being presented with the

9 Defence submission on the definition of diminished

10 mental responsibility under British Common Law; did you

11 review that?

12 A. Ask that question again.

13 Q. You also said that you reviewed the Defence

14 submission on the proposal of the Defence of diminished

15 mental responsibility?

16 A. Right, I saw something about that.

17 Q. You must have seen it so well you cited a

18 1960 case.

19 A. That was from a book on practical issues in

20 forensic -- it was a British book, I just happened upon

21 it.

22 Q. And your definition of abnormality of the

23 mind was that a reasonable man would think that it was

24 abnormal?

25 A. Right.

Page 15458

1 Q. And didn't you say in your direct testimony

2 that Mr. Landzo was by no means normal?

3 A. Right, he's not -- well, of course, what is

4 normal?

5 JUDGE JAN: You as a reasonable person?

6 MS. McMURREY: I'm saying Dr. Sparr is a

7 reasonable person. I'm making that assumption.

8 JUDGE JAN: I think he is a reasonable

9 person.

10 A. Are you sure you want to make that

11 assumption?

12 Q. I'm sure there are people here that doubt

13 that I'm a reasonable person at this point.

14 A. I'm sure there are.

15 JUDGE JAN: I think every one in his own

16 estimation is a reasonable person.

17 MS. McMURREY: I've been self-evaluating

18 myself recently, and I'm not so sure.

19 Q. Anyway, going back to the questions.

20 A. I think he has a lot, I think he has a lot of

21 conflicts within the spectrum that I described, you

22 know. So whether that's normal or not normal, you

23 know, I can't say.

24 Q. You said in your report that it's possible he

25 was suffering from a form of depression in 1996, but

Page 15459

1 possibility is not the norm that psychiatrists apply,

2 is it? What is the norm?

3 A. Well, you know, since we're not there, you

4 can't evaluate him in '96 because it's '98, so you have

5 to take collateral information.

6 Q. But the --

7 A. I mean, I'm sure he was depressed, I mean,

8 because he was having all kinds of symptoms of

9 depression.

10 Q. Speaking of collateral information, you never

11 went to Bosnia, you never interviewed his friends or

12 his family.

13 A. No, no.

14 Q. So the only collateral information you have

15 are the --

16 A. Are the reports.

17 Q. Right. And what I was trying to say, the

18 more accurate psychiatric term is not possibility, it's

19 psychiatric probability; isn't that correct?

20 A. I never -- probability, okay.

21 Q. Isn't it true anything is possible?

22 A. Well --

23 Q. But whether it's probable is more relevant.

24 A. Okay.

25 Q. Now, you diagnosed Mr. Landzo, you said he

Page 15460

1 was probably suffering from an acute stress reaction?

2 A. Right.

3 Q. PTSD and acute stress reaction are anxiety

4 disorders, aren't they?

5 A. Yeah, I mean, they are. That's very

6 controversial, they are in the anxiety disorder

7 grouping, but there's a lot of people that disagree

8 with that and think they should be an effective

9 disorder grouping.

10 Q. If you were to look in your book right now --

11 A. I know, I know, I know.

12 Q. It lists acute stress disorder right next to

13 PTSD, doesn't it?

14 A. Uh-huh.

15 Q. Under the same disorder.

16 A. Right.

17 Q. The only difference is that the time relevant

18 is different, isn't it?

19 A. Right.

20 Q. And you said that you found absolutely no

21 personality disorder in Mr. Landzo, didn't you?

22 A. Right.

23 Q. And that means that all the other three

24 independent psychiatrists were in correct; right?

25 A. Well, I think, you know, I mean, I don't

Page 15461

1 necessarily think that they are incorrect. I think

2 that they were looking, I think some of them, I'm not

3 talking about Dr. Gripon, but I think some of them were

4 looking at him from more of a psycho-dynamic

5 perspective. I don't think they were using DSM-IV, I

6 think they were giving a psycho-dynamic formulation.

7 Q. Speaking of DSM-IV, that's not the

8 international standard, is it? Are you aware of

9 ICD-10?

10 A. I'm aware of it, but I don't use it.

11 Q. So you're not really familiar with

12 international standards?

13 A. No.

14 Q. So the nomenclature that they just may just

15 not be American; is that correct?

16 A. Correct.

17 Q. Through your direct examination and

18 cross-examination of Mr. Moran, you kept referring to

19 Mr. Landzo as "people like this." Now, "people like

20 this," are you describing personality traits,

21 personality disorders --

22 A. Traits.

23 Q. Okay, thank you. In your report, you say

24 that he didn't have PTSD in 1992 because the symptoms

25 were short-lived and only lasted within a month. Now,

Page 15462

1 from standing here in July of 1998 and relating back to

2 1992, you can limit his response to PTSD within a

3 four-week period? Is that what you said in your

4 report?

5 A. That's what I said in the report, but, I

6 mean, it could have been longer than a month. I'm just

7 not sure.

8 Q. Thank you. Now, it could really be a

9 personality disorder that has instigated or started

10 Mr. Landzo's flight into health. The person that you

11 see today as hyper-adjusted, that could be a result of

12 a personality disorder, couldn't it?

13 A. It could be the result of personality

14 traits. I don't think he has a personality disorder,

15 but it could be the result of personality traits.

16 Q. I want to go back to page 4 of your report,

17 one, two, three, four, five, six lines from the

18 bottom. You say in your report: "In fact, he

19 basically meets none of the criteria that would

20 reliably link" --

21 A. I know. You corrected me.

22 Q. Okay.

23 A. But to me, he still doesn't meet --

24 basically, he should meet all the criteria and he

25 doesn't. He could meet some of them --

Page 15463

1 Q. But there's no requirement that he meet all

2 of the criteria, is there?

3 A. Well, actually, we don't have a requirement

4 in that regard. I mean, the way this has been used is

5 that people do meet all the criteria. That's the way

6 we've used it so ...

7 Q. Well, that's not what it requires under the

8 criteria listed in DSM-IV, is it?

9 A. This isn't in DSM-IV. You're talking about

10 the one that is linking PTSD to criminal behaviour?

11 Q. The blank test, yes.

12 A. Yes, yes. The idea is that they are supposed

13 to meet all of them. In certain cases where this has

14 been allowed, the individual in the case has met all

15 the criteria.

16 Q. Okay. Now --

17 A. By the way, what you have to ask yourself

18 about this is, in each case where this has been

19 applied, there's been one incident, one incident, but

20 this was ongoing, systematic, incident after incident,

21 and, to me, that throws the whole thing out.

22 Q. This blank test that is not referred to in

23 Kaplan and Sadok, they --

24 A. Kaplan and Sadok is not a forensic book.

25 Q. But it also is based upon Vietnam war vets;

Page 15464

1 isn't it?

2 A. Correct.

3 Q. So we don't have any other information before

4 us as to whether all of the criteria had to be

5 fulfilled. Some of the criteria, one of the criteria,

6 that isn't before this Court, is it?

7 A. No, it isn't, but PTSD is PTSD, whether it's

8 Vietnam or not.

9 Q. Well, that's what I'm going to next. Did you

10 read the article by Dr. Miroslav Gareta (phoen) from

11 Croatia?

12 A. Yes, I did.

13 Q. In fact, did you notice in the back he even

14 cites that he based it on an article by Landy Sparr?

15 A. Right. He cites me twice. It has to be a

16 good article.

17 Q. Well, I have no further questions.

18 A. But you do have some further questions, don't

19 you?

20 Q. Oh, yes. I'm sorry, Dr. Sparr, I really do.

21 In that article, there's quite a difference noted

22 here. The situation in the Balkans in 1991, '92,

23 '93, '94, versus Vietnam, isn't there?

24 A. Well, yes, it was a different situation. Go

25 ahead. Ask the next question.

Page 15465

1 Q. In fact, the Vietnam war is one where it was

2 a remote conflict with people from another country

3 going over and taking part in a conflict they really

4 didn't have any personal stake in. Would that be kind

5 of accurate? Would that be accurate, not kind of. I'm

6 sorry.

7 A. They had a personal stake in serving their

8 country.

9 Q. Right. In their honour and integrity as a

10 member of the armed forces?

11 A. Right.

12 Q. But the difference is the war in Croatia, the

13 war in Bosnia, those were wars that came to the people

14 who were fighting, to their backyard. Would that be

15 more correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. In fact, Dr. Gareta writes about the

18 differences and how the PTSD is more relevant in this

19 situation than it would be in a Vietnam situation, and

20 he cites several articles on Vietnam, doesn't he?

21 A. Right, but I don't agree with that. I mean,

22 I don't agree that it's more relevant.

23 Q. You don't believe that there's a difference

24 in the two?

25 A. No, I actually don't. I mean, I don't

Page 15466

1 believe there's a difference in the PTSD. I think

2 actually, in many ways, the Vietnam vets had it worse.

3 Q. Okay. I just have one question from the

4 article then, whether you agree or do not agree, that

5 Dr. Gareta says: "The basic feeling of insecurity and

6 endangerment was related to a much wider circle of

7 potential enemies than can be rationally recognised, at

8 least to a certain degree in a regular war." The enemy

9 was totally unidentifiable, wasn't it?

10 A. But that's exactly what happened in Vietnam.

11 In Vietnam, the vets didn't know who the enemy was.

12 They didn't know. It could be anybody around them.

13 They faced exactly the same situation.

14 Q. So you're saying that the Vietnam war, the

15 conditions that the soldiers from the United States

16 faced in Vietnam are identical to the conditions and

17 issues that the soldiers faced in Croatia?

18 A. Well, in the actual conduct of the conflict,

19 I mean, while they were over there, they felt

20 constantly in danger.

21 Q. But it was only the soldiers that were in

22 danger. It wasn't their life, their families, their

23 homes, and their heritage that was being attacked, was

24 it?

25 A. No, but when they came back to the United

Page 15467

1 States, they continued to feel constantly in danger.

2 Many of them live in bunkers in remote areas because

3 they are afraid.

4 Q. And that could possibly be more severely

5 applied to someone who is being attacked on their own

6 home front; right?

7 A. I don't see a lot of difference. I think

8 it's the same -- you know, I mean, they come back to

9 the United States, and there's Vietnamese all over the

10 place, and they think some of them might be North

11 Vietnamese. I mean, they don't know. They feel the

12 same.

13 Q. I want to go on to another thing you talked

14 about. You said that in Vietnam it was not uncommon

15 for people in such a group as the Phoenix squadron to

16 recruit people like this, referring to Mr. Landzo. You

17 meant someone with a severe personality disorder,

18 didn't you?

19 A. No, I didn't, not at all. I meant people

20 that are overcontrolled, that will take orders, not

21 people that are loose cannons.

22 Q. In fact, in your report, you said you do

23 support the opinions of the other doctors that

24 Mr. Landzo has a personality structure that was,

25 perhaps, susceptible to influence by others and a

Page 15468

1 history of being a follower and subservient to

2 authority?

3 A. Right.

4 Q. Only in nomenclature does this basically

5 differentiate from the other opinions of the other

6 psychiatrists; is that right?

7 A. Right, right.

8 Q. You said that you cannot give Mr. Landzo a

9 psychiatric diagnosis, and he doesn't fit any criteria

10 for DSM-IV. That doesn't mean that he doesn't have a

11 personality disorder, does it?

12 A. It means that he doesn't have a personality

13 disorder, as far as I can see.

14 Q. Isn't there another section there under

15 DSM-IV which says, "Otherwise not specified"?

16 A. I don't like that because it's a waste

17 basket, but, yeah, I know it's there.

18 Q. But it does exist, doesn't it?

19 A. Right, it does.

20 Q. Now, I want to go to the fact that you have

21 in your report come to certain forensic conclusions,

22 and I'd like to ask you about them. I think the first

23 forensic conclusion you came to was whether or not he

24 fully comprehended the nature of the criminal act he is

25 accused of committing. What standard is that? Where

Page 15469

1 did you come up with that standard?

2 A. Can you point to that?

3 Q. Yes. It's on page 5 under, "If Mr. Landzo

4 does not have PTSD," then it is the second line, first

5 sentence, "Whether or not he can fully comprehend the

6 nature of the criminal act"?

7 A. I think that's got to do with his intent.

8 Q. I'm just asking where did this standard come

9 from?

10 A. I don't know if there's any specific -- I

11 mean, I'm not quoting anything, so I don't ...

12 Q. That's your own standard that you've come up

13 with?

14 A. Yes.

15 MS. McHENRY: I would ask also that Ms.

16 McMurrey read the whole sentence which says: "While

17 everyone appears to agree that Mr. Landzo is not

18 insane, there has been speculation about whether or not

19 he can fully comprehend the nature of the criminal act

20 he is accused of committing.

21 MS. McMURREY: That still is the same

22 question. Where did he come up with the standard of

23 insanity?

24 Q. Are you trying to determine whether

25 Mr. Landzo was insane in 1992?

Page 15470

1 A. No. What I'm saying is that that doesn't

2 seem to be an issue.

3 Q. That's correct. It's not an issue. The

4 second standard that you appear to have come up with

5 is, "Did he exhibit sufficient premeditation or

6 criminal intent in 1992?" Now, what standard is that?

7 A. I guess that's got to do with diminished

8 responsibility and that --

9 Q. But that's no where mentioned in the

10 diminished responsibility definition, is it?

11 A. Well, actually, in some things that I have

12 seen, it is, but ...

13 Q. What is that that you've seen?

14 A. Well, it's not a legal opinion or anything,

15 but it's more a description of what diminished

16 responsibility entails.

17 Q. But there's no mention in diminished

18 responsibility case law or definition or standard that

19 deals with premeditation, does it?

20 A. Right.

21 Q. Then you have a third standard here that

22 you've referred to called, "Whether or not he could

23 control or understand the parameters of his behaviour

24 in 1992." Where does that standard come from?

25 A. Well, I mean, I'm not trying to cite

Page 15471

1 standards here. I'm just trying to put this in plain

2 English. I mean, that isn't my intent to cite

3 standards. I'm just trying to write a report and make

4 it comprehensible.

5 Q. Well, what you're doing is you're forming an

6 opinion for this court based on some legal standard

7 that you're applying, and I'm just trying to find out

8 which one it is.

9 MS. McHENRY: Your Honour, I would object to

10 her arguing with the witness, and specifically he has

11 already said he was not coming to legal conclusions.

12 A. I mean, if --

13 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Counsel is free to

14 challenge whatever opinion that has been expressed,

15 because the theory and practice of expert opinion is

16 that the opinions that are preferred is that of the

17 expert, and the expert goes to some extent to justify

18 those opinions.


20 Q. The third standard that you've come up with

21 is whether or not he could control or understand the

22 parameters of his behaviour in 1992. Is that another

23 one that you just have come up with to explain things

24 in your layman's terms?

25 A. That's correct.

Page 15472

1 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, may I just have

2 one second?

3 Your Honours, I have no further questions of

4 this witness. Thank you, Dr. Sparr.

5 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

6 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much.

7 Any re-examination?

8 MS. McHENRY: Just one question, Your

9 Honour.

10 Re-examined by Ms. McHenry:

11 Q. Sir, both Mr. Moran and Ms. McMurrey talked

12 about various portions of your report. In one

13 sentence, one relied on one part of the sentence, and

14 the other one relied on another part of the sentence.

15 I would just like to ask you: Has it been your opinion

16 that Mr. Landzo has a history of being a follower and

17 subservient to authority, however, he tends to dwell on

18 his subservience and use it as an excuse for his

19 behaviour and to ameliorate his conscience. Is that

20 your opinion?

21 A. Right. That's my opinion.

22 MS. McHENRY: Thank you. No further

23 questions.

24 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Let me ask you one

25 simple one. Perhaps it might have arose from your

Page 15473

1 testimony. Is it your opinion, as a summary of what

2 you indicated here, that all you have found here is

3 that there is no personality disorder in Mr. Landzo.

4 A. Right, he doesn't meet the criteria for the

5 end of the spectrum kind of personality disorder. You

6 know, I don't know where he is on the spectrum, but he

7 isn't all the way at the far end, which is what is

8 required to make these diagnoses of personality

9 disorder. Certainly he has personality traits that

10 work against him and that have made it possible for him

11 to do what he's alleged to have done and may also make

12 it understandable, in my opinion. But I couldn't say

13 specifically that he's personality disordered in the

14 sense of how DSM-IV describes these disorders.

15 For instance, he's dependent, but he's not

16 extraordinarily dependent, which is what you have to be

17 to meet the standard. He's rather obsessive and

18 avoidant, but not at the end -- once again, not at the

19 end of the spectrum. So he has these kind of traits

20 that stop short of being a full disorder.

21 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much,

22 Dr. Sparr. You will not be required further.

23 MS. McMURREY: Don't worry, Dr. Sparr, other

24 people have tried to walk off with them too.

25 (The witness withdrew)

Page 15474

1 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Mr. Moran, I think we

2 have an application from you.

3 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, if you're talking

4 about my motion to reopen, we'll withdraw that. We

5 think you have heard more than sufficient evidence on

6 that area in retrospect.

7 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think this is the end

8 of the Defence case. You have no other witnesses.

9 This is the only witness.

10 MS. McHENRY: We have no other witnesses that

11 Your Honours will allow us to call I think is fair.

12 Just for Your Honours' information, we did file, based

13 on the ruling of Your Honour, that what we believed was

14 rebuttal was not correctly rebuttal. We did file this

15 morning a motion to reopen for the limited purposes as

16 set forth in the motion. That has been filed, and we

17 would hope that possibly early next week we can have a

18 motions hearing, but I understand that Your Honours

19 will not have had a chance to examine it or the Defence

20 counsel.

21 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: So as far as the Trial

22 Chamber is concerned, this is the end of the Defence

23 case. Perhaps if there are any rejoinders which are

24 likely to be, because there are none, and for any other

25 applications, I think we may be able to deal with it.

Page 15475

1 I don't expect any rejoinder witnesses. This is

2 clear.

3 If any needs to be filed, it has to be filed

4 at the latest on the 3rd of August. That's on Monday,

5 leaving us at least whatever witnesses you do have. If

6 it is necessary to call them, we will do so. If it is

7 not because they have been covered by whatever we have

8 heard, then I will determine that.

9 Now, if it is then filed then, and perhaps on

10 that same day, by 2.30 p.m., then we will deal with

11 whatever evidence we're prepared to deal with. I think

12 we'll make a formal schedule on this so that it will be

13 clearer for counsel who want to -- so that they can

14 carry on with any preparation for closing arguments.

15 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, there's one --

16 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: At the latest by

17 Tuesday, the 25th of August.

18 MR. MORAN: There's one outstanding

19 application where we've asked the Trial Chamber to

20 amend that schedule. For some reason, I had the 26th

21 in mind. We've asked the Trial Chamber to amend that

22 schedule to allow us to file 72 hours after we're

23 served with the Prosecutor's brief on the theory

24 that --

25 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: That is for that of

Page 15476

1 closing arguments?

2 MR. MORAN: Yes, the final -- so that if we

3 have to file on the 25th, they serve us 72 hours in

4 advance, or if they file on the 25th, we file 72 --

5 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: On the 28th, three

6 days. Yes, I think that is what we're trying to

7 provide. So if, as we now say, the Prosecution files

8 the arguments on the 25th of August, then the Defence

9 will file their response on the 28th of August. So it

10 still leaves us 72 hours of --

11 MR. MORAN: Judge, at least from my

12 standpoint, that's perfectly acceptable and we thank

13 the Trial Chamber very much for that.

14 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think we are agreeable

15 and everybody will accept that.

16 Now, I remember you suggested the questions

17 of mitigation in your brief. I think if you really

18 have any arguments in mitigation, there's nothing wrong

19 in your including it.

20 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, if I can say, we

21 were under the impression that at some point we would

22 be able to present actual evidence of mitigation and it

23 was --

24 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: That is always

25 available. It's always there.

Page 15477

1 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, the only legal issue

2 we would have as to mitigation would go -- the legal

3 issue, as opposed to a factual thing, would go to, and

4 I don't have the Statute in front of me, but there's a

5 provision in the Statute having to do with the

6 sentencing procedures in the former Yugoslavia and also

7 some provisions in Protocol 2 of the Geneva Conventions

8 that we would point the Trial Chamber to. If you want

9 to see that now, that's fine, we can give it to you or

10 we can wait and give you sentencing and punishment as

11 an entire package.

12 I think it might be easier for the Trial

13 Chamber to keep apples over here for guilt and

14 innocence, and then oranges over here for punishment.

15 Whatever is most convenient for the Court, I'll be

16 doing the same amount of work in any case.

17 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: What I was about to say,

18 perhaps you might understand that it is not really out

19 of place in any submissions, even if arguments with

20 respect to mitigation are included, irrespective of the

21 fact that you might also lead evidence on a factual

22 basis to show why those arguments are being put

23 forward. It's not unusual.

24 MR. MORAN: As I understand it, we'll be able

25 to present factual basis letter and also exercise our

Page 15478

1 right of allocution at some future date after the 31st

2 of August, if we get to the point --

3 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: If it gets to that.

4 MS. McMURREY: That's what I was going to

5 ask. For layman's term, just to explain, we're still

6 just dealing with guilt and innocence up until the end

7 of August.

8 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Until a conviction.

9 Then after that, you can then suggest other things.

10 MS. McMURREY: Thank you very much.

11 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, since you said

12 that you will order that by the 3rd of August, the

13 submissions be filed, should the OTP have filed any

14 submissions, the Defence would like to have enough time

15 to respond. So we would ask kindly, Your Honours, to

16 request the OTP to make their submissions tomorrow so

17 that we have enough time by Monday.

18 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think there must be

19 some error. I said by the 25th of August. That is

20 when submissions should be filed. For any further

21 rejoinder evidence, it could be by the 3rd of August.

22 That's Monday. That's quite different from making

23 submissions on the case as a whole. But any person

24 wishing to call other witnesses should do that by

25 Monday, the 3rd.

Page 15479

1 MS. McHENRY: I think possibly maybe there

2 was a misunderstanding. Mrs. Residovic, with what I

3 said to the Court as heard or translated by

4 Mrs. Residovic, the Prosecution has already filed its

5 submission this morning. So that will be available for

6 you today. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear for

7 Mrs. Residovic.

8 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much.

9 MS. RESIDOVIC: Thank you.

10 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think that is all we

11 have for the day.

12 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, excuse me, just

13 one final thing. Just to confirm, the final arguments

14 are scheduled for the 31st of August; is that correct?

15 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: 28th of August.

16 MR. KUZMANOVIC: 28th of August?



19 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: On behalf of the

20 Defence.

21 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Yes, those are the final

22 submissions. What I mean is closing arguments are

23 scheduled for the 31st of August.


25 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 15480

1 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honour, I would like to

2 just make it clear. This, of course, is on the

3 assumption that no new evidence be submitted. In this

4 situation, because should that be the case, we would,

5 of course, ask for sufficient time to be made available

6 to us to carry out the investigation and submit the

7 fresh evidence. Thank you, Your Honours.

8 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Actually, we are not

9 expecting any further evidence between now and these

10 dates. What might have been done is just to satisfy

11 all the provisions, because all the evidence is in. As

12 far as we're concerned, we don't expect anything new,

13 as I said at the beginning.

14 JUDGE JAN: The final submission by the

15 Prosecution will be filed by the 25th and the Defence,

16 the 28th, within 72 hours.

17 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much,

18 ladies and gentlemen. The Trial Chamber will now

19 rise.

20 --- Whereupon hearing adjourned at

21 12.47 p.m. to be reconvened on Friday,

22 the 28th day of August, 1998 at

23 10.00 a.m.