1 Friday, 2 March 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning, Madam Registrar. Could you call the
7 case, please.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
9 IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, ma'am. All the accused are here. All
11 the Defence teams. Mr. Krgovic is still working at home. Prosecution,
12 it's Mr. McCloskey, Mr. Vanderpuye.
13 Ms. Frease is present in the courtroom. Good morning to you,
15 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: You wanted to see a document yesterday, you asked to
17 be shown a document that you were referred to during the cross-examination
18 of Mr. Zivanovic, if I remember well.
19 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I have delivered these to the
21 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. And Madam Registrar, have you consigned
22 same to ...
23 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, the witness has the document.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So shall we continue, Mr. Ostojic?
25 MR. OSTOJIC: Good morning, Mr. President. Yes, we may.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning to you.
2 MR. OSTOJIC: I don't know if you wanted to ask anything on those
4 JUDGE AGIUS: No, I didn't ask for them, the witness did.
5 WITNESS: STEFANIE FREASE [Resumed]
6 Cross-examination by Mr. Ostojic: [Continued]
7 Q. Good morning, Ms. Frease.
8 A. Good morning.
9 Q. Yesterday we were trying to discuss, although it was late and
10 doing it in a summary fashion, whether or not you found any
11 inconsistencies with the various stories that you heard from the
12 interviews conducted with the various operators. Do you remember that?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And then we talked about whether the logbooks were kept in the
15 same manner in each and every site, meaning the northern and southern
16 site. Do you feel that they were?
17 A. There were some differences between how they were kept.
18 Q. Okay. Can you tell us what those differences were?
19 A. Yes. And now I'll speak specifically about the military
20 notebooks. The protocols or the fashion in which the conversations were
21 kept between the northern and southern site for 2 Corps were very similar.
22 But the way that the division kept its records were a little bit
23 different. They were a little bit different in that they were more
24 consistent in recording the date at the beginning of each day, and they
25 also -- the operators very, very, very frequently signed their names at
1 the bottom of each conversation.
2 Q. Just so I can clarify, so are you saying that in both sites that
3 they consistently did put the dates on or they did not put the dates on?
4 A. They did not at -- okay. At the northern and the southern site we
5 had two units that belonged to 2 Corps, right. One unit at the southern
6 site and one unit at the northern site. At the northern site we also had
7 a division unit that was up there. That was the unit that I was just
8 speaking about.
9 Q. Okay. Now, about what the requirement to have signatures, did you
10 reconcile why there was a difference between the various units as to
11 whether they should sign or initial the intercept that they purportedly
12 listened to after they made the entry?
13 A. I don't recall.
14 Q. How about, did you ever discuss with various intercept operators
15 whether or not they were permitted to analyse the intercepted conversation
16 that they obtained?
17 A. What do you mean by analyse it?
18 Q. Well, to make a determination as to whether or not the intercept
19 was, as you said yesterday, important or relevant or to make a
20 determination with respect to any of the contents of the purported
21 intercept that they captured?
22 A. They were given very clear instructions to write down only what
23 they heard. So if they didn't hear a particular participant they would
24 usually indicate dots, that was the most common way that they would do
25 that, a sequence of dots.
1 Q. Did you --
2 A. At times --
3 Q. Sorry.
4 A. Excuse me.
5 Q. Please go ahead.
6 A. Two questions in there, I think. With respect to the contents of
7 the intercept and you say analyse it, I -- I would say that -- I'm not
8 sure how you're defining "analyse," but there were times when an operator
9 believed that a conversation was very important, and in moments like that
10 he would transcribe it quickly and it would be sent rapidly and sometimes
11 on its own, where the other conversations would be transcribed usually
12 within a couple of hours, and sent as a separate report of a number of
13 conversations together.
14 Q. What about any evidence that you have taken from these witness
15 with' respect to having purportedly a dossier or a profile of who the
16 potential or some of the officers were from the VRS? Did you know if that
17 ever existed?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. In which site?
20 A. At the northern site.
21 Q. Do you know if you ever were able to procure or find a copy of
22 this dossier?
23 A. When you say "dossier," I assume you mean a number of pieces of
24 paper to put together as a compilation or something like that?
25 Q. Well, it could mean many different things to many people. During
1 your interview process with these intercept operators, did it ever come
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And what did you ask them? What did they mean by dossier? How
5 did they explain it?
6 A. I don't remember them using the word "dossier."
7 Q. What did they use?
8 A. A chart.
9 Q. Okay. Well, let's use the word chart then. Were you ever given a
10 copy of the chart they purportedly used in the northern site?
11 A. We asked for it but they weren't able to find it.
12 Q. Did you ask them verbally or in writing?
13 A. I know we talked about it verbally, I'm not sure whether it was in
15 Q. How did they respond, in writing or verbally?
16 A. Verbally -- verbally, I think they said that they would look for
17 it but it was a few years after the events, and they weren't sure exactly
18 where those -- you know, that working document would have -- would have
20 Q. Okay. And do you know what they said to you in connection with
21 this chart, what was contained within it?
22 A. As I recall, it would have been the code-names of the various
23 locations, and positions that some of the primary participants would have
24 held at the time.
25 Q. Did they tell you which participants were included in this
2 A. Informally -- or, well, even I think in some of the statements
3 they were able to remember some of the participants.
4 Q. That wasn't quite my question, if they remembered any other
6 A. Okay.
7 Q. Did they tell you which participants were included in the chart
8 they claimed was in existence at the northern site?
9 A. Whether they gave me an exhaustive list of who was included in the
10 chart, is that what you're asking?
11 Q. I'm not asking for an exhaustive list. Did they give you any
12 indication as to who the participants were that they claim that were
13 placed on that chart?
14 A. Yes. And some of them remembered, some of the participants. So
15 they told me who the participants were that they remembered.
16 Q. And did you record that in any fashion, in any memo to file?
17 A. I believe that that information was included in witness statements
18 and it's also possible that it was included in an information report.
19 Q. Now, let's just go back to your file. Did you maintain a file of
20 all the memos that you prepared in connection with your duties and
21 responsibilities as the head, if you will, of the intercept project?
22 A. I had a binder, my recollection is that I had a binder of material
23 that I produced. I'd like to clarify. At a certain point I wasn't
24 officially assigned -- well -- to the team anymore. So I wasn't sitting
25 with the team anymore, I had other responsibilities as well.
1 Q. All right. And I understand that, Ms. Frease. What I'm trying to
2 just get an idea of is, during the time you were not after you left or
3 before you got there, during the time that you were there and when you
4 were in charge of this intercept project, did you create various reports
5 and/or memos to a file, and if so, how extensive was the file? Could you
6 tell me, was it 20 pages, 100 pages, 1.000 pages?
7 A. That -- that file would have consisted, I believe, of memos that
8 pertained not only to the intercept project, but also to other work that I
9 was doing, so other memos that I would have written with respect to other
10 work. How many pages was it, I would say closer to, you know, 20 to 30
11 than 100 or 1.000.
12 Q. Okay. Now, let me ask you this: Did you find in any of the
13 logbooks when you were reviewing them from time to time whether it seemed
14 as if certain dates were written in certain sections of the logbook that
15 didn't correspond with the actual handwriting of the purported intercept
17 A. Sometimes, yes.
18 Q. And did you ever write a report to indicate in any of those
19 logbooks on how many occasions that occurred?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Why not?
22 A. I don't remember.
23 Q. Well, if you're here to tell us that the logbooks are reliable, am
24 I correct then maybe a complete analysis would require you to, at the very
25 least, from my opinion, respectfully, do an analysis, say, here are the
1 shortcomings of this logbook or that logbook. Wouldn't you agree with
3 A. In an ideal world, possibly. We were working with a large volume
4 of material. Somewhere between, I would say, for the month of July, 1200
5 and 1800 conversations.
6 Q. Let's do it the way you did it. Let's do it through the
7 methodology that you did called sample methodology. You're familiar with
8 it, right, where you take a sample of a big group of documents and you
9 make analysis based on that? Isn't that what you did, with some of the
10 intercepts, correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. Okay, well why couldn't you take one logbook out of the 191
13 logbooks that you had and use the same methodology that you apparently
14 used in connection with some of the other testimony that you have given to
15 give us an assessment as to whether we should rely on these logbooks by
16 using the sample methodology to determine in how many instances in an
17 example of a logbook were there where there were entries that seem to have
18 been made after the intercept operators purportedly captured the
20 A. I'm not sure I would agree that they were necessarily made after,
21 I mean, after what? I mean, what period of time? But the -- the number
22 of times in my memory that that happened were very small, that the -- that
23 there were differences in the handwriting of the -- the date compared to
24 the handwriting of the person that was then recording that first
25 conversation of the day. I would say that -- that those occasions
1 happened very infrequently.
2 Q. Well, how do you know, and why wouldn't you agree with me that
3 they were made necessarily after, if you never made that type of analysis?
4 Just because you've worked for the OTP? I mean that's fair, right?
5 A. I've worked with the material for a long time and had an
6 opportunity to go through many of the notebooks and a lot of the entries,
7 so I think it's -- it's possible that we also asked the operators where we
8 did have a question about the differences. If there was a date that was
9 recorded by someone with a different handwriting, it's possible that we
10 would have asked them.
11 Q. Okay. Well, I haven't seen that report yet and I'm sure we'll get
12 it soon, but let me ask you this to change the subject a little bit, to
13 make it easier, let's talk about voice recognition for a second. Do you
14 know what it is? You've discussed it in some of your memos.
15 A. I think it is, yes.
16 Q. Okay. What do you know about it?
17 A. The way that it was explained to me by the operators was that they
18 had focused on particular areas for a period of time, and after having
19 done this and from conversations where particular participants had
20 identified themselves by name, that over a period of time they were able
21 to then identify that person's voice when they heard it on the radio.
22 Q. Okay. Well let me ask you this. Did you actually, being a
23 thorough person, as you were, did you ever do any cross check to verify or
24 confirm, since part of your testimony in the last few weeks was to verify
25 and confirm certain things, did you ever go back to verify and confirm if
1 that individual operator who claimed he knew a voice of a particular
2 participant actually ever heard the participant's voice prior to the date
3 of the captured intercept?
4 A. No.
5 Q. So you just took his word for it?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Well, let me ask you this: Why didn't you do a sample of, let's
8 say, Mr. Beara, and his intercept that you properly corrected me on, it
9 was the 15th of July, 1995, did you ever go back and say, Let me look if
10 this operator ever captured any other conversation that could remotely be
11 connected to Mr. Beara? Couldn't you have done that and then called it a
12 sample methodology as you have with the other samples you have cited for
14 A. There were three operators, as we know, who captured that
15 conversation, and if we would like to go back and look at some of those
16 notebooks and intercept operators who captured those conversations, we
18 Q. I did.
19 A. Okay.
20 Q. You didn't, correct?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Okay. Let me ask you this: What were some of the factors you
23 asked the intercept operators when they said they recognised the voice of
24 a person, did you list off for them what the characteristics are of voice
25 identification and recognition?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Do you know what they are?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Were there -- was there ever an instance where there were logbooks
5 done in different parts, like having part one of a logbook, and part two
6 of a logbook?
7 A. I'm not sure I understand your question.
8 Q. Okay. Let's say there's two logbooks.
9 A. Mm-hmm.
10 Q. Did you ever find an instance where the logbook was identified,
11 and let's hypothetically use the number 29, where 29, it was identified as
12 being 29/I, and then a separate logbook being identified as 29/II?
13 A. I don't remember that, no.
14 Q. Okay. Do we have logbook 9 here? And while they're looking for
15 that, if I could just put another question to her, if you don't mind?
16 JUDGE AGIUS: By always means, yes. Go ahead.
17 MR. OSTOJIC:
18 Q. Ms. Frease, it was my understanding from reading some of your
19 supplemental information that my learned friend was kind enough to provide
20 us that when they came to the site to obtain these logbooks there were
21 hundreds of logbooks and then the process was that they selected only the
22 ones they deemed pertinent. Is that correct?
23 A. I was not there, but yes. That's my -- yes. That's my
25 Q. But did anyone ever record how many hundreds of logbooks there
1 were when they first arrived in the corps command, as you identified it?
2 A. I believe the sequence was that the -- that the notebooks were
3 found at the northern site, that they had been moved there from a previous
4 site, and had been under the control of the commander that was in charge
5 of this process. That at the time, that was in March of 1998, when those
6 notebooks were found the people from 2 Corps were surprised that they were
7 there, and then a selection was made by members of the Office of the
8 Prosecutor who were there at the time, based on the dates that were
9 relevant to the investigation.
10 Q. Okay. Were they found in a cabinet, if you will?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Do you know if they were organised in the cabinet in any sequence
13 at all?
14 A. No, I mean this is -- my -- the information that I have based on
15 the information that -- based on information from members of the Office of
16 the Prosecutor is that they were in a very disorganised fashion.
17 Q. When the Prosecutor came the second time, were they in an
18 organised fashion?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. So even though the Prosecutor, after the first visit, informed
21 them not to tamper or to even do anything with those documents, when they
22 came back, they were quite surprised to see the same cabinet open,
23 unlocked, and placed with logbooks in some kind of organised fashion,
25 A. Yes, the commander was quite embarrassed that they were in such a
1 disorganised fashion.
2 Q. Did you ever learn from any intercept operators whether or not --
3 or was there a consistency between intercept operators as to how and to
4 whom they turned over these logbooks to?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And what was the consistency that you found?
7 A. My memory is that when they completed the logbooks they would give
8 them to their squad commander, and then when their shift changed they
9 would give them to the commander that was responsible for -- for those
11 Q. Okay. And we'll compare that with the testimony we've heard.
12 With the Court's permission, if the usher could assist us and place the
13 logbook number 9 on the ELMO, and then we could return to that?
14 JUDGE AGIUS: For the record, while this is being done, could you
15 confirm that when you use the word "logbook" it's the same as "notebook."
16 MR. OSTOJIC: Would you like me to confirm that? I've been using
17 it interchangeably, yes. I think it's one and the same.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Just for the record, just to make sure that there is
19 no one coming up later on and saying that "logbook" is not the same as
20 "notebook." Okay.
21 MR. OSTOJIC: But, perhaps, Your Honour, we should -- may I ask
22 the witness that so that we have her understanding?
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, please, of course. Of course. But you have
24 been using the word "logbook" almost consistently, you know.
25 MR. OSTOJIC: I thought that's what some of the witnesses called
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah. All right.
3 Q. Ms. Frease, if I can ask you that, Mr. President's question, we
4 have used the word logbook and notebook, do you find that to be a -- an
5 interchangeable term?
6 A. I use the term notebook.
7 Q. Okay. Was -- were any of my questions, would they have changed if
8 I used the term "notebook" instead of "logbook"?
9 A. No.
10 Q. So you were understanding when I said "logbook" that we're taking
11 about the same thing, the notebook, correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And as an example we have number 9 on the ELMO in front of us and
14 if we could just -- the left page -- no, the left page and just close the
15 book completely. That's it. Right there. And that's what we're talking
16 about when we say logbook/notebook, right, as an example?
17 A. Yes, notebook.
18 Q. Okay. Now this -- I guess I will use notebook for the
19 benefit ...
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Use whichever word you want. It's just to -- to
21 avoid possible confusion by anyone later on.
22 MR. OSTOJIC: I agree. Thank you, Your Honour.
23 Q. Now, if you look at that, there is the number 9 written on it,
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Okay. And that was written by someone at the OTP?
2 A. Either -- either at the OTP or the commander who was with a member
3 of the OTP at the time.
4 Q. Okay. Now, right in the centre of that page, on the right-hand
5 side off the centre there is some handwritten items there and I asked a
6 couple of operators about that, and do you see underneath the RRU 1 that
7 there is an indication that it's 29/II?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. Do you know what that means?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Did you ever inquire of any intercept operator or their
12 supervisors or the captain what that meant?
13 A. No, I don't believe I did.
14 Q. Why not?
15 A. I would have to look at the notebook and see what conversations
16 are contained in the notebook.
17 Q. Have a look, if the Court permits.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, by all means. Important thing, Mr. Ostojic, is
19 that if you are going to refer the witness to it, the contents of that
20 document, we need to know beforehand if it's the case of broadcasting or
21 not broadcasting for reasons that you know.
22 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, thank you.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Use your discretion and let us know, that's all.
24 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.
25 Q. Yes.
1 A. Having looked at it, it doesn't illuminate the -- my recollection
2 at all.
3 Q. Okay. So if -- what if I told you, and I think the representation
4 is pretty clear by the testimony given by the witness, that the witness
5 who testified on this notebook said that there should be a 29/I notebook?
6 A. I can't say anything about that, if that's what he testified to.
7 Q. Let's look at notebook number 22, if we can. And we can remove
8 number 9 from the ELMO for the time being.
9 Are you familiar with this notebook?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. Now, we asked a couple witnesses about this notebook, do
12 you see there where it's imprinted by the manufacturer, I think in
13 Italian, the 1st of January, 2001?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. On two different occasions, correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Did you ever inquire as to what that meant?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Did you know when the year of publication of this notebook was?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Okay. Did you ever look on the back of the notebook to see if
22 there was a bar code in order to determine when the book was actually
24 A. No.
25 Q. Did you ever look in the back of the book to determine if there is
1 a bar code to tell us when the book was placed on the market for retail
3 A. No.
4 Q. Can we look at the back of the book? Is there bar code
5 information on the back of the book?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Would that have been important, do you think, Ms. Frease, in
8 making any determinations or formulating any opinions that you might have
9 as to the reliability of a notebook to do just a little more than just do
10 internal consistent reviews but to do a third party independent analysis
11 of such notebooks, given that we have that information, and ask a forensic
12 handwriting expert or some expert what the significance, if any, of both
13 the date on the front of the book are, as well as the bar code information
14 on the back?
15 A. We undertook a lot of checks on these notebooks, and had we had
16 doubts and substantial doubts, had there been instances, I think, that,
17 you know, had come up, a number of instances that would have cast doubt on
18 the content of the notebook, the times that they were written, or things
19 like that, it may have occurred to us, someone in the OTP, to -- to look
20 at that.
21 Q. So that was your threshold, if you personally or someone in the
22 OTP had a substantial doubt, then you would go to the next step and ask a
23 third party on an independent person to corroborate or to determine
24 whether or not these are authentic or reliable, correct?
25 A. There are many ways that we -- may I take this off so I can watch
1 the transcript? Or are we still going to use this?
2 Q. We don't need it for the time being, but the Court ...
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Isn't it possible to watch the transcript at the
4 same time?
5 THE WITNESS: No, because the ELMO takes up where the transcript
6 is, takes up the screen where the transcript is.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.
8 THE WITNESS: Would it be helpful if I went through the -- all the
9 various steps and stages that we went through in determining the
10 authenticity and reliability of the notebooks.
11 MR. OSTOJIC:
12 Q. I've got your testimony on that. My question was specific: What
13 was your threshold? Was it that you first had to determine there was
14 substantial doubt before you took it upon yourself to hire or to retain an
15 independent person to review the document?
16 A. Is substantial doubt a legal term?
17 Q. I'm not sure, ma'am. You used it, and I'm just using it from your
18 answer in my question so that you would be more comfortable.
19 A. It just wasn't -- it wasn't something that -- that occurred to us,
21 Q. Okay. Did it occur to you to ask the intercept operators if they
22 had made any changes, modifications or alterations on any particular
23 purported captured conversations?
24 A. You mean whether they lined through any of the -- in -- while they
25 were transcribing the conversation?
1 Q. That would be part of a change or a modification, but even more
2 significant, if they changed, let's say, the name from a "B," which would
3 indicate "Badem," to a name adding an "E," indicating possibly "Beara."
4 Did you ever discuss that with any operator?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Okay. Which one?
7 A. We talked about changes and modifications that were made to the
9 Q. Well, did that help in raising this threshold of substantial doubt
10 that you speak of, to say maybe we should have a third party look at this?
11 Did that assist in that analysis at all?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Okay. Why not?
14 A. Because there wasn't anything inconsistent in what the operators
15 told us and what we found in the notebooks. For example, there were some
16 times maybe where a notebook didn't have a number at the beginning of the
17 book. And the explanation was that, sometimes, there was a war going on,
18 there was a shortage of notebooks, sometimes operators brought notebooks
19 from their homes. When we looked at these conversations there -- there's
20 a level of detail to the conversations that just further reinforced or
21 didn't contradict the information that we were getting from the operators.
22 I mean, there is a conversation, for example, on the 13th of July that
23 we've talked about at 10.09 in the morning, involving Mr. --
24 Colonel Beara, and at the beginning of that conversation, I don't know if
25 you noticed it, but it says he addresses the person that he is talking to
1 as Sjor Lucic. The translation of that is "Signor Lucic." That would be
2 consistent with someone like Colonel Beara who spent a lot of time on the
3 Dalmatian coast. Signor, there are lots of -- as I'm sure you know, a lot
4 of Italianisms incorporated into the Dalmatian language. You can say the
5 word, for example, in Italian, which is "dirty," "sporco." In Dalmatian,
6 it's "sporko." In the B/C/S language, it's "prljavo," which is a
7 completely different word.
8 Q. Well, and that's fair, and I do agree with you. Did you ever ask
9 any intercept operators that you interviewed, the less than ten or
10 whatever it was, whether or not they distinctly remember that Mr. Beara
11 had a different dialect, a dialect that comes from the Dalmatian coast?
12 A. No, I didn't specifically ask that question.
13 Q. Did they -- anyone ever tell you that it was hard to understand
14 Mr. Beara because he had a different accent from -- or a different dialect
15 from that which we spoke in Bosnia proper, if you will?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Let's go back to notebook number 9, if you will. I'm trying to
18 just rush through this a little bit, and I know the translators have
19 forewarned me and warned me last night to slow down, so I apologise to
20 them again.
21 I think that this is in evidence as P2319, and if we could turn to
22 page 88 of that document. Do you see it? Yes. And if we can just kindly
23 enlarge it, or at least the bottom portion, because that's the -- it's in
24 e-court, actually. But either way would be fine.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we need not to broadcast.
1 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Now, if we could
2 scroll counsel a little bit so we can capture the second half of the page.
3 Yeah, right there is fine.
4 Q. Do you see that intercept?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Are you familiar with it?
7 A. Yes, I haven't read it for a while, but ...
8 Q. Now, do you know if there were any changes made to the first
9 portion or the first page of this two-and-a-half-or-so page purported
10 intercepted conversation?
11 A. Yeah, I'm not sure. You mean these little -- like swirly
12 scratch-outs and that kind of thing?
13 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment.
14 Mr. Vanderpuye.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: That is the nature of the objection. As to what
16 my learned friend means by changes with respect to the document and
17 specifically which change he's referring to.
18 MR. OSTOJIC: Okay, and I'll accept that I'll --
19 JUDGE AGIUS: I think --
20 MR. OSTOJIC: -- and will put a better question to her.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, go ahead.
22 MR. OSTOJIC:
23 Q. Ms. Frease, I'm not interested, to be perfectly frank with you,
24 about these little squirrelly changes that were made. I'm interested to
25 know if you, as the person in charge of the intercept project actually
1 examined this intercept to see if there were any significant or
2 substantive modifications, changes, or alterations made to this intercept?
3 A. In looking at it here right now, I would say that there don't
4 appear to me to be any significant or substantive modifications or
6 Q. What about the word "riodite," [phoen] that's written above the X
7 and Y on that page. Do you know if that was added at the same time that
8 the conversation was captured by the same operator or at some different
10 A. I don't know. It's written in a different colour ink, that's ...
11 Q. Well, would that lead a reasonable person to conclude that it may
12 not have been written at the same time by the same operator.
13 A. Not necessarily.
14 Q. Does it look like it's the same handwriting to you, just as a
16 A. I don't want to comment on -- on that because that is -- it's all
17 printed, caps.
18 [Court reporter leaves courtroom].
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Hold it, hold it. I don't know exactly what
20 happened, but I saw our recorder leave the courtroom in a hurry, and, of
21 course, the transcript stopped there. I'm investigating that to see
22 what -- what actually -- of course, she may have a problem or something.
23 Please, you will need to bear with us. We have a problem. We need
24 to suspend the sitting, and then Mr. Ostojic, you need to go back --
25 was-- your question was not transcribed in full -- until we get a
1 replacement or we see what's going to happen. She's not feeling well, so
2 we need to stop the sitting for a while.
3 --- Break taken at 9.43 a.m.
4 --- On resuming at 10.01 a.m.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: As I said before, we had a problem which we have
6 sorted out, and I wish to thank the replacement for having left the work
7 that she was doing to come up to enable us to continue the sitting. I
8 appreciate that. Thank you.
9 We'll have a break at 10.30, just the same, because the accused
10 haven't had one.
11 So Mr. Ostojic.
12 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
13 Q. Ms. Frease, before the brief interruption, I had asked you on the
14 record, I think, whether or not right above on the exhibit that we're
15 looking at, in notebook 9, P2319, whether the word "prioritet" was written
16 above the X and Y, and you told us I think - I won't summarise it - but
17 you started to tell us it was in a different ink or a different pen,
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. And then I asked you, do you think it was the same operator
21 who wrote it down, and I think you said you weren't able or would not like
22 to give an assessment based on that or ...
23 A. Well, it's just that the word "priority," "prioritet," is written
24 in all capital letters, where the conversation is written more in a
25 cursive style.
1 Q. So given that you're not an expert, or I should say, not a
2 handwriting forensic expert, that's why you can't really tell us whether
3 that's the same person who wrote the word "prioritet" and the person who
4 purportedly captured the conversation; correct?
5 A. Right.
6 Q. Now, if we can flip to the second page of that document, which is
7 page -- the back of page 43; is that the way we call it? Yes?
8 A. Yeah.
9 Q. Something strange about that, isn't there?
10 A. There is.
11 Q. Yeah.
12 A. Do you want me to tell you about it?
13 Q. You may.
14 A. Okay. I think this was the notebook. I think we had talked about
15 this before where I found we had gave these -- there should be -- if this
16 is the notebook that this happened in, and I can't be totally sure, but
17 there was one notebook that I mentioned where someone in the evidence unit
18 had started to number the pages of the notebook. And I happened to see
19 it -- this might not be the same one. Anyway, if it is the same one, then
20 there should be a note to file by the person in the evidence unit who did
21 that, who at the time didn't know that he shouldn't be numbering the pages
22 of the notebook. So we could refer to it, maybe, by the Bates number
23 0077 --
24 Q. We will, but this is the same notebook that on the front has
25 that -- of -- 29 Roman numeral II; correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. So we have some other problems with this notebook. Now, why did
3 you not want this person or this fellow to write in the notebook the page
5 A. In the evidence unit?
6 Q. Yes.
7 A. Well, because in original documents you don't want to make
8 markings on them.
9 Q. Why not?
10 A. Because then you alter the original state of the document.
11 Q. Now, let's -- looking at the second page of this document that we
12 have on the ELMO - and I think we should have it also on e-court - looking
13 at that, can you just tell us whether there were any -- and you used the
14 word "material" yesterday or -- during your direct, the day before. Were
15 there any material changes that were made to this part of the intercept
16 that was captured?
17 A. Can I look at the notebook? Because I don't have it on the ELMO.
18 Q. Sure. We have it on the ELMO so you may look at the notebook.
19 A. I don't have it on the ELMO -- or, I do have it on the ELMO.
20 Q. Okay.
21 A. Just with respect to the word "material," can we -- are we
22 attaching any weight to that word?
23 Q. Well, it wasn't my word.
24 A. Okay.
25 Q. When Mr. Vanderpuye asked you that, he used the word and then you
1 used it in your answers.
2 A. Okay.
3 Q. So I'm just trying to be friendly and use your words, if I may,
4 and you defined it for us, so just --
5 A. Okay. Any -- you asked whether there are any substantive changes
6 to this --
7 Q. I said "material differences"; I'm using exactly your words.
8 A. Okay.
9 Q. See, what I'm trying to do, Ms. Frease, and it's not a secret, is
10 to take your evidence and then to analyse it afterwards, and to try to
11 establish what it may or may not say as a result of that evidence, so --
12 thank you.
13 A. Sure. I see a -- you know, the letter B that was gone over a few
14 times. We have a different page on the ELMO from what I'm looking at.
15 I'm looking at 00779706 --
16 Q. What we have on the ELMO is just the third page or the following
17 aspect of that captured conversation. So I think it's the page prior;
19 A. It's -- actually, it's not. That's not what I have on the ELMO.
20 Q. E-court?
21 A. E-court. I don't -- that's not what I have on the e-court.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: On the e-court, for the record, we have a page which
23 ends with the four digits, 9621.
24 THE WITNESS: Right. But that's a different conversation than --
25 THE REGISTRAR: Would the counsel please repeat the ERN number.
1 MR. OSTOJIC: I will. 00779706, I believe.
2 Q. Is that correct, Ms. Frease?
3 A. Right. Yes.
4 Q. Now, would you be kind enough to use, with the Court's permission,
5 of course, and the usher's assistance, the pen in front of you and show us
6 what you're referring to when you said the B was written over? But if we
7 could do it on the e-court screen so that we could capture it maybe. Just
8 circle it, if you will.
9 A. [Marks]
10 Q. Okay. Looking at this being the head of the intercept project, do
11 you see any other material changes or differences in that portion of the
12 intercept conversation?
13 A. I see a little squiggle up above by the first --
14 Q. Just circle it.
15 A. -- X. For what I see on the screen, that's ...
16 Q. Perhaps we can scroll up a little. Oh, you cannot?
17 THE REGISTRAR: If we move the image, we have to start the
18 markings again and we will lose all the markings.
19 MR. OSTOJIC: Mr. President, and it was my fault, if we can maybe
20 lose these -- I think we can remember what those markings are and she can
21 make them on another one. If we can just enlarge it a little. Sorry.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. We did that on a previous occasion with other
23 witnesses, too.
24 MR. OSTOJIC: I'll just in --
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.
1 MR. OSTOJIC:
2 Q. Ms. Frease, if you could just remember those two markings that
3 you've made. When the next screen comes up, if you would be kind enough
4 and just re-mark those two.
5 MR. OSTOJIC: And I apologise to the registry and the Court.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: No, no.
7 MR. OSTOJIC: A little further so we get the whole page. And
8 perhaps because -- Ms. Frease, if I could just say, has the benefit of the
9 original on the ELMO, she can then just compare the two and then look at
10 the original and make the notation on the screen, if you will.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we do have the entire page now.
12 MR. OSTOJIC: Perfect.
13 Q. Okay. Ms. Frease, can you make those first two notations that you
14 made, the little squiggly mark on the third line, and then -- oh.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: You need to zoom out again, please, and -- no,
16 that's zooming in. She will do it now. Okay. All right.
17 So if you could mark again that little squiggle that you referred
18 to before, and that B.
19 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
21 MR. OSTOJIC: May I put the question to her?
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, yes.
23 MR. OSTOJIC:
24 Q. Any other material changes; and if so, please circle them on the
1 A. I mean, I don't know how material this is. There -- whatever.
2 Anyway, I'm correcting any little markings that are a little bit
4 Q. Whatever you correct we'll go through and ask you if it's material
5 or not, perhaps. Just for the record, Ms. Frease, I thought you looked at
6 the next page. I don't know if that next page is in front of you. So if
7 you're done just with that page, bearing the last four digits, 9706, then
8 we'll have them turn the page.
9 A. Could we also have the English translation of this.
10 THE REGISTRAR: This document right now has no English
11 translation, unless you have another 65 ter number.
12 MR. OSTOJIC:
13 Q. I can't help you with that, Ms. Frease. Are you complete with the
14 page, ERN number 9706? Any other changes or material differences or
15 modifications or additions or alterations, or whichever word you'd like to
16 use, on that particular page?
17 A. That's all I see.
18 Q. Now, just for the sake of completion, I'm going to have you sign
19 the document, with the Court's permission, of course, so that we could
20 then capture it and date it, I guess.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, signature and date, please.
22 THE WITNESS: On top of the document.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Top right-hand corner, please.
24 THE WITNESS: 2nd of March?
25 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, it is.
1 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
2 MR. OSTOJIC: Then if we could get a -- or retain it, I don't know
3 what the proper word would be.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Are we in agreement to scrap the previous one?
5 MR. OSTOJIC: I am, yes, because I think she's recaptured it on
6 these two, and that's what I --
7 JUDGE AGIUS: What I'm suggesting is that we scrap it.
8 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes.
9 THE WITNESS: I have a 65 ter number -- from the index of the
10 intercepts, I have a 65 ter number for the translation. Is that okay?
11 MR. OSTOJIC: Of course.
12 THE WITNESS: Yeah? 1164.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Can you help us, Madam Registrar?
14 MR. OSTOJIC: Before we go into the English, if I could just
15 finish this little question on this document, Your Honour, for just
16 completion, because there's another portion on the next page, just so we
17 keep it all in context.
18 Q. We'll come back to that, Ms. Frease, if you don't mind. The
19 conversation goes on to the next page, which is -- has the ERN number
20 9707; correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And it has page 44 on the top right-hand corner, which was added
23 by someone from the Office of the Prosecutor.
24 A. Well, no, it actually wasn't added by the Office of the
1 Q. Added by someone from the evidence unit?
2 A. No, not necessarily.
3 Q. From whom?
4 A. Well, I just flipped through the notebook and saw at the end that
5 it says that this -- it says in the B/C/S language that this book has 52
6 pages, and then it's signed by the commander of the VOD. I don't know
7 what the translation for VOD is right now, the unit. And gives the
8 signature of that person, who is the same person who wrote this
9 conversation. [Check].
10 JUDGE AGIUS: I want to make sure that this is not being
11 broadcast, the page that we have on e-court at the moment.
12 I confirm that it is not being broadcast.
13 MR. OSTOJIC:
14 Q. On that last -- second page, page 44, with the ERN number 9707, do
15 you see any material changes, differences?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, you also, if I remember, did a --
18 basically a typewritten summary of each book, including certain
19 information that you found on the front of the book or on the inside of
20 the book, identifying each book -- notebook we're talking about, book 1,
21 2, 3, et cetera; right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Do you have that material with you?
24 A. No.
25 Q. On book number 9, which is the book we're talking about; correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Do you remember if you included in that on the front part of that
3 book that this was part 2 of another book?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Why not?
6 A. Well, because this marking -- the reason that we numbered -- that
7 the notebooks were numbered to begin with was that there was no way to
8 distinguish one notebook from another. We couldn't say this is the book
9 with the green dinosaur or this is the book with the chipmunk, because
10 there were a lot of books like that. So, unfortunately, you know, you're
11 not supposed to mark on original documents, but there -- for practical
12 purposes, there just wasn't a way to do that otherwise.
13 I think on the book 22 that you mentioned before, I think I
14 noticed the number 4 in the top right corner, which may have been some
15 number for them which didn't mean anything for us. I mean, we weren't
16 able to put it in -- we weren't able to find an order to the books that
17 were selected. So that's why these were numbered by the Office of the
19 Q. Well, do you know who -- do you know which intercept operator
20 actually wrote that on the front of the book?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Okay. Did you ever inquire?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Would it surprise you if I told you that was the same intercept
25 operator who wrote what you just mentioned in the back of the book or on
1 the last page of the book?
2 A. It's possible.
3 Q. Would it surprise you it's the same intercept operator that
4 testified here, whose statement you have taken?
5 A. That's possible.
6 Q. Would it surprise you that that intercept operator actually stated
7 that that's an indication that there's another part or another book that
8 goes along with this book, 29/I, if you will, Roman numeral I?
9 A. It's possible.
10 Q. What efforts did you do to determine whether or not -- not only
11 that it's possible, but that it was likely or probable?
12 A. Well, the thing is that we talked about this a little bit before,
13 but the internal numbers that were used, assigned, by the 2 Corps were
14 numbers that we didn't rely upon. They were their internal numbers. And
15 to us they didn't -- they didn't -- they weren't really relevant to our
16 processing of the books.
17 I mentioned that at times we asked about the numbers to see
18 whether they could help to orient us date-wise within the books, and
19 essentially, you know, they weren't able to provide a really firm answer.
20 They said, "Don't rely on those dates and numbers."
21 So, you know, it's certainly possible that they -- that this
22 operator, this supervisor, put this number on the front of the book and
23 that he put that this was a second book to him.
24 Q. Well, did you discuss with this operator or supervisor, however
25 you want to call him, did you discuss any of the changes, material or not,
1 that you found on that intercept that we were just discussing? Did you
2 say, Hey, look, I notice that there are some squiggly marks or I notice
3 that there was a change or material difference in your intercept. What
4 can you say about that? Did you ever talk to him about that?
5 A. I don't remember.
6 Q. Do you think it would have been prudent to talk to him about it,
7 if you noticed those material differences on the intercept?
8 A. At the time we were familiar with the notebooks and that the fact
9 that the notebooks were working documents, and that-- I mean with the --
10 with -- for example, with the conversation that's still up on the screen,
11 00779707, there -- there's a line out, you know, through a word, through a
12 couple of -- a couple of words. This was something very common, because
13 as the operators listened to the conversation, if they listened to the
14 conversation again, then they would make changes to it to better reflect
15 the content of the conversation.
16 MR. OSTOJIC: If we can have on e-court the page prior to this,
17 9707, please -- I mean 9706. Yes.
18 Q. Can you look there. It's my position, Ms. Frease, that the
19 operator here added the letter E next to the capital letter B in the
20 conversation that he couldn't hear from this purported "Be." Would you
21 agree with me on that?
22 A. Yes, that is possible.
23 Q. Well, is it not possible, but it's likely, just based on your own
24 observation of that document, that the E was added --
25 A. Yes. Yes.
1 Q. Okay. Did you talk to this supervisor or intercept operator as to
2 how and why he made those changes to this document?
3 A. I don't believe I did.
4 Q. Do you think that changing the identity of a person from what's
5 been identified as B to something else by adding a small letter E, do you
6 think changing the identity of a person is, in fact, a material
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, one moment.
9 Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: I do object to my learned friend's question.
11 There is no indication that the identity of the person has been changed,
12 although it is true that there is a difference between a B alone and a Be.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Stop, stop, stop. I think the witness can answer
14 that question. I mean, she can tell us herself whether she -- in her
15 opinion, the identity has been changed or not.
16 And the question is: Do you see the material change, as is being
17 suggested to you by Mr. Ostojic?
18 THE WITNESS: Yes.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: You understand now why I stopped you,
20 Mr. Vanderpuye?
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: I do, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
23 MR. OSTOJIC:
24 Q. Now, given that these are material changes, did you inquire from
25 the operator why he made the change?
1 A. I don't have -- I don't have a recollection of that.
2 Q. Let's just stick with this conversation for a couple minutes.
3 There seems to be a reference to an extension there; do you see it? 155,
4 I think it is.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Now, in the years that you've spent or the time you've spent
7 working as the project manager, did you ever try to figure out whose
8 extension 155 was?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay. Some of the evidence here suggests that it was a man by the
11 name of Tolimir. Do you remember that?
12 A. That's not the information that I --
13 Q. Okay. That's information from a witness that was here. Now, do
14 you see in this conversation that this individual who was initially B,
15 then became converted into Be, doesn't know whose extension 155 is? Do
16 you see that?
17 A. Yes, again -- yes.
18 Q. That would be a reasonable interpretation; right? Correct?
19 A. Yes, where it says -- where the person who's designated as J
20 says "155, that's up there, that -- higher house," or something like that,
21 "call up there," you know, that's what you're referring to?
22 Q. That's what I'm referring to. It's the only real reference to it,
23 isn't it?
24 A. Well, there's another reference before that.
25 Q. Okay. To Be or to who?
1 A. To 155.
2 Q. Now, if we can just move along, in the interests of time. I think
3 I understand your testimony.
4 MR. OSTOJIC: Can we have notebook 99 on the ELMO, please.
5 Q. Do you have it? We see it. Can you tell us what this information
6 is on the top left-hand corner?
7 A. It's the radio equipment. There's a date. There's a number, 36,
8 circled, and then over the pink elephant there's a number 99.
9 Q. What's the date? Do you see it?
10 A. 16/7/95.
11 Q. Is that a 7 or a 5, the month?
12 A. It looks like a 7 but it could also be a 5. There's -- it's,
13 yeah, unclear.
14 Q. Well, it's unclear because it looks like someone may have written
15 over it; correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Okay. Now, the 36 on the right-hand side, who wrote that?
18 A. I don't know.
19 Q. Did you inquire of anyone, as to who may have written it?
20 A. No, I don't believe, though.
21 Q. Now, quickly, before our next break, when you did this written log
22 sheet identifying each of the books, such as book 99, would you have
23 recorded in that little reference to book 99 the information that's
24 identified on the top left-hand corner?
25 A. If I could see the list that I produced, I could -- I could tell
2 Q. Okay.
3 A. I think it's more likely that I would have recorded the
4 information that's contained inside the notebook. The strictly
5 confidential number, 08/2/01/535, dated the 14th of July, 1995.
6 Q. And why is that? Why did you make that determination?
7 A. Why? Because that's my memory of how -- of the information
8 that -- that I was recording. I was trying to make a list of the
9 documents that we had.
10 Q. Well, just open -- if you don't mind placing it on the ELMO and
11 having us see the page that you just referenced. Does that anywhere on
12 that page have the letters RRU on that page?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Okay. Let me show you your logbook, or your summary of each book,
15 if you will, and maybe you could put that in the ELMO.
16 MR. OSTOJIC: And this is really my only copy because we just
17 recently received it. And I just circled it. I don't think it's
18 inappropriate, but I would like my learned friend to look at it first.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, exactly, that's what I was going to suggest.
20 You show it first to Mr. Vanderpuye and we'll see whether he has any
22 No objection.
23 MR. OSTOJIC: There's no objection.
24 Q. Now, if you look at that, and this is just -- I'm just using your
25 methodology as a sample methodology, if you look at book 99 there, which I
1 circled, you include some information from the cover of the book and then
2 in other parts you include other information from the inside of the book.
3 Do you see that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Why didn't you include all the information in the front part of
6 the book or none of the information? How do you make that distinction or
7 how do you distinguish that? What I'm really getting at: What were you
8 thinking when you did it and how did you do it?
9 A. I don't know, Mr. Ostojic. I produced this log a number of years
11 Q. Okay.
12 MR. OSTOJIC: If I can have the log back. And then let me just --
13 maybe it's a good time for a break. I think I only have a few more
14 minutes, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Certainly, certainly.
16 Let's have a break now, 25 minutes, please.
17 --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.
18 --- On resuming at 11.01 a.m.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ostojic.
20 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
21 Q. Ms. Frease, we were looking at book 99 before the break. And I
22 see you don't have it, but we'll get it to you. And the entry you made on
23 your typewritten sheet summarising the logbook, I just had one more
24 question on that.
25 In your entry, and I'll get it to you if you need it, for book
1 99 --
2 MR. OSTOJIC: If we could just place that on the ELMO, the front
4 Q. On your entry for book 99, you have the following: "RRU-1/ICR 100
6 And you have other dates as well, but I don't think it's necessary
7 for my question, just so the record's clear. You're welcome to look at
8 this if you like.
9 And now, what I'm asking you is, in the front of the book on page
10 99 that we see on the ELMO, although you've removed the book, is that --
11 the date on the front of that is the 16th of either May or July, 1995;
13 A. Right.
14 Q. Why wouldn't you have written from the front of the book the date
15 as it appeared since you wrote in the information regarding the RRU-1, et
17 A. Before the 16th of July -- I'm going to call it a 7. I mean, it
18 is possible that it could be a 5, but to me it looks more like a 7, so 16
19 July 1995. It says -- there are two letters before that say, "od,"
20 "from." In the -- briefly, when you showed me the list that I made,
21 there are some dates after the numbers that were written inside -- the
22 registration numbers that were written inside by the 2 Corps Command.
23 They are reference numbers, right, they're strictly confidential numbers.
24 And then after those numbers, if I recall correctly, there are some dates
25 that are listed, and the first date that's listed is -- there are a
1 sequence of dates. The 16th of July --
2 Q. Correct?
3 A. -- right --
4 Q. Correct?
5 A. -- was the first one, right?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. And then there are a few other dates?
8 A. Yes. There's a 19th, 21st, 23rd. Those are the only dates
9 written in. Then after that it has the word "104 handwritten pages."
10 A. Okay.
11 Q. But you're welcome to look at this to see if ...
12 A. Yeah. I mean, the numbers -- the dates that were written after
13 the numbers, and it would be helpful if I could have a copy of that to
14 refer to.
15 Q. Sure.
16 A. But the dates that were listed, you'll see in that list, are
17 somewhat, I don't know, erratic --
18 Q. How about arbitrary? Would that be?
19 A. No, I wouldn't say arbitrary --
20 Q. Erratic.
21 A. -- because what they -- what I believe they reflect are the dates
22 that were specifically covered within the notebooks, that were indicated
23 within the notebooks. So, in some instances, you can see that there
24 are -- you know, there's one day, then there's a span of time that's
25 missing, and then there's a sequence of other dates that are there. And
1 so the aim in producing this log was to record the dates that were
2 indicated in the notebooks in order to help us process, to prioritise and
3 process the notebooks in a uniform fashion so that we could, first of all,
4 take -- well, first of all, we had produced a log, an Excel table, of the
5 conversations that were -- that came through in the printouts, in those
6 very rough first 550 pages we received. After we had produced that, then
7 we set about cross-referencing the material that was in the notebooks with
8 the printed material.
9 And in order to do that, it seemed to me that the best way to do
10 it was to make an inventory of all of the notebooks that we had and to
11 record the dates that were contained within those notebooks. And in some
12 cases you'll see on this log that there are -- not in very many cases, but
13 in a few, there are references to specific conversations or names of
14 participants who were talking in specific conversations, if that helps.
15 Q. It does. Would you be kind enough to place that document -- not
16 that one, the -- your log, on the ELMO for us.
17 MR. OSTOJIC: I apologise. Maybe the usher should be doing this.
18 MR. OSTOJIC:
19 Q. If you look at this --
20 JUDGE KWON: First of all, if the witness would be kind enough to
21 tell me what, that document, it is. She called it a log?
22 MR. OSTOJIC: She can answer, but we received the packet of
23 information that's included in this --
24 JUDGE KWON: Yes, I'm asking the witness.
25 MR. OSTOJIC: -- to identify.
1 THE WITNESS: Yes. What this is, is a log. This is what I would
2 call a log as opposed to the notebooks. And it's a -- I'll put it on the
3 ELMO. It is a -- it records the basic information about each of the
4 books. So the first ten pages, I believe, of this document go through
5 book 1 -- it starts with book 1 and goes through book 134, I believe.
6 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. I think that's enough -- sufficient.
7 My question to you, Mr. Ostojic, is that -- whether we have that
8 in our evidence.
9 MR. OSTOJIC: We just received -- we had just received it
10 recently. I don't think we placed it in e-court because we just reviewed
11 it, actually, last night, so -- but I think we could work through and get
12 copies for everyone for that. I apologise.
13 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: I understand that one of the documents that have
15 been dug up now and --
16 MR. OSTOJIC: Correct. That's my understanding. We got it
18 JUDGE PROST: And can I just confirm, Ms. Frease, that you created
19 this document, is that correct? As a working document, is that correct?
20 THE WITNESS: That's correct.
21 JUDGE PROST: Thank you.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
23 MR. OSTOJIC:
24 Q. And we saw the first page of that document. There's no title to
25 it, no date or anything; is that correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Is there anything more to this document, other than those ten
3 pages that you've identified?
4 A. Yes. There are an additional four pages that contain information
5 about the additional notebooks that we received, so that starts at book
6 135 and goes through book 191.
7 Q. Okay. And is there anything in addition to that that would be in
8 this material as log information, if I could call it that?
9 A. Well, there's a note to the file that I wrote on the 28th of May.
10 Q. What year?
11 A. 1999. So it would have been right after I received the additional
12 57 notebooks, or 55 plus the two diaries, on the 10th of May, I think,
13 10th of May. And then also the 14th of May there was another receipt
14 which duplicated the material that was contained in that 10th of May
15 receipt. And this short note to file - maybe I should put it on the
16 ELMO - it indicates -- well, I don't know if we're publishing this, but
17 there's a name in there that probably shouldn't be published.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: No broadcast, please.
19 Go ahead.
20 THE WITNESS: And it -- well, I don't know if I should read it or
21 not. I can summarise it.
22 But what it says essentially is that I received 57 notebooks on
23 the 10th of May from this particular captain, and that I chronologically
24 numbered each of the notebooks on its cover with a black permanent marker
25 beginning with number 135 through 191, and that I placed my initials on
1 the first notebook in this series, and that the first collection was
2 handed over to me on the 24th of April, 1998, and those numbers, 1 through
3 134 were placed on the notebooks by the Office of the Prosecutor. .
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Before we proceed, transcript page 20,
5 last line, line 25, always insist on the use of gender-neutral language
6 here. But Judge Prost is indicated as Mr. Prost in the transcript, if
7 someone could attend to that, please.
8 MR. OSTOJIC:
9 Q. If we can just look at that, does this document relate to your
10 logbook? I mean, is that -- what you did is have this memo to file on the
11 logbook files that immediately -- or is it totally something separate?
12 A. It could be something separate.
13 Q. Because it doesn't seem to me that you had created this logbook,
14 the 14 or so pages, until sometime after this memo; correct?
15 A. I can't say for sure.
16 Q. Now, here it says two dates, it has on it, in the body of the memo
17 or note, it says that you were handed over these documents on the 10th of
18 May, and then on the second to last paragraph, it says, the 28th of April.
19 Is that when they were numbered? Or when were they handed over? Or
20 you're talking about the first and the second collection; correct?
21 A. Yes. The 24th of April is the second date, not the 28th of April.
22 Q. Right.
23 A. Right. These were -- if you recall the first 134 plus 1, so 135,
24 notebooks were handed over on the 24th of April, 1998, and those were the
25 notebooks that were found by other members of the Office of the Prosecutor
1 in March of 1998 that were then transported to 2 Corps headquarters. They
2 were found at the first -- at the northern site. They were transported to
3 2 Corps headquarters and they were sealed in a box and then I picked them
4 up on the 24th of April. Then the next year, in May of 1999, I picked up
5 an additional 55 plus two notebooks.
6 Q. If we could just turn to the book number 99 that we were
7 discussing, unless you have any other comments on that memo. Is my
8 understanding of your testimony then correct that the indications after
9 the "(14 July 1995)," those four dates you have there, the 16th July, 19th
10 of July, 21st of July, 23rd of July, are the dates that are identified in
11 the logbook? You don't have to go through it now, because we have the
12 logbook in evidence, I think, so we could do that analysis. I'm asking
13 you: Have you ever done that analysis, to confirm that?
14 A. That is what -- yes, I mean, that was the purpose of doing this.
15 And I would be happy to go through it now to confirm it.
16 Q. I don't -- I'm not -- I don't have that much time allotted to me,
17 and the Court has been very generous to me. But my question, just
18 briefly: Is it then true that there's nothing in that notebook that
19 relates to the 17th and the 18th of July? Because there's no date on it,
20 at least according to your notebook; right?
21 A. Right.
22 Q. And the same for all the other entries that you made on this
23 14-page log sheet; right?
24 A. Right.
25 Q. That's all I have on that, and we can move on to another topic ?
1 MR. OSTOJIC: If we could have P2319 on the e-court again, please.
2 Q. I forgot to ask you that.
3 A. What -- what -- I mean, I'm -- you might have covered this with
4 other witnesses, but sometimes it was possible, and I think we even
5 discussed this, that sometimes it was possible to fill in dates if they
6 went chronologically through the days. Sometimes that worked and
7 sometimes it didn't, and if it didn't work, then we didn't consider a date
8 to be firm. If it did work, then we did. And then it was further
9 corroborated through the electronic printouts, the dates were.
10 Q. Well, did you ever make a memo or create a memo to file or to
11 anyone explaining all that?
12 A. I believe that information -- I don't believe that I created a
13 memo to the file specifically saying that. I believe that that was
14 information that came through in witness testimony from the operators
16 Q. Okay.
17 MR. OSTOJIC: If we could have page 88 of P2319. I'm sorry, I
18 thought I had that right.
19 Q. This is the same intercept we identified earlier, Ms. Frease,
20 which talks about -- where it has the word "prioritet" on the front and
21 you've identified it. This conversation, what -- in formulating your --
22 some of your opinions that you have here, what was the corroborating
23 evidence that you had about this conversation? That it occurred and that
24 it was reliable, as you say, or authentic?
25 A. You're asking whether there were, for example, documents or
1 something like that that would have supported this conversation?
2 Q. Well, what I'm asking you first: When you say "corroborate," what
3 do you mean? I know you explained, you said documents, the VRS documents,
4 then you said, I think, witnesses, then you used UNPROFOR for an example.
5 For this particular intercept, did you analyse or come to a conclusion as
6 to what the corroborative evidence is to support the authenticity or even
7 the reliability of this conversation?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Did you make that assessment or analysis for any conversations
10 other than those that are in that three-ring book that you have, that you
11 selected and called your sample methodology?
12 A. Yes, there were additional ones.
13 Q. Okay. Well, which ones?
14 A. I don't know.
15 Q. Who would know?
16 A. I had a folder at the time. It was, you know, in probably late
17 1999 or 2000. As -- as we went through the intercepts, we put certain --
18 I put certain conversations aside and then made a selection, tried to
19 cover a lot of different sources in making the selection, which ones were
20 to come in.
21 Q. Okay. And did you make a memo to file so that in case you left or
22 were absent for a period of time, someone could follow your methodology,
23 if you will, or logic, or whatever?
24 A. I would have left the file, but I'm not sure -- I don't -- I
25 didn't -- my memory is that I did not make a note to file with the other
1 documents that would have been in there.
2 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you. We're done with this exhibit.
3 Q. Now, there were some words in some of the intercepts that we've
4 seen, and there's a -- contention as to what they may mean. When a word
5 such as "triage" appears in an intercept, did you ask the operator what it
7 A. I don't think so.
8 Q. Okay. In your index, there's, I think, one dated the 16th of
9 July. I might -- I think I'm right.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. You use the word "triage." Did you know what it meant at the
12 time, or did you not care what the intercept operator thought it meant?
13 A. The -- in some of the conversations, participants spoke in
14 euphemisms and your question to me was whether I know what triage means;
15 is that right?
16 Q. Well, did you ever ask any of the intercept operators what they
17 thought it meant when they purportedly captured the conversation?
18 A. I don't think so.
19 Q. How about the word "parcel"? Did you ever ask an intercept
20 operator that, what they thought that word meant while they were capturing
21 the conversation?
22 A. I don't remember.
23 Q. Well, maybe this could help refresh your recollection. You took
24 an interview, or participated in an interview, of a witness that testified
25 here. This interview was taken on the 7th of May, 1999.
1 MR. OSTOJIC: And if I can just go, for one second, to identify
2 the witness, to her --
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, let's go into private session, please.
4 [Private session]
12 [Open session]
13 THE WITNESS: In the transcript, there should be an L after the A
14 of his name.
15 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, that's correct.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, that will be correct. Thank you.
17 Q. Now, do you remember having a conversation with that individual as
18 to what the term "parcel" or "parcels" meant?
19 A. I don't remember.
20 Q. You said at some point you relied on witness statements. Would
21 you have then not looked at these witnesses' statements in preparation for
22 your testimony here?
23 A. When I first arrived in October, I scanned through some of the
24 witnesses' testimony, but I did not study them.
25 Q. Okay. We can?
1 MR. OSTOJIC: I hesitate to put this on the ELMO, but I'll make
2 reference so we can find it, and it's in the witness' testimony. Because
3 there's other names there, but if the Court wishes, I can place it and we
4 just won't broadcast it.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: We don't wish, Mr. Ostojic.
6 MR. OSTOJIC: You have no wishes, okay.
7 Q. So I'll read it with you. This is your interview with this
8 witness on the 7th of May 1999. Do you know that this was one of your
9 first interviews with an intercept operator?
10 A. The time would seem -- the time seems right, yes.
11 Q. Because you yourself even said it was about a year after we
12 received the material?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. So on the first intercept interviews that you did or was --
15 A. Was I the primary interviewer or was I present during the
17 Q. You were present during the interview.
18 A. Okay. So it was a different investigator.
19 Q. Dean Manning was the interviewer. It doesn't say -- and then
20 there's the interpreter which we won't identify.
21 A. Right.
22 Q. This witness states on ERN 00778117, second full paragraph: "I
23 have heard references to 'parcels' many times on other calls and it could
24 mean weapons, shells, ammunitions, tanks, or supplies of some sort. It
25 was a sort of code word."
1 Do you remember him sharing that information with you?
2 A. I don't remember that specifically.
3 Q. Now, did you follow up with other intercept operators to determine
4 whether or not they had the same view as to what the word "parcels" meant?
5 A. I don't recall, I'm sorry.
6 Q. Would you, when you interviewed this witness, have told that to
7 anyone at the Office of the Prosecution what that word meant according to
8 this witness?
9 A. I imagine that I would have, but I don't have a -- I don't have a
10 firm recollection of it.
11 Q. Now, do you --
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Again, I mean, you are putting the question as if
13 she interviewed the witness when we have already agreed that was someone
14 else who was interviewing the witness. She was merely present. So --
15 MR. OSTOJIC: Okay.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: -- if it was someone else interviewing the witness,
17 why should it be --
18 MR. OSTOJIC: I'll try to clarify it.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: -- she to then draw the attention of the OTP or
21 MR. OSTOJIC: I understand, Your Honour.
22 Q. Can you explain to us what Dean Manning's role was in these
23 interviews that he may have conducted of intercept operators?
24 A. He was an investigator and he was the primary person conducting
25 the interview.
1 Q. And what was your role during these interviews of intercept
3 A. It was to listen and to assist.
4 Q. But did you have a role at all, because you were the manager or
5 one of the lead people on this intercept project, to make sure that all
6 the information was captured and maintained and -- through one person?
7 A. I was there more to assist with, for example, the notebooks or the
8 conversations that individual operators would have recorded, because I was
9 more familiar with the -- with the subject matter.
10 Q. What role did Dean Manning have in the intercept project?
11 A. He was an investigator on the team and he, along with another
12 investigator, were the primary people who were conducting the interviews,
13 at least initially, of the intercept operators.
14 Q. Did he work under you or were you subordinate to him?
15 A. In this case, I was subordinate to him.
16 Q. Okay. Now, do you remember what your first interview was of a
17 witness when you came to the OTP? Do you remember that first time?
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: I object to the question on the grounds of
20 relevance. I just don't see why it's relevant.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, go ahead. I mean, we do not exclude the
23 possible relevance of this, but we'll gauge and assess properly, or more
24 fully, as you go along.
25 But how much longer?
1 MR. OSTOJIC: Just a few more minutes, Your Honour. I've
2 shortened it quite a bit.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, thank you.
4 MR. OSTOJIC:
5 Q. Do you remember the first interview that you took of a witness
6 while working for the OTP?
7 A. I could offer a guess.
8 Q. Okay. Well, let's -- give us your best guess.
9 THE WITNESS: If we could go into private session, I guess.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, let's go into private session, please.
11 [Private session]
11 Page 8111 redacted. Private session
2 [Open session]
3 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session.
4 MR. OSTOJIC:
5 Q. Ms. Frease, just a couple more items, just for clean-up. When I
6 asked you the other day in connection with the exhumations how you weren't
7 sure what your role was, and I should have probably on the two grave sites
8 that I had for you, under Cerska and Pilici, I would like to just show you
9 the third pages of those documents, even though they have some highlighted
11 MR. OSTOJIC: I think it's irrelevant, but if she could just
12 identify that, that it's her name and that she participated in these two
13 grave sites, for purposes that she's already testified to. And if the
14 usher could just show it to counsel so that he can see the markings,
15 obviously, on the paper. It's the third page, I believe.
16 Yes, if we can just place one, the first one, with the front of
17 the documents, just so we can identify which one it is. This one involves
18 the Cerska grave site --
19 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, because Mr. Vanderpuye needs to confirm
20 to us whether he has any objections or not.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: I would just -- and I believe I may have objected
22 yesterday, and if I haven't, I do object on the grounds of relevance with
23 respect to this particular line of inquiry.
24 MR. OSTOJIC: I can respond, maybe.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, let's hear what you have to say.
1 MR. OSTOJIC: It's two-fold. I thought we covered it the last
2 time. If Ms. Frease was involved in the collection of evidence, whether
3 to establish chain of custody or to retain such evidence, there was a
4 report, quite candidly, following her participation in those grave sites
5 that we've identified as the San Antonio report, asking for certain
6 recommendations and modifications to the practice and procedure that was
7 utilised in connection with that collection and maintenance of evidence.
8 So we just want to tie it up, because she seemed unclear when I reviewed
9 her testimony, to the extent to which she participated in these grave
10 sites, and that's why I'm putting it back, to clean up that issue.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I think we have considered your objection in
13 the light of previous questions and the explanation given by Mr. Ostojic
14 right now. We do attach relevance to the question.
15 So please go ahead and answer it, Ms. Frease, if you can.
16 MR. OSTOJIC: Well, he may have objected before I finished the
17 question. If you don't mind, I'll just put the question to her again.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, by all means.
19 MR. OSTOJIC:
20 Q. You see this document. It's the Cerska grave site; correct? It's
21 a report by Mr. Haglund; right.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And it's a very extensive report, and I didn't bring the entire
24 report, but at the back of the report he has a table of contents or index,
25 reference sources, and I think in the last page of that document,
1 references in two sections that you participated in the, what, transfer of
2 evidence, under B and C? Do you see that?
3 A. That's what it says.
4 Q. Okay. You were involved in that, as we called it, that exhumation
5 called Cerska; correct?
6 A. No, I wasn't involved in the exhumation. I think it's important
7 to make a distinction between an exhumation and preliminary field missions
8 and probing missions, if we want to call them that. I was present when
9 the OTP investigative teams went out to the field initially in 1996 and
10 when we were in the process of trying to locate and identify locations of
11 detention and mass graves and other detention points, when people were
12 coming down from the -- down from the hillsides. And so it was our
13 purpose to try to identify these sites and to see whether further work
14 needed to be done on them.
15 I was certainly present at the Cerska site, the Cerska location,
16 when we located the place -- when we located what appeared to be a mass
17 grave. But I wasn't present, and I didn't participate in the exhumation
18 process as such, which involved anthropologists and numerous other people.
19 Q. And we understand that. I'm not suggesting you were actually
20 conducting the exhumations, and I used the term broadly, and I apologise
21 to you. But what evidence, according to this, were you given -- or
22 take -- what evidence did you take possession of from that grave site?
23 A. We produced -- I produced logs of material that we found at the
24 sites during our first visits.
25 Q. Okay. And that would be the same -- or the same would be true for
1 the Pilici site; correct? To short circuit it, why don't we just put the
2 Pilici thing, even though this refers to both --
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Before you do that, we still need for the record the
4 reference number of this last document that you referred the witness to.
5 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, Your Honour, but just before --
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Because you just said page 3 of that document, but
7 we don't know which document it is.
8 MR. OSTOJIC: I think earlier I said it was the last page but
9 within my -- these were just my abbreviated notes on the document. This
10 document has been introduced by the Office of the Prosecutor into evidence
11 with Dr. Haglund, so the document is either in the Court's possession or
12 will be next week. I just didn't think it would be necessary to duplicate
13 the effort.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, I understand that.
15 MR. OSTOJIC: Fair enough.
16 Q. Now, this one is the Pilica; correct?
17 A. Pilica.
18 Q. Pilica. And if you look at the last page of this three-page, very
19 abbreviated section, document, I think your name appears on it; correct?
20 A. Mm-hmmm. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. And again it talks about, excuse me, the transfer of
22 certain type of evidence; correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Okay. And this was done in those dates on that exhumation site or
25 grave site; correct?
1 A. It would be my preference to be able to reference my own documents
2 rather than relying on somebody else's.
3 Q. Well, we asked for some or all of your documents. We haven't
4 received that, but hopefully we will in the future. I think it's better
5 to always refer to the witness' own documents. We can put that away. I
6 just have a couple other questions.
7 Do you know if anyone, including yourself, from the OTP
8 participated in making the finalisation of the cause of death on any of
9 the autopsies that were performed in these grave sites?
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I reiterate my objection on the
12 grounds of relevance. I think this goes well beyond the scope --
13 JUDGE AGIUS: At this time -- at this time, you really need to
14 explain the relevance of your question.
15 MR. OSTOJIC: I think if we look at Dr. Haglund's reports,
16 specifically in the conclusion section -- now I know I'm giving it away to
17 the witness, but it specifically states who made the finalisation in both
18 the cause and the manner of death and how it was actually done. And
19 there's evidence, we think, through the San Antonio report that there was
20 an issue, at least a dispute, as to how and what involvement the OTP
21 should have in that entire process.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I think we need to approach it in a different
24 manner. You have sought to establish that Ms. Frease was involved, in one
25 or more ways, in receiving material which was discovered in the course of
1 exhumations or digging up of grave sites. I think before you -- we can
2 allow you to put the question that you have put to her now, you need to
3 ask her whether, after receiving this material, she was involved in the
4 process of establishing the cause of death, as you put it. Because if she
5 wasn't, then I don't see - we don't see - how your question can be put to
6 her in the first place and how it can be relevant, at least as far as
7 she's concerned. I do hope I've made myself clear, or at least I hope I
8 have .
9 MR. OSTOJIC: You have.
10 Q. Did you -- obviously, Ms. Frease, you heard Mr. President's
11 question or comment. Do you need me to repeat it or -- did you understand
12 it and can you provide an answer to us?
13 A. Yes. What I understand the question to be is whether I received
14 material which was discovered in the course of exhumations, or the digging
15 up of grave sites. And I would like to make the distinction again between
16 exhumations and the field investigations, the preliminary field
17 investigations. I was involved in the latter and not the former.
18 By "exhumation," I understand it to mean the formal -- formally
19 taking material out of the ground, bodies out of the ground, in a very
20 systematic way, by anthropologists and by other forensic people who are
21 experienced and professional in this area. What I was involve -- I was
22 not involved in that.
23 What I was involved in was participating in site visits in --
24 early on to determine the locations of those graves that were then later
25 exhumed. In the process of visiting those and identifying those
1 locations, I was involved in cataloguing material that we located above --
2 mostly above the ground, as I think I mentioned before, like shell
3 casings, like identification documents, ligatures, blindfolds, things --
4 things like that that we -- at dump sites and schools and places like
6 Q. Thank you.
7 MR. OSTOJIC: If I can just switch to another topic. I think we
8 have our answer, and that's fine.
9 Q. Now, if you had that list of names of various participants or
10 officers in the VRS that you showed us during your direct examination; it
11 was an index that I think is still in your folder of materials. Just
12 asking you, in the brief moments I have, the name Ljubo, do you know if
13 that's a full name or an abbreviated name for some other name?
14 A. It certainly is an abbreviated name for some different names. I
15 don't know whether Ljubo by itself is a full first name.
16 Q. Okay. Can we have your index on the ELMO, if you don't mind
17 helping us with that.
18 A. Oh, sorry.
19 Q. That's okay. And then we're almost down, Ms. Frease.
20 MR. OSTOJIC: And thank you, Your Honours.
21 Q. We see the index of names, "intercepted communication." Do you
22 see that?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Okay. Fifth one down is a gentleman by the name of Major Ljubo
25 Bojanovic. Do you see that?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Not abbreviated; his full name; right?
3 A. I can't say for sure.
4 Q. Who created the document?
5 A. It was created with information from the military analysts, that
6 the military analyst provided.
7 Q. Well, in what conversations do you believe that Ljubo Bojanovic
8 was involved in, since you identify him as being on this intercepted
9 communication index of names?
10 A. If you gave me some time to go through the index of intercepted
11 communication, I might be able to answer your question.
12 Q. Okay. I don't have the right to any of that. It's at the Court's
13 pleasure, obviously.
14 Now, the abbreviated word for Ljubo would be what other kinds of
15 names; do you know?
16 A. Well, Ljubisa, for example.
17 Q. Any others?
18 A. Ljubomir.
19 Q. Any others?
20 A. Those are the ones that come to mind right now.
21 Q. In intercepted conversations where the name Ljubo was identified
22 as being a participant, purportedly, what did you do to determine whether
23 it was Ljubisa Beara or Ljubo Bojanovic?
24 A. I believe there is a conversation later -- a bit later in time
25 that can be attributed to Ljubo Bojanovic because of the context in which
1 it takes place.
2 Q. And do you remember who he may have had this conversation with?
3 Like, let's say, Jokic?
4 A. No, I can't say that. Without finding the conversation, I can't.
5 But -- no, I can't.
6 Q. I think that's all I have, Ms. Frease, for the moment.
7 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you very much, Your Honours. And I appreciate
8 the extra time that the Court gave me.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: We've been patient.
10 Who is next?
11 Go ahead, Mr. Bourgon or Bourgon, or whichever way you prefer it.
12 MR. BOURGON: I think I don't know myself anymore. Good morning,
13 Mr. President.
14 Cross-examination by Mr. Bourgon:
15 Q. Good morning, Ms. Frease.
16 A. Good morning.
17 Q. I have a couple of issues I'd like to cover with you today, and
18 I'll try to keep my questions as short as possible. I thought we could
19 conclude your testimony today, but I'm not sure because I know that some
20 of my colleagues want to ask you some questions also. I'll try to do as
21 best as I can to be quick.
22 First of all, you mentioned in response to a question by my
23 colleague, and that was on the 27th of February, and that was on page 10,
24 lines 18 to 24, the question was: "Were you aware of the possibility that
25 these intercepts might have been fabricated, reinvented, corrected, and
1 tampered with during that period of three years?" And your response was:
2 "Not specifically during that period of three years, but that -- that was
3 a possibility in general, yes."
4 Can you confirm that this is what you meant, is that you are aware
5 of that possibility of tampering and fabrication of intercepts?
6 A. We were certainly aware, yes, very attentive, to that possibility.
7 Q. Thank you. Now, if I look at the -- having this possibility in
8 mind and doing the work you had to do as the head of the intercept
9 project, I would suggest to you that the best source that you have to
10 confirm that a conversation is, indeed, authentic is the tape or the
11 recording of that conversation; is that correct?
12 A. It's a very good source, yes.
13 Q. And, of course, it is a good source because on the tape you can
14 hear voices and it would be much more difficult to fabricate or to tamper
15 with, and you have time today to transcribe the contents and to really
16 analyse it. So it is a better source, and it is actually the best source
17 you have; is that correct?
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Unless the tape itself is fabricated, the recording.
19 MR. BOURGON: Absolutely, Mr. President; I couldn't agree more.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead, Ms. Frease.
21 THE WITNESS: It's a source, right, but I think other -- using
22 other sources to corroborate the information is also very strong.
23 MR. BOURGON:
24 Q. My question to you is simply: You say it's a source, you said it
25 was a very good source, and I'm simply asking you to confirm reasons why
1 this particular source would be good. And I suggest to you that, unlike
2 the operators who had to listen to these conversations in a wartime
3 scenario before they could transcribe them, and that they were under
4 stress; if you have a tape yourself today it's easier because you have all
5 the time in the world to listen to it and to transcribe it properly.
6 Would that be another reason why recordings are better?
7 A. It's a reason why recordings are very good, yes.
8 Q. And would you agree with me -- you had a long conversation with my
9 colleague over the word "material difference." My question, I'll try to
10 make it a bit simpler. Would you agree with me that changing a few words
11 in a conversation can alter the meaning of a conversation?
12 A. One would have to look at the conversations and the words that are
13 different. In principle, yes, it is possible.
14 Q. And, of course, if parts of a conversation cannot be heard on a
15 tape, or, even better, if you only hear one of the two interlocutors or
16 one of the two speakers, then of course that affects what you can draw --
17 the conclusions you can draw from a conversation; would you agree with
19 A. It could, yes.
20 Q. Now, moving on to another source that you use in this project, and
21 I suggest to you that was your second best source, and that was the
22 notebooks; would you agree with that?
23 A. I don't -- second best source? I think they are very strong -- I
24 think they are a very strong source.
25 Q. I would simply suggest that to you that on the basis that, because
1 a notebook, if, of course, it's a true notebook, just like Mr. President
2 said about the tape, if it is a notebook that existed at the time, of
3 course it was compiled at the time the conversation took place, so it
4 would be a more reliable source than something that is done after the
5 conversation took place. Would you agree?
6 A. Yes, I -- yes.
7 Q. And another reason why the notebooks could be a good source is
8 because those notebooks - and you've worked with those notebooks quite a
9 bit - they illustrate the difficulties that were encountered by the
10 intercept operators; would you agree with that?
11 A. Yes, they certainly encounter challenges.
12 Q. And with respect to these notebooks, I suggest to you that what
13 you find in those notebooks - and to answer this question, I guess you'll
14 have to refer to your knowledge of the interviews you've conducted with
15 the intercept operators - I would suggest to you that they represent the
16 best guess of the -- the best guess of the operators at the time; would
17 you agree with that?
18 A. No, I wouldn't.
19 Q. And why is that?
20 A. Because the notebooks -- because there was a methodology behind
21 the way that the operators recorded conversations that they heard into the
22 notebook, and they were specifically instructed not to guess. And if they
23 had any doubt, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of examples where
24 particular parts of conversations or participants in a conversation or
25 whatever are unclear and where the intercept operators indicated that.
1 Q. Thank you. I'm glad you mention a thousand. We'll get back to
2 that number a little later. For now, I take it that you are aware that
3 the operators, the intercept operators, when they did not understand parts
4 of a conversation, the usual practice was for them to seek the assistance
5 of one or more of their colleagues in trying to identify what was on the
6 tape. Are you familiar with that, based on your interviews?
7 A. It depended. That didn't always happen; it did sometimes happen,
9 Q. Because we have, actually, many witnesses, intercept operators,
10 who came here to testify before this Court, saying that it was a normal
11 practice and that more often than not they had to listen, first, many
12 times to the same intercept; and, second of all, that they had to refer to
13 colleagues regularly to try and make up the -- to try and find out what
14 was on the tape. So I just suggest to you that it was, indeed, a
15 challenge for them in wartime conditions to try and come up with the real
16 wording that was on those tapes.
17 A. Yes, it's very difficult to make a transcript.
18 Q. Now, if I move on to a third source, I suggest a third source that
19 you had was those printouts, and I suggest to you that the printouts that
20 you received would be less reliable because, of course, they are
21 computer-generated and everyone knows what can be done with a computer;
22 would you agree with that?
23 A. Not necessarily.
24 Q. Would you agree with the fact that a computer-generated printout
25 is that, in the process, the easiest part that could be tampered with, if
1 that was the case?
2 A. If that was the case, but that's very hypothetical.
3 Q. My question is simple, that in between a recording, a notebook,
4 and a printout, which of the three is most reliable and which are -- is
5 less reliable in the sense of the possibility of altering the contents?
6 A. Again, it's a -- to me it's a very hypothetical question, and I
7 think that, you know, some of the operators -- most of the operators
8 really relied upon the notebooks and believed that they were a very solid
9 representation of what they heard on the tapes. Sometimes I believe that
10 the -- that the typist, that they may have listened to the conversations
11 also with a typist, but the aim was always to transmit a very accurate
12 transcription of the conversations that they listened to.
13 Q. Now, that's not exactly -- I thank you for your answer, but that's
14 not exactly what the purpose of my question was. If there was a way to
15 tamper with a -- one of those three sources, which of it would be more
16 likely to be tampered with simply because of the nature of the material?
17 A. I suppose it would be the electronic form, though that is not my
18 experience with this material.
19 Q. Thank you. Would you also agree that, of course, the difference
20 between a notebook and the computer-generated is that one is, I would say,
21 some kind of a firsthand source, whereas the person who listened to the
22 conversation and transcribed it, whereas the typing of the printout is
23 secondhand and -- secondhand source in that there's a second person
24 involved in the process; would you agree with that?
25 A. Yes. There was a typist involved in the process, yes.
1 Q. And I take it, Ms. Frease, that you were aware that there was
2 no -- in the process, when the actual intercepts were taking place, that
3 according to the witnesses that came before this Court, there was no
4 supervision function. They would not -- once a conversation was
5 transcribed and given to the -- for the electronic transmission, that
6 there was no revision. Are you aware of this fact?
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: My microphone is flashing.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, counsel.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: It's working.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: First, I think it's a compound question. There
13 are two questions involved in this particular proposition put by my
14 learned colleague.
15 And secondly, I don't think it accurately reflects the record with
16 respect to the prior testimony that's been offered in the case.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I have difficulty in proceeding, unless
18 Mr. Vanderpuye -- Mr. Bourgon wishes to rephrase the question, I
19 wouldn't -- if we are going to discuss this, I think it needs to be
20 discussed in the absence of the witness.
21 MR. BOURGON: I can rephrase the question, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: But do, please, take into account, especially the
23 last part of Mr. Vanderpuye's objection.
24 MR. BOURGON:
25 Q. Ms. Frease, I'll go -- I'll try to make it easier for you. Based
1 on your interviews conducted with operators, was there any supervision
2 exercise on the intercept-taking function, if you know?
3 A. I'm sorry, I would like to ask you to be more specific. I mean,
4 yes, there were supervisors there.
5 Q. Based on your knowledge --
6 A. Mm-hmmm.
7 Q. -- because you conducted these interviews with intercept
8 operators, did they tell you that once they had a conversation
9 transcribed, that there was a second verification made by somebody else?
10 A. I think generally -- I think generally there wasn't, unless there
11 was some uncertainty or unless the operator felt that they needed -- that
12 they would benefit from having another operator listen to the
13 conversation, to try to understand words that they were having a hard time
15 Q. Thank you. I'll take that answer. Now, the -- in this case, I --
16 it is my understanding that you first obtained audiotapes; is that
18 A. No.
19 Q. So what is it that you obtained first?
20 A. We obtained the printouts and the notebooks and then later the
22 Q. And I quote you from an answer you gave on the 27th of February,
23 and that was at page 18, lines 19 to 23, that "a mass of printed
24 transcripts were transferred in January of 2001," something which you
25 acknowledged when you were shown the actual document. Can you -- do you
1 remember this?
2 A. Could you tell me specifically what those -- were those army
3 documents or were those MUP police documents?
4 Q. I think you mentioned -- sorry, I don't want to overlap. What I'm
5 interested, actually, is the 550-page binder. Do you recall that?
6 A. Yes. The 550-page binder was the first printed material that we
7 received, and we received that in April of 1998.
8 Q. Now, in that binder, you mention that there were both MUP
9 intercepts and military intercepts; is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And you mention that the intercepts done by the military had no
13 A. Right.
14 Q. And a question was put to you by my colleague, and I quote from
15 page 21, lines 13 to 16, where you said that "in fact, we did not even
16 know that there were headers at that time." Is that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. So I take it that after some time you received those headers that
19 go with the notebooks and the transcribed conversation, and that you must
20 have spent lots of time trying to match the header, the printout, and the
21 notebook; is that correct?
22 A. Well, it's not quite correct for me, because we did spend a lot of
23 time -- first we processed, as we discussed before, first we processed
24 those 550 pages of printed material. But, as you know, there were --
25 there was material; there were sentences that were missing at the bottom
1 and tops of pages because of the way that they were printed out and
2 photocopies, and we've talked about that. And then from those 550 pages,
3 and I believe those were about 1.200 conversations, then we took the
4 notebooks and we undertook to cross-reference and to match up the
5 printouts to the notebooks, to the conversations within the notebooks. So
6 that required a database in -- so that we could cross-reference these --
7 all of these conversations one by one. And -- anyway.
8 With respect to the headers, we received the electronic versions
9 of the material. I received two diskettes which we were unable to open
10 during the time that I worked for the Office of the Prosecutor. In
11 December of 2000, I was made aware of the fact that the OTP obtained seven
12 diskettes of the electronic material and that that was later - I don't
13 remember the date - but later electronically stamped. Those were decoded
14 and electronically stamped. And so it was then that it became clear that
15 there were headers on the conversations. When I came back to assist with
16 this part of the process, that was when I became familiar with the
18 Q. And so you are able to confirm, then, that the headers is
19 something that came in later, along with those floppies, initially those
20 two and then the seven?
21 A. That's right, for the military documents.
22 Q. And I'd like to know if you are in a position to assist the Court
23 in any way with -- why is it that the headers were only given to the
24 Office of the Prosecutor later than the rest of the material? Do you know
25 what happened with that material in the meantime?
1 A. Do I know what happened with the electronic material, is that --
2 Q. With the headers. Why were the headers given later than the rest
3 of the material?
4 A. Well, it's not --
5 Q. If you know.
6 A. It's not necessarily that, I mean, that the headers were given
7 later. It's that the electronic versions of the documents were given --
8 were given to us later. I mean, again even that's not quite accurate,
9 because they were given to me in May of 1999, but the OTP and the
10 information section here was unable to open those documents so we couldn't
11 use them, so we couldn't see the headers.
12 What was your question?
13 Q. Let me try and make my question easier. You did receive initially
14 intercepts without headers and then intercepts with headers.
15 A. Right.
16 Q. Okay. That's all I'm trying to get at.
17 A. Oh, okay.
18 Q. So not more complicated than that.
19 A. Okay.
20 Q. My second issue I'd like to cover with you today is the issue of
21 the timing of the intercepts. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the
22 timing is something that would be very important, because if you have a
23 wrong date, then of course it changes both reliability and what
24 information you can draw from any intercepts; is that correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And I take it also from your testimony and the material we have
2 that dating the intercepts was one of the main components of your project.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And today, on page 24, lines 10 to 15, in response to a question
5 asked by my colleague, you described in some -- in some way the way you
6 went about to get the dates in the notebooks, and I'd like to go -- cover
7 that process with you, so if you can confirm that process.
8 So my understanding is that, first of all, you would take the
9 dates that appear in the notebooks, those that are really -- that stand
10 out, that are written in the notebooks; is that correct?
11 A. There was a step before that.
12 Q. What was that?
13 A. It was taking the dates that were on -- that were contained within
14 the binder of 550 pages.
15 Q. Now, if you -- so you started first with the binder.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. But if there was no headers, there was no date.
18 A. But within the -- within that material, dates did appear.
19 Q. As the contents of the conversations, you mean?
20 A. No. Above the beginning of the conversation. It wasn't
21 consistent, but there were dates contained within those 550 pages.
22 Q. And did you ever compare these dates with the headers once you
23 were able to look at them? Did you match the dates that you had
24 previously with the dates that was on the headers once you got the
1 A. The next step after processing the 550 pages was to take the
2 notebooks and to record the dates that were contained within the
4 Q. And again, correct me if I'm wrong, but very often there were
5 gaps, and I think you used the word "erratic" in terms of mentioning dates
6 in the notebooks.
7 A. That was true as -- that was particularly true for the two 2 Corps
8 units, the one at the northern site and the one at the southern site. It
9 was not as true for the notebooks that were written by members of that
10 division located at the northern site and for the -- the police
12 Q. Now, just to -- a question that comes out from what you just
13 mention, because of course you seem to make a clear difference in terms of
14 the intercepts obtained from the northern site, southern site, and then
15 the division. Now, once we have the intercepts in evidence, there's no
16 way for the Trial Chamber to know where that comes from, unless it was
17 covered by a witness; is that correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. So that was just my question that arose from your answer.
20 I move to my next question. If, in a notebook, you have two dates
21 and a gap in between --
22 A. Mm-hmmm.
23 Q. -- my understanding is you tried to work things out using the
24 sequence of intercepts based on time; is that correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. You understand what I mean? So if you have, for example, one date
2 is 10th of May and the next date is 15th of May, you would try to follow
3 the dates to see when there was a change of date.
4 A. Right.
5 Q. And that's what you mentioned to my colleague earlier, that
6 sometimes that did not work.
7 A. Right.
8 Q. And when this did not work, then you went to secondary material,
9 such as, for example, the printouts.
10 A. Well, we had pretty much already been through the printouts, so
11 then -- if we had dates that were firm - I said this before, too - we
12 bolded them; if we weren't sure about the dates, we didn't do that. We
13 knew that the dates were extremely important. But then sometimes if a
14 conversation was recorded multiple times - and I'm giving you, you know,
15 kind of an example from -- or a hypothetical, kind of, from memory - but
16 if a date of one of those conversations was considered to be firm and it
17 was a conversation that was recorded multiple times, then we would -- I
18 believe we would then consider that date to be firm for those
20 Q. Okay. Let me try to -- let's try and take an example. I used
21 earlier 10th of May and 15th of May and you have a gap, and then for some
22 reason, using the timings of each conversation, it's not possible to
23 establish the right date. If you then move to the electronic printout and
24 you have a date and it says specifically "12th of May," did you consider
25 that to be a firm date?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now, I mentioned this question because I did this exercise with a
3 number of notebooks and I came up with some questionable results that I
4 have to share with you. Now, I can't do it with all the notebooks I've
5 used, but let's use a few examples together.
6 MR. BOURGON: If I can have on the e-court P1224B, for bravo.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Let me see it before we decide to broadcast it.
8 THE WITNESS: If I could just clarify one thing with respect,
9 again, to the electronic versions. We received those after I was gone, so
10 I haven't viewed all of the electronic copies of the material that we
11 received. Within the collection that we have -- that the Office of the
12 Prosecutor is presenting, there -- yeah, I mean, the dates, with some
13 exceptions which I tried to note within the date column, were consistent.
14 MR. BOURGON: I don't think we have the right one. I have one --
15 JUDGE KWON: Yes, I have a different one. 1224B.
16 MR. BOURGON: Yes. At the bottom of the page. On the right side
17 of the screen, at the bottom of the page.
18 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
19 MR. BOURGON:
20 Q. Now, if you look at this intercept, that is a conversation between
21 someone called Popovic and another person called Y, which is "who is
22 unknown." Now, can you tell by looking at this intercept what the date
24 A. Not what --
25 JUDGE AGIUS: No broadcast of this, okay?
1 THE WITNESS: Not without having access to the notebook.
2 MR. BOURGON:
3 Q. No, I agree with you. And it's not -- I'm not trying to do any --
4 I agree with you, it cannot be said by looking at this. So let's take a
5 look, then, at the notebook, and that was in book 99.
6 MR. BOURGON: I would appreciate if I could have book 99 given to
7 the witness, and that is -- for the court record, that is Exhibit P2330.
8 But I'll try to use the original and I think it's easier.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: So let's put it on the ELMO, and again, no
10 broadcast, please.
11 MR. BOURGON:
12 Q. And I refer you, Ms. Frease, to page 1468, that is, I mean, using
13 the ERN number of the book, 99.
14 Now, I take it you will agree with me that if you look at this
15 page, which is 1468, that there is no -- you still cannot tell which date
16 it is. I mean, the date is not specifically written for this intercept;
17 is that correct?
18 A. Right. Not on this page, no, there isn't a date.
19 Q. Okay. Now, before we -- I ask you to actually try to establish
20 the date using the sequence of intercepts and the timings of each
21 conversation, I just have one preliminary question regarding the book
23 MR. BOURGON: Let's go back -- if you can close the book and look
24 at the first page and put that on the ELMO, please, the cover page.
25 Q. Now, this is the page that was shown to you by my colleague a few
1 minutes ago, and you decided that it was -- to you, most likely, the date
2 on the top left corner was 16th of July, 1995.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And you said that the words "od" meant "from" 16 July.
5 A. Right.
6 MR. BOURGON: If you will now show on the ELMO the first page
7 inside. Or, sorry, it's more page -- the one where you have the
8 reference, and that is page 1460. This one, yes.
9 Q. And if you go in the top left corner, you have a date that is
10 there, which is 14 July of 1995.
11 A. Right.
12 Q. Now, I'm just wondering in terms of, what is the beginning date of
13 this book? Is it the 14th of July that is there or is it the 16th of July
14 that is on the cover page?
15 A. The numbers, as we've discussed, the -- those registration
16 numbers, strictly confidential numbers, that they -- that the corps
17 assigned, were not a reliable reference, not a consistently reliable
18 reference. So I wouldn't refer to that date as being ...
19 Q. And which is "that date," the inside or the cover?
20 A. The inside, the 14th of July, 1995.
21 Q. So then the cover would be more reliable, or they're both
23 A. Well, I'd have to really look at the notebook and go through
25 Q. Go ahead.
1 A. And if I can also -- can I refer to this log?
2 Q. Yes, absolutely, because that's my next question.
3 A. All right.
4 MR. BOURGON: The log we're talking about, Mr. President, is the
5 log that was shown -- that was made by the witness where she included some
6 information concerning book 99.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Bourgon.
8 THE WITNESS: Okay.
9 MR. BOURGON: Okay. What I suggest we do, Mr. President, is I
10 have one question, and I'd ask the witness to do one thing during the
11 break, if that is okay with my colleague, so we save time after the
13 Q. So my first question is: If you look in your log, where it says
14 for book 99 --
15 A. Mm-hmmm.
16 Q. -- "(14 July 1995)." Now, I take it from your previous answer
17 that this refers to the number that was included in the second page by --
18 the ones that you showed.
19 A. That's right.
20 Q. And that the other dates that I see in your log, 16 July, 19 July,
21 21 July, and 23 July, if you can put the log on the ELMO so that we can
22 see for book 99 what you included.
23 A. You want the top page or --
24 Q. The log, sorry.
25 A. Oh, the log.
1 Q. The log, sorry, not the notebook. For book 99 that is circled.
2 So we see that you included there 14 July and you just confirmed to me
3 that this was the date that appeared on page 1460. And the other dates,
4 correct me if I'm wrong, would be the dates that stand out by looking at
5 the book.
6 A. Right.
7 Q. This is what you said. Now, my question is very simple. The date
8 of the 16 July, I don't find it in that book. That's why I don't
9 understand where you took the 16th of July.
10 A. I took the 16th of July, I guess, from the top -- from the front
11 of the book that says, "from the 16th of July." And if you take that as
12 the date and then you work your way through the pages of the notebook to
13 the 19th of the July, which is indicated, and I can -- on 00801484,
14 those -- it works chronologically. So assuming that the first date in
15 this book is the 16th of July, the first conversation is at 1941; the
16 second conversation is recorded at 2253; the --
17 Q. I'll stop you here because I -- before we go -- because we will go
18 in sequence after the break. If I can ask you kindly during the break to
19 look -- take a look at the notebook that you have and simply to note down
20 all the timings of each conversation between what you say is the 16th of
21 July, going until the -- where we see the date, 21 July, in the book. If
22 you can just note down all the timings and then I'll have questions for
23 that, and that will make it much easier after the break. If my colleague
24 agrees, of course.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Vanderpuye.
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: I would object to that. I think the break should
2 be used by the witness obviously to relax and refresh herself for the
3 continuation of cross-examination, not for an assignment put to her by my
4 colleague. I do understand his concerns, but I don't think it's a
5 reasonable request for the witness.
6 And also, I don't -- the witness has already conceded that there
7 are disparities in the way that -- or the sequence of the dates, and I
8 don't know necessarily that this line of inquiry is really appropriate or
9 necessary under the circumstances.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: She can be specific about this particular case that
11 is being put to her, and that will help us understand her testimony, but I
12 will certainly not impose on you, Ms. Frease, to utilise the 25-minute
13 break that we are going to have to continue working. It's up to you.
14 We will resume in 25 minutes' time. Then if you need more time to
15 go through it, we'll give you time.
16 THE WITNESS: I've done it. It's fine.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: You've done it.
18 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
19 MR. BOURGON: My objective, Mr. President, was to make it easier,
20 because -- to avoid having to go to the next one, and then, you know, with
21 questions in open court. I mean, much easier for her if she can look at
22 it and not down the dates, but that's entirely up to the witness.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: So we'll have the break now and -- of 25 minutes.
24 Thank you.
25 --- Recess taken at 12.29 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 12.59 p.m.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Bourgon.
3 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
4 Q. Ms. Frease, let's pick up where we left off concerning the
5 notebook number 99. And you were saying that the first conversation in
6 that book, and that is on page 1461, took place at 19.41; is that correct?
7 Can you look at the book and put it on the ELMO, please.
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. Now, I would just like you --
10 MR. BOURGON: Maybe, if it's possible to reduce the ELMO so we can
11 see the full book. This way, we'll try.
12 Q. What I would like to do is walk with you page by page, and if you
13 can point with a pencil where we see the time of the conversation, and to
14 work up our way to that exhibit or that intercept P1224.
15 A. Okay.
16 Q. So you have -- can you show the conversation that begins on 19.41.
17 A. Yes, it's here.
18 Q. Okay. Now, the next one I have is 22.53.
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. So that would be also on the 16th.
21 A. That's right.
22 Q. And the next one I have is 1148.
23 A. Right.
24 Q. And that would be on the 17th -- oh, sorry, on the 17th, yes, the
25 next day.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Then I have 12.30, which would also be on the 17th.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Then I have 14.22, also on the 17th.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Can you show this one.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 14.22, yes. Okay. The next one is 14.25, which would be on the
10 A. Right.
11 Q. Then we go with 13.18, and that of course would be the 18th, now.
12 A. No. It could still be the 17th. It would still be the 17th,
13 because sometimes they wrote them out of order, you know, how they sent
14 them -- from how they sent them.
15 Q. But can you assist the Trial Chamber how we can make -- how we can
16 find out, by looking at these dates, if I have the book.
17 A. Mm-hmmm.
18 Q. I mean, how can I say whether it's the same day or not the same
19 day? To me, moving from 14.25 to 13.18 shows that another book was used,
20 as some intercept operators have testified to.
21 A. Well, if we keep moving through the conversations to where we see
22 the 19th, it might become more clear. But there were there -- it
23 certainly did not happen infrequently that the times of the conversations
24 were out of sequence, and this depended on when -- which conversation was
25 recorded when -- or which conversation was transcribed when.
1 Q. Okay. Now, if we go, then, to -- let's take -- let's follow with
2 your reasoning, even though I personally believe that it would be very
3 difficult, then, to give any reliability because how can someone guess,
4 but let's take your word for it and let's believe that this stays the
6 A. Okay.
7 Q. Okay? And then the next one would be 16.22.
8 A. Right.
9 Q. And that would still be the 17th.
10 A. That's right.
11 Q. And then we move to the next one, and that is 16.15, so 4.15.
12 A. That's right.
13 Q. Now, to me this -- now, then we move to the 18th.
14 A. No.
15 Q. But to you we stay there.
16 A. That's right.
17 Q. But what's the basis?
18 A. The basis is what the intercept operators explained to us. I
19 mean, we didn't understand this as well either. But what they explained
20 was that they would -- they would record the conversations and they would
21 note that the -- they would note the frequency, the time, and the channel
22 sometimes. I mean, not everybody did it exactly the same. But in many
23 cases those were the three items that they would have recorded, or one of
24 the three or two of the three or whatever. They would have noted that
25 information down on a piece of paper somewhere, and -- the participants,
1 the people who were speaking. And then when they had a chance, they would
2 transcribe the conversations and they wouldn't necessarily transcribe them
3 in the chronological order that they came through.
4 Q. I take from your answer that if the conversations are not
5 transcribed in the right order, then we cannot give any reliability, or,
6 following the timings, to establish which day we are.
7 A. I disagree, based on what -- based on how the intercept operators
8 explained the process.
9 Q. Well, we have some intercept operators here who have testified and
10 who have said that they would follow the timings, and they never said that
11 they were transcribed in reverse order. So how would that be?
12 A. Well, that --
13 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, one moment.
14 Mr. Vanderpuye.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: I object to my colleague's question. I don't
16 think that it fairly states or restates the evidence that's been before
17 the Tribunal. And if he has a specific instance relative to that
18 testimony, I would appreciate if he could refer to it and cite that to the
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I think that's a fair comment.
21 Maybe you can go straight to the testimony that you're referring
22 to, or you referred to.
23 MR. BOURGON: I will move to a different formulation of my
25 Q. Because if we follow with your reasoning, that means that that
1 conversation of 16.15, then, is on what date?
2 A. Of the 17th.
3 Q. Of the 17th, also.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Okay. And then if we follow along right up until the end, I have
6 all these conversations, and then you would say that we would come to 19
7 July and that this would be --
8 A. Well, I think -- I think we have to go through page by page so we
9 see how we get there.
10 Q. Let's do that.
11 A. Okay.
12 Q. And I know it's going to work because I worked out all
13 possibilities. So I know that what you're saying now, it works. So let's
14 go with -- the 16.15 conversation would be on the 17th?
15 A. That's right.
16 Q. And then 16.19, on the 17th.
17 A. That's right.
18 Q. And then 16.52, on the 17th.
19 A. That's right.
20 Q. Then 22.06 --
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. -- on the 17th.
23 A. Mm-hmmm.
24 Q. Then 8.57, now we switch date --
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. -- And go to the 18th.
2 A. That's right.
3 Q. 9.00, that's the 18th. 9.45, that's the 18th. That's my next
5 A. Right.
6 Q. Then 10.37 is the 18th.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Then 14.45 is also the 18th.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And 14.58 --
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. -- same day. 15.08, same day.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 15.12, same day.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 15.50?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 20.51?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. 21.02?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 21.50?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And 22.26?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And 23.41?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And we come to the 19th.
4 A. That's right.
5 Q. So if we take your explanation, now, I go back to the
6 conversations -- there's two of them that to me are important, and to me
7 it's the one of 14.25. Now, we went through that at the beginning. I'll
8 refer you to the exact page, and that is on page 1466 of the notebook. So
9 here we have 14.25 and we have channel 255850.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And the next conversation is on page 1468, and that's 13.18.
12 A. Right.
13 Q. And now we have a different frequency and a different channel.
14 A. Okay.
15 Q. So your testimony is, we have to take your word based on your
16 interviews that even though we go from 2.25 in the afternoon to another
17 conversation of 1.18, that this means that this is the same day and it's
18 not a change of dates.
19 A. Well, you don't have to just take my word for it. I could give
20 you another example of how we could date this notebook using other
21 information to date it. I notice that on page 00801477, at 14.58, there's
22 a -- there is the conversation that we've discussed previously about an
23 interim combat report that was written on the 18th of July in which it
24 references, point 2, and then those locations of Petkovici, Baljkovica and
25 Memici, which goes to an interim combat report that was written also on
1 the 18th of July.
2 Q. So that -- so taking your information that you're giving us now,
3 and we will get to that combat report because that's actually one of my
4 questions once we get to the authentication binder, this, you're looking
5 at 1477 --
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. -- and you're looking at, I guess, it's -- the conversation of
8 14.58, is the one you're referring to.
9 A. Right.
10 Q. Okay. So you say that this is information, that we have to look
11 at this plus the substance of the conversation in order to confirm the
13 A. Well, I mean, I was just -- I guess I was trying to provide an
14 example of how you -- how it's possible to further corroborate things. I
15 mean, from my perspective, knowing what I -- based on the conversations
16 that I had with the intercept operators, and having gone through many of
17 these books and tried to figure out the dates, the issue that you present
18 here of there being -- there not being a sequence or there not being a
19 perfect chronology in the way that the conversations were transcribed into
20 the notebook, to me that does not present a problem.
21 Q. Okay. Now, what I -- let's move with one question. Do you
22 exclude the possibility that those two conversations between what we said
23 was 14.25 and 13.18, do you exclude the possibility that these may have
24 been taken on two different days?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. You exclude the possibility completely.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And to do that, you need to look at the whole book plus other
5 A. Well, I need to -- I mean --
6 Q. You can't do it just with the book; that's my question. You can't
7 do it just with the notebook.
8 A. I would do it -- I would do it -- I would do it with a notebook
9 and then I would confirm it with additional information.
10 Q. But in this case, you don't know, based on the notebook, whether,
11 from these two conversations, whether they were taken the same day or not?
12 A. Again, based on the information that the intercept operators
13 provided to us, because this was a question that we had. I mean, when I
14 mentioned before, you know, that there were -- we had questions. I mean,
15 we wondered about the authenticity and the reliability and all of that of
16 these books. We had questions like this, like how could it be that there
17 would be chronological differences in the way that conversations were
18 recorded, and the explanation that we received was the one that I gave to
20 Q. Okay.
21 A. And then in further confirming the dates, we found this to be
22 true, to be accurate.
23 Q. But not only in the notebook. You needed other information in
24 order to confirm those dates.
25 A. You'd have to present me with another example. In this example, I
1 would say no.
2 Q. Okay. Let's use another example. Let's turn to page 1484, and
3 that is on 19 July.
4 MR. McCLOSKEY: Perhaps I --
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. McCloskey.
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: -- could offer some help. The Prosecution is
7 principally relying on the printouts to help establish dates, with all
8 this information as corroborative of that. If that can be of some help,
9 because this seems to just be going on and on.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: You cannot deny, of course, that the Defence have
11 got a right to confront the witness not only with what is contained in the
12 printouts but also in the notebooks and any other documents that are
14 So go ahead. Go ahead.
15 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
16 Q. Ms. Frease, we'll go to page 1484 where we have 19th of July,
17 1995. Do you see this?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Okay. Now, first, of course, is I see a red line over 19th of
20 July, a full red line. Do you see that?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Did you ever inquire as to why there was a red line there? Or
23 does it have any meaning to you?
24 A. I don't remember specifically inquiring about why there is a red
25 line there.
1 Q. Okay. Now, let's look at these conversations one by one. And the
2 first one on 19 July is at 6.25.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And the second one would be at 9.02.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And then we have 9.03.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. Now, we'll come back to this 9.02, 9.03, but the next one,
9 then, would be 10.32 -- or 9.42, sorry. 9.42?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Then 10.32.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Then 14.45.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Then 15.27.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Then 19.26.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. So in terms of sequence, we're always the same day now. Then
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Then 22.30.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And now we have 21.48?
25 A. Right.
1 Q. Now, to me, looking -- if I'm looking at this book, it would
2 indicate to me there was a change of date here. To you, I guess, it's not
3 the case.
4 A. That's right.
5 Q. Let's go on. The next one is 22.47?
6 A. Okay.
7 Q. And the next one is 8.11.
8 A. Right.
9 Q. Now, is that a change of date to you?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. So then we would now be on the 20th.
12 A. Right.
13 Q. Okay. Let's go on. 8.26.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 9.55.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 11.55.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 12.09.
22 A. Okay.
23 Q. 14.45, if you can indicate that with a pencil.
24 A. [Indicates]
25 Q. Okay. Then 14.46. Then 15.03.
1 A. Mm-hmmm, yes.
2 Q. Can you indicate that.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. 16.46.
5 A. [Indicates]
6 Q. Then 20.25.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Then 21.37.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Then 21.44.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. 21.45.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 21.50.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And now we have 18.48.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Now, to me, that would indicate a change of date.
19 A. Not necessarily. I mean, I -- I see it's a three-hour difference,
20 but it's possible that this conversation was left behind. I would keep
21 going through the notebook.
22 Q. So there's a -- you will admit that there's a possibility, given a
23 three-hour gap.
24 A. Well, not when you go to the next page and you see that it's the
25 21st of July.
1 Q. Okay. Then we go next to 7.02.
2 A. Mm-hmmm.
3 Q. This would be the 21st of July.
4 A. Right.
5 Q. Okay. So to me, in that sequence, from the 19 of July until the
6 21 of July, I see two possibilities for someone - I'm not talking about
7 you, who has spent hours and hours looking at these books; I'm talking of
8 the Trial Chamber - trying to look at the book and to see whether, by the
9 sequence of events, I can establish just by looking at the book that the
10 dates are correct. I'm talking about the date of 21 of July, at 7.02.
11 Because to me, looking at it, my -- the result, I suggest to you, is I
12 come to 23 July.
13 A. I'm sorry, what's your question? Can I take this off --
14 Q. I will try to make this easier. To me there were two changes of
15 dates that took place based on the sequence of the conversations. And one
16 happened when we had from 22.30 until 21.48, and you said that this was
17 not -- this did not indicate a change of day.
18 A. Right.
19 Q. And then there was a second one, which was from 21.50 until 18.48,
20 and I thought that was a change of date and you said it didn't -- it
22 A. Right.
23 Q. If I don't have the book, I cannot say that; is that -- that's my
24 question. If I don't have the book and the information to corroborate
25 this, I'm not able to, looking at the notebook, to establish a date.
1 A. Looking at the notebook, I think it is possible. If you just look
2 at loose pages unrelated and you can't -- you don't -- you can't put them
3 all together, then I would say no, you couldn't.
4 Q. Okay. Let's move to --
5 THE WITNESS: I can't -- I don't seem to have the transcript on
6 the screen, and I'm pushing the buttons but it's not happening. Oh, there
7 it is.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, thank you.
9 MR. BOURGON: Maybe just to assist the Court here, I have an
10 example I can -- with this exact intercept, and I'm looking at the
11 transcript and that was on page 5446 of the transcript, where we had the
12 intercept operator who was here, and the intercept operator basically
13 testified, and I will quote for you --
14 JUDGE KWON: Give us the date, please.
15 MR. BOURGON: The date is on 12 December 2006, transcript page
16 5446, and that was at lines 15 to 20.
17 Q. And then it's the exact case where we say that the conversation
18 was recorded at 14.25, and then the question was: "Are we still talking
19 about the 17th of July? And if we take the first intercepted conversation
20 written down at 13.18," the question was: "So it is logical to say that
21 this conversation took place the day after, on the 18th of July." The
22 answer was: "Logical, yes, looking at this notebook."
23 Now, that's the intercept [sic] who took this conversation. But
24 I'll move on to another topic. That was just at least to provide a
25 reference, unless you want to add something.
1 A. I guess I just lost you a little bit. I thought -- you said
2 5446 -- I'm sorry, I went to the wrong page.
3 Q. No, sorry, 5446 was a transcript page of a witness who testified,
4 so you cannot find it before you.
5 A. I see.
6 Q. So I was just providing a reference for the sake of the Trial
7 Chamber of the intercept operator who took this conversation and who
8 testified to that effect.
9 A. Mm-hmmm.
10 Q. Now, based on the work --
11 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. Maybe she wishes to comment on that.
12 MR. BOURGON: I invited comments.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: She's still reading.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: I mean ...
15 JUDGE KWON: She's unable to read it.
16 MR. BOURGON: She's cannot read the [indiscernible].
17 JUDGE AGIUS: No, no, she's reading what you dictated or what you
19 Do you wish to comment on that or not?
20 THE WITNESS: No. I don't have anything to change about what I
22 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
23 Yes, Mr. Bourgon, your next question.
24 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
25 Q. Based on the work I did comparing the notebooks with the printout
1 headers, I found out, at least from someone looking at the notebooks and
2 the headers, I found many differences and many questionable results.
3 Would you be surprised if I show you examples where the date in the header
4 does not correspond in the printout, does not correspond with walking
5 through, by changing dates every time there's a change in the time?
6 A. You would have to show me examples.
7 Q. Okay. Let's go back to our first example, which was the exhibit
8 P1422A, that was the first intercept I showed you today.
9 A. Can you give me an ERN number.
10 Q. I will put it on the screen for you. An ERN? 1422.
11 THE REGISTRAR: 1224B, maybe?
12 MR. BOURGON: Sorry, 1224, yes. And I'm looking now at 1224, if I
13 can have C, for Charlie. Sorry, it's there. I was still on the ELMO.
15 Q. Okay. On the right side of your screen, do you see the
16 conversation at 1622 hours, and that is 255 -- the frequency 255850.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. The date that is indicated in the header, you will agree with me,
19 is 17th of July.
20 A. Right.
21 Q. Now, my question is simply, I've worked out the dates in the
22 notebook and I came in -- I came -- my result was four different
23 possibilities, and three of the four possibilities were that the
24 conversation was not on the 17th of July. Would you agree with me that
25 because of the way the notebooks are made, that's quite possible?
1 A. I don't agree with that.
2 Q. Why is this?
3 A. For the reasons that I've explained; that --
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Before you answer, I think she needs to know the
5 three or four possibilities.
6 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: -- before she can give a reasoned answer.
8 MR. BOURGON:
9 Q. When we looked at the book together, and let's go back to the ELMO
10 and the book.
11 MR. BOURGON: Can we have the ELMO and -- sorry, it's me. I
13 Q. Now, I look at this book and I see on the left page here, page
14 1460, I see the date "14th of July, 1995." I look at the page beside, on
15 the right, and I see on page 1461, to me there's a very -- by looking at
16 it, that this conversation started at the same day that this book is,
17 which is on the 14th of July. Is that a possibility for me, looking at
18 this book?
19 A. If you don't know what you're looking at, it's a possibility.
20 Q. That's all I'm asking for.
21 A. And -- but given the fact that we've looked at many of these books
22 and we went through, because it wasn't also clear to us whether the date,
23 for example -- in this example, the 14th of July, was something that
24 could be relied upon. And a couple of times we've talked about the fact
25 that for -- that those were internal numbers and dates that were
1 recorded by the commander, and that those dates didn't bear -- that we --
2 didn't bear -- that they weren't related to the dates that were in the
4 Q. I don't deny that. You've explained that before.
5 A. Right.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: I think you can move on, Mr. Bourgon.
7 MR. BOURGON:
8 Q. I'm just saying that this is a possibility for me looking at this
9 book, that the first conversation was on that date, and I need to look
11 A. You need to know more in order to be able to have an accurate
12 assessment of what you're looking at.
13 Q. That's exactly what my question is.
14 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Bourgon, we are through with it, and I think the
15 witness understood the question and she answered it. Why don't we move
17 MR. BOURGON: Thank you. Thank you, Judge.
18 Q. I'll move on to my next area of questions, and that deals with the
19 authentification binder. That was P1074. And my first question is
20 something that I believe -- I'm not sure if you did say it in your
21 testimony, but to analyse the intercept was a long and labourious process.
22 You'll agree with that?
23 A. I would.
24 Q. And in that binder, which you called --
25 THE WITNESS: May I have the transcript up again?
1 MR. BOURGON:
2 Q. -- authentification binder or autentikesen [phoen], you have
3 produced 12 instances where one or more intercepts have been compared with
4 other information.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And you stated before in your testimony that this was a sample.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Those two -- those 12 instances were a sample.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. I imagine that if you wanted to testify before this Court, you
11 picked some very good samples; would that be correct?
12 A. We tried to pick samples that were broad and representative and
13 covered dates, yes, a variety of dates.
14 Q. And I imagine that even though this is a sample, that you did the
15 same type of exercise with many more intercepts.
16 A. Yes, with some. I don't have a firm recollection of how many.
17 Q. But is it, like 50, 100, or 1.000?
18 A. Less than 50.
19 Q. Because today you mentioned in your testimony that just for the
20 month of July - and I was surprised by this information so maybe I'm
21 wrong, but I'm just trying to -- you said that just for the month of July
22 you were dealing with 1.200 to 1.800 conversations. Was that -- is that
23 what you -- is that your testimony?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Now, using sample methodology, my next question is simply: Did
1 you ask anyone, an expert in the statistics field, in order to be able to
2 conclude on the reliability or the authenticity of 1.800 intercepts for
3 July, how many you would have to look at to have a mathematical
4 representative sample.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Vanderpuye.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: I object. I don't think the witness has
7 testified that she employed a sample methodology with respect to the
8 preparation of the authentication binder that my learned colleague is
9 inquiring about. Moreover, I don't think it's been sufficiently defined
10 on the record in order to --
11 JUDGE AGIUS: She -- she -- she's answered "to an extent," but
12 this is a -- somewhat of a different question. Let me consult with my
13 colleagues, please.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we need to move, Mr. Vanderpuye and
16 Mr. Bourgon. The question basically is one which the witness needs to
17 answer: Was the sample methodology -- it's being suggested to you that
18 the sample methodology used was not a sufficient one, basically.
19 MR. BOURGON: Maybe I can rephrase the question, Mr. President.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: You can rephrase it in whatever way you like, but
21 let's move. I mean, it's a fair question, of course, but let's move.
22 MR. BOURGON:
23 Q. When you say that the authentification binder represents a sample,
24 which you've said on a number of occasions, are you referring to sample
25 methodology under mathematical sample methodology, or simply it's a sample
1 and no more than a sample?
2 A. The latter. It's a sample.
3 Q. And my understanding of the purpose of the authentication binder
4 is that if I look at those 12 examples, this should be enough to convince
5 me that all intercepts are authenticated. Is that the purpose of the
7 A. I think those 12 samples have to be looked at with the other
8 processes that we employed in authenticating and determining the
9 reliability of the intercepts.
10 Q. And I understand, Ms. Frease, that you went through a very
11 elaborate process, but my question is: If I'm looking at the intercepts,
12 my question to you is, I need more information for every single intercept
13 in order to determine whether the intercept is authentic or not.
14 A. I don't agree with the statement, but I'm not sure that it's my
15 position to agree or disagree with you.
16 Q. Okay. I simply suggest to you that for any particular intercept,
17 unless I have more information, as was the case to establish the date,
18 unless I have more information, I cannot conclude that it is authentic and
20 A. I don't agree.
21 Q. Okay. Let's take a few examples to see if we can maybe be more
22 precise. Let's take in the authentification binder and let's look at tab
24 MR. BOURGON: I'm not sure if it's possible to have the binder
25 given to the witness or to -- because ...
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: I have a copy that I can provide, Mr. Bourgon, if
2 you'd like to inspect it before I hand it up to the witness, maybe.
3 MR. BOURGON: Just give her tab 2. For me that's fine, because
4 we're -- I just want to do this intercept and then I'll have a few more
5 questions when we resume on Monday.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. Maybe I can accommodate that, the tab 2.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you wish to see it, Mr. Bourgon, or not?
8 MR. BOURGON: I don't, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
10 Q. Now, I look under tab 2 and I would just ask some questions to
11 confirm whether my understanding of the binder is the right one. Now,
12 under tab 2, you have five different intercepted conversations, and the
13 topic is that there would be a Serbian flag that would be flying on the
14 church in Srebrenica. Is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. In terms of authentification material or corroborating material,
17 depending on the term you use, and I turn now to -- I'm looking at the
18 page 0092, where it says "Corroborating Material," you have two pictures;
19 a picture of 11 July 1995, where it says "Two still photographs that show
20 a Serbian flag on the Orthodox church in Srebrenica." And they were taken
21 from a video that was shot on 11 July.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And then you have also as corroborating material two pictures that
24 date from a video shot on 13 July; is that correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Now, I simply suggest to you that the corroborating material that
2 you have here, these pictures, do not allow you to draw any conclusions
3 concerning the reliability of the conversations or the five intercepts,
4 that is, the wording of the intercepts, other than the topic of a Serbian
5 flag. That's my -- that's what I suggest to you.
6 A. And why do you suggest that?
7 Q. Okay. Well, maybe we'll be more precise. Let's take the first
8 intercept. Is there anything in the first intercept, on page 0085 -- and
9 I look at those pictures, and, to me, I'm not able, from the pictures, to
10 confirm the wording of that conversation.
11 A. Well, I have a very poor photograph of the -- of the -- I have a
12 very poor copy of the photograph. But what's indicated in the intercept
13 is that there is "a Serbian flag on the ruined Orthodox church in
14 Srebrenica." And I believe that the two photographs, one might have been
15 a close-up; one might have been taken a bit further away, to show that it
16 was on the church in Srebrenica.
17 Q. Let me make my question more precise. Let's move to the next
18 intercept on page 0087. And we see here that this intercept is between
19 someone called Stankovic and an unidentified man.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. Is there anything in those pictures that you are providing
22 as corroborating material that allows you to confirm that the intercept
23 operator actually heard Stankovic?
24 A. The intercepted conversation indicates that the conversation was
25 recorded between a man named Stankovic and an unidentified man, so --
1 Q. I'm simply asking, from the picture, which is your corroborating
2 material, are you able to say that Stankovic was speaking in this
4 A. From the photograph, no, I'm not.
5 Q. That's -- that's --
6 A. It is the content of the intercept indicates that Stankovic is
7 saying that there is a Serbian flag on the Serbian church in Srebrenica.
8 Q. So the topic of the conversation goes with the topic of the
10 A. Right.
11 Q. That's what you're -- that's the only conclusion you can draw from
12 tab 2; is that correct?
13 A. And that it was made on the 11th of -- that it was recorded on the
14 11th of July.
15 Q. And you cannot conclude whether the identity of the people
16 speaking or the exact words that they used by making a comparison between
17 the two?
18 A. No.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, one moment.
20 Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye. She has answered the question the negative,
21 in any case. Do you still want to object?
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: Only to the line of inquiry because I think it's
23 been gone over many times.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
25 MR. BOURGON: I don't think, Mr. President, it's been -- gone over
1 time. But we are finished for today.
2 Now, Mr. President, I have --
3 JUDGE AGIUS: He has adjourned the sitting.
4 MR. BOURGON: No, I will ask you to adjourn, but I have a
5 difficulty that I need to address with you.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I think we can send Ms. Frease to enjoy the
7 well-merited weekend.
8 Yes, Mr. Bourgon.
9 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. The difficulty I have is
10 that I need about 20 minutes to finish with the witness. Unfortunately,
11 I'm -- I cannot be here on Monday. I would ask the leave of the Court to
12 be able to conclude my cross-examination, if need be, after my colleagues
13 on Tuesday. If the witness is gone by then, then I guess I will just have
14 to not finish my cross-examination.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: And then what?
16 MR. BOURGON: And then on the basis of --
17 JUDGE AGIUS: No, no, no, because you're saying -- you're assuming
18 that your colleagues will take the entirety of Monday's sitting, which
19 would make possible for you, then, on Tuesday to continue and finish off
20 your cross-examination. But if we finish all the other cross-examinations
21 on Monday and you haven't cross-examined the witness?
22 MR. BOURGON: My preferred option, Mr. President, is to hand my
23 questions over to someone else to ask them on my behalf, because I cannot
24 be here on Monday.
25 Now, what -- the situation we are in is that we -- it's very
1 difficult for us to plan ahead, given the constant changes in the witness
2 schedule. We keep changing schedules. The Prosecution always changes.
3 And for us, if I plan a day away for investigation purposes - that cannot
4 be changed - then I'm in trouble.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's stick to one point. What's going to happen
6 if, on Monday, we finish the cross-examination, all the other
7 cross-examinations. You're not here and you still have questions?
8 MR. BOURGON: If, I believe, I can show a good case, show good
9 cause, I would ask for the witness to be called back. She works here in
10 the building.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: Actually, she doesn't work in the building, and
13 my understanding is that there may actually be a complication with respect
14 to her availability into next week. I'm going to try and ascertain the
15 extent of it. My understanding right now is there may actually be a
16 problem with her presence being secured for Tuesday and beyond, but
17 obviously I can't have contact with her so I'm going to try to ascertain
18 the extent of her availability through the victims' services unit. But
19 her availability is not -- is not as simple to obtain as Mr. Bourgon might
20 otherwise think.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Can't you prepare the questions and hand them over
22 to -- to your lead counsel, who is --
23 MR. BOURGON: We'll do, Mr. President.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Very well. More than capable to handle that.
25 MR. BOURGON: We'll do to make it easier for everybody.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Have a nice weekend. We'll resume on
2 Monday morning. Thank you.
3 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m.,
4 to be reconvened on Monday, the 5th day of
5 March, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.