1 Monday, 8 September 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The accused Miletic not present]
5 [The witness entered court]
6 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning, Madam Registrar. Good morning,
8 everybody. Could you the case, please.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
10 IT-05-88-T, The Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic, et al.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, ma'am. Accused Miletic is not present
12 today. Madam Fauveau, we've been informed that a waiver will be coming
13 in due course. Do you confirm that from your knowledge at least?
14 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Yes, absolutely.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: So we can safely proceed, in other words?
16 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Yes, we can.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you so much. On the Prosecution side, I see
18 Mr. McCloskey, Mr. Nicholls, Mr. Elderkin. From the Defence teams, I
19 notice the absence of Mr. Nikolic on the Beara Defence team, and then I
20 think it's just Mr. Haynes.
21 All right. Good morning, to you Professor.
22 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Welcome back.
24 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: You're still testifying pursuant to the solemn
1 declaration that you entered last week, so you don't need to repeat it.
2 Mr. Ostojic will take matters up from where he left them when you were
3 last here.
4 Mr. Ostojic, good morning to you, please proceed.
5 MR. OSTOJIC: Good morning, Mr. President, Your Honours. Thank
7 Before we begin, if I could respond quickly to the Honourable
8 Judge Kwon's question of last week as to where the column appears, and
9 just so everyone can follow. The column that I was referring to was
10 reflected on the document in e-court, which was marked as 2D553, and it
11 has the doc number of 2D41-0042, and I apologise again for that confusion
12 to the Court and to Judge Kwon. And I looked at that, and it was not in
13 the second, which is his initial report filed in October or prepared in
14 October. But it is in there, so if I may proceed.
15 Secondly, the Court requested to identify the witnesses which do
16 have pseudonyms and those who don't, and we had did identify that there
17 were four that had pseudonyms, so we will attempt at least for our
18 purposes to go through the witnesses with the proper names. I will need
19 at this time, though, to provide Professor Wagenaar with a copy of this
20 little list of names so that he could follow them because his report
21 actually at certain times doesn't contain the specific name but only the
22 number. I've distributed to the court officer as well as to my learned
23 friends from the Prosecution as well as from the Defence this one sheet
24 of paper, so if I'm permitted to tender that to the witness, it may
25 assist us with some of the direct and cross-examination.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you.
2 MR. OSTOJIC: May I do so, Your Honour?
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
4 WITNESS: WILLEM WAGENAAR [Resumed]
5 Examination by Mr. Ostojic: [Continued]
6 Q. Good morning, Professor.
7 A. Good morning.
8 Q. And I note that you're writing a couple of the numbers and names
10 A. I enter them in my table for as far as I didn't have them, so I
11 will not unwantingly use the wrong names. I'm almost done. Right.
12 Thanks very much.
13 Q. Thank you, Professor, and just so the record's clear, we've also
14 asked you to provide any notes or other documentation that you have so
15 that the Prosecution may take a look at it, and this morning we met with
16 the Prosecutor prior to your testimony. Is that correct?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. And you gave the Prosecution, I think, a -- two pages of some
19 notes that you've maintained in handwriting, which was in English,
21 A. Yes, that's correct.
22 Q. And he's returned to you the original, and both the Prosecution
23 and I have a copy of that, and in due course we may file it with the
24 Court and distribute it to the parties. If it's necessary, we can do it
25 at the next break.
1 So if I may proceed. Professor, last Wednesday, I believe, we
2 were discussing the difference between identification and recognition.
3 Can you share with us, why does the difference exist in testing --
4 THE INTERPRETER: Could you please slow down for the
5 interpretation. Thank you.
6 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, I will.
7 Q. Can you share with us why, if at all, does a distinction or
8 difference exist in testing both identification and recognition of
10 A. Yes. Recognition -- the term "recognition" is used for people
11 who encounter someone, as I used to say, at the scene of the crime who
12 they already know beforehand. Whether or not that claim is true cannot
13 be tested by a psychological test; and later on, it would be useless to
14 confront such a witness with a lineup because that lineup would show one
15 person they have known for a long time and other persons they've never
16 seen at all. It would be very easy for them to identify this one person
17 they know, and it doesn't prove that they met this person at the scene of
18 the crime, so that would be a meaningless test.
19 Identification is used in this Tribunal for the situation where a
20 witness encountered someone, let's say again at the scene of the crime,
21 but that was the first time in their life. And if it was also the last
22 time in their life, it can be tested whether this person is the same as
23 one of the accused by having the accused in a lineup with other foils.
24 And now if the witness is able to identify this one person in the lineup,
25 that proves the likelihood that he have seen this person before, and, as
1 I said, if the only possible occasion where they met is at the scene of
2 the crime, then this localises, this places the accused at the scene of
3 the crime, so that would be a meaningful test.
4 The implication of that is that if the accused claims that he was
5 never at the scene of the crime, then the identification might be a
6 falsification of that claim; and therefore, it's a very, very important
7 test to do.
8 Q. Now -- and thank you. Professor, help me understand. What are
9 the standards or the tests that would be utilized in order to determine
10 or assess if a witness under the category of recognition is examining or
11 called upon to give a recollection of that which he purportedly saw. So
12 sticking with the category recognition, what are the tests that may be
13 utilized? And you've told us about identification. Which is the foils
14 and, as I call it, the photo board. But let's stick for the time being
15 with witnesses that fall under the category of recognition.
16 A. In the case of recognition, there are two important things to
17 consider. One is, if the witness claims this was a person already
18 familiar to him, then it must be investigated what the nature of this
19 familiarity is, when they met before and how the witness came to know the
20 name and the outer appearance of this person.
21 And second, when they encountered at the scene of the crime, it
22 must be established what actually the conditions for an accurate
23 perception were. The most important aspect of these conditions are
24 distance and lighting, at what distance did he see this person, and what
25 were the light conditions. And obviously, if the distance is too long or
1 the light is too poor, he would not be able to see very well the outer
2 appearance of the persons.
3 Q. Are there certain recognised standards in determining whether or
4 not distance may be considered too long or too far?
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Nicholls.
6 MR. NICHOLLS: Yeah, Your Honour, just an objection and more of a
7 question. There's not one word in the report I received about standard
8 tests for recognition witnesses. There is not one word in the report
9 about standards for light and distance, and I don't know why if this is
10 expert testimony which he's inquiring of it was not included in the
11 report, which was begun over a year ago. There are references in the
12 report to saying, well, lighting's important, whether the witness could
13 see is important, but there's not one word about standard tests. I'm not
14 aware of these tests, and I don't know why that hasn't been provided to
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ostojic, would you like to comment on that?
17 MR. OSTOJIC: I think my learned friend needs to read the report
18 a little more carefully. I think that those tests as he's cited in his
19 footnotes and articles which we provided are quite universally known, and
20 I think the Professor does in fact cite to them in our report, as we're
21 going to go through it, I hope, with certain witnesses.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Perhaps it's the use of the word "test" that is the
23 confusing element here.
24 MR. OSTOJIC: I think I said standards or tests, but if I didn't,
25 it was just trying to use a different one. It's the standards that are
1 utilized in connection with recognition.
2 MR. NICHOLLS: There are citations -- I'm not going to try to
3 stop the testimony, Your Honour, but there are citations, two articles.
4 That is not the same as an expert report giving his opinion on these
5 conditions on the test, just having -- there are let's of citations that
6 are not included.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: That may be true, Mr. Nicholls. However, I
8 recollect quite vividly when the witness was testifying last week that he
9 explained the standards that have been arrived at over the years and that
10 they are pretty much standard throughout the world. I mean, whether they
11 are standards as such or a test as such, he was, of course, referring to
12 the manner in which recognition ought to be conducted. I don't know. I
13 mean, Professor, before we decide, do you think you can provide us with
14 an insight on the basis of the objection and what would be your reaction
15 to it?
16 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. On page 3 of my report, I
17 described that investigating the claims of a familiar person should be by
18 what I call a thorough analysis of the conditions in which the
19 observation took place. It's in the second linear on page 3, and I think
20 I was going to refer to what this thorough analysis entails and, of
21 course, logically the perception of a person at a certain -- in a certain
22 situation, whether he's familiar or not familiar firstly depends on the
23 perceptual conditions, and the decision for the witness that this is a
24 familiar person or an unfamiliar person logically comes after the
25 perception of that person. So for the two situations, familiar or
1 unfamiliar, the perception of a person at the screen of the crime is
2 exactly the same and doesn't have to be described twice in the report.
3 And that's why I only said a thorough analysis of the conditions and, of
4 course, these conditions are the same as in the case of an unfamiliar
6 MR. NICHOLLS: Yes, Your Honour, and I don't want to belabour the
7 point, but the rules for lineups are very clearly stated in his report,
8 and the standards are set forth for this separate topic that is absent.
9 There's the reference to it, but there's no description of minimum
10 distances, lighting, things of that nature.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: All right, but what's it going to change? I think
12 there is a question, and the professor can either answer it or not answer
13 it. And he has answered it in any case, I mean, as far as I'm concerned.
14 I don't know that there's further information that he could give us. Is
15 that correct, Professor?
16 THE WITNESS: Well, I was in the process of answering it, and I
17 started with describing the factor distance, the significance of the
18 factor distance.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead, please. Go ahead, and proceed with
20 answering the question, please.
21 THE WITNESS: As I said, the two most important factors for
22 judging the perceptual condition are distance and illumination [Realtime
23 transcript read in error, "elimination"], and I cited two of my own
24 publications, which both are studies on the ability of people to perceive
25 faces of other people at various distances and under various illumination
1 conditions. There are two publications: One is on familiar people; the
2 other is on unfamiliar people.
3 MR. OSTOJIC:
4 Q. Professor, excuse me. Let me just stop you because in the record
5 it says "elimination," but I think you're talking about illumination,
6 which is lighting. Am I correct on that?
7 A. Right. Yeah.
8 Q. Just on two instances, I notice that we had a hard time hearing
10 A. Oh.
11 Q. So it's distance and illumination?
12 A. Illumination, with an I. Yeah.
13 Q. Thank you. If you could just proceed.
14 A. I will. And the bottom line of these two publications is that
15 the difficulties of perceiving other people are independent of
16 familiarity or unfamiliarity; the outcomes are the same. That also
17 answers, I think, the question of the Prosecution, why did I not discuss
18 them for both situations separately? Well, actually, they are the same.
19 That's not only a logical conclusion. It's also based on my empirical
21 Q. And is there a specific guideline as to what that is in terms of
22 fixed measurements such as metres when we discuss distances?
23 A. Yeah. What my research shows is that at distances from 0 to
24 about 12 metres, there is no problem of perceiving other people. At 20
25 metres, in my studies it has dropped considerably and -- which means that
1 -- which does not mean that you cannot recognise people at 20 metres, but
2 the probability of an error increases rapidly at those distances.
3 Q. And what would you call the area from 12 to 20 metres?
4 A. From 12 to 20 is -- that is where doubt starts to rise. Beyond
5 20, it definitely is a very risky thing to accept a recognition; below
6 12, it's quite safe; and in between, risk starts to rise. There's no
7 sharp demarcation line, but between 12 and 20, that's where the problem
8 starts to rise. I can't help it that there are no very strict
9 conditions, but science is just like that.
10 Q. Now, Professor, what about other factors in determining or
11 testing this recognition category of witnesses that we'll get into
12 specifically. Are there other factors that one would inquire such as the
13 height or other descriptive characteristics in order to assess whether
14 persons who fall within the category of recognition should be deemed
15 reliable in the evidence that they're attempting to put forward?
16 A. Well, you mentioned height, but I think height comes in later.
17 The -- after illumination and distance, the thing you need to consider is
18 how much time did the witness have to observe that person? Was that in,
19 say, a flash, or was it, say, many minutes or maybe hours? From which
20 aspect did the witness see that person, only from behind or only from the
21 side? As you may remember, if you see a person only from the side
22 whereas most photo boards contain pictures from the front, that might be
23 extremely difficult for a witness to do. So it's important whether he
24 could see that person in the face, from the side, or only from behind.
25 Was the witness in a quiet condition to make observations or, as
1 in the Kupreskic case, was the witness trying to escape and running? And
2 then an important factor appears to be, was the witness already expecting
3 to see a certain person, because that might make it more easy at a
4 distance or in low illumination conditions to see what you expect instead
5 to see what is really present. So expectation is clearly important.
6 Now, you mentioned height, and maybe I can answer that question a
7 little bit broader. In people's descriptions, and usually they are
8 interrogated about that, there's usually mention of how tall was that
9 person, what was his build, how heavy was he, and how old was he? And
10 clearly if you perceive a person, you can't see exactly how tall he is in
11 centimetres or inches. You cannot see exactly how old he is or how much
12 kilograms or pounds he weighs. So when you ask witnesses to answer such
13 questions, you ask them to guess, to make estimates about something they
14 could not actually see. And I myself use as a rule that if they make
15 these guesses they can easily be 5 centimetres off, 5 kilograms off, and
16 5 years off. You should not be surprised if the error is double of that,
17 so occasionally it can also be 10 centimetres off, 10 kilograms off, 10
18 years off.
19 If the discrepancy between what the witness says and the person
20 he allegedly saw is more than 10 centimetres, more than 10 kilograms,
21 more than 10 years, then you should start to consider the alternative,
22 which is that he saw a different person because beyond 10, that shady
23 area starts where there is doubt about whether he saw the alleged person.
24 Q. And what's the area that we would call from the 5, whether it's 5
25 centimetres, 5 kilos, or 5 years to the 10 centimetres, 10 kilos, and 10
1 years? Is that also a grey area, or that's where you have some doubt, or
2 explain further, if you will.
3 A. Well, between 5 and 10, you find repeatedly -- I've seen many
4 cases, and -- it's not an absolute exception to be between 5 and 10 off
5 on those three dimensions. So there is no good reason to say -- to
6 conclude, that witness must be talking about a different person. Beyond
7 10, it becomes a hypothesis worth investigating, whether this was a
8 different person.
9 Q. And thank you for that. I know we covered, now, the height,
10 weight, and age, at least briefly. But let's go back to the one you've
11 considered to be a factor that's important after distance and
12 illumination, and that, sir, was when you said time, time to observe.
13 Now, what's the significance of that, if you could share with us your
14 understanding, and I think we can logically assert or we can come up with
15 our own standard or understanding of it, but from your experience what is
16 the standard for time to observe?
17 A. Well, actually, time is only an indication of something that is
18 psychologically important, which is attention. If you see a lot of
19 people passing by and one particular person is visible for a few seconds,
20 there's no absolute guarantee that you pay attention to that person at
21 all. And if you do not pay attention, you do not properly perceive, and
22 consequently, no information is stored in your memory.
23 If you meet a person, on the other hand, for several hours, you
24 talk to him, attention cannot be a problem. You must have paid attention
25 to this person, which means you had all opportunity to see him and commit
1 the information about his appearance into your memory. So time in itself
2 doesn't tell us very much, but time leads us to attention.
3 Now, the thing is that most witnesses are able to report how much
4 time it was, so that's good question to ask. But as a psychologist, it
5 is significant to me because time tells me something about attention.
6 Q. So help me understand this: Based upon a reasonable degree of
7 certainty, the lower time a witness who is considered in this category as
8 recognition spends with an individual that he's purporting to identify,
9 what's the significance of that versus the greater amount of time such a
10 person under this recognition category spends with an individual? Is
11 there a variance or a difference just as a matter of time? For example,
12 the more time you would spend someone, can we conclude that the more
13 likelihood that you will recall that person, or the less time or a
14 fleeting glance at someone may or may not be considered relevant? Help
15 us with that.
16 A. Yeah. If you talk about a fleeing glance, there are some
17 countries where some fleeing glance testimony even is forbidden because
18 it's notoriously dangerous to show that if you saw a person in a fleeing
19 glance that you really stored into your memory what this person looked
20 like. The situation where you have a conversation with the person,
21 that's not at all a fleeing glance, and then in a conversation you must
22 look at one another, so you cannot fail to note the appearance.
23 I'm not saying that you could not perceive people in a fleeing
24 glance. I'm also -- I'm only saying that it becomes increasingly risky
25 to assume an accurate perception of a person when the time of perception
1 gets very short. It becomes risky because the likelihood that you had an
2 accurate perception is decreasing.
3 Q. Now, let's -- if we can move on and look at some of the rule, and
4 we touched upon a couple of them last week, but I wanted to ask you, you
5 mention in Rule number 2, "unconscious transference." And if you could
6 just put that in better perspective for us. I think I understand it, but
7 I still may need your assistance in that regard.
8 A. Unconscious transference is -- occurs in a lineup where the
9 supposition is that the accused shown among foils in the lineup is either
10 never seen by the witness or seen at the scene of the crime.
11 Q. So this would be --
12 A. Wait --
13 Q. I'm sorry. Go ahead.
14 A. The risk is that the witness actually saw this accused in a
15 different place, not at the scene of the crime but somewhere else, maybe
16 on a billboard or when he was travelling in the train and sat opposite
17 him. If the witness does not realise that he saw this person at another
18 place but, in fact, when he looks at the photo board realises that only
19 one of these people looks familiar, he may point at that person and add
20 in words, this is the person I saw at the scene of the crime, and what
21 unconsciously the witness is doing - and that's why it's called
22 unconscious transference - is transfer the encounter he forgot about, the
23 billboard or in the train, to the scene of the crime. Now the witness
24 thinks he looks familiar because I saw him at the scene of the crime.
25 So one condition for photo board, photo lineup testing is that it
1 must be absolutely certain that there is no other possible place where
2 the witness could have seen the accused apart from that one encounter at
3 the scene of the crime described in the indictment.
4 Q. Okay. Thank you. But just so I have a better appreciation for
5 it, since we are -- and I want to make sure we all understand is we're
6 talking about identification in that category as opposed to recognition.
7 What occurs, if anything, if a Prosecutor or investigator with the
8 Prosecution would show a witness who falls within the category of
9 identification other photographs, although not a photo board, but
10 photographs or videos of a proposed person that they claim to have seen?
11 What effect if any does it have on that person's statement, and I think
12 you touch upon it on your rule, but you used the word "irrelevant." I'm
13 directing your attention to, actually, the first full paragraph of your
14 report, and it's the very last word in that paragraph. And I understood
15 it to be - and I'll let you answer it - to be unreliable, but can you
16 share with us your thoughts on that and your opinions?
17 A. Yeah. Well, now, you ask me a very complicated question.
18 Q. I know.
19 A. I'm not sure whether it is one question, but let me try to answer
20 it. What I said is that the witness may absolutely be honest when he
21 says, I believe that I met this person at the scene of the crime, and
22 that's why I'm able to identify him in the photo board. If actually the
23 witness saw this person somewhere else but forgot it, you may ask the
24 person, are you sure you did not see this person in another place? An
25 honest witness might answer, yes, I'm sure, I never saw him at any other
1 place; and still, he might be wrong about that.
2 So it does not really help to ask witnesses who take part in
3 photo board identification tests whether they are certain that they met
4 this person at the scene of the crime and no one else. Although this is
5 an absolute condition for running the test, you cannot verify whether
6 this is the case by just asking the witness. You should investigate the
7 situation in another way.
8 For instance, in the previous case in which I testified, the case
9 was that one of the accused had been running for a political office, so
10 his face might have become known to people just by looking at the
11 television or looking at billboards. Now, witnesses may have forgotten
12 that and now believe they know this face because they saw this person
13 commit criminal acts. But by just asking them, are you sure you never
14 saw this face in a different place, that is not the right way to solve
15 that problem. You must in the investigation yourself certify that this
16 person had never been made visible to the witnesses.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 A. Does that answer your question?
19 Q. I think it does, and I apologise that it was perhaps compound,
20 but I want to stick with unconscious transference. How can we make a
21 determination, or can we, of whether or not a witness who falls within
22 the category of identification actually underwent an unconscious
24 A. Well, logically the situation is that investigations can never
25 exclude the logical possibility that there was another encounter. I
1 would say only God knows that. But on the other hand, investigation may
2 bring to the surface those other situations, and then the answer is
3 given. To give you an example, if during the investigation and prior to
4 the photo board testing the investigators themselves showed pictures of
5 the accused to the witness, then we know that there has been this type of
6 prior encounter, and therefore, the photo board identification test
7 should be excluded.
8 So I'm not saying investigation can guarantee that an encounter
9 did not take place; but on the other hand, investigation sometimes reveal
10 that the encounter did take place. That's the relevant thing.
11 Q. And just -- let's try to make a practical application at least to
12 this rule. I know you're going to have to utilize Rule number 5, but I'd
13 like to discuss Mr. Egbers for a minute. I think if you recall his
14 testimony, and I know you have your notes there, but for the purpose of
15 moving it along he was a member of DutchBat, I think, as we all know.
16 And keeping in mind this unconscious transference, if you remember his
17 testimony, was he asked by the investigators to give a description, or
18 was he simply shown videos seven to eight times which fit a general
19 description of what he purported to see, and then tell me if that rule
20 that you have, among others, were violated within connection with the
21 testimony that the Prosecution was proffering with that witness?
22 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Professor. Yes, Mr. Nicholls.
23 MR. NICHOLLS: That was a little bit leading, and I'm going to
24 start objecting to leading.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ostojic.
1 MR. OSTOJIC: Really, they should look at the question. I don't
2 think it was. If you really look at it, it's a fair question. I'm not
3 directing him saying the Prosecution did make that mistake. It's in his
4 report, but I'll ask the question in a very simple and straightforward
5 manner so we don't have many more interruptions. So I will restate it.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.
7 MR. OSTOJIC:
8 Q. Professor, did you review the testimony of a gentleman by the
9 name of Mr. Egbers?
10 A. Yes, I did.
11 Q. Can you share with us which if any category under your analysis
12 with his testimony with respect to identification or recognition fall
14 A. Yeah. My notes say that the witness, Mr. Egbers, said that he
15 was once introduced to Mr. Beara. That was the first time he met him, so
16 that was at that time not a familiar person. It was an unknown person to
17 him. Mr. Egbers said Beara introduced himself, and Egbers also added
18 that he did not pay much attention; he saw him only a few minutes.
19 So that to my mind would be an ideal situation to apply a photo
20 identification test --
21 Q. Well --
22 A. -- because two things: One, he was unknown to him, so he could
23 pass positively the photo identification test only if the person he saw
24 was really Mr. Beara; then he might identify him in the test. The second
25 thing is, his statement leaves some room for doubt. He said it was very
1 short; I did not pay much attention. So there might be a question, whom
2 did he actually see? The person introduced himself as Beara, but later
3 he also said, I saw a giant colonel who might have been Beara. So that
4 uncertainty can be resolved by asking him to take part in a photo test,
5 and say -- from my point of view, I would say, and that solves it. If he
6 is able to identify him, that makes it very likely he actually saw
7 Mr. Beara. If he is not, we don't know whom he met. We know for sure he
8 doesn't have a very accurate memory.
9 Q. Did the investigators to the best of your knowledge having
10 reviewed the documents that were presented to you conduct a photo
11 identification board with witness Egbers?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Did they conduct any sort of identification process to show them
14 any photographs or videos?
15 A. Well, my notes say that he was shown a video, no photos, and that
16 video was a very short video of an actual event and, of course, the scene
17 taken was never organised to constitute a fair lineup. There were no
18 foils all fitting the same description. So that video, I don't know
19 exactly which purpose it served. It's not for me to decide why it was
20 done, but I can state that that video, showing the video cannot come in
21 the place of, say, a proper lineup identification test.
22 Q. Now, do you, Professor, recall how many times the Prosecution
23 showed this short video to Mr. Egbers?
24 A. No, I don't know how often -- that's your question, how often he
25 showed the video? This was a very short video, but I have no notes how
1 often it was.
2 Q. What if in his testimony Mr. Egbers says that he was shown the
3 video seven to eight times before he can make an assessment as to whether
4 or not that may be the person he purportedly saw, and I think we could
5 find that specifically as I've given it to my learned friend in the
6 transcript, page 2850.
7 A. Okay, yeah, yeah. I see that this -- it was seven or eight
8 times, yeah.
9 Q. And I think if you glance at your table that you have --
10 A. Yeah.
11 Q. -- you may be able to be assisted with having that information
12 and highlighting it for us, in fact.
13 A. Yeah. Well, showing it once or eight times in my perspective
14 does not change my opinion that such a video can never come in the place
15 of a photo lineup, but if your question is, what does it mean if Mr.
16 Egbers could even in the video not identify anyone until he saw it seven
17 or eight times, I must say it's very hard to say what that means because
18 then you need a very accurate description of that situation. I must
19 expand a little bit on that. The situation of a photo lineup test is
20 very much standardised. We know exactly how it must be done, what is
21 said, how often things are shown, and the record also usually reflect the
22 actual proceedings. So there's no doubt about what happened. If you
23 start to see -- to show videos or photos according to another protocol,
24 then we suddenly -- we don't know what actually happened.
25 So in this case I would want to know, why did they show it seven
1 or eight times? Did they say, we'll show you, it's very short, don't
2 respond, we'll show you it a couple of times so you can see better, and
3 is the reason that -- did he not respond was he was told not to respond;
4 or did he say after the first time, don't recognise anyone, and then they
5 said, we'll show you again, and up to eight times, he said I don't -- so
6 those proceedings must be very explicit before an expert can say anything
7 about it.
8 In this case, I've not followed up that aspect of the file and of
9 Egbers' testimony because to me the most important thing is, Mr. Egbers
10 did not participate in a proper photo lineup test whether to my mind he
11 would have been an ideal witness to do that.
12 Q. Now, and I know we're discussing the rules as well as trying to
13 make a practical application to some of the testimony as you've done, but
14 I'm just trying to focus this portion of your testimony in giving your
15 answer. How significant or important is it to properly construct and to
16 prepare questions that you would ask a witness that falls under the
17 identification category such as Mr. Egbers, and I would direct your
18 attention, Professor, to your own Rule number 5. And I believe that's
19 the one that's applicable, and you can tell me if I'm wrong.
20 A. Okay. This, I think, is very much related to what I said, which
21 is the photo -- the proper photo lineup test is very well defined. The
22 instructions given to the witness have been studied all over the world,
23 and we very much agree about what a witness should be told and what the
24 witness should not be told.
25 The witness should first have described a certain person, and
1 then the question in the photo lineup -- subsequent photo lineup test is,
2 this person you just described, is he present in this photo lineup test,
3 yes or no?
4 Q. Well, do we know, Professor, what those questions were that the
5 Prosecution was asking Mr. Egbers in particular?
6 A. No, no. I'm not aware of an accurate recording, and I'm not
7 surprised because showing a video is also not a proper and well organised
8 photo lineup test where the instructions to the witness are clear.
9 So for instance, to give you an example, one of the most
10 important aspects of instructions in a photo lineup test is that you tell
11 the witness, do not guess. If you do not recognise someone immediately,
12 do not try to guess. Only point at one of these people if you are
13 certain that you recognise them.
14 Now, if you show someone a video with the question, do you
15 recognise anyone here, at least the witness should have been told, do not
16 guess, and that should have been recorded, the instructions. We know
17 that the proportion of false identifications raises dramatically if this
18 very simple sentence "do not guess" is omitted from the instructions.
19 Q. And Professor, I'm really looking when we discuss this witness
20 Egbers, you mentioned in your report, and I know we're jumping ahead a
21 little bit, but I think it might be an easier way to proceed. And if you
22 could look on your -- I think it's page -- the section where you say
23 "other attempts at identification," which follows part 2 of your table,
24 and it's under section 3. And you, although, discuss two other witnesses
25 that the Prosecution has called, Babic and Erdemovic, as well as Mr.
1 Egbers, within that section you highlight, I think, for us that there
2 were several rules that were violated in your opinion in connection with
3 the procedure and process that the Prosecution and its investigators
4 utilized for purposes of identification, which include Egbers. We've
5 talked about Rule number 5. Sticking with Mr. Egbers, what other rules
6 do you see with respect to the testimony that was proffered were
8 A. Well, if you go -- and you're relating to showing a video to Mr.
9 Egbers, correct?
10 Q. Correct.
11 A. That particular situation.
12 Q. And if I may add, given that we just discussed -- to be fair to
13 the Prosecution, given also the questions that they may have formulated
14 because you looked at the transcript, and the Prosecution I think as
15 reflected in the transcript told the witness that they were investigating
16 a person by the name of Beara.
17 A. Yeah.
18 Q. So given that, although we know now from you the significance of
19 that as well as the video, can you share with us what other rules were
21 A. Yeah. Yeah. If the situation was that Mr. Egbers claimed to
22 have met the accused Mr. Beara only once, not before that encounter and
23 not after, that at least the conditions for a lineup test are fulfilled.
24 The only question then is, showing a video, does it qualify as a lineup
1 There's a second condition, which is Mr. Egbers should have given
2 a description of the person he saw which is detailed enough to choose
3 foils that fit the same description. So Rule 3 may be relevant in as far
4 as it's not absolutely certain that Egbers gave an accurate description
5 of the person he saw.
6 Rule 4 was violated because other people shown in this video
7 clearly were no foils in the sense that they were chosen according to the
8 description given by Mr. Egbers.
9 Q. Well, would we call that a suggestive type of video? You
10 mentioned it, and help me understand what a suggestive photo board is.
11 A. Yeah. A suggestive photo board is a photo board where, actually,
12 only one person is shown who fits the description just given by the
13 witness, and the others do not fit that description, so automatically the
14 attention of the witness will be focused upon that one photo. And that's
15 a highly suggestive situation because then if the witness has only the
16 slightest tendency to guess, he will point at this only person who fits
17 the description.
18 So Rule 5 is relevant, as we said, because we don't know what the
19 instructions were; they must be recorded.
20 Q. Professor, just so we are all following --
21 A. So that's my reason to say such a showing of a television -- a
22 televised event, that is not at all the same as showing a
23 well-constructed photo lineup.
24 Q. Thank you for that. Now, let's turn to the witness Erdemovic who
25 we touched upon last week, showing you -- I think it was a stipulation
1 with the 1st of May, 2007, with another accused in this case where they
2 did show a photo board. I'm not going to ask you whether that photo
3 board was proper, but the witness in that case and the Prosecution have
4 agreed he was not able to be depicted. There was another stipulation,
5 though, that I believe that you read, and it's reflected in the materials
6 that you reviewed, and it involved Mr. Beara and that witness, Erdemovic.
7 Do you remember, sir, that material that you reviewed?
8 A. Yeah.
9 Q. Okay. With respect to the photograph that was shown to Mr.
10 Erdemovic, do you have any opinions as to whether or not that photograph
11 with -- to help you recall, with five individuals in it, it was not a
12 photo board necessarily, but that photograph shown to the witness, was
13 that highly suggestive?
14 A. Yeah. That was a photo, and I think that's the photo we were
15 shown in the previous session where you see one colonel sitting among a
16 number of much younger other military people. The rank of this colonel
17 can be seen. There's one person who is older. Not only that, there's
18 one person who is clearly the leader by the way he sits, and he takes
19 much of the space. It's clear that no simpleton military person would do
20 that and push away his own colonel. So it must be clear to everyone who
21 sees this photo for the first time, if the question is, who's in charge
22 here, who's the colonel, that was only one person who qualify because of
23 the way he sits, because of his insignia, and because he is much older
24 than the others. So if that is how the witness also described the person
25 he saw, a colonel who is in charge, who is older than normal soldiers,
1 who might be in his 50s or so, then that photo shows -- reveals exactly
2 the aspect of a suggestive lineup, which is, does only one person fit in
3 the description?
4 Q. Well, help me understand this: Why would the Prosecution or its
5 investigators in this particular circumstance with this witness Erdemovic
6 provide a photo board with one of the accused and not provide a photo
7 board with respect to Mr. Beara? Now, we all know from that stipulation
8 that Erdemovic did not identify Mr. Beara, even though the photograph was
9 highly suggestive or suggestive at the very least, but why would the
10 Prosecution do you think not prepare a proper photo board with respect to
11 this witness?
12 A. I have no way to --
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, one moment before you answer. Yes, exactly.
14 MR. NICHOLLS: He answered it. Thank you, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
16 MR. OSTOJIC:
17 Q. Well, help me understand this, Professor. With respect to this
18 witness Mr. Erdemovic and the one photo board that -- although I know you
19 didn't analyse it to determine whether it was proper, you looked at the
20 photograph which bear Mrs. Beara. Do you know the significance of
21 showing a type of photographer that was shown to Mr. Erdemovic where it
22 depicts in a highly suggestive manner who the person was? What
23 significance may that have on someone's recollection or in this
24 unconscious transference that we were previously discussing?
25 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment before you answer that question,
1 Professor. Reference previous page, line 20. Before I intervened, there
2 should be in the transcript the witness's beginning of an answer. I
3 recollect him saying, "There is no way I could know that." That does not
4 show in the transcript, and it's important because otherwise Mr. Nicholls
5 intervention doesn't make sense.
6 Yes, Professor. You could answer the question now.
7 THE WITNESS: I'm not certain I understand your question
8 correctly, but there's one important thing to say about showing Mr. --
9 the witness Erdemovic this photograph. Mr. Erdemovic was also a witness
10 who met -- who says, who stated he met a person this far unknown to him.
11 So Mr. Erdemovic, his statement could be further tested by asking him to
12 participate in a photo lineup test. But after he saw this one picture in
13 which Mr. Beara is featured, and I think there is -- although I have no
14 way to assess it was Mr. Beara. I assume that's the supposition
15 underlying your question. If he was shown a picture of Mr. Beara, from
16 there on Mr. Erdemovic cannot take part into a proper photo lineup any
17 more, which means just by showing him a photograph for whatever purpose
18 that I cannot fathom, I think, you lost the opportunity of really testing
19 him, so there is a price of showing photographs to witnesses.
20 MR. OSTOJIC:
21 Q. So would there be any significance to a subsequent preparation of
22 a photo board showing a witness like Erdemovic given what we know, that
23 he was shown this other photograph that would be considered suggestive?
24 A. So the risk would be that if later on you ask Mr. Erdemovic to
25 take part into a proper photo lineup, that indeed one of the persons
1 shown to him would look familiar, and he would not realise that it was
2 because he saw him in a photograph, and if he really had forgotten that,
3 he might now claim, this is the person I met before, whereas in fact it
4 is the person he saw in the photograph. That would be an example of
5 unconscious transference, and that's exactly why you either should not
6 show photographs to witnesses who are still expected to take part in
7 photo lineups; or conversely, that's exactly why after you have shown
8 photos line -- photos, you should decide -- you should exclude this
9 witness further from photo lineups. Now, that's actually what happens.
10 I am not criticizing that. Mr. Erdemovic did not take part in photo
11 lineups, so nothing has caused wrong there, although I think from the
12 viewpoint of investigation it could have been very useful to ask him to
13 take part in a photo lineup.
14 Q. Now, let's direct our attention to this third individual that you
15 highlight in your report, which we've initially marked as 122, which is
16 Babic. With respect to that, did the photo -- did the Prosecution
17 violate any rules in connection with their attempts to have Mr. Babic
18 make an identification?
19 A. Yeah, from my notes at least, Mr. Babic claimed that he met with
20 a person this far unknown to him. He says he saw a lieutenant-colonel
21 but didn't know who exactly that colonel was, so he met a person with a
22 certain rank. So, also, Mr. Babic would be an ideal witness to take part
23 in the photo lineup because he never saw this person before, there's
24 doubt about whom he actually met, and that question can be solved by a
25 proper photo lineup. He gave a description: blond, thin hair, short --
1 short hair at the back, and a receding hairline, no mustache, no glasses.
2 That really leaves room for many different people, and since in the
3 pictures I have seen of Mr. Beara there were always glasses, the positive
4 mentioning of no glasses, not just leaving out glasses, but explicitly
5 mentioning I saw no glasses even increases the doubts about whom he
6 actually saw and makes it, therefore, the more relevant to test him in a
7 photo lineup. He saw a tall, strong, heavily built person in his 50s.
8 Then he was shown pictures, a number of pictures, and he didn't
9 recognise anyone in those pictures. Now, the significance to me is that
10 from there on, from the moment he was shown pictures supposedly also
11 featuring Mr. Beara, Babic could not be tested in a photo lineup anymore.
12 Q. So what is --
13 A. That he did not recognise anyone in the pictures is more
14 difficult for me to interpret because whether he should have recognised
15 Mr. Beara in these pictures if he really met him at all also depends, of
16 course, on the quality of the pictures.
17 Q. Okay. Thank you for that. Were there any other -- and I call
18 them lost opportunities, but you can tell us what it is. But were there
19 any other lost opportunities where the Prosecution had where they could
20 have simply with this photo identification board or -- and any other
21 manner that you've suggested preserve and capture such testimony with
22 respect to identification other than these three individuals where the
23 identification tests were improper? So with the exclusion of Babic,
24 Erdemovic, and Egbers, were there other instances?
25 A. Yeah. The logical situation is this: My table on page 9 lists
1 12 witnesses. Three witnesses are categorized as familiar; nine are
2 categorized as unknown. So in principle, those nine could have been
3 tested in a photo lineup. Now, I wrote at the top of page 10 that
4 probably numbers 152 - that's PW 162 - and number 131 - that's Mr. Peric
5 - should not have been tested because after their encounter they might
6 have had another opportunity to meet or see Mr. Beara, and that violates
7 one of the conditions. There must be either no encounter or, at the
8 most, one. And that leaves seven witnesses who could have been tested,
9 and the two you mentioned, Mr. Babic and Mr. Erdemovic, are only two out
10 of these seven. That leaves five who have not been tested.
11 Now, I'm not in the position to order identification testing.
12 The only thing I could have said is that the statements made by these
13 witnesses, the reliability of those statements could be much -- much
14 easier be judged if we also had the outcomes of proper identification
16 Q. Okay. Thank you for that. And just so we're clear, we actually
17 discussed three, sir, not just that Erdemovic and Babic, but --
18 A. Also Egbers.
19 Q. -- also Egbers, correct. I just want to make sure the record's
20 clear. And also, you mentioned one of the witnesses Peric, P-E-R-I-C, as
21 -- his given number as we've known it from time to time was 131. I just
22 wanted to make sure that's clear on the transcript.
23 Let's proceed and talk about -- at least for a few moments about
24 recognition again. With respect to recognition, you've categorised how
25 many witness that would fall into that category for purposes of your and
1 our assessment?
2 A. Yes. There are three who claimed that they met with the person
3 they saw before, so that was to them a familiar person, which logically
4 implies that their claims cannot be tested by a lineup, photo board
6 Q. And just so that I'm following you, in that instance a photo
7 identification board is not indicated or is not something that we would
8 need, correct?
9 A. No. It might even be misleading because they might find it easy
10 to identify Mr. Beara in a photo board because they knew him anyway, and
11 it doesn't prove they met Mr. Beara at the place that they described.
12 And for any person not being totally aware of the difference between
13 familiar and unknown people, such people might believe that the photo
14 board proves the reliability of their statements, but it doesn't.
15 Therefore, presenting photo board identification for familiar witnesses I
16 would say is undesirable, is not helpful to the Court, and is misleading
17 those others who are not aware of the distinction between the two
19 Q. Now, you mentioned these three individuals that fall within this
20 recognition category, who are familiar -- who were purportedly familiar
21 with Mr. Beara, I say "purportedly," and we'll address one in particular.
22 Just so that you follow me correctly, just -- the three individuals is a
23 person by the name of Bircakovic, Celanovic, and the third one,
24 Professor, just so that we're focussed, does have a pseudonym, and he's
25 been identified as PW 161, so with respect --
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. Thank you. With respect to this third individual, we will not be
3 referencing his name, but we'll follow and identify him simply for our
4 purposes as PW 161.
5 Were you able to review -- are those the three individuals that
6 fall within that category of familiar and recognition that we've been
8 A. Yes, those are the three.
9 Q. So that we can see the parameters of your testimony a little more
10 clear, the balance of the witnesses, under which category would they fall
11 on or under?
12 A. I'm not getting your question. Can you repeat it, please?
13 Q. You have shared with us the category of identification and
14 witnesses who are unfamiliar and only had an encounter purportedly with
15 Mr. Beara. We discussed three. You identified 7 out of those 12. I
16 want to go through what other categories there are. We've now identified
17 a second category that we call recognition. Within that category you
18 have --
19 THE INTERPRETER: Could the Defence counsel please slow down for
20 the benefit of the interpreters.
21 MR. OSTOJIC: I do very much apologise again.
22 Q. Professor, I'm going to walk you through it hopefully slower so
23 that we can understand it. You have this category of witness of who have
24 purportedly recognised or are familiar with Mr. Beara. I think we have
25 three of them in that category, correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. We've highlighted in part the testimony with respect to witnesses
3 who have not -- or were not familiar with Mr. Beara and who purportedly
4 have seen him and the flaws if you will of not preparing a proper photo
5 identification board. Is there any other category other than this one,
6 or is this the last one, the recognition with these three individuals
7 that we may discuss?
8 A. And you're still referring to the 12 witnesses in my table,
10 Q. Yes, sir.
11 A. You can split them up in the following manner: Three claimed
12 familiarity, so they cannot be tested in the photo lineup.
13 Q. And those are the --
14 A. Nine claimed that they saw an unfamiliar person, which leaves in
15 principle nine to be tested in a photo lineup. But two of them should be
16 excluded because they might have a later encounter. That leaves seven,
17 and of those seven we have discussed three, and that leaves four others
18 who also could have been tested in the photo lineup.
19 Q. And just so we have a complete record, those four others, and I
20 apologise very much for leading on this issue, but I think we know that
21 it's PW 165, it was Mr. Boering; PW 104; and a witness by the name of
22 Milosevic, which is under number 126. Is that accurate?
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. Did you glean from the record with respect to those four who were
25 not shown a photo board, did you glean from the record any understanding
1 or appreciation as to why the Prosecution or its investigators did not
2 with respect to these four witnesses show them a photo identification
4 A. I am afraid we are coming very close to a question that we've had
5 a couple of minutes before, which is, would I know why the investigators
6 and the Prosecution do certain things; and I would say it's not my task
7 to know that. I did not find an explicit statement declaring why it
8 would have been undesirable for any of these witnesses to do that, nor
9 why it would be absolutely physically impossible to do that.
10 And there are such conditions, like if a witness says I met with
11 Mr. Beara but then gives a description of Mr. Beara which is so far off
12 that choosing foils in accordance with this description would immediately
13 make the lineup biased because then all foils would resemble another
14 person and not Mr. Beara, in that case there would be a good logical
15 reason for not testing this witness in the photo lineup, which doesn't
16 mean you have to discard that witness. It only means it cannot be tested
17 in a photo lineup. But I did not see, if that's the question, for the
18 seven witnesses who qualified but were not tested such a reason in the
19 records that I could also follow why, then, they were not further tested.
20 Q. And all I was asking, and forgive me if it sounded like a similar
21 question, I was just curious to know from your review of the documents
22 that you received whether you found any reason that the Prosecution may
23 have given us or anyone as to why they didn't, so I'm not asking you to
24 speculate. But let's go now, turn to this recognition category with the
25 three witness. The first witness we'd like to look at if we may is Mr.
1 Bircakovic, which is 142, and I think you in your report after part 2 --
2 it's under paragraph in bold number 4. Do you see that, and just so
3 everyone can follow along with us, and I believe it's on page 10.
4 A. Now, what's your question about Mr. Bircakovic?
5 Q. Yes. I just wanted to make sure we're on it.
6 A. Yeah.
7 Q. With respect to this witness, sir, are the conditions upon which
8 the witness claims to have seen Mr. Beara relevant in your opinion?
9 A. Well, Mr. Bircakovic did not positively say he saw Mr. Beara at a
10 certain place, a well known person to him. He said he may have seen him,
11 but he was not certain who he saw. Well, that's a logical problem. If
12 you first claim familiarity and you meet a familiar person at a certain
13 place, then in principle you're also quite certain whom you've met
14 because it's a familiar person. If you meet a person who you call
15 familiar but you are not actually certain who that is, then maybe you
16 should question the familiarity, and this makes it very difficult to
17 categorise this particular witness in one or the other categories, which
18 makes it for me also extremely difficult to say what the proper way of
19 testing this witness should be. Why he wasn't certain whom he had met
20 can depend -- can be the result of that he wasn't so familiar or that
21 Mr. Beara was very familiar but the actual viewing conditions were very
22 bad, so he couldn't see who that was. There are so many possibilities
23 that I would be forced to guess at what's happened here, and it's not my
24 task to guess. I can only say this makes it a very difficult to
25 understand witness from my respect. There's nothing I could do with it.
1 Q. If we look at your paragraph number 4 on your report.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And help me understand this sentence, although to keep it in
4 context I may have to read the preceding sentence. It says: "For the
5 three witnesses who were already familiar with Beara, no formal
6 identification test can be held." You proceed, Professor, stating --
7 this is where I have the question, so just bear with me: "The only thing
8 that can be judged is whether the conditions described by them would
9 allow a reliable recognition."
10 Further, with respect to this witness in particular, you state:
11 "For Witness number 142, this seems not to be the case, as he was not
12 even certain that he met with Mr. Beara."
13 A. Yeah.
14 Q. What were -- how do you reach this opinion, if you could tell me
15 what the basis is for this opinion.
16 A. I think this is the same as I just said. If he knows Mr. Beara,
17 then he meets him but isn't certain that is Mr. Beara, then one
18 explanation of that is that the perceptual conditions, the conditions for
19 viewing this person were so bad that you cannot trust his statement about
20 it. But another logical explanation is that although he says Mr. Beara
21 was familiar to me, in fact, he was not. So you also have to consider
22 the basis on which he claims this familiarity. If it had been his
23 neighbour for 25 years, you can trust he is familiar. But there is not
24 so much information in the file about on what grounds he declares that
25 Mr. Beara was a familiar person. Where did he meet him before that? So
1 there are two explanations of this events, either Mr. Beara was not
2 familiar, or if he maintains he was familiar, then the viewing conditions
3 must have been very bad, which raises doubt about his entire further
4 statement about what happened then.
5 Q. And just to try to move it along, although we are approaching the
6 break, I want to look at the next two witnesses with respect to this
7 category of recognition. In the last section of your report on paragraph
8 11, you talk about -- and we're going to come back to it, so I'm not
9 going to take it out of context, but I want to just get a flavour for why
10 and how you give this opinion. With respect to Witness Celanovic and
11 Witness PW 116, you give us the description, and then the last sentence
12 in your report in that section I find to be somewhat interesting. You
13 state: "They might be mistaken, and they might lie about it."
14 Given your experience and education in connection with psychology
15 and law in preparation of this case and others, can you just share with
16 us how this fits into the recognition category, either
17 "mistake" or as I like to call it, and I understand what you're saying, I
18 think when you say "lie," to determine any underlying motives such as
20 A. Sure.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: If you could put your questions much shorter than
23 that because they tend to be confusing.
24 MR. OSTOJIC: Fair enough.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm really appreciative of the Professor's efforts.
1 He really must be good at his job to even understand the question
2 sometime and answer it.
3 MR. OSTOJIC:
4 Q. Do you understand the question, Professor?
5 A. I think I understand it.
6 Q. I'm just focusing on that last sentence. Just tell us what the
7 basis of that is.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Professor.
9 MR. NICHOLLS: Never mind. Just keep rolling.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Yes, Professor.
11 THE WITNESS: Before a Court accept the statements by a witness,
12 it must be established whether these witnesses are not mistaken or are
13 not lying. Both things can happen. Now, if a person claims to have seen
14 the accused somewhere whereas in fact he never saw the accused, then he
15 will not be able to pass the lineup test. So the lineup test is a very
16 useful instrument to test whether the witnesses are mistaken or lying.
17 That's what it is for.
18 Now, with familiar persons you cannot apply the lineup test, and
19 so from their recognition, you cannot infer that also the problem of
20 possibly being mistaken or possibly lying is resolved, and that's why it
21 is here. They may later on in photo boards -- in photos and pictures
22 say, yes, that's the person I saw. But that's easy for them because it's
23 a familiar person. And the question whether they are mistaken about who
24 they saw when they encountered someone or even are lying about it is not
25 resolved by that recognition. And the significance of that is that there
1 must be other evidence to support the notion that they really met the
2 person they described.
3 Now, logically you can make a distinction between witnesses who
4 can't be mistaken because it was very clear what they saw and witnesses
5 who might be mistaken because it wasn't so clear what they saw. Now, Mr.
6 Babic is an example of he might easily be mistaken because he isn't sure
7 he saw Mr. Beara. So that's a clear example of where that question
8 remained open. About the other two, I can only say --
9 MR. OSTOJIC: If I could -- I don't mean to interrupt you, but
10 you said Mr. --
11 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
12 MR. OSTOJIC:
13 Q. Thank you, and I think we were really referencing in this
14 category of recognition three individuals, and the one I think you are
15 referencing is --
16 A. Is, yeah, Bircakovic. Yeah.
17 Q. That's right. Thank you. But we are close to the time for the
18 break, and if you can -- I think --
19 MR. OSTOJIC: If you don't mind, we can stop now I think?
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I think so. We'll have 25 minutes break now.
21 Thank you.
22 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
23 --- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ostojic.
25 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
1 Q. Professor, good morning again, and welcome back.
2 I want to continue as we were discussing on with respect to the
3 category recognition and specifically relating to the two witnesses that
4 remain under this category, Mr. Celanovic and Mr. PW 161. With respect
5 to their testimony, did you have an opportunity to review their
6 statements and their evidence that they gave to this Court?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Prior to the break, we were talking about this last sentence in
9 your Section 4 where "They might be mistaken and they might lie about
10 it." With respect to that general phraseology that you use, you were
11 starting to tell us a little bit about what that means, and I don't know
12 that you finished, so if you don't mind just giving us your full and
13 complete answer in this regard.
14 A. Yeah. I think we stopped when I explained that in -- there are
15 two category of witnesses, they might either be mistaken or not, and a
16 recognition doesn't enable you to decide whether they might be mistaken
17 or not. The same is true, of course, about lying. Some witnesses may
18 lie about the encounter they had and some may not, and again, the fact
19 that they are able in one way or another to recognise the accused doesn't
20 mean that they are not lying about either their encounter or what happens
21 at the encounter. Recognition simply have nothing to do with that
22 particular questions, and since I testified only about recognitions,
23 there's not so much I can answer about questions about possibilities or
24 motives of people that people might have to lie to this Court.
25 Q. And I can appreciate that, Professor, but specifically with
1 respect to this witness PW 161, were you able or did you review any
2 materials that may assist us in determining what his underlying motives
3 may be?
4 MR. NICHOLLS: There I'm going to object. I've been holding back
5 but, Your Honours, I don't think you need any help with that from an
6 expert on memory and perception.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Nicholls. Yes, Mr. Ostojic.
8 MR. OSTOJIC: I think it gives a complete testimony of this
9 witness to share with the Court what exactly he looked at. I'm going to
10 as my friends knows introduce two --
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, but how can he -- sorry for interrupting you,
12 but how can you expect Professor Wagenaar, assuming that the Witness 161,
13 PW, decided to say something or something different, whether he would
14 have a motive for that; and in particular, how would Professor Wagenaar
15 know what the motive is? How can you expect that?
16 MR. OSTOJIC: I can. I think the motive was given by Prosecutor.
17 He shared it with us, and I think he can make an assessment based upon
18 that, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Move on. Judge Kwon?
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So -- move to your next question.
22 MR. OSTOJIC: Just so I have it on the record, I wanted to
23 utilize 2D172 just so when we come back to this issue we can address it
24 accurately. Thank you.
25 Q. Sir, when we're looking at the two witnesses with recognition,
1 specifically PW 161, do you have any other opinions in connection with
2 the materials that you reviewed with respect to his testimony?
3 A. You are talking about PW --
4 Q. Yes. It's in the category of recognition as one of the three.
5 A. Yeah. Yeah. One of the things related to this witness that
6 might be relevant is the glasses. He said he met with Mr. Beara a number
7 of times in meetings, but he did not remember any glasses. Now of
8 course, it's not my task to know whether Mr. Beara always wore glasses in
9 meetings, but if Mr. Beara had been there - that's one - and two, had
10 worn glasses, it would be rather surprising for this witness not to
11 remember them. So this issue of the glasses at least raises some doubt
12 about what actually has happened there and whom he has met.
13 Q. And I'm going to show you, Professor, which we've put into
14 e-court photographs that I presented to you, and it's 2D602. If we can
15 please have that in e-court, and the record I think is clear on this, but
16 you have not personally met Mr. Beara; is that correct?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. And you only know him by virtue of the identifications that we've
19 made in certain photographs of him, correct?
20 A. Yes, that's correct.
21 Q. Now, let's just take a look at this 2D602, and while this is
22 uploading because they are photographs and they may take some time, but
23 can you just from the best of your recollection tell us the general
24 descriptions that were utilized by these various witnesses in purporting
25 to identify Mr. Beara? And you can look -- and if you need to, you can
1 make the distinction of some in identifying these characteristics were
2 form the category of unfamiliar or those that were familiar.
3 A. I'm not sure I understand what you are asking.
4 Q. And I'll repeat the question in that case. The thrust of the
5 testimony that you reviewed, did the witnesses provide detailed and
6 descriptive characteristics of Mr. Beara, or were they non-descript and
7 general characteristics of Mr. Beara?
8 A. Okay. Well, it varies a little bit, but in the files I read of,
9 say, the statements made by (redacted).
10 Q. If I could just interrupt you for a moment and ask to go into
11 private session, please.
12 MR. OSTOJIC: I'm sorry, Mr. President. My microphone was off.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's go into private session and...
14 JUDGE KWON: Delete it.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: And -- yes, exactly. One moment because we are not
16 yet in private session.
17 [Private session]
14 [Open session]
15 THE WITNESS: As you asked, the description given by this
16 particular witness is he saw a person with grey hair, tall, well built.
17 That's all. I would say for making a photo lineup, that would be
18 insufficient because it's far too broad. He doesn't mention glasses, and
19 then always the problem is what you would like to know was, was he asked
20 did you see any glasses, and then did he respond, no, I don't remember
21 that, or could he just not spontaneously remember glasses, but would he
22 have known if he would have been asked? His statements leave much open
23 room for what it exactly means, which at least for an expert trying to
24 form a judgement about how much this witness remembers makes it very
25 difficult. So I can't say he did not remember the glasses. I only know
1 it's not mentioned in the transcript. That's all I can say about it.
2 MR. OSTOJIC:
3 Q. Okay. And now we were going to --
4 A. And some other witnesses mention glasses spontaneously, so you
5 might say they have a clearer image of glasses than this particular
6 witness, although maybe the witness is not -- just not very talkative and
7 doesn't say many things spontaneously.
8 Q. And we were looking, Professor, at 2D602, which were photographs
9 that I presented to you, and they depict Mr. Beara, and we'll go through
10 them just quickly in the interest of time. And this first photograph
11 that we see, it's Mr. Beara as we're looking at the screen to the left
12 with glasses, and they seem to be tinted. Do you see that?
13 A. Yes, I do.
14 Q. If we can please have the next photograph or group of photographs
15 within this exhibit.
16 A. Maybe while we are waiting I can say something about showing
17 photographs that might be helpful?
18 MR. OSTOJIC: If the Court -- we gave, I think, the originals to
19 the Court officer, and we don't have a copy of it.
20 Q. I think you may --
21 MR. OSTOJIC: Mr. President, the witness was inquiring as to
22 whether or not he can say something?
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, of course. Yes, Professor, please go ahead.
24 THE WITNESS: The showing of photographs one after another all in
25 a particular context is in itself a suggestive procedure because it
1 suggests you can see the same person in all photographs. And then the
2 order of showing the photographs becomes extremely important because, for
3 instance, if in the first photograph you recognise someone and now you
4 realise he's wearing glasses, which is something you didn't know, that
5 makes it easier to recognise the same person in other photographs
6 especially if he's the only one wearing glasses. So what you want to
7 know is exactly in which order were these photographs shown, and what was
8 the response to each photograph separately?
9 MR. OSTOJIC:
10 Q. I'm not -- please go ahead.
11 A. And if that detailed information is not available, it's very hard
12 to judge what the meaning is if a later statement says he recognised some
13 or people in all -- even in all photographs. It depends, say, on the
14 order in which they were presented.
15 Q. And I'm just going to go through these photographs and as we see
16 them, there, again, on the left-hand side, the gentleman with the glasses
17 is Mr. Beara, and if we can go to the next photograph, please. And this
18 is obviously photographs from his youth, and then we'll show you a couple
19 that were after the period of 1995.
20 A. In the first photograph he was shown from the front. Now he's
21 shown from the side, and I think to many people it would not have been
22 clear this is the same person apart from the glasses, but that becomes,
23 then, a suggestive element.
24 Q. And there's another photograph. Professor, I'm not asking you to
25 make an identification with respect to Mr. Beara. I'm just -- for the
1 Court in order for us to show that -- and there's another photograph of
2 Mr. Beara at a different time in his life, as you can see, his hair and
3 his glasses there. I'm just trying to have a complete record that you
4 actually looked at these photographs in connection with the issue of
5 glasses for Mr. Beara, and that's -- I'm just confirming that you in fact
6 saw these photographs and no others, if you will. Is that accurate?
7 A. Yes, I did, but I don't think this is the last photograph of the
9 Q. It's coming. More are coming. Yes, sir.
10 A. Yeah. Because you asked me, did I not see others, and I ...
11 Q. Correct. If we can go to the next photograph, please. Do you
12 remember being shown this photograph, sir?
13 A. Yes, absolutely.
14 Q. And can you tell us what if anything is significant about this
15 photograph, in your opinion?
16 A. Well, what I found significant here, that clearly the setting
17 here is in the field, and of course, I'm not to judge what the actual
18 situation is, but I see there are arms. There are field glasses, that
19 the suggestion is that he is actually engaged in something that is to be
20 done in the field. He is not on holiday here. In as far as that is
21 true, it is of course significant that he wears his glasses. For work in
22 the field, you must see well; and if Mr. -- but I don't know that, but if
23 Mr. Beara needs glasses to see well, it's of course significant that,
24 indeed, he has them.
25 Q. Let's go to the next photograph, if we may, please. This is a
1 photograph that's a family photograph, and I'm just going to tell you
2 that it was after 1995, and we can see looking at the photograph, the
3 second from the right is Mr. Beara. Do you see that?
4 A. Well, I can't confirm that it's him. I just --
5 Q. But the gentleman, do you -- I'm just telling you that it is. I
6 don't think there's any doubt about it. Prosecution is not standing up
7 in that regard. And I want to now look at two other exhibits with you.
8 Those are two images that the Prosecution shared with us that they had in
9 their possession with respect to Mr. Beara. One is obviously an
10 attachment as we discussed and the stipulation for Mr. Erdemovic, the
11 witness you previously testified about, and just to move this quicker,
12 I'm going to ask with the Court's permission that we place this
13 photograph on the ELMO if we can.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, by all means, Mr. Ostojic.
15 MR. OSTOJIC: And this is part of Exhibit 2D572. Thank you.
16 Q. And I think we all know, Professor, that Mr. Erdemovic in this
17 photograph did not identify Mr. Beara as the person he purported to see
18 in the site that he was at, and I know we have your testimony in
19 connection with whether this photograph is highly suggestive or not. But
20 when you look at this photo board, and I'm not going to ask you to repeat
21 your opinions in connection with that, tell us specifically why this
22 photo board if shown to a witness for purposes of identification such as
23 Mr. Erdemovic would be considered, in your opinion, suggestive?
24 A. Yeah, there are a few elements.
25 Q. Share them with us.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes...
2 MR. NICHOLLS: I may be wrong. I think he already gave a large
3 explanation of that, from the position, the age, all of these things. I
4 may be mistaken, but I thought that's what -- the last time they went
5 through all of that.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Well, do you wish to comment? I do think that it
7 is a repetitive question, but...
8 MR. OSTOJIC: I don't believe that it is because I think he gave
9 a general description when he discussed what are some of those factors,
10 and now we're asking for him specifically with the actual document in
11 front of him. But if the Court wants, we can move on.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, we were going to raise this even before in
14 relation to some other questions, but here we have definitely a case of
15 where the witness, Erdemovic, being shown this photo failed to recognise
16 Beara. So what's the point of the whole exercise, question?
17 MR. OSTOJIC: Well, I can share it if you want in front of the
18 witness or not.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Even if it were a suggestive photo lineup, he
20 didn't recognise him. Yeah, let's move to your next question.
21 MR. OSTOJIC: Fair enough.
22 Q. Sir, you have in your section -- on your last section glasses and
23 the significance of the description of appearance, and you highlight
24 glasses. Let's go through some of this specifically with respect to
25 witnesses which we have as PW 165, which in your report you identify
1 under the number 135; witness who you identify as 113 whose name is
2 Celanovic; and Witness number 21 who we briefly discussed today which was
3 Egbers; and Witness 157 which we've identified as PW 104.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Share with us your opinion in connection with those four
6 witnesses, the relevance of their testimony in connection with
8 A. Yeah. These four witnesses actually made a statement about
9 glasses. They said that the person they saw did not wear glasses or did
10 not continually wear glasses, so that's different from the last witness
11 we discussed where it's uncertain whether it's just that he failed to
12 mention it. This is a much positive -- much more positive statement
13 about glasses. They didn't see it, or he was not wearing it continually.
14 And that would be a significant piece of information in the
15 context of more information about Mr. Beara's habits of wearing glasses,
16 of which, of course, I'm not an expert. I can only say that the
17 connection between these statements and the actual fact whether or not he
18 always wore glasses, that connection is, of course, extremely relevant.
19 If he wore always glasses, the question is, of course - and
20 that's more in my field - would it be possible for people to not remember
21 those glasses? And in principle, one can say everything can be
22 forgotten, but not all people will forget everything. The fact that four
23 witnesses say that there were not glasses or not always glasses is, in
24 the context of how difficult it would be to remember that, would be quite
25 surprising if in fact they always saw those glasses. So it's a
1 significant factor, and if it would be established that Mr. Beara wore
2 always glasses, it would be a surprising feat of memory that four
3 witnesses forgot that.
4 Q. Now, Professor, Mr. President asked the question with respect to
5 this photograph, and although we always like to do this compare and
6 contrast, what I'd like to do is to show you a photograph of the video
7 that Mr. Egbers was shown the seven or eight times, and I showed it my
8 learned friend, and we're going to mark that, although it's not in
9 e-court, because the video is -- it's 2D605, because I'd like your
10 opinion to know if this video, although it's this snapshot in particular,
11 that was the only time Mr. Beara purports to be there, whether this is
12 suggestive, if the Court permits.
13 So we have on the ELMO now a still picture from a video that was
14 shown to Mr. Egbers that I think you viewed at least in accordance with
15 your report.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't know if it's just me or not, but I'm not
17 seeing anything.
18 MR. OSTOJIC: All of them blanked out.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Yes.
20 MR. NICHOLLS: Just to be very clear for the record, this still
21 was never shown to Egbers. It's a still from the video, so it may not be
22 exactly the same thing. I want to make sure the witness knows that and
23 that that's clear on the record, and -- but I would think it'd be
24 possible to show that very short clip if necessary.
25 MR. OSTOJIC: If necessary, we have it, and why don't we show it
1 since they've raised an objection or an issue with that regard. May we
2 have --
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's do that, then. Thank you.
4 MR. OSTOJIC:
5 Q. Professor, we're going to show you the video that was shown to
6 Mr. Egbers in a moment, and I just want you to focus on a number of
7 factors in connection with that video, and I know that you've read Mr.
8 Egbers' testimony in that regard, and I just have a few follow-up
9 questions, so just please bear with us.
10 For the Court and others, the video has been marked I think
11 previously, and we'll get the Court that specific number. If we can just
12 roll back a little bit to --
13 [Videotape played]
14 MR. OSTOJIC: -- I think, to rewind it. Can we rewind it? Yes,
15 that's great. We can keep playing it, please.
16 [Videotape played]
17 MR. OSTOJIC: We can stop now, I think.
18 Q. Professor, the video goes on other issues that I think my learned
19 friend will agree that other than for this segment, I don't believe what
20 purports to be the gentleman Mr. Beara, nowhere else is it in the video,
21 and I'll stand to be corrected on this, but I think I'm accurate on it.
22 This was the video clip that was shown to Mr. Egbers, and I have a still
23 shot of that one particular one because various segments were from either
24 distances, and I didn't want to be suggestive nor should we as to what
25 the distance is when we first saw this gentleman from -- appear on the
1 picture. But would that be considered a suggestive way of helping
2 someone recognise or identify a purported individual by showing him this
3 video clip?
4 A. First thing is, of course, that this is definitely not the format
5 that you would choose if you would present a formal identification test.
6 Q. And why is that?
7 A. For a number of reasons. There are only a few people there shown
8 who feature prominently. They march in front of some bars, and there's a
9 large crowd behind the bars. It would be totally unreasonable that a
10 person you should identify would be one in the crowd behind those bars
11 because that's clearly not visible at all. So any witness would conclude
12 it's one of those people in the front I must recognise. That leaves, I
13 think, three people, which is too small for a photo lineup anyway. These
14 three people, they are wearing similar uniforms, but I can't say they fit
15 the same description of the physical appearance, so it's logically
16 impossible that two could be well-chosen foils for the third. That's the
17 second reason -- third reason. The fourth reason is that in as far as
18 the other persons are familiar to the witness, he could easily exclude
19 the others on those grounds, which leaves only one candidate to be
20 identified as the person who has been discussed. So those would be major
21 deviations from the setup of a proper photo lineup test.
22 Q. Now, despite those flaws or the opinions in connection with how
23 this was shown to Egbers, do you have an opinion as to how many times the
24 video should have been played in order to reasonably assess whether or
25 not he can properly identify the individual he claims to have seen?
1 A. I find it very hard to answer that question because then I must
2 guess at the objective of showing the video. To my mind, the objective
3 cannot logically be that it would be for identification purposes because
4 any investigator in the world knows that proper identification is done
5 differently. What other objective there was, I can hardly guess. If it
6 is believed when Egbers could not identify, say, one of those people,
7 that repetition would help, then I can only say that the experience in
8 person identification research is that if you are tested and you don't
9 recognise anyone, repetition does not help.
10 Q. And when we discuss repetition in this particular case with this
11 witness Egbers, was there repetition? I think you testified to it, but I
12 don't want to lead you on this.
13 A. Well, if you show it seven to eight times, I would call that
14 repetition. Recognition or identification do not become better, but
15 another effect of repetition is, of course, that you increase the
16 pressure. By repeating it seven to eight times you make it clear even
17 without saying, you make it clear to the witness that this is important
18 and that it really would be very helpful if he could identify anyone.
19 And we know that pressure does not improve person perception, but it
20 increases the tendency to guess.
21 Now, in an exposition as this where logically you can come to
22 some conclusion about whom actually is intended even without recognizing,
23 pressure increasing the tendency to guess might lead to an apparent
24 positive identification, whereas in fact, no one was actually recognised.
25 Q. Thank you. Describe for me, if you will, in a typical situation
1 where we have a proper photo identification board the person who is
2 actually being tested, if you will, for recognition identification
3 purposes. How long does that process take? Not the creation of the
4 board - we've discussed that - but actually the -- conducting that very
5 test by presenting it to an individual for purposes of identification?
6 A. Sure. In the instructions to a witness --
7 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. Stop. Stop. One moment. Yes, Mr.
9 MR. NICHOLLS: I'm just wondering about the relevance since we
10 don't have photo boards, tests of Mr. Beara conducted.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ostojic.
12 MR. OSTOJIC: I think it relates specifically to this video that
13 they've shown and to give a witness an opportunity seven to eight times,
14 I think it's critical without sharing, although I think we know what his
15 answer is, and my learned friend certainly has read and knows the
16 standard, but I think it's -- even with a photo board that is proper, I
17 think it's important for us to know whether or not you would have a
18 witness look at it on seven to eight different instances, which will
19 ultimately be the follow-up question after we lay the foundation in
20 connection with a proper photo board.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. You are a hundred-percent right, Mr.
23 Nicholls, as it relates to Beara. However, the question might relate,
24 also, to other of the accused for whom this procedure, photo board was
25 used. So we are allowing the question only because of that and not
1 because it has any relevance in the case of accused Beara.
2 Did you get the gist of it, Professor? If you could answer,
3 please. Thank you.
4 THE WITNESS: Yes, I did, Your Honour. In the proper photo board
5 procedure, witnesses are instructed that they should not guess; they
6 should only point at someone if they recognise a person immediately,
7 which means that the actual recognition -- identification test last very
8 short. You do not allow witnesses to look and look and look again, and
9 it takes 10, 15 minutes. That's not immediate recognition. So usually
10 it's done within a minute or less.
11 MR. OSTOJIC:
12 Q. Why is that significant, not to have him see it for a longer
13 period of time?
14 A. Because if there's no immediate identification, then a prolonged
15 exposition increases the tendency to guess, and you don't want the
16 witnesses to guess in identity questions because in the proper lineup of,
17 say, eight photographs as it has been used in this Tribunal before still
18 leaves a guessing tendency of one in seven. Now, one of seven is still a
19 considerable risk, and the last thing you want to do is witnesses to
20 guess. Photo confrontations are so particularly good because -- not
21 because the guessing level is low, because it's not even so low, but
22 because it discourages witnesses to guess because by seeing all these
23 pictures, they realise, oh, my Lord, I'm not sure, and they only realise
24 it when they see the photo board, and then they refrain from guessing.
25 They refrain from pointing at anyone. That's exactly what you want. You
1 want them to take the safe choice.
2 Q. Just a couple more questions with respect to Mr. Egbers. Last
3 week we were given a document, which I think is identified as an
4 information sheet for the first time, that relates to a witness called
5 Theo Lutke, but in that information sheet, it also references Mr. Egbers.
6 And I know you didn't have much time to appreciate the document or the
7 relevance of it, necessarily, but I want to make sure that it's on the
8 record that we received it late and well after Mr. Egbers testimony. So
9 if we can please look at that, and that is 2D603. I'm sure the
10 Prosecution is going to explain to us why we didn't have this when Mr.
11 Egbers was testifying. There, it seems from their very own investigator
12 that Mr. Egbers was saying that Mr. Lutke was present there, but we need
13 not go into that. Do you see the first paragraph as well as the other
14 paragraphs, Professor, and this document?
15 A. Yeah, it's not so clear on my ...
16 Q. Yeah, nor on mine.
17 A. Yeah. Now it's getting better. Yeah. You want to draw my
18 attention to a particular section of this document?
19 Q. To the first paragraph, if you will.
20 A. Okay.
21 Q. You can just read it to yourself.
22 A. Sure, I've read it.
23 Q. Okay. With respect to that, does it give us any information as
24 to how long this purported meeting with Mr. Beara was with Captain
1 A. He had a brief conversation. No times are mentioned. It says
2 they were stranded in that place; that could be long, so it's very
3 unclear how much of, say, that stranded time they actually talked to --
4 according to this witness they talked to Colonel Beara.
5 Q. And -- fair enough. And I'm just going to move away from that.
6 Now, there are other issues that I have with this exit that don't
7 necessarily relate to you at this moment.
8 Changing focus for a second, if we can again look at the witness
9 that we previously identified in your report as 131, and he's Mr. Peric.
10 And I'd like to just focus on his testimony because I think we can
11 highlight some things, and this is a witness who you yourself I think
12 said should not have been tested because he may have seen Beara after the
13 alleged encounter.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Nicholls.
15 MR. NICHOLLS: I'm sorry to interrupt. Just while we still have
16 2D603. To be clear, I don't think my friend was trying to state that the
17 first paragraph was something that the witness Lutke had said. This is
18 just a summary by the investigator. I'm not sure if that was clear to
19 the witness because it wasn't to me, the way the question was phrased,
20 until I looked at it carefully.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ostojic.
22 MR. OSTOJIC: Clearly, it's written what Mr. Lutke said, but in
23 the second and third paragraph of this exhibit I pointed to -- the
24 professor specifically to the first paragraph, which references Mr.
25 Egbers, but I think it's very fair to say that Mr. Lutke's recollection
1 of events is reflected adequately on the second and third paragraph, if
2 I'm not mistaken, of this exhibit. I think we can all read it for
3 ourselves, but if you'd like it I can read it out loud --
4 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we can move --
5 MR. OSTOJIC: -- for any of the accused if necessary.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's move on. Let's move on. Yes, Professor.
7 It's on the record in any case, Mr. Nicholls, so you don't have to worry
8 about it.
9 MR. OSTOJIC:
10 Q. I was -- if I can go back to the issue that I was trying to draw
11 your attention to, and that's specifically Mr. Peric and 131. I just
12 want to focus on it. With respect to his opinion -- I know we spent some
13 time identifying certain factors such as time and distance and
14 illumination, as you put it, as well as height, weight, and age. With
15 respect to this witness, did you find anything significant or relevant
16 based upon the distance which he claims to have purportedly met
17 Mr. Beara?
18 A. Yeah. In his statement, he said he saw a group of people and one
19 of them was a high-ranking older person, and he saw this group at a
20 distance of 50 metres. I noticed that was an exclamation mark in my
21 notes because 50 metres is of course much longer than the criterion of 20
22 metres that I found in my research beyond which the perception of
23 people's faces becomes risky. 50 metres is such a long distance that
24 accepting his testimony that -- whom he saw would be extremely risky
25 without further testing. I would like to the Tribunal to stress again
1 that such questions can be -- in principle be solved with a proper lineup
2 testing. If he did see his face and remembered it, that would be
3 revealed by a proper lineup test. Unfortunately, this witness stated
4 that maybe he saw later pictures of Mr. Beara in the media. That
5 excludes him as a witness who can be tested in a lineup. It doesn't
6 exclude him as a witness, of course, but whom he saw cannot be tested in
7 a lineup because if he saw pictures of Mr. Beara later, through
8 unconscious transference he might be able to identify him in the photo
10 Q. Thank you for that. I just have one other -- a couple other
11 items I'd like to cover with you, although we know how long it takes to
12 create such a photo identification board and we know that the Prosecution
13 has shown videos to the witnesses in the manner in which you've
14 described. I want to show you a video that purports to be from a -- as
15 we've identified, the Zivanovic party, and it is 2D596.
16 MR. OSTOJIC: And Mr. President, it's approximately 16 seconds of
17 video clip that I'd like to show the witness for the purposes of my next
18 several questions, if I may.
19 Q. Professor, as this is getting uploaded, I think you remember the
20 video I'm referring to, right?
21 A. Yes, I do.
22 Q. Fair enough. For the record, we'd like to go to 41 minutes and
23 20 seconds and play it through 41 minutes and 36 seconds.
24 [Videotape played]
25 MR. OSTOJIC: Can we stop, please. Thank you. I've asked to
2 Q. Professor, I'm going to focus on the gentleman which we cannot
3 see, but we certainly see a portion of his -- back of his head, his ear,
4 and that's the third gentleman when we look at the picture from his left,
5 and now we lost that, but that's okay. And so we'll come back and play
6 this. Do you see the gentleman now in this --
7 A. Right.
8 Q. And then just so we have the correct time. We're going a little
9 fast, but that's okay. Obviously, this gentleman here fits some of the
10 descriptions that you've heard from the witnesses, from the testimony and
11 statements that you've reviewed, correct?
12 A. I can see it's an elderly person --
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. One moment, Professor. Yes, Mr. Nicholls.
14 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection to the leading. I mean, it's pretty
15 obvious, but I think he can just say, now point out which of these you
16 think in your opinion fit the description, the way he reads the
17 description, the way he read the transcript, not telling him this person
18 fits the description and now I'll ask you a question about that.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ostojic. Can you rephrase the question,
21 MR. OSTOJIC: I will. I will, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: And you could have put it the way you are
23 rephrasing it in the first place.
24 MR. OSTOJIC:
25 Q. In this still, if you will, of a video that we have, do any of
1 these three individuals fit the general description that was provided of
2 the 12 witnesses that you've reviewed in connection with this case?
3 A. The person on the right in this still fits the description of an
4 elderly person with glasses. I cannot tell whether he is strongly built
5 as some witnesses described Mr. Beara, nor can I see his insignia to see
6 whether he's a lieutenant-colonel or colonel. The two others -- the one
7 to the left might be described as having greyish hair; the person in the
8 middle, clearly not; and the other two don't have -- don't wear glasses.
9 Q. Thank you. If we can proceed with the film, then I'll ask you
10 when to stop.
11 [Video played]
12 MR. OSTOJIC: If we could fast forward to the section where the
13 gentleman that we just saw was standing.
14 Q. Well, in any event, Professor, let me just try to -- in the
15 interest of time, we've seen that the Prosecution has taken from videos
16 certain still shots like the exhibits that you've looked at specifically
17 as it relates to Mr. Babic and his testimony. Would this type of video
18 and capturing this person, for example, would it be -- and I know you
19 don't want to talk about all the foils, but would this be a way to
20 capture someone and place it on a foil for purposes of a photo board
22 A. Well, it's not the way it's usually done. Photo boards are
23 usually compiled from clear photographs of people all taken in the same
24 position, all wearing same uniform. I think if -- these images are not
25 very clear, and especially if you reduce them to still they get worse, so
1 no, I don't think this is very useful. In the case of Mr. Beara, which
2 is the only case I study, of course, the situation is that at the time
3 when the investigation started clear pictures of Mr. Beara were -- could
4 have been used, and clear pictures of foils would even be easier to
5 produce. And it's important that a photo board has a good quality and is
6 not vague or shows unwanted differences because they are taken, had to be
7 taken from poor available material.
8 Q. Thank you, Professor. I have no further questions.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you, Mr. Ostojic. Mr. Zivanovic,
10 you had asked for about ten minutes.
11 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Please go ahead.
13 Cross-examination by Mr. Zivanovic:
14 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, Professor. My name is Zoran
15 Zivanovic. I am representing Mr. Vujadin Popovic in this case. I was
16 planning to put more questions to you, but a lot of them have already
17 been covered now by my learned friend Mr. Ostojic so that my examination
18 will be shorter.
19 During your testimony, you indicated the difference between
20 identification and recognition, and you explained -- actually, I would
21 like you to clarify that part, and my questions will relate to that which
22 relates to identification, so the recollection of the witness about the
23 appearance of the person that he doesn't in fact know.
24 I'm actually going to ask you, you spoke about the significance
25 of the perception of the witness of a person at the site, whether the
1 person is facing forward, to the side, et cetera. So my question will
2 relate to the reliability of the identification of the person who is --
3 has their back turned to the camera. I would like you to ask a -- to
4 look at a photograph. This is photograph P2324. It's from the
5 Prosecutor's collection, which was used here.
6 You can see two people in this photograph. One person is facing
7 the camera. I'm not going to put any questions to you about that person.
8 The other person is turned with their back or is seen from the side, but
9 the head is turned or, actually, the face you cannot see. Now, I would
10 like to ask you to tell us in your expert opinion how reliable the
11 identification is that a witness would perform in relation to this person
12 that has their back to us, that is on the right-hand side of the
14 A. Before I can answer your question, I think I need a
15 clarification. Is the witness you were mentioning identifying a person
16 from this photograph? So the witness is not actually taking part in this
17 scene; he's not present in this village?
18 Q. Yes. Precisely, Professor. The witness is carrying out an
19 identification of this person that has their back turned on the basis of
20 this photograph.
21 A. Okay. The answer to your question is that an identification of
22 this person might be misleading. It is -- it can be imagined that a
23 witness would be able to say who this person is not. It's clearly not
24 me, and it is not you, and it's a number of people not. Now, if the
25 witness is in a situation where he realises that this can be only one out
1 of a few persons, then he can reason logically that most people out of
2 the group can be excluded because they look different even from the back.
3 Then his logical conclusion might be, it can only be one person. But a
4 logical conclusion is not the same as a direct perception, and in most
5 cases, you as lawyers do not want witnesses to draw conclusions. They
6 should report about their own experiences; and therefore, under certain
7 conditions it should not be allowed to ask witnesses to identify such a
8 person because it would encourage making inferences instead of reporting
9 about the witness's direct experiences.
10 Q. Thank you, Professor. I would just like to ask you one other
11 thing. Can you tell me something about the effect on the identification
12 that passage of time has, the time from the day when the witness noticed
13 a person until the day that he is called upon to identify that person on
14 the basis of a photograph that is shown to him?
15 A. Yeah. The time between perceiving a person and identifying him
16 on the photograph can be very long even without loss of accuracy. It all
17 depends what happened in that time. Some things are remembered over long
18 periods of time because, one, they were very important to you, you paid a
19 lot of attention to it; and two, you were thinking about it all the time
20 because you were reminded to it all the time through over events in your
21 life. We call that refreshment of memory. If life itself makes you,
22 encourages you to refresh your memory, you can remember things, also
23 images, for a long period of time. That would be good. But there's
24 another effect. In a long period of time, you might receive new
25 information, different information, which conflicts with your original
1 memories. That information can also be pictorial, which is, you receive
2 conflicting images. And the longer the time, the more opportunities
3 there are for conflicting information, which is a negative influence on
4 memory because memory has a tendency to integrate all information and
5 build one coherent representation of the events that you experienced.
6 So a long time might be very destructive on your memory if much
7 conflicting information was received. Now, this means, in one short
8 sentence, that the length of time per se is not very -- not very
9 informative aspect of it. What is important is what happened in that
10 time, either did you refresh your memories and kept them clear, or did
11 you receive lots of conflicting information, and did your memories get
12 distorted over time? Both is possible, and what you really want to know
13 is not how long was the time but what happened in that time.
14 Q. Thank you, Professor. I just have one more question. How would
15 you assess the reliability of identification if, for example, five years
16 after the fact the witness would demonstrate uncertainty about the
17 identification of a certain person but then in five more years spoke with
18 a greater degree of certainty that that is the person involved?
19 A. I assume that you're talking about speaking about identification
20 without being tested in a formal lineup procedure, because that can be
21 done only once, cannot be repeated.
22 Q. Yes, you are right. It's not that manner of identification.
23 It's about identification that would be carried out five years after the
24 fact and then another one that would be repeated five years more after
25 the fact, in total, ten years after the event.
1 A. Okay, I understand your question, but one general piece of
2 knowledge that we all have is that usually memory gets worse over time
3 and does not get better, and that's also true for witnesses. Now,
4 confidence in your memory is a totally different thing, and there is not
5 much of a relationship between the accuracy of your memory and the
6 confidence that you have in your memory. Now, the experience is that in
7 time accuracy tends to go down and confidence sometimes goes up, so the
8 discrepancy between what you actually remember and how confident you are
9 becomes bigger and bigger.
10 One of my students has just concluded her dissertation that she
11 will defend this season in Leiden
12 familiar with it, and what you are referring is not that identification
13 has become better over the period of ten years because we cannot know
14 that. You are describing that the confidence increased, which does not
15 surprise me. But the general lesson is that although you might accept
16 the memories of witnesses, do not equally easily accept their confidence
17 in their memories because they might be totally wrong there.
18 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Thank you, Professor. I have no further
19 questions for you. Thank you, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Zivanovic. Mr. Bourgon, you had
21 asked for one hour?
22 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. As I had the opportunity
23 of saying, I should be shorter, no more than 30 minutes, probably less.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead. If you could conclude by the break,
25 that's fantastic.
1 MR. BOURGON: We'll do my best, Mr. President.
2 Cross-examination by Mr. Bourgon:
3 Q. Good morning, Professor.
4 A. Good morning.
5 Q. For the record, allow me to introduce myself. My name is
6 Stephane Bourgon, and I represent along with my colleagues today Drago
7 Nikolic in these proceedings. Before I begin, I'd like you to confirm
8 that we did have the opportunity of meeting last week. Is that correct,
10 A. Yes, we did.
11 Q. I thank you very much for taking the time to meet me last week,
12 and I will move --
13 THE INTERPRETER: The counsel and witnesses are kindly asked to
14 make pauses between questions and answers for interpretation. Thank you.
15 MR. BOURGON: I apologise. Will do. Thank you.
16 Q. I will move to my first question, Professor, and -- which has to
17 do with your report, which I read with much interest, and I refer here to
18 part 2, section 5, of your report, which deals with description of
19 appearance. And in that section, you refer to the literature on person
20 description after a considerable retention interval. You've already
21 answered a few questions to my colleague on this topic - I'm talking
22 about Mr. Zivanovic - but I understand that this is part of your science;
23 is that correct?
24 A. Yes, you are correct.
25 Q. I'd like to obtain your assistance regarding the factors that
1 will influence the memory of a witness or, let's say, what a witness will
2 remember after a significant time lapse concerning the physical
3 appearance and the characteristics of a person encountered only once. So
4 in other words, my question is the following: If a witness is involved
5 in a significant event, and not necessarily a crime but something
6 significant, during which he or she meets a single person for the first
7 time, and let's say that this person does not see -- the witness, sorry,
8 does not see that person again for a considerable lapse of time - let's
9 say seven years - what I would like to know is, from a scientific point
10 of view, what is the witness likely to remember about the physical
11 appearance and characteristics of the person?
12 A. Maybe, first, it would be good to make clear that I can answer
13 only your general questions about my science and that I have no knowledge
14 whatsoever of the case of your client, so my answers really must be taken
15 as general scientific answers.
16 When we look at descriptions that people give of other people
17 they have met in the past, then you see that when time lapses these
18 descriptions become poorer and poorer; details get lost. And usually
19 what people can explain spontaneously are very rough categories, for
20 instance, male or female; they will remember what they saw. Caucasian or
21 non-Caucasian or black or rough categories like Asian, they will
22 remember. Some very general information about height; it was a very big
23 person, a very small person. If there's nothing conspicuous there, they
24 will probably not even mention it. They will remember very young or very
25 old, so very rough, broad categories.
1 And then the one issue that they find the easiest to remember
2 about outer appearance is hair-do: bald, very long hair, very dark,
3 curly hair, as in my case, lots of white hair. So hair-do is an
4 important -- remains an important feature of the memories. Rather
5 surprisingly, usually beards and moustaches get often lost.
6 Q. Thank you, Professor. And what could we say about clothing?
7 A. Clothing is very difficult unless it was highly conspicuous.
8 Like, if you remember Santa Claus, you would remember, also, his
9 clothing; but in wartimes, for instance, people seem to remember
10 something like uniforms, but that could be any type of uniforms, and they
11 get easily confused about the uniforms. Some of my research is on
12 remembering uniforms in concentration camps, in German concentration
13 camps, and what we know from survivors of concentration camps, that
14 they're often totally wrong on the uniforms they attribute to certain
15 people. And I should warn you, they are not wrong about uniforms they
16 saw; they are wrong about which person wore which uniform. And that's,
17 of course, the essential information that the Court needs to know.
18 Q. Thank you, Professor. My next question is, I would like to take
19 a practical example, of course, without going into the facts of this
20 case, and I would simply ask that if a witness saw you today for the
21 first time as you testify in this significant trial and that person does
22 not see you again for a period of seven years, if this person was asked
23 to describe your physical appearance, what is he or she likely to
24 remember about your physical appearance and characteristics?
25 A. That witness will probably remember that I'm male, I'm Caucasian,
1 I'm an elderly person, I have white hair, and then it depends on whether
2 the witness saw me sitting here behind the stand because then nothing
3 about length or build could be said, or whether the witness saw me walk.
4 If the witness saw me walk, probably nothing very special would be
5 remembered. I'm not extremely fat; I'm definitely not extremely thin;
6 I'm not extremely tall, not extremely small. There's nothing really that
7 would strike the witness in such a way that could be remembered after
8 seven years.
9 Q. Now, it's twice now that you mentioned -- first, you said a lot
10 of white hair spontaneously before I asked that question, and now you
11 mention again the white hair. Just how important is the white hair
12 concerning you personally?
13 A. Well, I'm not sure I understand your question. It's something
14 people will remember --
15 Q. Let me --
16 A. -- and whether it's important to anyone, I'm not so certain,
17 apart for myself and my wife.
18 Q. Let me be more precise, Professor. That witness who saw you only
19 once today and describes you seven years from now, how important or how
20 is it likely that he or she will remember the white hair?
21 A. Yeah. That's -- of all my general features, it's the most likely
22 thing that would be remembered.
23 Q. Now, again, without going into the facts of this case, if white
24 hair and hair-do is a significant characteristics, if I add to this a
25 person who is young - let's say 30, 35 - with white hair and a specific
1 hair-do, how important would that be in describing this person seven
2 years down the road?
3 A. Well, that depends on -- in itself, it is remarkable that a young
4 person would have completely white hair; also, I myself did. But whether
5 that would strike a witness as special depends on whether the witness can
6 estimate the age of that person. If for other reasons it would be clear
7 to the witness that this is a very young person, the witness would think,
8 this is odd, and that would make it even more likely that the white hair
9 would be remembered. But in general, of course, the estimation of age is
10 in part dependent upon the colour of the hair. So it's also possible
11 that your hypothetical witness would be mistaken about the age as seeing
12 nothing special. So it's one of the two, and how this must be applied to
13 your case, of course, I do not know.
14 Q. Well, again, I don't want to get into the specifics of the case,
15 but if the person does recognise that person or does recognise person as
16 being a young person having white hair, would you agree that this would
17 be a significant detail?
18 A. If the witness would be able to realise this is a very young
19 person, it would strike him as -- it would draw his attention that young
20 person had white hair. That makes it even more likely to remember.
21 Q. Thank you. My understanding, also, is that you referred to other
22 factors which influence the quality or the precision of a person's
23 recollection, and I'd like to look at a couple of them. The first one
24 you discussed briefly with my colleague Mr. Zivanovic, and that is the
25 retention period. You've covered that already. My question here will be
1 quite specific. What if the retention period is cut in half by a second
2 encounter? Let's say the period of seven years I mentioned was cut in
3 half because the witness saw the person again after three or four years.
4 What would be the effect?
5 A. The effect of a second meeting, that would be a good example of
6 what I called refreshment. Now that memory is refreshed. I assume that
7 the person in the meantime has not significantly changed because then we
8 cannot talk about refreshing an old memory because then we must talk
9 about producing a new memory. After your meeting halfway, see, the
10 forgetting process starts again in principle, but now the forgetting
11 period is only if it was after -- of the seven halfway, it's only three
12 and a half years instead of seven. The forgetting curve really is
13 measured from the last encounter.
14 Q. The next criteria I would like to look at is the emotional
15 significance of the encounter. How would that play a part in whether a
16 witness was able to recognise seven years down the road a person he met
17 only once?
18 A. The relationship between emotions and the quality of memory is
19 very complex because there are two effects. One is that emotions make
20 memory worse, and the other is that emotions make memory better. And to
21 make a very complex matter -- to simplify it a little bit, one of the
22 determining factors is the fact that emotions at a certain moment narrow
23 the field of your attention. You pay more attention to some important
24 things but less attention to the other things, and so -- and the things
25 you paid more attention to will also be remembered better, but that is at
1 the cost of the things you now paid less attention to because they will
2 remember it worse. So the question about emotions cannot be answered if
3 it is not first addressed whether the thing that needed to be remembered
4 or the thing that is reported later can be assumed to be something to
5 which all your attention went during the emotion or that it would be
6 something that would in fact be cut out of your attention because it was
7 less important. And the answer to what actually will happen can only be
8 determined on the basis of an exact description of the case.
9 Q. Thank you, Professor. The next criteria I would like to quickly
10 look into, and you've touched already a bit on it, is an opportunity to
11 remind. So the witness had a reason to think about the event during the
12 period of seven years. Would that be important?
13 A. Yes, that would be an example of what I called refreshment,
14 things you are reminded to just -- spontaneously or through events in
15 your lifetime are better remembered than things you never thought about
16 and suddenly after many years are recovered in your memory again.
17 So refreshment of memory is very much related to the degree to
18 which you are reminded to these events. But I must warn you there. If
19 you are reminded just because that's how life goes, that's different from
20 being reminded to it through conflicting information because conflicting
21 information may worsen your memory. Just being reminded because like in
22 the war, having survived a war, everything around you reminds you to that
23 war all the time, it's not something that will move away and will move
24 out of your life. So that type of reminding would refresh your memory
25 all the time.
1 Q. I only have two more questions, Professor. The first one is, one
2 of the things you mentioned when we met is that an event -- the more
3 important the event, the more likely it will be burned in the memory, and
4 you refer to something that an event burned in the memory usually comes
5 with a picture. Can you explain that for the Court, please?
6 A. Yeah. Well, memory is about facts, but some aspects of memory
7 are pictorial. We can describe actually what things looked like, and we
8 can also -- we call that imagery. You can close your eyes and try to see
9 that picture in front of you and even describe it then. And some events
10 that do not constitute general knowledge but constitute events, things
11 that you have seen may be remembered not only in terms of words or a
12 story or facts but also in a pictorial manner.
13 Q. Thank you. In response to a colleague -- question by my
14 colleague representing the accused Beara, you referred to a rule of plus
15 or minus 5 that you personally use, and if I sum up your conclusion is
16 that anything over 10, plus or minus 10, in terms of kilos, age, or
17 height in centimetres, that this leads to the conclusion that the witness
18 either does not remember or never met the person. Is that a summary of
19 your answer to my colleague's question?
20 A. No, it's not. That's far too strong. What I said is below 10,
21 you should not be surprised if that happens. Above 10 -- and you are
22 quite right. This is only true in the metrical world. We are talking
23 about centimetres and kilograms, not about inches and pounds. Above 10,
24 my experience is it's very wise to raise the hypothesis whether this is
25 really the person that the witness thinks he or she met. I didn't say
1 it's proven that he met another person or it's impossible he met this
2 person. I think it becomes a reasonable thing to test because it's a
3 good reason to have doubt, but doubt is not the same as definite proof.
4 Q. Thank you. My last question, Professor, is the following:
5 Coming back to the example using yourself and the description -- your
6 physical description, if a witness who claims to have seen you seven
7 years ago was asked to describe you today and omitted entirely the white
8 hair, based on your scientific knowledge would you conclude that this
9 description is unreliable?
10 A. Well, there are various steps. Step one is that you ask a
11 witness to produce a spontaneous description. That's important in any
12 interrogation; and the spontaneously reproduced description, that's the
13 most important part of the evidence. Usually, witnesses produce a
14 description of hair-do spontaneously. If they don't, there are two
15 possible reasons: One is they don't remember that, so they didn't tell
16 you; and the other is they didn't think that was important and,
17 therefore, didn't say it. You can test that thing by asking for more
18 descriptives without saying hair-do. If they forgot hair do, if you just
19 ask anything else, what more, and they remember their hair, they're most
20 likely to say it. If they still don't mention hair, you can ask them a
21 directed question: What about their -- do you remember the hair? That's
22 already a little bit suggestive because now you draw the attention to a
23 certain thing and you put some pressure on them to tell something about
24 the hair. But as long as it is known to the Court that this question was
25 asked, the Court can take that also into account. Nothing about hair in
1 take one; nothing about hair in take two; only after directed question,
2 that's weaker. That represents a lower level of reliability. If the
3 person then says, yes, he had bright red hair, you know he's talking
4 about someone else. If he still at a direct question cannot reproduce
5 the white hair, that's very strong evidence because he's got all the
6 chances, even part of a suggestion that he should say something like
7 that. So it is a complicated matter, how to evaluate what people say
8 about hair-do. Important is for all that it's properly reported how the
9 interrogation exactly went and whether the interrogator followed this --
10 the professional standard of first spontaneous, then another attempt at A
11 spontaneous declaration, then a directed question with the question
13 MR. BOURGON: Thank you very much, Professor. I have no other
14 question. Mr. President, I finished before the break.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Well done, Mr. Bourgon. We'll have a
16 25-minute break. And how long do you think your cross-examination will
18 MR. NICHOLLS: I think it will be --
19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
20 MR. NICHOLLS: I think it will be less than my estimate, which I
21 think was three hours, but not dramatically less. I mean, I think I may
22 cut it down to 2, 2 and a half, something like that. Your Honours.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you so much. 25 minutes.
24 --- Recess taken at 12.30 p.m.
25 --- On resuming at 12.59 p.m.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Before I ask you, Mr. Lazarevic, if you wish to
3 cross-examine this witness, the other Defence teams and Prosecution, we
4 need roughly five minutes towards the end to discuss something,
5 housekeeping matters, all right? Thank you. And if you think we need
6 more particularly, Mr. Ostojic, you and Mr. Bourgon in particular,
7 because you are the two who are most directly involved in what we are
8 going to say, tell us and we'll reserve more than five minutes.
9 Yes. Yes, Mr. Gosnell.
10 MR. GOSNELL: Surprisingly, Mr. President, it's me today, and we
11 have no questions. Thank you.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Madam Fauveau, s'il vous plait.
13 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] No questions, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Merci, Madam. Mr. Josse, you definitely have
15 because we've seen the documents that you are going to use.
16 MR. JOSSE: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 Cross-examination by Mr. Josse:
18 Q. Professor Wagenaar, my name is Josse. I'm one of the Defence
19 counsel for General Milan Gvero. It's right that you and I have never
20 met, correct?
21 A. Yes, that's correct.
22 Q. It's also right that you have not discussed General Gvero's case
23 with the best of our knowledge with anyone?
24 A. No, I didn't.
25 Q. And so you have no idea what I'm going to ask you; is that
2 A. No.
3 Q. That's correct, isn't it?
4 A. That's correct, yes.
5 Q. Now, I'd like to clarify something. As you will gather in a few
6 moments' time, what I'm interested in is recognition, and you talked at
7 some length about recognition this morning, and in the course of your
8 testimony at about page 11 of today's transcript, you also started to
9 talk about height and weight issues, talking about 5 centimetres on, off,
10 so on and so forth. That refers to identification issues only, I assume;
11 is that right?
12 A. No, not necessarily. What I said is if people are asked to
13 describe a person they met, if they give particulars with respect to
14 height, age, weight, they might be so many measures off, and that refers
15 both to familiar people and unfamiliar people. It's on the basis of
16 having met and their perceptions during this encounter. It would only be
17 different if a familiar person is so familiar that you didn't estimate
18 those things because you know them. Of my own family, I know their age;
19 I don't have to estimate it, so that's different. But if there are
20 familiar people like people here in the courtroom who I have now seen and
21 in a later encounter would be counted as familiar because I've seen them
22 before, of no one here in the courtroom I know the height or the age or
23 their weight, so I still would have to estimate that. I'm referring to
24 these estimates, and these estimates can be about familiar people and
25 unfamiliar people.
1 Q. So like so much of your evidence, it's matter of extent and
2 degree, the extent and degree to which the witness knew the suspect prior
3 to the alleged encounter; is that right?
4 A. Yes, that's right. There is some extent of familiarity where one
5 would simply know about one another how tall they are or how much we
7 Q. But in a situation where the witness and the suspect did not know
8 each other particularly well, what you're saying is it would be a prudent
9 question to ask of the witness, what was the height of the suspect, what
10 was his age, what was his weight, correct?
11 A. Yeah, and then it should also be prudent so ask, do you know this
12 or did you estimate them, because my rules apply to the situation where
13 it was estimated.
14 Q. And at what juncture do you say it would be prudent to ask those
15 type of questions, in court or prior to court in the course of the
17 A. The rule is always that you ask questions as soon as is possible
18 because --
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, one moment. Yes.
20 MR. NICHOLLS: I think here we're veering away from expertise in
21 memory, recognition, and into investigative techniques, and I'm not sure
22 that's -- not really part of his field of expertise.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Josse, would you like to comment.
24 MR. JOSSE: With respect, I radically disagree bearing in mind
25 the range and extent to which this witness has testified hitherto, I
1 suggest my question was perfectly permissible.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Please answer the question. We agree
3 entirely with Mr. Josse on this.
4 THE WITNESS: With respect to the aspect of forgetting, it's
5 always wise to ask questions as soon as is possible, and if a case is
6 investigated a long time before it comes to court, it would be very wise
7 to have asked relevant questions during the investigation and not to wait
8 until witnesses appear in court. This is especially true with their
9 memories to physical appearance of people, which is very much dependent
10 on pictorial representations more than a factual memory because those are
11 not facts they can remember. It's something they have to estimate, and
12 probably they will do the estimation when the question is asked and not
13 before; and therefore, it's urgent to ask this question as soon as is
15 Q. I'd like to move on to a slightly different topic, and in this
16 regard could we please have in e-court 2D590. And specifically, it's
17 page 11 at the bottom that I would like. Now, whilst this is being
18 brought up, this is an extract from an unpublished article that you have
19 written headed "Expert Witness In International War Crimes Tribunals."
20 And beyond this particular table, I'm not going to ask you anything to do
21 with this article, but you produced this table as some sort of guide and
22 help in relation to recognition situations. That's right, isn't it?
23 A. Yes, that's correct.
24 Q. And I hope you won't take this the wrong way, but much of what
25 you have put here is no more than common sense, isn't it, as to what a
1 tribunal of fact should take into account in assessing the reliability of
2 a purported recognition witness, correct?
3 A. You're partially correct because some of the items mentioned here
4 are only relevant because you can fall back on the research that we have
5 done on those things. So for instance, I mentioned distance and
6 illumination there. I wouldn't have if in the scientific knowledge body
7 there is not sufficient information about what -- how distance and
8 illumination [Realtime transcript read in error, "elimination"] should
9 actually be used. So it's only partly -- it's only --
10 Q. Sorry. Let me interrupt you at this point.
11 A. It's only partly common sense.
12 Q. Let me interrupt you at this point. It's the same issue again.
13 It's illumination, not elimination, correct?
14 A. Yeah, illumination.
15 Q. Yes. Same issue we had --
16 A. I see it correct in the page here.
17 Q. Yes, it's line 7, it's incorrect. Let me go on. This list is
18 not exhaustive, is it? For example, would you agree that the
19 concentration that the witness had both in the course of the prior
20 recognition and also at the scene of the alleged crime is a factor that a
21 Court might want to take into account?
22 A. Yes, absolutely.
23 Q. Whether the witness had been distracted in either of the two
24 encounters, correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And so there are issues here that are of assistance, but as I've
2 already said, there are certain categories that one could add to the
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Now, I'd like to move on from that, please, and ask if a
6 particular document could be placed on the ELMO. Could I hand this to
7 the usher. This is an extract from an English criminal law textbook, the
8 leading textbook on English criminal law, which is called Archbold. It's
9 from the 2007 edition published by Sweet and Maxwell, and it's page 1487,
10 and we can see at the top it's dealing with visual identification. And
11 in the middle of the page, perhaps it could be -- up a little bit,
12 please, because it's the middle paragraph 14/19 that I'm interested in.
13 That's perfect. Thank you. We can see that it deals with identification
14 of strangers and recognition. Now, what this book purports to do is set
15 out a rough guide as to what a judge should remind a jury of in the
16 course of his or her summing up as to the type of factors they may wish
17 to take into account in a recognition case, and I want to ask you going
18 through these one by one from your scientific perspective whether you
19 agree with these and whether you can comment upon them.
20 So it says, summarising the first three lines, that the fact of
21 the recognition rather than identification case doesn't absolve the Judge
22 from giving this type of direction, and it cites a variety of cases, and
23 then it says that in the 1991 case called Bentley, Lord Lane, then-chief
24 justice, "... observed that recognition evidence could not be regarded as
25 trouble-free. Many people had experienced seeing someone in the street
1 whom they knew only to discover they were wrong. The expression ' I
2 could have sworn it was you ' indicated the sort of warning a judge
3 should give because that was exactly what a witness did: He swore it was
4 the person he thought it was." Stopping there, can you comment on that,
6 A. Do you have a question about it?
7 Q. Well, my question is, do you think that a tribunal of fact should
8 take that into account from your scientific perspective in assessing
9 whether a recognition is correct or not?
10 A. I'm not sure that's the kind of statement I would like to make.
11 I can only say that what is summarized here is an agreement with my own
12 positions, and what the Tribunal needs to take into account in a
13 particular case I think should be decided by the Tribunal.
14 Q. Okay. Let me go on and deal with it this way. Let's read on a
15 bit: "In the narrow field of recognition there were degrees of danger,
16 perhaps less so where the parties had known each other for many years or
17 where the person identified was at the scene." And I assume that the
18 author there means it's accepted that the person identified was at the
19 scene --
20 THE INTERPRETER: The counsel is kindly asked to read more
22 MR. JOSSE:
23 Q. That falls full square in agreement with what you have testified
24 hitherto. Isn't that right, Professor?
25 A. Yes. Recognition and identification are never guaranteed to be
1 correct, and that's why in our scientific discipline the stress is very
2 much on how do we test? How can we help Courts to test claims about
3 identification and recognition? What are the best possible method we can
4 contribute that can be used by investigators and finally by the Court to
5 test whether this sort of error has occurred or not? And that's always
6 under the assumption that there's always a possibility that recognitions
7 and identifications are wrong.
8 Q. And you have already commented, haven't you, that it's very
9 difficult if not impossible for you to assess whether any particular
10 witness making a purported identification is lying or not?
11 A. I will never say that a witness is lying. It's not my discipline
12 to make out whether someone is lying. There even is -- doesn't exist a
13 good scientific method to determine whether someone is lying, so that
14 would simply not be within my discipline. I also will never say that a
15 recognition or an -- a specific recognition or identification was correct
16 or wrong. I can only make an evaluation of the criteria and the methods
17 that were used by legal parties to give an answer to that question.
18 Q. Because, of course, it's for the tribunal of fact to decide
19 whether the witness is accurate or not?
20 A. Absolutely.
21 Q. And we can see, just reading on one more sentence, that the
22 direction that I'm asking you -- the legal direction that I'm asking you
23 to comment upon really postulates that one is dealing with an honest
24 mistake because it says: "Even here, it's visible to alert the jury to
25 the possibility of honest mistake and to the dangers and the reasons why
1 such dangers exist in identification evidence." And really, the reason
2 I've asked you these questions is to draw a distinction between the
3 possibility of an honest mistake and the possibility of a deliberate
4 deception from the witness.
5 A. Yes. Obviously it's my opinion that since a recognition or an
6 identification is never a hundred-percent certain to be correct, courts
7 and juries, find the fact, should address that problem and be reminded to
8 that problem. Nothing against that.
9 Q. The problem of miscarriages of justice based on a wrongful honest
10 identification, in other words where the witness is telling the truth, so
11 he or she thinks, but it is in fact mistaken or may be mistaken, that's
12 what you're referring to?
13 A. Yeah, although I would like to add that there is a relationship
14 between mistakes by witnesses and the quality of the procedures used when
15 they were tested, and the attention of court and juries should not simply
16 be addressed to the possibilities that witnesses are wrong but should be
17 addressed at making an assessment of the witness statements through an
18 assessment of the testing procedures that were used.
19 Q. The document that I have just shown you is going to be in e-court
20 as 6D307, let me say for the record.
21 Now, turning back if we may for one brief moment to the document
22 that was in e-court before - that is 2D590, page 11 - I want to ask you a
23 little bit more about lapse of time. You've been asked a number of
24 questions about lapse of time by both my learned friend Mr. Zivanovic and
25 Mr. Bourgon, and I'm going to ask you a specific situation, and if you
1 are unable to help, do say so, please. But in a scenario where the
2 witness accepts that from the point of his recognition of the witness at
3 the crime scene to the point in which he first mentions it to either an
4 investigator or someone else a period of 12 years elapses, can you
5 comment on the specifics of that situation?
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Nicholls.
7 MR. NICHOLLS: I -- first of all, one, the witness doesn't have
8 the specifics. Two, it's a question, unless I'm reading it wrong, which
9 the witness cannot possibly -- this witness could not possibly answer
10 because in the fact pattern posed, the witness would need to know what
11 was in the mind of the person who did not mention this point for 12
12 years, and there could be any myriad of reasons why, so I think it -
13 sorry for this long objection - it calls just for gross speculation.
14 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, if the Prosecution really don't want me
15 to put my case, then I'll withdraw the question. I've got no real
16 difficulty with that. Sorry. Too fast. My apologies.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Archbold would tell you to take it more
19 MR. JOSSE: Nice deep breath. Yes. I apologise to the
20 interpreters, but I repeat what I say. If my learned friend really
21 doesn't want me to ask that question, then I won't.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. The presumption is that you as an
23 expert in the field know for yourself whether you can answer this
24 question or not. If you can answer it, please, go ahead. If you can't,
25 just tell us, and we'll proceed with Mr. Josse's next question.
1 THE WITNESS: Mr. President, I was just going to answer with the
2 argument provided by the Prosecutor that there are thousands of reasons
3 why people do not mention certain things. My specialty is in memory, and
4 the assumption that it has to do with memory is not obvious to me, so I
5 would find it very difficult to answer this question.
6 MR. JOSSE:
7 Q. Can you comment - and only do so if it is within your sphere of
8 expertise - as to how in your opinion it goes to reliability of the
9 testimony of the witness?
10 A. You mean when a witness mentions a certain fact after a long
11 interval of time?
12 Q. Yes.
13 A. It depends -- it depends totally on why the subject actually did
14 not mention it before. It can be something that he always burned to tell
15 but didn't dare or couldn't, never forgot it; on the contrary, remembered
16 it better and better until finally after 12 years he could not withhold
17 himself and finally came forward with it. That would be an example of a
18 case where that information could be highly reliable. If on the
19 contrary, as I meet in my practice quite often, subjects claim that they
20 have totally forgotten this information or repressed it and then suddenly
21 recalled it later in a dream or so therapy, I would call that testimony
22 into question. So it really depends on the specifics of the case, and I
23 would -- I can answer such a question related to your case after I've
24 studied the documents.
25 Q. Just -- I think finally this. You did say earlier at page 64,
1 line 16 -- you were commenting on your student who it about to defend her
2 dissertation at Leiden University
3 accuracy tends to go down and confidence sometimes goes up, so the
4 discrepancy between what you actually remember and how confident you are
5 becomes bigger and bigger."
6 A. Yes, that's what I said.
7 Q. Do you stand by that?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And how does that fit in with what you have just said a moment
11 A. Well, we are talking about a general phenomenon that can be
12 applied on specific instances only if these specific instances are well
13 described. So although in -- generally it's true that the longer the
14 elapsed time, the higher this discrepancy, not telling something that is
15 relevant for 12 years is in itself a remarkable event, and the risk is
16 far too high that that particular example simply doesn't fit with the
17 general situation I described when I explained accuracy and confidence.
18 So I would not simply apply that rule as a strict rule to just any
19 situation, and I'm very much afraid of just explaining very broad and
20 general principles of my discipline and leave it to various parties to
21 apply that at will to their own case because there's risk that that
22 application would be misleading.
23 Q. So is what you're saying, Professor, that in order for your
24 testimony to have any validity you need to examine in detail each and
25 every purported identification recognition and that what you testify
1 about has very little general application?
2 A. No. On the contrary, I said it has a high general value but can
3 be misleading if it is applied to not only a specific but an exceptional
4 case. The case you are describing reminds me to the possibility that
5 this might be an exceptional case and that, therefore, general rules
6 should not be too quickly -- not too quickly be applied.
7 Q. I just want to be clear. You're saying a court, a tribunal of
8 fact, can apply your general principles so long as they, the tribunal of
9 fact, is aware of the surrounding circumstances of the purported
11 A. I think in the end the tribunal must apply any knowledge that I
12 can transfer to this audience, and I think it's a safe assumption that
13 the tribunal knowing all the facts of the case will do this in a sensible
14 manner. But since I am not aware of all the facts of the case of your
15 client, I would be reluctant to improvise on possible applications.
16 Q. I quite understand. My apologies if I have put you on the spot,
17 and in the circumstances, I have no further questions.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Mr. Sarapa.
19 MR. SARAPA: No questions for this witness, thank you.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Sarapa. Mr. Nicholls, we
21 have 15 minutes.
22 MR. NICHOLLS: Shall I go for five or ten, Your Honours? I'm
23 just not sure. You said some time at the end.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, you go for then. All right.
25 Cross-examination by Mr. Nicholls:
1 Q. Good afternoon, Professor.
2 A. Good afternoon.
3 Q. I'm Julian Nicholls, and I'll be asking you some questions
4 briefly today and for sure we'll finish tomorrow. Just to be clear, as
5 Mr. Ostojic said, we met this morning for a few moments, and you kindly
6 provided me -- both of us a couple of pages of your handwritten notes.
7 And I reminded you that I -- although I hadn't cross-examined you I had
8 actually been in the courtroom and observed your testimony in the Limaj
9 trial, and just for your recollection, to be fair to you, I also met with
10 you at your house before the Limaj trial with the Defence attorneys, and
11 we discussed your testimony, in case I look familiar.
12 My first question I've struck, because you just explained that
13 very well, about your role and the role of the Court and who weighs the
14 evidence ultimately. Before we finish today, I'd like to ask you a few
15 questions about the different ways - and you touched on this - in the way
16 the memory or the mind remembers faces from the way it remembers names,
17 and I'll ask you in a minute also about refreshing. You've referred to
18 visual memory earlier in your testimony here, and that's the way we
19 remember faces, correct, as a picture? Is that right?
20 A. Well, no, that's not entirely right. The pictorial part is
21 certainly important in remembering faces, but if I see someone who
22 reminds me of my uncle, I can try to remember that face and I can also
23 try to remember the fact that he looked a little bit like my uncle. In
24 fact, I always tell police officers when you see people do things, try to
25 verbalise what the person looks like because that verbal information is
1 probably better recalled than the visual information. But it's also true
2 that many witnesses cannot give you that sort of verbal information: I
3 thought, hey, he looks like so-and-so, and then that's why I remember, or
4 I thought, hey, what big glasses are those, that's why I remember it. So
5 quite often it comes down to only having some pictorial memory, which
6 they describe for the first time when they are interrogated. After
7 interrogation, they have verbalized it, and that verbalisation becomes
8 also part of the memory of that person.
9 Q. I see. Thank you. I want to read you a little bit of your
10 testimony in Kupreskic. This is from the 3rd of June, 1999. It was at
11 page 94865 of that testimony. This is in e-court as 3663. I don't think
12 we necessarily need to bring it up.
13 And here's what you said about remembering faces and names:
14 "Now, the problem with a face is that it's very difficult to refresh the
15 picture of a face in your memory if you are not shown the picture, so if
16 you have to remember the face of a bank robber, but they have not caught
17 the culprit yet, so you're not confronted with that face, in the meantime
18 the witness may forget the faces because they are not refreshed. But if
19 you have to remember a name, you can refresh that yourself. Every time
20 you tell the story, this is what happened to me, this person did that to
21 me, the name is refreshed. It can happen several times a day, and
22 there's no reason why memory would fade at all."
23 Is that still a correct explanation? Do you stand by that?
24 A. Yeah, absolutely, and I think it was in the context of a
25 discussion about the difference between familiar and unfamiliar persons.
1 If you see a familiar person do something, you don't have to remember the
2 face of that person because you already know the face of that person.
3 You only have to remember the name of the person you saw. Whereas if you
4 see an unfamiliar person who is not named by any name to you, you have to
5 remember the outer appearance until the investigation and you are shown
6 photographs or something. So the memory processes involved in
7 remembering familiar and unfamiliar people are entirely different, and
8 the influences during time that might change or distort your memories are
9 also different in those two situations.
10 Q. Right. But if I understood that correctly, as well, the ability
11 to refresh a name is something that we can do ourselves without an
12 external aid like a photograph, and that's just something in the way our
13 minds work?
14 A. Yes, yes.
15 Q. Just a couple of questions now. You met with the Beara team I
16 think we said in May 2007. I think I know this, but it was the Beara
17 team who selected the 12 witnesses for you to review; is that correct?
18 You didn't select those 12 witnesses out of the trial record?
19 A. No, no. It was the team who selected the witnesses. I have no
20 knowledge -- I received no documents about other witnesses.
21 Q. And you had access to - as we've seen because my friend provided
22 me with a record of that - transcripts as well as witness statements, in
23 some cases, proofing notes, what we call them; is that right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And did you have access -- or did you request any other
1 documentation, things like military reports, intercepts, physical
2 evidence, anything else to try to put some context in the witness
3 statements you were reading or the transcripts? In other words, you
4 never said, all right, the witness is referring to an exhibit, I need to
5 see that exhibit, something like that?
6 A. No. I think I can put this straight. Whatever I asked to see I
7 was always provided with. There was no information refused by the team,
8 and what I actually have seen is in those -- is defined by the contents
9 of those three binders that you have copied.
10 Q. Okay. And once you got those three binders, did you in fact ever
11 ask for any more information? Did you say I need this statement, I need
12 from this witness, I need the earlier transcript, anything like that?
13 A. No, I did not ask for documents of -- that I know existed. I
14 sometimes expressed the desire that on some things there would have been
15 more documentation, although I know it didn't exist.
16 Q. And you were also provided with sort of some summaries or --
17 yeah, summaries of the different testimony to kind of help you -- of the
18 topics why these witnesses were called or selected?
19 A. Well, I think "I was provided with" is not the correct term. I
20 prepared such summaries together with, as I said, Mr. Philip, the man who
21 was the case manager.
22 Q. I see.
23 A. I was not simply fed by summaries that I had to use or so.
24 That's not the way I work.
25 Q. Okay. And so with the case manager, you sat down and prepared
1 the summaries?
2 A. That's right.
3 MR. NICHOLLS: This would be a good time, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Perfect. Thank you, Professor. We'll meet you
5 again tomorrow morning.
6 THE WITNESS: That will be at 9 o'clock, Your Honour?
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, yes, thank you, just like today.
8 Mr. Ostojic, last week, Thursday, you remember that we had made
9 it clear that today you were to come back and give us an exact date when
10 your case would be laid to rest so that Mr. Bourgon who comes after you
11 -- sorry, not Mr. Bourgon, the Nikolic Defence team that comes after you
12 will know exactly when they should start or when they are expected to
14 [The witness stands down]
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Little did I know at the time that there would be
16 developments as there have been. First of all, we knew at the time that
17 the one would have been the next witness, the one for whom we had already
18 set in place a videolink from Belgrade
19 withdrawn that witness because of reasons that you explained last time,
20 but now it seems that the witness that you had intended to bring after
21 him and in relation to whose testimony we had planned to have another
22 videolink with -- somewhere else has approached you and specifically
23 asked you to -- or informed you that he doesn't wish to give testimony as
24 per your communication to us and his letter to you.
25 So our first question to you is the following: Are you
1 withdrawing that witness, too, or not?
2 MR. OSTOJIC: We are preparing a written notice of withdrawal in
3 connection with that witness, Mr. President.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: All right, which brings us in this situation where
5 of course I have to call upon Mr. Bourgon, Ms. Nikolic to tell us what
6 the position would be because we will, I suppose, finish for sure with
7 Professor Wagenaar tomorrow, but then do you have any other witnesses?
8 You had mentioned the DutchBat guy, but I understand that he, too, is
9 unavailable this week and don't know whether he will be available
11 MR. OSTOJIC: With respect to the DutchBat individual, he will be
12 available afterwards. He is on a mission in Germany as I think I
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, you did.
15 MR. OSTOJIC: He can only meet with us later in the week. I
16 think it was Thursday and Friday in the evening. It is two-plus hours
17 away. I've been -- visited with him in the past. I hope to accomplish
18 that this week. My thought was essentially to close my case when I've
19 complete the evidence of the three remaining witnesses that I think we've
20 identified and the Prosecution is aware of and then either seek leave or
21 to determine how I can bring back this DutchBat individual, and I have
22 been in discussions with my learned friends specifically in connection
23 with the one exhibit that I think we've identified as 2D172, and it may
24 have an impact on Captain Egbers' testimony, and we're still looking at
25 that but didn't quite get the complete picture.
1 The three remaining witnesses, if I may, outside of Professor
2 Wagenaar is our expert Gogic who is here, and we are preparing him this
3 evening and we will -- or hope to put him on after the testimony of
4 Professor Wagenaar. I think all the parties are aware of that, and then
5 following that we have two other witnesses that we will be calling. When
6 we did the estimations based on the cross-examination estimates, although
7 given this recent development over the weekend that the Court has
8 referenced and made aware, we still believe we can finish our case now by
9 Thursday given the estimates and if we all maintain those estimates as
10 being accurate. So just so the Court is aware, for Mr. Gogic we have put
11 down approximately two hours. The Prosecution has estimated one full
12 hour, although it was a reduction from before, and I'm not sure if it's
13 accurate. The remaining Defence estimates were approximately a half
14 hour, which would lead us into a full day. With respect to the next
15 witness, and I just have to check with these witnesses so I can't give
16 you their names because I want to just make sure they are not going to be
17 asking for any pseudonyms, the remainder two witnesses each were
18 estimated by us to be one hour each on direct, and the Prosecution
19 estimated one hour for each on cross or approximately that much.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: So that's Thursday.
21 MR. OSTOJIC: Correct, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, which means, Ms. Nikolic and Mr. Bourgon, when
23 can you start? Friday or Monday?
24 MR. BOURGON: Thank you Mr. President. On Monday, Mr. President,
25 the reason being that based on the information that we have, we contacted
1 the victims and witnesses section, and our first group of witnesses will
2 be arriving on Friday, so we'll be ready to go on Monday.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Fair enough.
4 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Madam registrar, we had asked your
6 replacement last week or whenever it was to contact the Prlic Trial
7 Chamber to shift these sittings -- to swap these sittings on Wednesday
8 and Thursday. Wednesday and Thursday, yes, exactly. Now, we don't need
9 to swap anymore now, so you could perhaps contact them and inform them
10 that the reason which had prompted us to ask for our sittings, respective
11 sittings to be swapped is no longer valid and that we would like to
12 revert to the previous position. In other words, we will have the
13 sitting in the morning and they will continue to have the sitting in the
14 afternoon, all right? Thank you, and you will inform us of the outcome
15 tomorrow morning. Thank you.
16 Yes, Mr. Bourgon.
17 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. Very quickly, there two
18 pending matters that the Trial Chamber should be made aware of. First,
19 of course, there is a motion we filed pursuant to rule 92 bis for one
20 witness, 3DW26, but we haven't got a response from the Prosecution, and
21 we're beyond the 14 days.
22 The second matter is that we have a stipulation that we will be
23 -- joint stipulation that we will be filing with the Prosecution. This
24 is a matter that has been ongoing for quite some time, actually, even
25 before the case with the Defence started, but we should be filing this
1 this week. Thank you, Mr. President.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: If you could perhaps let us know what your position
3 is about the Nikolic motion for the addition of one witness. Thank you.
4 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m.
5 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 9th day of
6 September, 2008, at 9 a.m.