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
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.
24 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Ms. McHenry, I
25 understand you have some rebuttal evidence.
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
7 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You may take your seat.
8 WITNESS: DR. LANDY SPARR
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
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
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
9 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think she will.
10 MS. McMURREY: Thank you.
11 MS. McHENRY:
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
18 MS. McMURREY: No objections.
19 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes.
20 MS. McHENRY:
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
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
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
23 Q. Are you licensed, and if so how are you
25 A. I'm board certified in general psychiatry.
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.
20 MS. McHENRY:
21 Q. Sir, as part of your work, does your work
22 undergo peer review and, if so, can you briefly explain
24 A. Well, I have 81 publications. Most of them,
25 probably 90 per cent of them, have been peer reviewed,
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
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
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
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.
10 MS. McHENRY:
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.
21 MS. McHENRY:
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.
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
23 A. Right, right.
24 Q. Can you just please tell the Judges your
25 findings concerning Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome with
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
1 compulsive, and dependent. So those are clustered
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
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
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.
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
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,
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
25 A. He has a goal.
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.
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
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?
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
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
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
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.
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
1 copy of the article if it would refresh his memory.
2 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes.
3 MRS. McMURREY: With the assistance of the
4 usher I would like to provide Dr. Sparr a copy of his
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
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
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
1 what -- I mean this sort of -- go ahead.
2 MS. McMURREY:
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
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
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
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
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.
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
25 A. I don't think so. I mean, what that is
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 --
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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?
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
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?
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
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."
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
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
1 evidence that you've seen and the testimony that you've
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
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
23 A. Yes, and I read all the other reports too.
24 Q. All the other reports say he had PTSD, don't
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
23 A. Right, that's correct.
24 Q. But the difference between DSM-IV and
25 personality traits and personality disorders would be
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
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
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.
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,
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
22 Q. And your definition of abnormality of the
23 mind was that a reasonable man would think that it was
25 A. Right.
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
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
10 A. Are you sure you want to make that
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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 --
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;
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
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
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.
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
7 A. They had a personal stake in serving their
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
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
25 A. No, but when they came back to the United
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
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
1 history of being a follower and subservient to
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
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
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
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
24 Q. Are you trying to determine whether
25 Mr. Landzo was insane in 1992?
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
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.
19 MS. McMURREY:
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.
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
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
24 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Let me ask you one
25 simple one. Perhaps it might have arose from your
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)
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
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.
1 I don't expect any rejoinder witnesses. This is
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
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.
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
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.
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?
17 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes.
18 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Yes.
19 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: On behalf of the
21 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Yes, those are the final
22 submissions. What I mean is closing arguments are
23 scheduled for the 31st of August.
24 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes.
25 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
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
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.