1 Wednesday, 1 July 2015
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.32 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
9 IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 The witness can be escorted in the courtroom. Meanwhile, I
12 understood, Mr. Tieger, that you wanted to put something on the record.
13 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Mr. President. This is in respect of the
14 urgent motion by the Defence to add documents to the 65 ter list with --
15 for use with Witness Tusevljak. So the Prosecution has no objection to
16 that motion. Despite the fact that Defence spelled both my first and
17 last name wrong on the cover page.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand that you're surprised after
19 such a long time.
20 MR. LUKIC: We do apologise.
21 [The witness takes the stand]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Clark.
23 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Clark, I'd like to remind that you you're still
25 bound by the solemn declaration that you've given quite a while ago --
1 THE WITNESS: Yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: -- that you'll speak the truth, the whole truth and
3 nothing but the truth.
4 THE WITNESS: Indeed.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. D'Ascoli will now continue her
7 Please proceed.
8 MS. D'ASCOLI: Thank you, Your Honours. Good morning,
9 Your Honours.
10 WITNESS: JOHN CLARK [Resumed]
11 Examination by Ms. D'Ascoli: [Continued]
12 Q. Good morning, Mr. Clark.
13 A. Good morning.
14 MS. D'ASCOLI: Before continuing my questions, I would please ask
15 the Court Officer to call up 65 ter 31090.
16 Q. Sir, I will continue from where we left off yesterday.
17 So you were discussing the nature of your role in the post-mortem
18 examinations of the bodies recovered from the Tomasica grave-site.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. You described you had an active role and took part in the
21 autopsies along with the two Bosnian pathologists; correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Sir, the document that we see now --
24 THE INTERPRETER: The speakers are kindly asked to pause between
25 the question and answer for the purposes of the interpretation. Thank
2 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, sorry.
3 Q. Sir, the document that we see now on our screen is a 17-page
4 document of which we see now the first page on the screen. Do you
5 recognise this document?
6 A. Yes, I do.
7 Q. Is this the report you prepared on the autopsy findings from the
8 human remains recovered in Tomasica?
9 A. Yes, yes.
10 Q. Sir, we will be discussing the substance of this report during
11 the course of your testimony.
12 In addition to the report, you also compiled two separate charts
13 or annexes to it; correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Now, the first of these annexes is marked with 65 ter 31091 and
16 is a 107-page chart detailing the post-mortem findings from the autopsies
17 you and your colleagues performed at the morgue; correct?
18 A. Yes, that's right. These are entirely my own notes, my
19 interpretation of the findings, which might differ in some detail with
20 those of the Bosnian pathologists, but in general they don't.
21 Q. Okay.
22 MS. D'ASCOLI: And, Your Honours, I will calling and going into
23 these documents later. Now I just wanted to acknowledge the different
24 component of Mr. Clark's examination so that we can proceed with marking
25 the documents for identification.
1 Q. Now, the second annex, Mr. Clark, it's a shorter nine-page chart
2 that provides a summary list of the same post-mortem findings; correct?
3 A. Yes, that's right.
4 MS. D'ASCOLI: And, for the record, this is marked with
5 65 ter 31092. And, again, I will go into this document later on during
6 my examination.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Would you like to have them marked for
8 identification, all three, the report itself and the two annexes?
9 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, please, Your Honours. I also have a table of
10 corrections, so maybe we can do that all together at the end of this
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then please continue as you suggest.
13 MS. D'ASCOLI: Thank you.
14 Q. Sir, do you prepare this report and the two charts independently
15 and reached your conclusions free of any influence?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And did you have an opportunity to review your report and related
18 charts before testifying today?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Do you stand by the analysis and conclusions therein?
21 A. Yes, I do.
22 Q. Sir, did you have any corrections to make to your report and the
23 main chart listing the post-mortem findings?
24 A. In re-reading these documents, I came across three, what I would
25 regard as minor, factual errors. Really, three of them were with dates
1 of post-mortem examinations.
2 Q. Yes. I'll stop you there.
3 MS. D'ASCOLI: I'll call up exhibit -- exhibit. Document
4 65 ter 31090A.
5 Q. Sir, you will see what we're discussing on the screen soon. But
6 in the meantime, I understand these corrections regarded the description
7 of two figures in your report and three dates, as you just mentioned,
8 when the autopsies were performed and these were wrongly recorded in the
9 chart of post-mortem findings; correct?
10 A. Yes, that's right. They're just three -- three dates of the
11 actual post-mortem dates were incorrect. And in the report, two of the
12 illustrations where the case numbers were just mixed up.
13 Q. Can you please look at the document on the screen. Does this
14 reflect the corrections you wanted to make to your report and annex
16 A. Yes, it does.
17 MS. D'ASCOLI: And, Your Honours, the corrections are indicated
18 with the reference to the relevant 65 ter and page numbers.
19 Q. So you confirm that these were the corrections you wanted to
21 A. Yes -- yes.
22 MS. D'ASCOLI: Your Honour, at this point --
23 JUDGE ORIE: For one reason or another, I find the B/C/S version
24 in what -- on my screen where you usually see the English version, and on
25 the screen also where I see both, they're in the reverse order as they
1 usually are. That may be a technical problem which, at this moment
2 doesn't bother me that much, but ... now we have two English versions.
3 Yes, now it is as it usually is.
4 Please proceed, Ms. D'Ascoli.
5 MS. D'ASCOLI: Thank you, Mr. President.
6 Your Honours, consistent with case practice, I would ask that
7 these documents would be marked for identification at this stage pending
8 completion of the cross-examination. And I can list the four 65 ter --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if you --
10 MS. D'ASCOLI: -- if that assists the Chamber.
11 JUDGE ORIE: If you take them one by one. To start with, the
12 report itself.
13 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes. The report is 65 ter 31090.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the report receives number P7443.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Marked for identification. The first annex.
17 MS. D'ASCOLI: The first annex, the chart listing post-motor
18 findings, is 65 ter 31091.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that would receive number P7444.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Marked for identification.
22 The second annex.
23 MS. D'ASCOLI: The second annexes, the summary chart listing the
24 post-mortem findings is marked with 65 ter 31092.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the number would be P7445.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Marked for identification. And then last, the
4 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes. Last, the table of corrections is marked
5 with 65 ter 31090A.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the number would be P7446.
8 JUDGE ORIE: P7446 is marked for identification.
9 Please proceed.
10 MS. D'ASCOLI: Thank you, Mr. President.
11 Q. Sir, I would now like to discuss some aspects of your report.
12 Now, I understand from your report that human remains from the
13 Tomasica grave-site arrived at the mortuary facilities in Sanski Most in
14 body bags; right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Do you remember the total number of these body bags?
17 A. They were exactly 400 bags containing human remains. They were
18 there in the mortuary before I arrived, so they were already there.
19 Q. And there were also some bags containing artefacts; correct?
20 A. There was -- I don't know where there were, I didn't really see
21 them, but there were another 34 bags, I presume, containing artefacts.
22 But in terms of human remains, it was exactly 400 bags.
23 Q. Okay. Can you describe the mortuary facilities in Sanski Most.
24 A. This was not a proper mortuary by any means. It was a large
25 warehouse in which were many human remains, some relating to Tomasica,
1 and some relating to previous exhumations. The facilities for actually
2 carrying out autopsies is done in a small room, small annex room, with no
3 proper mortuary tables, with just simple wooden tables. There was no
4 running water at the tables as we might expect to do, and there were
5 limited instruments. Despite that, we felt that we would be able to
6 carry out a reasonably full autopsy examination in every case. There
7 were difficulties, but I think we largely overcame them and produced very
8 valid results.
9 Q. So I understand your assessment is -- so did this facility allow,
10 nonetheless, a satisfactory examination of the human remains?
11 A. Yes, yes, it was basic but we could cope with that.
12 Q. Sir, generally speaking in your profession, there are any
13 principles, protocols or best practices guiding the work of a pathologist
14 and that you would follow in your work when carrying out post-mortem
16 A. Well, all pathologists will work to a principle of initially
17 having some background information of the case, then looking at a body
18 externally for perhaps clothing, other items. Looking again at the
19 external surface of the body for different findings, injuries, changes
20 after death, et cetera, and then proceeding to do an internal
21 examination. Possibly after that, taking appropriate samples of tissue
22 or fluids, and at the end of all that, bringing everything together into
23 a report and conclusions. So that's a standard procedure which would be
24 adopted worldwide. Clearly different situations would have a refinement
25 of that, but that would be the general principle.
1 Q. And do you remember describing this process and the methodology
2 that you would follow for post-mortem examinations in your other reports
3 related to grave-sites in Bosnia, your reports that were previously
4 admitted in evidence in this case?
5 A. Yes, I do, yes.
6 Q. Now, in the course of your work as a pathologist at the Sanski
7 Most mortuary, did you and the Bosnian pathologists follow these basic
8 pathologist principles and protocols regarding the way to conduct
10 A. There were some differences, it has to be said, from the
11 procedures that we had adopted at the specific ICTY missions previously.
12 This was being run by the Bosnian authorities. And here there was a
13 separation of different stages of looking at the body. Previously the
14 pathologist would be very much in charge really from the moment the
15 body bag was first opened and would view or -- or have an oversight of
16 the procedure throughout. In Sanski Most, other people initially opened
17 the body bags, examined the body, cleaned the body, removed the clothing,
18 and the pathologist really only came in at the end -- well, not at the
19 end, but part way along to actually carry out the physical autopsy.
20 The other difference is that we had no radiology support in
21 Sanski Most as we had had in previous missions. But, in terms of looking
22 at the body, removing it from a body bag, the external examination, the
23 internal examination, the photography, removing of samples was all the
24 same as previously.
25 Q. Okay.
1 MS. D'ASCOLI: If we can maybe go to -- oh, I see we don't
2 have -- okay. If we can have the report on the screens, please, and this
3 is marked for identification with P7443. And if we can please have
4 page 2 of this document in both languages.
5 Q. Dr. Clark, this part of your report refers to the procedure in
6 the mortuary, something that you were just discussing, and I see in the
7 middle of the page three bullet points, 1, 2, and 3.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. So from what you just said, do I understand correctly that what
10 you described in points 1 and 2 was carried out by other personnel
11 working at the mortuary, while point 3, the one regarding autopsies or --
12 was carried out by pathologists. Can you --
13 A. Yes, that's true.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Could I just inquire. You have your report before
15 you at this moment --
16 THE WITNESS: I do, indeed.
17 JUDGE ORIE: -- and you are consulting that rather than anything
18 on the screen at this moment.
19 THE WITNESS: Indeed. I just have it here, yes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: No problem. We just like to know exactly what
21 you're looking at.
22 THE WITNESS: Right. Thank you.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
24 MS. D'ASCOLI: Thank you, Mr. President.
25 Q. Dr. Clark, you said you analysed a total of 400 body bags. Can
1 you tell us how many bodies did you analyse out of these bags of human
3 A. The bodies had been labelled at the grave-site by those exhuming
4 and they had been given a sequential number, and at the end of that, had
5 been given either a letter, a T, to denote what they thought or they
6 considered a whole or largely complete body, or a D, referring to what
7 they considered as a body part. I'll come back to that definition. Or,
8 finally, a small number were given a letter GB, meaning general bag.
9 This is when isolated bones were found in the grave area which could not
10 be associated with particular bodies and were put together as what you
11 call a general bag, GB, general bag. So they would be a general bag for
12 one particular area of the body, another one for another area, another
13 one for another area.
14 So, in total, out of these -- so this made up 400 bags of human
15 remains. 275 had been labelled as complete, or largely complete bodies,
16 T; and 125 had been labelled as body parts. Now, I'm including in that
17 the 13, 13 general bags. So 125 of either body parts or general bags.
18 Q. Yes. And so I understand you worked and analysed both the bags
19 containing largely complete bodies and those containing body parts?
20 A. Yes. We looked at every -- every bag.
21 Q. Okay. Can we go back to the definition of body versus that of a
22 body part. You said you wanted to go back to that.
23 A. Yes, I developed this later on in the report, but essentially it
24 is very much common sense what to anybody would be a body or most of a
25 body, I think everybody would recognise. Perhaps there might be a
1 forearm missing or a foot missing, but it is still in all intents and
2 purposes a body.
3 A body part would -- usually most people would think of as
4 perhaps part of a leg, a skull, a forearm or a hand, just a part of a
5 body, and that's easy to understand. There's a group in between in which
6 perhaps the whole trunk is there but missing the legs and/or the arms.
7 Now, it's individual judgement, at the grave-site a number of these --
8 these states of bodies had been labelled as a body part. In the
9 mortuary, I felt -- well, in my interpretation of the findings, I felt I
10 could -- some of these large body parts actually, I think, constituted a
11 body. And I've added 18 of them, of the body parts, to the 275 proper
12 bodies to make a total of 293, which I regard as a pathologist as
13 separate individuals which I was able to interpret or examine and
15 So that's -- it may sound slightly complicated, but, in essence,
16 in the end, I have for the purposes of report analysed 293 - that's 275
17 plus 18 - 293 bodies for -- in terms of looking at injuries and other
19 Q. And, again, in your last sentence, when you refer to 293 bodies,
20 this definition does not necessarily refer to complete bodies, to fully
21 complete bodies.
22 A. No, that's right.
23 Q. Sir, did the remains exhumed at the Tomasica site present any
24 particular or unique figure that you might want to discuss or bring to
25 our attention?
1 A. I think we were all struck - pathologists and anthropologists and
2 others - by how well preserved many of these bodies were. These were
3 bodies which had reportedly been in the ground for up to 21 years. We
4 would have expected most of these bodies to be reduced to a skeleton,
5 but, in fact, a large number of them had not -- a lot of soft tissue on
6 the bones, in sometimes a great amount so that the complete shape of the
7 body was still there. You could recognise facial features. One person
8 we could even see a tattoo on their arm. And this was quite remarkable.
9 I'd never seen or none of us had come across this degree of preservation
10 of bodies before. It's a process in the -- normally the body after death
11 starts to decompose, and essentially the tissues will break up and
12 liquify and you'll be reduced to a skeleton.
13 Here, we have a -- there are variants and this is one of them.
14 Here a variant is that because of the particular circumstances, the fatty
15 tissues in the body don't turn to liquid but instead form into a very
16 hard substance like soap. That's a substance called adipocere and it is
17 very persistent. So you can imagine all the fatty tissues of the body
18 just -- instead of disappearing, just stay there and become very, very
19 hard. So that's what we had in many of the bodies here, not all of them,
20 and some of them had indeed been reduced to a skeleton and some were part
21 way -- a mixture of both. I can't completely explain why that should be.
22 But I think the reason why we had the adipocere here, this hardening, and
23 the tissue preservation was probably a combination of the depth of the
24 burial, the type of the soil. It requires a degree of moisture, maybe
25 the soil was slightly alkaline instead of acid, and maybe other factors
1 as well. But it was very unusual. It was striking.
2 Q. Sir, and what significance, if any, the degree of preservation of
3 bodies exhumed from Tomasica had on your work?
4 A. In preserving the bodies and holding them together, it made
5 identification of injuries that little bit easier, in terms of tracks --
6 bullet tracks particularly, so we could see it going through soft tissue
7 and into bone. Because in skeletonised remains, the bones will just all
8 come apart, but here we could still actually see very straightforward
9 tracks. So that that was the main benefit of that. It also -- any
10 bullets in the body would be held in the tissues, embedded in the
11 tissues, whereas in a skeletonised body, they'll just fall out. So that
12 was the two advantages: Bullet tracks and actually finding bullets.
13 The disadvantage is that this tissue can sometimes become very,
14 very hard and it becomes very difficult to open up the body and to work
15 with it. It also made the bodies heavy, and undoubtedly, the weight of
16 all the bodies on top of each other undoubtedly produced fractures after
17 death of particularly the ribs.
18 So -- any way, this preservation was a remarkable feature in the
19 bodies. And one other feature, in probably entirely academic interest,
20 was a blue colour which kept appearing on the surface of these bodies and
21 on the bones which I have not mentioned in my report but subsequently
22 worked out as a specific mineral which forms in soils with lots of iron
23 in them. A combination of the tissues of the body and the iron produces
24 this chemical called vivianite which makes the surface of the body blue.
25 It is probably entirely academic interest, but it was another feature of
1 these bodies.
2 MS. D'ASCOLI: Can the Court officer please call up 65 ter 32667.
3 Your Honour, the photograph that is about to appear on the
4 screens is one of a set of photographs taken at the Sanski Most morgue by
5 photographer Claudia Heinermann in October 2013 and she has agreed to
6 them being used in court.
7 Q. Sir, can you please look at the body in the centre of the
8 photograph. Does this show the degree of preservation that we were just
10 A. Yes, it does. If I can just interpret it for people. The head
11 is towards the right end of the screen and the feet are clearly to the
12 left-hand side. He still has trousers on, but if you look at the upper
13 half of the body, you can see brown and white tissue which is this
14 adipocere. It is very dry and hard. You can see his bent arm in the
15 lower half of the photograph. You can almost see the fingers still
16 there. So you can see how identifiable these remains are as bodies.
17 In contrast, if you look at the body just above, where the bulk
18 of the tissues have gone and all you're seeing are the bones, there's
19 still a little tissue towards the right towards the top of the body,
20 towards the top of the screen, but largely skeletonised. So a mixture of
21 degrees of preservation.
22 Q. And on the first body you commented upon, the one well preserved,
23 we can also still see the clothes that this individual was wearing;
25 A. Yes. We have -- well, there's still some clothing still on the
1 lower part of his body, his trousers. There's a shirt down -- taken
2 already off, down to the left-hand side. The body above, the clothes
3 will be in that black bag. They have already been taken off and washed.
4 MS. D'ASCOLI: Your Honours, the Prosecution tenders this
5 photograph as the next Prosecution exhibit.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 32667 receives number P7447.
8 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
9 MS. D'ASCOLI:
10 Q. Sir, going back to the clothes, the clothing, what can you tell
11 us about the clothes found on the bodies exhumed from Tomasica?
12 A. All the clothing that we found -- most people did have clothing
13 on. All the clothing was just ordinary clothing that people would wear -
14 shirts, sweatshirts, short-sleeve shirts, trousers, et cetera. Some
15 people had suit jackets, some people had work jackets or dungarees, but
16 it was mostly sort of casual clothes with footwear as well.
17 Some people did have a few -- a few people did have what to me
18 was an excessive amount of clothing, so perhaps two or more jackets, two
19 or more pairs of trousers. One of the three women had an enormous number
20 of clothes on, but generally this was fairly light clothing.
21 Specifically, no military clothing whatsoever. And I include amongst
22 that the footwear which was all of a light -- generally of a light nature
23 and not boots or anything like that.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I may just ask one little question, sir.
25 Sir, this might be outside your area, but are you able to tell us
1 why, after 21 years, the clothing is still there also? I mean, when you
2 look at the skeletonised remains, the body -- not only is the soft tissue
3 gone but you don't -- you also don't see the clothing. Is there an
4 explanation why on the one that is not skeletonised clothing is also
5 still there, hasn't meshed into the tissue or dissolved?
6 THE WITNESS: Yes, there's two issues there. Of the two bodies
7 that we saw, both of them did have clothing and it's just one has -- they
8 have been removed. Yes, you're correct. I mean, it's remarkable how
9 clothing does survive in the ground. Clearly we did not see the clothing
10 that did not survive and that might be a specific type.
11 Certain types of clothing, as I recall, denim jeans don't survive
12 very well and any jeans that we found were generally tattered. So I
13 think it's a -- it's the specific type of cloth will help the
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
16 MS. D'ASCOLI:
17 Q. Sir, I want to move now to the causes of death that you observed.
18 MS. D'ASCOLI: And can I please call up P7443, marked for
19 identification. And if we go to page 8 of the English and 10 of the
21 Q. Sir, what did you observe as the most frequent cause of death?
22 A. Well, perhaps I can summarise it just in the first three lines
23 there, that I found that the vast majority of the people in this
24 grave-site had been shot, many of them just once, one man unusually nine
25 times, but mostly a small number of times. Wounds to the head were a
1 dominant feature, a regular common feature to find wounds to the head and
2 particularly to the back of the head. And most injuries were from
3 high-velocity weapons. So, in summary, just about everyone had been
4 shot, and a very common finding was a bullet wound, bullet injury, to the
5 back of the head.
6 That's a broad statement, and then I then analysed it in a lot
7 more detail --
8 Q. Yes, and we'll go into that detail.
9 A. We'll go through that.
10 Q. So I see also in the second paragraph that you discuss -- you
11 found gun-shot injuries in all but ten cases, that is 283, representing
12 the 97 per cent. And I guess this applies to the 293 bodies that we
13 discussed earlier.
14 A. Yes. We're now forgetting the body parts and we're dealing only
15 with the 293 full or largely complete bodies. Of these 293, 283 had
16 gun-shot injuries, so that's 97 per cent. The other ten we can deal with
17 at the end, but by far the majority had gun-shot injuries.
18 I then look at the number of gun-shot injuries that each of these
19 people had. In other words, had they been shot once, twice, three times,
20 et cetera, et cetera.
21 Q. Sir, you're now commenting on Table 3, I take it; correct?
22 A. On Table 3. The commonest situation was that a person had been
23 shot just once. Next commonest, they had been shot twice. Then a
24 little, little less, shot three times, and then greatly decreasing after
25 that. One man, and only one man, had been shot nine times. One eight
1 times, et cetera. So most people had been shot once, twice or three
3 Q. Were you also able to make an estimate of the minimum number of
4 bullets that were fired in total on the bodies exhumed from the Tomasica
5 grave-site for what you could observe, of course?
6 A. This is, therefore, looking at the gun-shot injuries and I've
7 worked out a total of 709 gun-shot injuries to these people. Now I think
8 that will be an underestimate of shots, and there are a number of reasons
9 for saying it's an underestimate.
10 Partly that is because in, say, the trunk of the body, if we
11 found a bullet damage to a bone, say the left collar bone, and another
12 one to a rib at the right-hand side, it's conceivable that could all be
13 the one shot travelling across the body. Alternatively, it could be two
14 individual shots striking the body. Sometimes it was easy to tell the
15 difference, but if I was in any doubt, I would give the benefit of the
16 doubt to saying it was just the one shot.
17 Similarly, if a gun-shot injury, say, in the chest and an injury
18 also in an arm, I gave the benefit of the doubt that that was actually
19 the same track, so the bullet hitting the arm first and then going into
20 the chest. It may well have been two separate shots, but I gave, as I
21 say, the benefit of the doubt to it being the same.
22 So these various arguments, overall I think this is probably an
23 underestimate of the shots, but a fairly reasonable assessment.
24 Q. So the total of 709 gun-shot injuries to these people that you
25 just discussed, it's a conservative assessment?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And now if you can give us a bit more details about the process
3 of identifying gun-shot injuries. You were going into this detail
4 already in your previous answer. If you can elaborate on that, please.
5 A. Yes. Most of the injuries we found were caused by high-velocity
6 weapons. That is, when a bullet leaving the rifle at a very high speed,
7 with lot of energy, and when it hits the body, it loses that energy very
8 quickly and causes a great deal of damage, particularly to the bones, so
9 you get a shattering effect. Most of the time we were analysing -- for
10 gun-shot injuries we were looking at the bones because that is the
11 easiest thing to find. Often we would find a nice round entrance hole in
12 the bone and some fractures shattering round about and that to us was a
13 classic -- almost 100 per cent had to be a gun-shot injury. We could say
14 that with certainty.
15 Other times perhaps you had the same shattering effect but maybe
16 not the complete hole because parts of the bone were missing. But to our
17 mind, it was difficult to think of anything else which could have caused
18 such a degree of shattering of the bone so we were happy to say that
19 these were probable gun-shot injuries.
20 And, finally, there was a situation in perhaps it was just a
21 simple fracture of a bone or simple damage which could have been a
22 gun-shot injury, slightly unusually, or could have been caused by
23 something else, and I might call that a possible gun-shot injury.
24 Now in my analysis, I didn't consider the possible ones. I only
25 considered the definite and the probable gun-shot injuries. As I say,
1 for these probable ones, the degree of damage was -- I couldn't think of
2 any other explanation for these, and I think it's highly likely that they
3 were gun-shot injuries.
4 Q. Yes. And we will see the differences in reporting definite,
5 probable, or possible gun-shot injuries in -- when looking at the chart
6 where you have recorded the autopsy findings.
7 But, yes, so I understand that the -- at page 5 and 8 of your
8 report you explain this qualification that you gave of a definite, a
9 probable, and a possible gun-shot injury.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And in the count, I understand you considered only the definite
12 and probable ones.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Okay. Sir, what can you tell us about the distribution of the
15 gun-shot injuries that you observed?
16 A. This is now looking at what parts of the body were damaged by
17 these shots.
18 MS. D'ASCOLI: Maybe we can go to page 9 of the English, 11 of
19 the B/C/S, and look at Table 4.
20 Q. And, sir, I would ask you to comment on this table within the
21 context of my question.
22 A. So as I say, we're looking now at what parts of the body were
23 damaged by these bullets. The commonest injuries -- most of the injuries
24 were found in the trunk. In other words, that's the chest, the abdomen,
25 the pelvis area, that's the trunk of the body. Which is not surprising
1 because that's the biggest part of the body surface area. Having said
2 that, a surprising number, a surprisingly high number of shots were to
3 the head and the neck, but particularly the head; and correspondingly, a
4 relatively low number were to the legs, which actually form quite a
5 substantial part of the body. If you then look onto the diagram in
6 Figure 3 --
7 Q. Yes, you're now referring to Figure 3, the diagram showing a
8 human body.
9 A. Yes, and what I've done here is to put the body into three areas:
10 The head and neck; the trunk from the neck down to the pelvis and
11 including the arms; and thirdly, the legs.
12 Now, in a normal body, the head only forms 9 per cent of the body
13 surface. In the normal body, the trunk and arms form 54 per cent of the
14 body surface, and the legs form 36 per cent. So if you look at the
15 gun-shot injuries - and this is the black figures on the left-hand side -
16 58 per cent of the shots to the body were to the trunk which roughly fits
17 in with that being that proportion of the body surface area. But instead
18 of only the 9 percent in the head, we had 35 per cent of the shots, all
19 the shots, were to the head, and a corresponding lack of injuries to the
20 lower legs. This is if the shots -- these were shots with just a random
21 distribution of shots. So it looked to me there was a specific -- the
22 head had been -- was a specific target area, if you like. It certainly
23 predominated. There was far more shots to the head than you would
25 Q. So do I understand your evidence correctly, that the percentages
1 that you present in Figure 3 - and I mean those in black, in bold - these
2 would not be compatible with random distribution of fire?
3 A. Yes, if -- if a gun was being fired randomly at people, then you
4 would expect shots to hit the body roughly in proportion to the body
5 area, so the figures we've got here rather go against that.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you one follow-up question.
7 The relevance of all this would be clear if, in combat
8 situations, soldiers would shoot randomly at other bodies and that the
9 situation of the bodies would be such that you could hit them randomly.
10 I'm thinking, for example, about a soldier lying on the ground with a
11 rifle, raising his head a little bit higher in order to find a target
12 when lying down and trying to shoot --
13 THE WITNESS: Yes --
14 JUDGE ORIE: -- which would expose his head in a way, I would say
15 not randomly, to any fire coming from the other side.
16 Is -- of course, I'm asking myself what the relevance is of your
17 observations and developed these thoughts, and I'd like to hear your
18 comment as an expert on relevance and such situations as I described.
19 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's -- that's entirely a reasonable
20 suggestion about the head being struck. As we'll see later on, in that
21 particular situation, you would imagine, then, that most shots coming to
22 that soldier would be to the front or the top of the head. In fact, the
23 bulk of the shots were to the back of the head, so that's one point --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but -- yes, we have not gone to that --
25 THE WITNESS: Exactly, exactly --
1 JUDGE ORIE: -- but it is presented here as -- that there's a
2 relevant difference just on the basis of the body surface and I was
3 wondering what the relevance of that was, apart from relevant factors
4 found elsewhere, not the head. But the back of the head is, of course,
5 not the same as the head in general.
6 THE WITNESS: Yes, I don't know what situation these people were
7 in, but the -- if you imagine the situation when everybody was standing
8 up at the time, then it just seems a little odd that so many shots were
9 to the head. But I quite agree that you can envisage a situation in
10 which the person was -- were lower down and only the head was exposed.
11 That's entirely possible.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
13 THE WITNESS: With the benefit of having dealt with other cases
14 in the Balkans, it did strike me how many -- how much commoner it was in
15 these bodies than in other sites that I've dealt with the injuries to the
16 head, and I've labelled that in Table 5 just to show --
17 MS. D'ASCOLI: Maybe we can move to the discussion on the
18 direction of fire. So if we can go to page 11 of the English and 13 of
19 the B/C/S.
20 Q. So that we can continue the discussion about the direction of
21 fire and the portion, for example, of the head where you observed the
22 highest number of gun-shot injuries.
23 Sir, can you comment and Table 6 and Figure 6 together.
24 A. So this is looking at the particular part of the body surface,
25 whether it's the front or the back or the top or the side, et cetera, and
1 there are various ways we can try and work that out. The head being the
2 easiest, if we look at that, of all the shots to the head, 45 per cent of
3 them were to the back of the head --
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could we have the corresponding page in B/C/S
5 with respect to Table 6.
6 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, that would be the next page, page 14 of the
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
9 MS. D'ASCOLI: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 THE WITNESS: So 45 per cent of all shots to the head were to the
11 back of the head. Only 17 per cent were to the front of the head, and
12 then 27 per cent were either to the top or the side of the head.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: 20 per cent or 18?
14 THE WITNESS: 18 plus 9.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Plus 9.
16 THE WITNESS: 18 plus 9. And 11 per cent we were not able to say
17 really because of the amount of damage and parts missing.
18 So the commonest finding was a gun-shot injury to the back of the
20 MS. D'ASCOLI:
21 Q. And what about the trunk? What was the assessment about the
22 direction of fire with regard to that part of the body?
23 A. The trunk is less able -- we're less able to be certain about it,
24 but of the shots that we could analyse for direction, almost 60 per cent,
25 59 per cent, were, we felt, to the back of the body. I'm meaning really
1 from the outer part of the ribs backwards I would count as the back of
2 the body. A lot of times we weren't able to say, but where we were able
3 to say, the majority were to the back.
4 Q. And as we are on this page, we should go back to page 13 on the
5 B/C/S, can you explain also how you would determine the direction of
6 fire, and in doing that, you can -- could you comment upon Figures 5A and
7 5B that we see on the top of the page in the English.
8 A. In remains like these, we try and analyse direction of fire by
9 the specific damage caused in the bone. So a bullet striking bone, the
10 very first surface it hits will produce a round hole. As it comes out of
11 the other side of that bone, then the shape of the hole is wider. It's
12 sort of funnel-shaped. It's a process we call bevelling. And by looking
13 that, we can tell which direction a bullet was going through a bone.
14 So we can do that with the head, we can do it with a rib, we can
15 do it with an arm or the pelvis, et cetera. The head is the easiest
16 because the skull is thick and retains these features. So in that way
17 that's how we can tell direction.
18 Q. I will go more into the details of the damages or the effects of
19 these gun-shot injuries on the bones after the break, because we see we
20 are about to break. But before we finish with these photos, can you tell
21 us where this photo is taken?
22 A. This is 5A and 5B?
23 Q. Yes, precisely.
24 A. Yes, these are my own photographs of one of the cases, 275T. It
25 is a skull which initially was in multiple fragments but which has now
1 been glued together. And you can see in 5A, the left-hand picture, you
2 will see the entrance hole, this round circular in -- right in the
3 centre, that is where the bullet has gone in. As well as producing a
4 round hole, it has produced fractures above, below, and to the sides.
5 Now, the photograph B, on the right, is actually the other side
6 of the skull. So the bullet has gone in the right side, it's just above
7 the right ear effectively, slightly higher up, and it has come out the
8 left side of the head. Where a high-velocity bullet strikes the --
9 particularly the skull, it causes a fairly neat entrance hole, but as it
10 comes out the other side, it causes enormous shattering of the bone, and
11 all you're left is usually a large defect where the bone is in multiple
12 pieces or is actually lost. And what we're looking at here is the left
13 side of the skull.
14 Q. So on the right-hand side photo, the red arrow indicates --
15 A. That is the inner surface of the hole seen in the left-hand
17 Now, if you're able to zoom that picture up, at the red arrow you
18 would actually see the bevelling effect in the surface of that entrance
20 Q. Okay.
21 A. There's a complication here because in the skull we're talking
22 about two exits, we're talking about the exit of the initial -- the
23 initial surface of the bone but then we're also talking about the exit of
24 the bullet through the whole head. That's why -- or perhaps the wording
25 is slightly confusing.
1 Q. Okay.
2 A. That red arrow, the inside of that has a sort of funnel-shaped --
3 and that tells us clearly what direction that bullet was travelling.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 MS. D'ASCOLI: Your Honours, I see it is time for the break.
6 JUDGE ORIE: We'll take a break.
7 Mr. Clark, we'd like to see you back after 20 minutes. You may
8 now follow the usher.
9 [The witness stands down]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. D'Ascoli, are you on track? Your estimate was
11 two hours, I think.
12 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, Your Honours, I am.
13 JUDGE ORIE: And you've used a little bit over one hour.
14 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, I'm on track.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll take a break and we will resume at
16 five minutes to 11.00.
17 --- Recess taken at 10.33 a.m.
18 --- On resuming at 10.57 a.m.
19 [The witness takes the stand]
20 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. D'Ascoli, you may proceed.
21 MS. D'ASCOLI: Thank you, Mr. President.
22 Q. Sir, we discussed your findings and observations regarding the
23 numbers of gun-shot injuries, the distribution of gun-shot injuries, and
24 the direction of fire. I want to move now to your observations regarding
25 the weapons used to inflict the injuries.
1 And so my first question would be: Were you able to tell which
2 type of weapon inflicted the gun-shot injuries that you observed?
3 A. In our view, the majority of injuries were caused by
4 high-velocity weapons. I've explained earlier what I mean by that term.
5 It really is a weapon in which the bullet is fired with a very high
6 speed, a lot of energy, and when it strikes the body, causes a great deal
7 of damage.
8 We were able to say that on the basis of the type of damage found
9 in the bone -- found in the body, particularly the shattering of the
10 bones, but also in actually finding remnants of typical high-velocity
11 bullets still in the bodies. So from a combination of these two, the
12 majority of injuries were caused by high-velocity weapons.
13 At the same time, there was a small number of cases in which it
14 was clear handguns, pistols, revolvers, et cetera, had been used, and
15 that was obvious either from finding handgun bullets in the bodies or by
16 finding bullet injuries which didn't have the same degree of shattering
17 that you get from the high-velocity weapon and suggested more to us the
18 use of a lower velocity such as a handgun.
19 Q. So I understand from your answers that there are visible
20 differences between injuries or trauma caused by high-velocity weapons
21 and those caused by handguns on the bones?
22 A. Yes, that's correct.
23 MS. D'ASCOLI: Maybe if we look at Figures 7A and 7B - this would
24 be page 12 of the English and page, I believe, 15 of the B/C/S - this
25 would give us a visual aid.
1 Q. And I would ask you, sir, to comment on these two photographs.
2 And, again, if you can first tell us where these photographs were taken.
3 A. These are just two random photographs taken from the cases.
4 The one on the left-hand side is a gun-shot injury of the face
5 and the top of the spine. And just to orientate you, the lower jaw is
6 normally a horse-shoe shaped bone and you can see the front of the jaw is
7 right at the foot of the photograph. And then it goes back on the left
8 side with the teeth there.
9 The right side of the jaw is -- there's a large gap there, and
10 that's where a bullet has gone and it has gone backwards and it's hit the
11 spine. And normally that vertebra at the top of the spine is solid.
12 Here it is shattered into multiple pieces, and that's very typical of a
13 high-velocity bullet going through the jaw and into the vertebra.
14 On the right -- the picture on the right-hand side, 7B, this is a
15 bullet going through the femur, that's the thigh bone, on the left thigh.
16 It's causing a hole but also multiple fractures round about.
17 Now, that's typical of a damage caused by a high-velocity weapon.
18 If that was a handgun, all you would probably see would just be a round
19 hole with minimal fracturing round about it. It'd just be a straight
20 round hole. Here you've got lots of fracturing and fragmentation and
21 that's how we can tell the difference.
22 MS. D'ASCOLI: Can we now move to page 15 of the English and 18
23 of the B/C/S.
24 Q. Sir, while this is coming up, I understand there were also a
25 number of unascertained cases where not convincing cause of death could
1 be found; correct?
2 A. There were 12 cases in which we could not come to a conclusion as
3 to the cause of death. Two of these did have a gun-shot injury but in a
4 part of the body which we felt would not necessarily cause death. One
5 was to the jaw, and I think the other one was to a shoulder. Now, they
6 were definitely gun-shot injuries but I couldn't necessarily conclude
7 that that person would have died from that. So that kind of were two of
8 them --
9 Q. I take it you're commenting on Table 7 which summarizes the
10 unascertained causes of death?
11 A. That's right, yes. Other times we found no gun-shot injuries in
12 what we examined. But in a number of these cases, a part of the body was
13 missing - perhaps a head or a leg - in which there could well have been a
14 gun-shot injury, but in the part of the body we had there was no gun-shot
15 injury. So these account for most of these unascertained cases.
16 Q. And, again, these 12 would be out of the 293 bodies that you --
17 you discussed in your report.
18 A. Yes. So we found of these 293 people, 96 per cent of them, so
19 most of them, died from a gun-shot injury and only a small number we
20 couldn't establish, really, how they had died.
21 Q. Okay. Sir, I would now like to discuss with you some examples
22 from the two annexes or charts annexed to your report.
23 MS. D'ASCOLI: So if we can please have P7444 MFI on the screens.
24 And we can just start with page 1 in both English and B/C/S.
25 Q. Sir, do you recognise this chart, this table, now on the screens?
1 A. Yes, I do.
2 Q. So this is the first annex, the large -- larger chart on the
3 post-mortem findings to your report; correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. If we can look at this first page of the annex, and if you can
6 please guide us through this chart and how to read it.
7 A. The first column under case number is the number given to the
8 body bag at the Tomasica site by the exhumation team. So we have --
9 they're in sequential numbers. So 13, and that would be a T at the end,
10 meaning a whole body. The next one is a D. Now, this is one of the 18,
11 this is one of the 18 that I've added to a kind of whole bodies.
12 The first part of this annex, the first 80, almost 90 pages are
13 these 293 cases. It's not the body parts. The body parts come at the
14 end of the annex. So these principal cases are the 293 cases which I've
15 analysed. Most of them Ts, already recognised as bodies, but 18 of them
16 are these body parts, which I've upgraded to a body although kept the
17 D letter. So that's what these -- the first column refers to. And it
18 goes from 13T up to, I think, 420 or so T towards the end.
19 The second column, there's three levels there. The first date is
20 the date of the post-mortem examination or the autopsy examination. The
21 second is the date when the body was exhumed from the grave, clearly at a
22 time earlier. And the third, in italics, is the part of the grave-site
23 from where the body was taken.
24 Q. And a small clarification. It is to this column that you made a
25 couple of corrections in the table of corrections that we looked at
1 earlier on; right?
2 A. That's correct. It was simply the date of the -- that the
3 autopsy, a figure had been wrongly put down.
4 Q. Okay.
5 A. My fault in doing that, but ...
6 Q. Please continue. Maybe can you comment on the -- yeah, on the
7 fourth, fifth, and sixth column as well.
8 A. Yes, the other columns are fairly -- well, the third one is
9 self-evident it's the sex and the estimated age of the individual.
10 Sometimes a little bit more specific.
11 The fourth column are the clothing, the clothing that the person
12 was wearing, and I have only included the main outer clothing, not
13 underwear or socks, et cetera, for clarity. Plus any other items either
14 around the body or in their possession, so car keys, ID cards,
15 spectacles, et cetera, et cetera.
16 Q. And one point of clarification, the observations in this part, in
17 the observations regarding clothing and artefacts, were those that you
18 personally made?
19 A. Yes, at the end of the autopsy we -- the pathologist then
20 examined all the clothing and all the items, the possessions with that
21 body, so we directly saw these and logged them all.
22 The fifth column is just a general description of the remains,
23 the completeness of the body, so it was a largely -- a complete body or
24 largely complete body, what was missing, was it reduced to a skeleton,
25 was there a lot of adipocere, a lot of tissue, et cetera, et cetera. So
1 that is a general description there.
2 The fifth column, gun-shot injuries, lists -- sorry, sixth
3 column. It lists all the gun-shot injuries. GSI means gun-shot injury.
4 Now, most of them are, in my mind, confident gun-shot injuries or what I
5 think are very clear gun-shot injuries. Where I thought the injury was
6 probable or possible, then that is specifically added.
7 MS. D'ASCOLI: Now with regard to that, can we zoom in on case
8 015D, just the second in the list.
9 Q. And, sir, if you can explain --
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The right side of the line or the left side?
11 MS. D'ASCOLI: The left side of the line. Thank you,
12 Your Honour. Including the part on the description of the gun-shot
14 JUDGE ORIE: Which is the next column.
15 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes.
16 THE WITNESS: This needs to move along a bit.
17 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yeah.
18 Q. Sir, I wanted you -- yeah, to ask if you could explain the
19 difference between the two bullet points listed in the gun-shot injuries
21 A. This is on 15D.
22 Q. Yes.
23 A. Well, we have, first of all, a gun-shot injury, a definite
24 gun-shot injury of the head. The entrance hole is at the back of the
25 head in what's called the left occipital region - that's just to the left
1 of the back of the head - which had also damaged the upper bone of the
2 spine, the C1 vertebra. The bullet had come out opposite, towards the
3 front of the right side of the head in the right temporal region, and
4 also damaging the right side of the jaw. So that was a gun-shot injury,
5 definite gun-shot injury entering the back of the left side and coming
6 out on the right side.
7 Secondly, I'd found a gun-shot injury -- well, what I assumed --
8 said was a probable gun-shot injury of the right forearm, with damage to
9 the lower end of one of the bones there. Now --
10 Q. You --
11 A. Now, although I listed that as a gun-shot injury, there could be
12 the possibility that that is somehow connected with the injury to the
14 Q. In which way?
15 A. Well, the forearm, the arms are very movable, and you could
16 envisage perhaps the forearm up against the head and being struck as the
17 bullet exits or conceivably the forearm was round at the back of the head
18 at the entrance point. Generally for injuries to the forearms, I
19 consider very much whether they could all be part of an injury elsewhere
20 to the body and kind of almost assumed that they were. So again, a
21 slightly potential underestimate of the number of shots.
22 MS. D'ASCOLI: If we move to the right-hand side part of this
23 table --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Before we do so --
25 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Before we do so, Mr. Clark, in your oral testimony
2 today you talked about the gun-shot injury, a definite one, and that the
3 entrance was at the back in the left region.
4 Now, the report says with probable entrance. You didn't repeat
5 that. Therefore, I'm wondering why you told us the entrance hole is at
6 the bottom of the head whereas in the report it says the probable
7 entrance is at the back. And could you also explain -- apparently the
8 probability is not only related to whether these are gun-shot injuries,
9 yes or no, but apparently also as far as the -- in this case, the
10 direction of fire is concerned.
11 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour, very valid point.
12 Sometimes if we could see a hole, a proper circular entrance
13 hole, that was clearly the entrance. Sometimes there wasn't that hole
14 but there was the damage, the fragmentation round about. In this
15 particular case, there would have been a lot of damage to the back of the
16 head. I think we were more confident about where the exit had been, just
17 by the nature of the damage. And so lining up, because bullets travel in
18 a direct line, we worked out that the entrance was very likely to have
19 been at the back of the head.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Is this the same kind of probability you told us
21 about earlier, that is, that although the direct evidence isn't there,
22 that you couldn't give any other explanation as the one you gave as the
23 probable cause of events?
24 THE WITNESS: Indeed. I mean, in this particular case, there was
25 clearly an exit here, the entrance could not have been at the top of the
1 head, it couldn't have been at the front, just from the nature of the
2 exit damage, and that's why we have found damage at the back of the head
3 and felt that that was the probable area.
4 The left occipital covers quite a big area so it's -- it was in
5 that region.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed.
7 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, Mr. President. If we move to the right-hand
8 side part of this table, I want to have a look at the last column
9 together with the column on gun-shot injuries.
10 Q. Sir, can you comment about the minimum number of shots reported
11 in the -- in the last column, cause of death, and reconnect these to the
12 discussion of gun-shot injuries in the relevant column?
13 A. In the column of gun-shot injuries you will see that I have
14 listed two gun-shot injuries: One to the head and one to the forearm.
15 On the basis that the injury to the forearm could well have been in the
16 same track as the one to the head, I thought that's a minimum number of
17 one shot to the body. It could have been two, but I worked on the basis
18 of a minimum number and that was one.
19 Q. Okay.
20 MS. D'ASCOLI: Can we now move to page 76 of the English, and in
21 the B/C/S this starts at page 79.
22 Q. Sir, I will ask you to comment on case number 371T, for your
23 reference on the chart that you have before you.
24 MS. D'ASCOLI: Maybe we can first zoom in on the left-hand side
25 part of the column, including the gun-shot injuries column. The
1 left-hand side part of the chart.
2 THE WITNESS: This is the man with -- who had nine shots. Most
3 of these were to the head where we found extensive fracturing of the
4 skull and no less than six bullets, either whole or fragmented bullets,
5 within the head.
6 This was certainly a case which was very difficult, as you can
7 imagine, to reconstruct the skull, but we found a bullet, some bullet
8 entrance holes, exit damage, and, as I say, portions of at least six
9 separate bullets in the head.
10 MS. D'ASCOLI:
11 Q. And did you also found -- did you also find the bullet?
12 A. Yes, there was these portions of bullets, either a complete
13 bullet or portions of bullets. But it was clearly items from six
14 separate bullets.
15 Q. So I see there's a text in green in the gun-shot injuries column.
16 Can you tell us what does the regular green font indicate?
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can we zoom in in the B/C/S version in the same
18 way as in the English and leave out the right-hand column.
19 MS. D'ASCOLI: Thank you, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No, from column 1 to column 6, and leave out
21 column 6 -- 7. Yes, that's right.
22 MS. D'ASCOLI: Most of the discussion and the part in green font
23 in B/C/S would be on the next page, page 80. Maybe we can move to
24 page 80 in the B/C/S and zoom in the -- on the column that has the green
25 font. Thank you.
1 Q. Sir, should I repeat my question --
2 A. No, I can --
3 Q. Okay.
4 A. When I compiled this chart, really for my own benefit, any
5 mention of a bullet I've put in green so that I can immediately -- it
6 highlights to me immediately. If I see green, there's discussion of a
7 bullet or bullet fragment.
8 Where that referred to a bullet or fragment which was actually
9 found in the tissues of the body, in a bone, or in the soft tissue,
10 wherever, then it's within that individual -- the description of the --
11 that particular gun-shot injury. But you will also see --
12 Q. Yes, there's also some green italics, so if you can explain the
13 difference between the two fonts.
14 A. At the very last one, if it is in italics, this refers to bullets
15 or bullet jackets which had been recovered by others during the washing
16 of the body which were made available to us to look at subsequently. I
17 just note them. I haven't counted them in any analysis or based anything
18 on them, but just to say that they were bullets or bullet jackets or
19 fragments of bullets recovered from the remains during washing by other
21 Q. Again, to sum up, the regular green font indicates bullets
22 located in the body and therefore I assume by you, by pathologists?
23 A. That we found. That, yes, we found.
24 Q. Okay. If we can move to the right-hand side part of the table
25 just to have a look at the final column describing the causes of death
1 and the minimum number of bullets, and if you can briefly comment on
2 that. It is self-explanatory but just about -- a comment maybe about the
3 minimum number of shots.
4 MS. D'ASCOLI: This in English would be the next page, 77,
6 THE WITNESS: I worked out that this man, because he had six
7 shots to the head, I worked out there were other shots to the trunk and
8 one to the left upper arm. Again, a shot to the upper arm could well be
9 associated with one of the shots to the chest so I counted all that as
10 one. In total, I estimated that he had been shot at least nine times, so
11 the minimum number of shots is nine there. All, to my mind, by a
12 high-velocity weapon.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Are we on the right page?
14 JUDGE ORIE: I think we're not --
15 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes -- in the English it is the very top of the
16 chart. It's a little section that continues from the previous page.
17 THE WITNESS: The cause of death here was given as gun-shot
18 injuries to the head and chest because any bullets going through these
19 areas would be very rapidly fatal. But you'll see in the very -- the
20 three arrow points at the base -- it's actually only one, you've missed
21 the top one in your -- on the screen. It's on the previous page. But
22 I've listed all the injuries to all parts of body whether or not they
23 contributed to the death. So cause of death here was gun-shot injuries
24 to the head and chest.
25 MS. D'ASCOLI:
1 Q. Okay. Then we discussed how you also encountered cases of
2 injuries caused by handguns.
3 MS. D'ASCOLI: So if we can move to page 43 of this document and
4 47 -- 43 of the English and 47 of the B/C/S.
5 Q. Sir, I will ask you to comment on case number 230T and 227T.
6 They appear on the same page. Maybe -- let's go to 227T, which is in the
7 middle of the page.
8 A. This was one of the three women in the grave. She had a gun-shot
9 injury to the head with the entrance just above, behind the left eye, and
10 the exit on the right side of the head towards the back. In other words,
11 above the right ear.
12 The fracturing associated with these, the entrance and exits, was
13 relatively minimal compared to most other cases and, for that reason, I
14 wondered about the use of a handgun because it's a lower energy and
15 didn't cause quite so much damage. So I've concluded that probable --
16 probable handgun cause there.
17 Q. Before moving to the right-hand side part of the chart, I see the
18 description -- can you comment on the clothing artefact? I see a very
19 dense description of what this individual was wearing.
20 A. She had a lot of -- lot of clothing, indeed. Multiple layers
21 of blouses, trousers, nightdress, et cetera. It just seemed to go on and
22 on. So she was somebody who certainly had far more clothing than you
23 would --
24 Q. I think you referred to this case at the very beginning of
25 today's testimony.
1 A. Yes --
2 Q. Was this the same person?
3 A. I certainly mentioned somebody with lot of excess clothing, yes.
4 MS. D'ASCOLI: If we could move to the right-hand side part of
5 the chart.
6 Q. So, yes, we see in the cause of death description a handgun and
7 the -- yeah, the same is true for case 230T.
8 A. 230T, I was a bit more confident that this definitely was a
9 handgun, again, because the bullet-holes were so regular and lacked the
10 fragmentation. This again was another woman and there were two entrance
11 holes in the skull.
12 Q. Okay. Before we leave this page, could you --
13 JUDGE ORIE: That's found on the next page, I take it, where the
14 handgun is without --
15 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: -- the word "probable." It's on page 44, the final
17 conclusion --
18 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, Your Honour --
19 JUDGE ORIE: -- which is not on our screen now. It's the very
20 top line. Yes.
21 MS. D'ASCOLI:
22 Q. And, sir -- where is it? Yeah. If we look at the column: Other
23 injuries or findings, can you explain what the hashtag sign indicates?
24 A. That means a fracture. That's a universal -- the term
25 universally adopted by medical personnel as a shortcut for a fracture.
1 Q. Okay.
2 MS. D'ASCOLI: Can we now move to page 93 of this document, 93 of
3 the English, and B/C/S page 108.
4 Q. Sir, in addition to bodies, we discussed -- you told us how you
5 and your colleagues also analysed body parts. Now can you describe your
6 work on the body parts and the differences and challenges encountered, if
8 A. We paid as much attention to the body parts as to the whole
9 bodies, did them in turn. Clearly they were easier to look at in
10 terms of there was one only small part of the body, so we were able to
11 get through them more quickly. Some of these body parts would be, as I
12 say, just maybe a whole arm or an arm bone or a foot. Sometimes a
13 mixture of bones from skull, chest, et cetera. So we went through these
14 in the same way - sometimes they had clothing, sometimes they didn't -
15 looked for gun-shot injuries and any other damage, tried to give a cause
16 of death. Now, as you can imagine, the majority of these there was no
17 injury to -- to them, and the cause of death was given as unascertained.
18 Q. We see that if we move to the right-hand side part of the chart.
19 MS. D'ASCOLI: In both languages, please. Okay.
20 Q. And for the record, yes, starting from this page, page 93 of the
21 English and 108 of the B/C/S, the chart discusses the additional body
22 parts while the first part of it regards the -- all the bodies, the
23 principal cases?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Now, sir, just some brief questions about the last document part
1 of your evidence.
2 MS. D'ASCOLI: And if we can have P7445, MFI, on the screens.
3 Q. Sir, do you recognise this document?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Okay. We can now see the summary chart or list of post-mortem
6 findings that you also attached to your report. And again I would ask
7 you to please comment on the chart and to briefly explain the information
8 in it and what -- what type of searches this facilitates, if any.
9 A. Yes, this is a just an abbreviated version of the previous
10 document. It doesn't give any more information than is in the
11 previous -- the main document but is perhaps easier to get an immediate
12 overview of the findings. So, again, the case number, the sex of the
13 person, the age range, an indication of -- a little bit more clearly of
14 the -- whereabouts in the grave they came from, which gives an overall
15 picture of working round the grave, so all the 1s and 2s and 3s are
16 roughly together. Then a cause of death, including the unascertained.
17 Then a table showing the injuries, any gun-shot injuries to the body
18 whether or not they contributed to the cause of death or not. That's GSI
20 And finally, final column is the minimum number of shots. This
21 is the figures on the left-hand side of that column. Followed by either
22 H-V for high velocity or HG, in brown, for handgun or a query if we
23 didn't know. And some of them will have an asterisk which indicates that
24 there was bullets or bullet fragments found associated with that body.
25 And very occasionally there's a wavy sign, which indicates that there was
1 a cartridge case.
2 Q. I think we see that on the second page if I'm not wrong.
3 A. There is one --
4 Q. You have it in your hard copy; right?
5 A. For instance, 320.
6 Q. I think --
7 A. 320T --
8 Q. The last page.
9 A. -- has little wavy line that indicates in addition to a bullet
10 fragment in the body or with the body, there was a cartridge case. I
11 think there was only three of these found.
12 Q. That case would be 320T. I think that's sufficient for the
14 A. That's an example, yes --
15 MS. D'ASCOLI: If Your Honours want, we can go to the last page
16 of the document. The previous one.
17 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, this is on the body parts. It's
18 actually the fifth physical page.
19 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, I think that would be page 5 of the English.
20 THE WITNESS: Yes.
21 MS. D'ASCOLI:
22 Q. Yes --
23 A. That's it.
24 Q. And the sign you were mentioning would be on the last column --
25 A. The very, very --
1 Q. -- on the right-hand side?
2 A. On the very right-hand side. Yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: 375T. Not shown at this moment yet because the
4 bottom of it is not --
5 MS. D'ASCOLI: We do see it --
6 JUDGE ORIE: We have to -- no, we haven't --
7 THE WITNESS: It's either 320 or 375 but both of them have it.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, 320 --
9 MS. D'ASCOLI: Which -- yes, we see it now at the top of the
10 English page, yes.
11 THE WITNESS: Yes, and right at the bottom.
12 MS. D'ASCOLI:
13 Q. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I think that will
14 suffice for the -- for how to read and interpret this summary chart.
15 Sir, my final question: How did your findings on the human
16 remains found in Tomasica compare to those from other sites in Bosnia you
17 previously worked on as a pathologist? If can you comment about that.
18 A. There were obvious similarities from other sites related to
19 Srebrenica or Croatia or elsewhere. Similarities in that large number of
20 bodies in a mass grave, that most -- the commonest injury in these people
21 was a gun-shot injury caused by a high-velocity weapon. The clothing was
22 of much the same type found, the possessions roughly the same sort of
23 things. So there were similarities with other grave-sites.
24 The differences were the degree of preservation of the bodies in
25 Tomasica, which we've explained. Also by the regular occurrence of
1 injuries to the back of the head. That's what struck us. It was just a
2 recurring feature to find in these cases a gun-shot injury to the back of
3 the head. Certainly not everybody had been killed in that way, but it
4 was a struck us as an unusual feature.
5 These bodies also as in previous grave-sites had injuries caused
6 almost certainly after death by crushing and there were body parts, so in
7 that sense, they were much the same as previous sites. So really the
8 preservation and the preponderance of injuries -- gun-shot injuries to
9 the back of the head were the two things that stood out in these cases.
10 Q. Okay.
11 MS. D'ASCOLI: Your Honours, that concludes my examination.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
13 Mr. Lukic, are you ready to start of your cross-examination?
14 MR. LUKIC: You know what my answer would be, that we are not
15 ready but we will proceed.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I asked whether you were ready to start. That's ...
17 MR. LUKIC: Give me one minute, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 Mr. Clark, you will be cross-examined by Mr. Lukic. You'll find
20 Mr. Lukic to your left. Mr. Lukic is counsel for Mr. Mladic.
21 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
22 Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic:
23 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, Dr. Clark.
24 A. [Interpretation] Good day.
25 Q. First I'm going to put a few general questions to you and then
1 we're going to move on to your report.
2 Tell us, please, how long did you work on the Tomasica case?
3 A. [In English] For a total of four months, three to four months. I
4 was there from the -- really the start of the case is, I think, in end of
5 November, beginning of December, until about mid-February. There was a
6 period of time at the end of December, beginning of January, when I
7 wasn't there when some cases were carried out, but I saw -- I dealt with
8 the bulk of the cases in this site.
9 Q. You explained this to us today and also in the report that we
10 received from the OTP, it says that you were involved in the third part
11 of the procedure at the mortuary, mentioned on page 2 of your report.
12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] So could we take a look at 65 ter --
13 well, I haven't written it down. Just a moment, please. It is P7443
15 Q. We have your report before us here.
16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] So we need page 2.
17 Q. So it has to do with procedure in the mortuary. You gave us an
18 answer today as well, stating that you became involved in what is
19 described here under number 3. You told us that the actions carried out
20 in paragraphs 1 and 2 had already been carried out by other people.
21 How long did this last, that is to say, what was described in
22 paragraphs 1 and 2, opening bags, removing clothing for washing, and then
23 cleaning the bodies themselves, all these things that the anthropologists
25 A. That process was already under way by the time I arrived at the
1 mortuary. Really, from the time that the bodies started arriving from
2 the site into the mortuary, local staff, some of them employed by ICMP,
3 some of them probably not directly employed, but they had started going
4 through the bodies, removing the clothing to wash the bodies so that they
5 could be examined by the anthropology team who would do an inventory of
6 what bones and parts of the body were present, try and assess the sex of
7 the individual from looking at the bones, and sometimes taking a sample
8 at that stage, a bone sample or a tooth sample, for DNA analysis.
9 Once that was completed, the body would be sealed up again in the
10 body bag, awaiting the pathologists to have a look at that in due course,
11 examine the body in due course.
12 We obviously could see the processes going on just in the general
13 course of events, but we had no direct oversight over them.
14 Q. I do apologise but you did not answer my question. For how long
15 had work already been done, in terms of paragraphs 1 and 2, before you
16 arrived and became involved in the Tomasica case?
17 A. I would imagine that probably one to two months. I don't know
18 precisely the date, but it would be of that pat order.
19 Q. It would be a fair assessment to say that you had no knowledge
20 whatsoever in terms of what had been done before you arrived there and
21 before you started working on the Tomasica case. Would that be correct?
22 A. I was aware -- I was aware what procedures had been carried out.
23 I had not witnessed it directly myself.
24 Q. How was it that you were aware of the procedures that were
1 A. When I did arrive, these procedures were still ongoing because
2 there was so many bodies, so I was able to see the bodies being washed
3 and I was informed that a lot of other bodies had already been dealt
4 with. So I could see -- I could see the process. It was still ongoing,
5 and I could see -- similarly I could see the process done by the
6 anthropologists and the records that they kept and the details and the
7 photography done. So I did at least see a substantial number of cases
8 going through these procedures. But, again, only kind of from a
9 distant -- distant point of view.
10 Q. Did you try to intervene in relation to the procedures that were
11 different from the ones that you had applied earlier on?
12 A. I made unofficial suggestions that this was a different way of
13 doing things, but I realised I was very much the visitor, I had no
14 official role there, that the exercise was now being run by the Bosnian
15 Commission, and that -- well, I had -- I had little influence to change
17 Q. Could you please tell us now - briefly - how come you appeared at
18 that location where the autopsies are carried out? You said beforehand
19 that you were a volunteer, and now you said that you were a visitor.
20 Could somebody else have come there as a volunteer or visitor, whoever
21 wished to do so?
22 A. Perhaps I've used the word "visitor" loosely. I mean it to say
23 that I was there with permission to be there, but I was not in a position
24 to change anything. The reason I was specifically involved was it was
25 suggested by Professor Sarajlic in Sarajevo that Dr. Durmisevic would
1 probably welcome -- very much welcome my assistance given my past
2 experience and my past interest in this work. So he was very welcoming
3 and made arrangements for the prosecutor to get permission for me to be
4 there. So I wasn't just a casual visitor. I was there with specific
5 permission because of expertise, but at the same time I was conscious
6 that I was there -- I was taking my own -- making my own observations and
7 that the two Bosnian pathologists were doing the official observations
8 for their -- for their purposes for the prosecutor.
9 So -- and nobody else could have been there without permission.
10 Q. How come you became involved before permission was given? Was
11 this at your own initiative? Did somebody ask you to do that?
12 A. Partly it was my initiative. I was in discussions with
13 Professor Sarajlic about doing research on cases that both of us had been
14 involved in previously in Bosnia, particularly north of Bosnia, and he
15 happened to mention that there was going to be work at the Tomasica site.
16 It was quite a coincidence that it all happened at the same time, and he
17 suggested that it would be good for me to be involved. I was able to be,
18 and so it went on. And that request was made into formal permission for
19 me to be there. So it was a chance circumstances of time and
21 Q. Could we say that it was actually your own initiative?
22 A. Yes, I didn't have to be there. The work would have gone on had
23 I not been there, certainly. My involvement was also encouraged by both
24 ICMP and ICTY. It just happened that, at that time, at that particular
25 time, it was during a major conference actually here in The Hague
1 involving ICMP and ICTY, so there was direct discussions during the
2 conference, and they both encouraged and facilitated my involvement.
3 Q. In which way did the ICMP and ICTY encourage you and support your
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, the witness now has answered two similar
6 questions and, of course, we could go to any further details, but unless
7 you have a specific question, I would suggest that you move on.
8 MR. LUKIC: But I think, Your Honour, that it is the first time
9 mentioned involvement of ICTY and encouragement and facilitation.
10 JUDGE ORIE: And --
11 MS. D'ASCOLI: Your Honours --
12 JUDGE ORIE: -- that's all during discussions, and your previous
13 question was:
14 "Could we say that it was actually your own initiative?"
15 Whereas the previous answer started by saying:
16 "Partly it was my own initiative."
17 So that is an answer to that question.
18 And apparently there have been discussions. The witness says he
19 was interested in view of his research. Others said, Okay, why don't you
20 join us? I mean, what's there -- unless there's any specific matter you
21 would like to add specifically about ICMP encouragement and ICTY,
22 Mr. Clark, if there's such a thing, please tell us that on that specific
23 matter. If not, Mr. Lukic will put his next question to you.
24 And Ms. D'Ascoli is on her feet as well.
25 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, Your Honour, just for the record, that this
1 is not the first time this is mentioned and we can find the references to
2 ICTY and ICMP encouraging Mr. Clark's involvement at page 1 of the
3 report, P7443, MFI.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Clark, anything specifically about encouragement
5 to be added?
6 THE WITNESS: No. In fact, ICTY were very keen that I be
7 involved and said that they would be looking for me to produce a report
8 at the end of it.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
11 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: But before I encourage you to proceed, I would
13 withdraw that, as a matter of fact, and announce that we'll take a break
15 Mr. Clark, we'd like to see you back in 20 minutes from now.
16 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
17 JUDGE ORIE: You may follow the usher.
18 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
19 [The witness stands down]
20 JUDGE ORIE: We take a break, and we resume at 20 minutes past
22 --- Recess taken at 11.57 a.m.
23 --- On resuming at 12.21 p.m.
24 [The witness takes the stand]
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, please proceed.
2 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Q. [Interpretation] Dr. Clark, would you agree with me that at the
4 point in time when you went to Tomasica, you had not been issued with any
5 task by the Prosecution of this Tribunal?
6 A. It was a verbal -- a verbal task. I had no -- at that stage
7 nothing -- nothing specific in writing.
8 Q. You had not received any written assignments by the BiH Court or
9 the Prosecutor's office, had you?
10 A. No. I didn't expect anything from the BiH Court, but -- and my
11 main encouragement was from ICTY to take notes and produce a report, but,
12 again, I had nothing in writing at that stage. Despite asking, I should
14 Q. You say at that moment. Did you ever receive a task from the
15 Prosecutor's office; and, if so, when?
16 A. I did receive a written request, an official request, as I
17 recall, not until I'd finished the work there, so afterwards.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Lukic, when you refer to the prosecutor's
20 office, are you referring to the ICTY or of the Court of
22 MR. LUKIC: I was referring to the OTP of the ICTY, Your Honour,
23 yes, thank you. I think that Dr. Clark understood it the same way.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I hope so.
25 THE WITNESS: Yes. The answer is the same anyway.
1 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
2 Q. [Interpretation] You have your report on the Tomasica grave, 2013
3 and 2014 report on the findings of autopsies before you.
4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] In our system, it is currently P7443
5 marked for identification. We have it on our screens. I'm interested in
6 the first page. Let's focus on the second paragraph.
7 Q. It begins with:
8 "It is my understanding, gained from informal conversations ..."
9 Who did you have these informal conversations with, Doctor?
10 A. This was people from ICMP, with Dr. Durmisevic, and other staff
11 present in the mortuary.
12 Q. Thank you. You go on to say:
13 "... that the people in this grave were mainly men, that they
14 were primarily or entirely from a group of villages to the west of
15 Prijedor, that they had been killed there in July 1992, than within a few
16 days their bodies had been taken to Tomasica and buried in a deep mass
18 You also say:
19 "I further understand that the following year the grave had been
20 at least partly 'robbed' ..."
21 Did you learn about this from the same people who were included
22 in these informal conversations?
23 A. I think it -- yes, it was -- it would have been. I mean, clearly
24 I was there for three to four months. One has chats with people that you
25 meet, come across, and you get little bits of information from time to
1 time, and this was -- so this was the sum of my understanding of the
2 position, and that's -- that's what I'm stressing: It is my
3 understanding of it. I may be factually entirely wrong, but that was my
4 impression that I gained. I can't say specifically who told me the grave
5 had been robbed, but at some stage, I clearly -- I was informed about
7 Q. Now that you mention the robbing of graves, did they tell you
8 that the grave started opening up and that the locals complained and went
9 to the police in Prijedor to report it?
10 A. I think I do remember being told that at least part of the reason
11 for re-excavating the grave at that stage was because of smell or the
12 water supply being contaminated. That was certainly information that I
13 was aware of. There was -- there was doubt as to when it had happened.
14 I wasn't sure if it was months afterward but somebody said it was the
15 following year, so that's the date I've sort of put there.
16 Q. Mm-hm. Thank you. In paragraph 3, you say that:
17 "The exhumation of the grave was carried out from September to
18 November 2013 by the Missing Persons Institute ... with assistance from
19 the International Commission on Missing Persons ..."
20 Do you know who participated on behalf of the Missing Persons
22 A. One of the main people in charge of the site was Ian Hanson and
23 that he was assisted by other colleagues who had anthropology experience,
24 not saying that they are fully trained anthropologists but they have that
25 experience, and they subsequently came to work in the mortuary as well.
1 Q. Just one second. Mr. Ian Hanson is of the ICMP. I asked you to
2 tell us who was there on behalf of the Missing Persons Institute.
3 A. I'm sorry, I thought you said ICMP. My mistake.
4 Missing Persons Institute. I really don't know their names. I
5 was aware that they visited the mortuary from time to time as did the
6 people from the state prosecutor's office, but I can't remember specific
7 names. I had no direct involvement with the Missing Persons Institute
8 other than just seeing them around at stages.
9 Q. Very well. Thank you.
10 In the same paragraph, you mention that the autopsies were
11 carried out at the facilities at Sejkovaca in Sanski Most. You have
12 explained that the conditions were quite rudimentary. Do you know whose
13 decision it was to perform the autopsies in Sejkovaca?
14 A. I presume it was the state prosecutor who had directed that they
15 be carried out there.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's but a presumption, Dr. Clark. It's not
17 factual knowledge on your part?
18 THE WITNESS: No, it's not. It's a --
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: It's just a presumption.
20 THE WITNESS: -- presumption. He must have had, to some extent,
21 the final say. But, yes, it's a presumption.
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Thank you. On the same page you mention your sources for the
24 drafting of the report. You mention Dr. Dzevad Durmisevic from Bihac and
25 Dr. Nermin Sarajlic from the University of Sarajevo. You say that:
1 "Both will be producing their own formal autopsy reports for the
3 Do you know whether they completed that task and have you ever
4 seen those reports?
5 A. I've never seen them. I presume -- when I mean prosecutor, I
6 mean the Bosnian state prosecutor. I presume that they have produced
7 them. I have actually not been in contact with them for quite a while,
8 so I'm assuming that they will have produced them by now.
9 Q. Doctor, it is another presumption. It suffices if you tell us
10 that you simply do not know.
11 A. That's fine. Yes, I do not know if they have produced them or
13 Q. Thank you. I'd like to go to page 2 now to discuss the
14 procedures in the mortuary.
15 Under this heading: "Procedure in the mortuary," you say that
16 434 numbers were used in total, 275 of those for bodies, and 125 of those
17 for body parts or general bags. Are body parts and general bags the same
19 A. No. Body parts are part of a specific body. General bags can
20 contain bones from more than one body. But, in terms of the body bags in
21 the mortuary, we rather lumped the general bags together with the body
22 parts. We put them together.
23 Q. Why?
24 A. Because they were not whole bodies. Our main concentration was
25 on the whole bodies so we gave them priority, and the other bags were --
1 were smaller contents and would be dealt with in due course. So they are
2 labelled differently, a GB or a D, but we -- I mean, we kept both of them
3 apart from the main bodies.
4 Q. Thank you. On the same page, you explain the procedure applied
5 in the mortuary. We have established already that you did not take part
6 in the activities under numerals 1 and 2. You said that you observed the
7 work being carried out while you were present. Under item 1, you say as
9 "Body bag opened ... remains photographed ... clothing removed
10 for washing, and the body ... itself cleaned with a power hose to remove
11 all mud and other debris. In the process, significant numbers of bullets
12 or fragments 'dropped out' ..."
13 First of all, can you define this significant number, or numbers,
14 if you have such data?
15 A. I can't give you an actual figure but I could do because it is
16 the -- in my main table of findings, it would be all the entries which
17 are green and in italics which referred to the bullets which were
18 presented to us separately or accompanying the body but not in the body
19 at the autopsy. So it wouldn't be difficult to total these up, but I
20 would say at least - I don't know - 50, 60 more cases.
21 Q. You say 50, 60 or more cases. It is over the number of 709. Or
22 is it included in that figure?
23 A. No, what I'm meaning is the -- we're dealing with effectively
24 293 cases, autopsies, and in a certain number of these, bullets had
25 already, for want of a better word, dropped out or fallen out of a body
1 by the time they reached the pathologists.
2 Now, as I say, I don't have the exact figure to hand. I could
3 tell you that figure within five minutes, if need be.
4 Q. That's fine. Perhaps we can use the next break so that can you
5 provide us with that information.
6 But can you tell us now off of the cuff, the 50 or 60 cases, were
7 they included in the figure, or is it on top of that figure so that the
8 final count would be in the area of 750 or 760, or perhaps it doesn't
9 apply to any bullets at all?
10 A. No, it doesn't apply. The 709 are actually physical injuries on
11 the body. Nothing to do whether or not there was bullet present or not.
12 These other bullets or bullet fragments which were found separate from
13 the body, I have merely listed, have made no interpretation of them
14 whatsoever. So they bear no relation to the 709 actually gun-shot
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Clark, I have a short question to you. You said
17 that within five or ten minutes you could give us the number. Is it just
18 because would you go through the column in which you mentioned them all
19 and then to add them and all the information is already in the report?
20 THE WITNESS: Yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then, Mr. Lukic, you can do it yourself.
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. LUKIC: I was under wrong impression, then, that there were
24 709 bullets preserved as well.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You find in -- I think it was the green ones.
1 And the green regular ones, the witness has explained that, where all the
2 bullets are mentioned, and if you come across a green italics, you know
3 that a cartridge may be involved as well. So, therefore, it is --
4 everyone who can count from one to a few hundred can do that job, and I
5 think Mr. Clark has provided us with all the information which we need to
6 do such an addition.
7 THE WITNESS: Indeed.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
9 THE WITNESS: Just to emphasise, the -- my interpretation in the
10 report is based -- my interpretation in the report is based on the
11 injuries, not on the bullets fragments. They are just an addition.
12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Thank you for this clarification.
14 In the same paragraph you go on to say:
15 "These were documented and photographed and, in due course,
16 collected by police officers as evidence."
17 Were you able to observe in which way these bullets and fragments
18 of bullets were collected?
19 A. Yes, I observed a few instances of it. And I saw that in the
20 clothes-washer team there was generally two people, one physically
21 washing the body and the other collecting any bullets or documents
22 which -- that they found and putting them into evidence bags and
23 labelling them as such, and they stayed -- they were recorded and then
24 stayed with the general body and were available for us to see at the
25 autopsy. At that stage, they would be probably photographed again by the
1 police and subsequently they would take these samples for evidence.
2 Q. During the autopsies themselves, did you come across bullets or
3 bullet fragments in the bodies themselves?
4 JUDGE ORIE: That question has been answered three times by now,
5 Mr. Lukic. Please proceed.
6 The witness explained that he found bullets in the soft tissue
7 often and that is, therefore, in the bodies. It could not be understood
8 in any other way. So that question has been -- and it's not once but I
9 think it has been dealt with twice or -- perhaps three times is an
11 Would you also, apart from looking at your questions, also
12 carefully consider the answers already given by the witness.
13 Unless I wrongly understood your testimony, Mr. Clark.
14 THE WITNESS: No, you're correct, and I can just summarise
15 that --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Well, Mr. Lukic will put his next question to you.
17 Please proceed.
18 MR. LUKIC:
19 Q. I apologise that I did not catch that part of your answers.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: What, Mr. --
21 MR. LUKIC: The part that Dr. Clark answered, that there were --
22 that he found actually bullets and bullet parts.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: I just want to ask something completely different.
24 MR. LUKIC: Okay. Sorry.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Dr. Clark, you indicated that your interpretation
1 of the report was based on the injuries only and that there were about
2 709 injuries. In those injuries, do you include the post-mortem injuries
3 that happened in the grave or is it just the pre-mortem injuries?
4 THE WITNESS: It is simply the pre-mortem gun-shot injuries.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
6 THE WITNESS: 709 refer just to pre-mortem gun-shot injuries.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Doctor, I apologise, I was looking at the B/C/S interpreter,
10 waiting for them to conclude their interpretation. I apologise for the
11 breaks that I make, but as you may have become used to it, it is the
12 reality of this Tribunal.
13 Would you agree with me that it is a fact that a bullet remained
14 in the body, confirming that it came from a distance, thus losing
16 A. That -- that's one interpretation. If it is a whole bullet, an
17 intact bullet, yes, that would be -- that could be one interpretation.
18 Another interpretation could be that it had come through something or
19 somebody else beforehand and thus lost its energy as well. But that's
20 just for the intact bullets.
21 The bulk of the bullets that we found were actually just small
22 fragments, which is what you would expect, that you would expect these
23 fragments to remain in the body because the bullet has broken up on
24 hitting bone. And bullet fragments, they've lost all their energy, then
25 they stay -- or a substantial amount of them will stay in the body. So,
1 yes, you're right about an intact bullet. You've got to wonder why that
2 has not passed right through the body, but, in fact, most of the
3 specimens we found were fragments of bullets, which you would expect to
4 stay in the body.
5 Q. If it's fragments, could they be the result of the bullet hitting
6 a different surface and then afterwards they were found in this body?
7 A. Theoretically that could account for some of them, but I somehow
8 think that's -- but far more likely is that they are fragments from a
9 bullet which has entered that body in a solid state and broken up in that
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, earlier you asked a question about shots
12 being fired from a distance. Could you be more specific as to what
13 distances you have on your mind. Are you talking about --
14 MR. LUKIC: I have specific distance --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then you --
16 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, but I didn't mention it, I'm sorry.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MR. LUKIC: I --
19 JUDGE ORIE: -- because it may make a difference whether you call
20 30 metres from a distance or whether you call 800 metres from a distance.
21 And -- because I do not know, Dr. Clark, whether this is within your
22 expertise, but you talked about the energy with which a bullet enters a
23 body and what the effect then is.
24 Are you able, and please also tell us when you're not able -- how
25 much energy the bullet loses flying in the air until reaching its target,
1 because if we're talking about a distance and whether that would change
2 anything, would, for example, 30 or 50 metres considerably reduce the
3 energy with which a bullet would hit a body? If can you tell us.
4 THE WITNESS: I don't think it would. I think when we're talking
5 about a distance being the explanation of why a bullet is still in the
6 body, we're talking about probably hundreds of metres.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Hundreds of metres.
8 THE WITNESS: Yes, yes. The velocity -- a bullet will travel --
9 and probably a lot more than that. A bullet will travel a long distance
10 but eventually it's got to come to a stop somewhere, but we're talking
11 about a long way, probably several hundred metres. 30 or 50 metres is --
12 would have -- the effect would be no different to somebody standing
13 within a metre. The same level of energy would still hit the -- hit --
14 it would still hit the body with that same amount of energy.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you. Please proceed.
16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 Q. Doctor, I meant to suggest a distance of 300 metres. That is how
18 a bullet would use its impact and would no longer have the energy to go
19 through a body. Would that correspond to your own knowledge?
20 A. This is certainly not my expertise. I understood that the figure
21 was a good bit higher than that. It would have -- these bullets can
22 travel a lot further than 300 metres. And I think it's only a lot
23 further than that then it would actually lose energy just because of the
24 distance of flying.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Could --
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. I agree with you that they would lose power, but the moment when
3 they can no longer penetrate a body, that happens if they were fired at a
4 distance that is greater than 300 metres.
5 A. That is not my understanding, but I think I'm getting out of
6 the -- my area of expertise, and I wouldn't like to comment any further.
7 Q. [In English] Thank you.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I would have one follow-up question, and please tell
9 us as well if you consider the question to be beyond your field of
10 expertise. You're talking about high-velocity projectiles.
11 THE WITNESS: Yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Is there a range, the one flying even faster than
13 the other ones, or is it all more or less the same, if we're talking, for
14 example, about rifle ammunition?
15 THE WITNESS: Some rifles will fire -- will be able to fire a
16 bullet further than others, certainly. I cannot give you the figures,
17 but some weapons are clearly more powerful than others.
18 JUDGE ORIE: And that may impact on the energy still available
19 when hitting a body and, therefore, also whether that energy would be
20 sufficient to leave the body.
21 THE WITNESS: Indeed. Indeed. But it is my general
22 understanding, and I stand to be corrected, that we're speaking about
23 distances of probably 1.000 metres or more.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
1 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
2 Q. [Interpretation] Doctor, would you agree with me that the fact
3 that a bullet was found in a body does not necessarily mean that that
4 bullet has to do with the wounding of that particular body, if the bodies
5 were found in mass grave, that is?
6 A. That could certainly be the case if the remains were reduced to a
7 skeleton and which you could get transfer of bullets from one body to
8 another. In these cases, we found bullets embedded in bone or soft
9 tissue, a frequent occurrence, so to my mind, that could not have come
10 from -- it must have reached that body as a primary action.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, again, this witness has told us
13 extensively about how under the specific circumstances in this mass grave
14 that he often was able - not always - often was able to reconstruct or to
15 find the track of the bullet and that sometimes, if the bodies were more
16 skeletonised, that you would not be able to do that. So that is, as far
17 as I understand, the answer to your question, which the witness has
18 already given but was kind enough to now give again. Unless I
19 misunderstood that the gist of your previous answers and your present
20 answer is more or less the same.
21 THE WITNESS: No, that's correct, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yeah.
23 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic, and please keep in mind what the
24 report says and what the witness has told us already, rather than to
25 elicit again the same evidence from the witness.
1 MR. LUKIC: I would kindly ask Your Honour to tell me where we
2 have in the report or in the answers the answer about movement of bullets
3 from one body to another. I didn't find it. Maybe I missed it.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if the witness tells us that in skeletonised
5 bodies that the bodies [sic] just drop out, that implicitly says -- but I
6 was mainly focusing on the distinction the witness has made between where
7 the bullets were found in the soft tissue, which would make it possible
8 to track the trajectory in the body, and others which just dropped out.
9 Now, if I have ten bodies skeletonised in a heap, if a bullet
10 drops out, it doesn't take much imagination that it may end up in the
11 area of the skeleton of the body next under -- or under that body. That
12 is implicit already from the answer of the witness, but I mainly focused
13 on that he explained to us the reconstruction of the -- and even tell us
14 what the body -- what the track of the bullet in the body was, and that
15 was part of your question as well.
16 Please proceed.
17 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
18 THE WITNESS: I also actually do cover that point in the last
19 paragraph of page 4, in the end of the third line. Or my third line.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Could we see that on the screen, please.
21 THE WITNESS: So it's really the fourth line from the bottom.
22 MR. LUKIC:
23 Q. You're talking about fragments held in place in tissues rather
24 than falling out or into the skeletonised remains.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. That's -- that's actually part of your answer, not part of my
3 A. But you had -- you had said that there was no reference to the
4 possibility of bullets falling out of one body into another and I'm just
5 saying that clearly I have considered it.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Clark, I think what happened is that I said that
7 you had testified about the matter before you gave answers to the
8 questions put by Mr. Lukic. I referred both to your testimony and to the
9 report, and then Mr. Lukic asked me to tell him where it was in the
10 report --
11 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
12 JUDGE ORIE: -- I then was unable to immediately locate where it
13 is in the report and referred primarily to your testimony. But now you
14 have assisted me in saying where it is found in your report as well.
15 Please proceed.
16 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
17 Q. [Interpretation] Could fragments of bullets and bullets be moved
18 during post-mortem injuries and because of the crumbling of the soil and
19 the like?
20 A. Possibly in a few cases where the body was reduced to a skeleton,
21 but it would have no influence on bullets which were in tissues or in the
23 Q. Thank you. We are now talking about the information used in this
25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We need page 2, where we've already
1 been. I do apologise.
2 Q. It is that section -- but actually now I'd like to ask you
3 something about a paragraph that is the first paragraph on the third page
4 in the English version.
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] In the B/C/S version, it is the first
6 full paragraph.
7 Q. What you say here is that you had the opportunity to visit
8 Tomasica, although not until the middle of December 2013, by which time
9 all the bodies had been removed.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. At that time, was the grave-site covered with water?
12 A. There was still water in one part of it, in the deepest part. It
13 was actually -- there was snow on the ground, and it was frozen water.
14 So there was some water in the deepest part. I can't remember
15 specifically which section it was, but there was some.
16 Q. Below that there's a heading that says: "Tomasica grave-site."
17 You say the following:
18 "I was informed that Tomasica was an opencast mine and that the
19 grave was in a depression thus created. The bodies within it had been
20 covered by soil and other mine waste, including clay ..."
21 So your understanding, as regards this area, was that there had
22 been mining going on there?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Would you accept my suggestion now, namely that there not been
25 any mining there; rather, waste had been brought there that was not good
1 for processing iron-ore?
2 A. I still understood that the general Tomasica area was a mine.
3 What happened in that specific area, I don't know. But I'm using the
4 opencast mine in a very general sense, that that whole area was a mine,
5 an iron-ore mine.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you're putting the two as mutually
7 exclusive or are you not? Are you saying it was not a mine but only a
8 deposit of waste?
9 MR. LUKIC: That's exactly what I'm telling.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So you say never there was any digging to find
11 minerals or whatever because there still is a possibility - and I do not
12 know whether the witness could tell us anything about this - that you
13 first dig a hole and that you then later fill that hole with waste
14 material which comes from another hole you have dug.
15 It's not entirely clear to me whether you say if it is deposit of
16 material, then it's not a mine; or that you still also in your question -
17 you left it open - that there has been mining activity but then later the
18 holes created by that were then filled by waste material. Which I'm --
19 it's just unclear to me what you're asking and also, therefore, how we
20 have to evaluate certain answers, apart from this witness knows about it.
21 MR. LUKIC: I don't know if you want me to testify, but I think I
22 have explanation that --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if you -- if you put your questions in such a
24 way that it is clear what your explanation is and to see whether you can
25 elicit that from the witness, but then have you to put the questions in
1 such a way that the Judges also understand the gist of what you're
2 seeking to establish.
3 Please proceed.
4 MR. LUKIC: But I think that witness told us what he knows. I
5 don't think I can go further than that.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Then I leave it in your hands how to proceed.
7 MR. LUKIC: I am ...
8 [Defence counsel confer]
9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have page 5 now in
10 the English version and page 6 in the B/C/S.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before we move, Mr. Lukic, I've got a question on
12 this page, if I might.
13 Dr. Clark, during your examination-in-chief, we were shown a
14 table which -- one of which -- whose columns was describing where the
15 body was found in the grave and there was a column saying deposits,
16 spoil, what have you.
17 Looking at this Figure 1 here on this page, I can see the
18 deposits 1s and 2s. Where would be the spoil?
19 THE WITNESS: It's on the next page, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
21 THE WITNESS: The initial table there, Table 1, is only what you
22 can see in that photograph, which is a photograph I obtained from ICMP.
23 If you turn over the page, Table 2 includes everything.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
25 THE WITNESS: And so you have actually these extra ones, the last
1 four columns, slightly -- it's a grey shading. It's the last four
2 columns that's included there.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm grateful to you, Mr. Clark.
4 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Microphone.
6 MR. LUKIC: Sorry. I asked to have page 5 in English and page 6
7 in B/C/S, please. No. There are obviously several versions of this
8 B/C/S version. Can we see the next page, please. Yes, we need the top
9 of the page. We will discuss identifying gun-shot injuries.
10 Q. [Interpretation] In this section, you speak about identifying
11 gun-shot injuries.
12 First, you tell us that the predominant finding in these bodies
13 was gun-shot injury, and you say where the evidence was clear-cut, there
14 was little hesitation in ascribing this as such. In other cases, the
15 qualification "probable" was added, if, for instance, parts were missing.
16 That's what you explained to us today.
17 And, finally, the third category, possible gun-shot injury was
18 used where perhaps there was a simple or more complicated fracture in a
19 bone which could have been caused by a bullet, striking it with reduced
21 Such bullets actually do not cause major damage to the bone;
22 isn't that correct?
23 A. Sorry, I didn't understand that question. Such --
24 Q. This category of injury that you described as possibly due to a
25 very fast bullet.
1 A. Yes, this was a fracture of a bone which was not typically the --
2 the hole or the shattering which we so often saw, and it could have just
3 been a bullet which had perhaps struck the bone with some reduced energy
4 and just hit it sufficient to fracture it but not to shatter it, that is
5 a possibility. But equally it could have been -- that fracture could
6 have been caused by a blunt -- or a heavy blow from something, whatever.
7 I did not count any of these injuries in my overall assessment, so I kind
8 of ignored these, just recorded them, and in the overall calculation of
9 figures didn't use these at all.
10 Q. [In English] Okay. [Interpretation] As for these bullets that
11 you say you did not take into account at all, would it be fair to say
12 that they -- since these are high-velocity bullets, that is to say, they
13 lost their energy since they had traversed most of their path, would it
14 be fair to say that they had been fired in combat?
15 A. Well, just to make a correction, you talked about bullets.
16 It's -- we're meaning actually injuries rather than bullets. So these
17 were injuries which could -- possibly could have been caused by a bullet
18 but may have been caused some other way. As I say, I ignored them, but
19 if they were caused by a bullet, yes, it could have been from a bullet
20 fired from a long way away, which had lost energy. That's a possibility,
22 MR. LUKIC: It is our break time.
23 JUDGE ORIE: It is.
24 Mr. Clark, we'd like to see you back in 20 minutes from now.
25 THE WITNESS: Okay.
1 JUDGE ORIE: You may follow the usher.
2 THE WITNESS: Okay.
3 [The witness stands down]
4 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at 20 minutes to 2.00.
5 --- Recess taken at 1.19 p.m.
6 --- On resuming at 1.42 p.m.
7 [The witness takes the stand]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you may proceed.
9 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Q. [Interpretation] Dr. Clark, I'd like to put a general question
11 about bones. Actually, about bone trauma.
12 Would it be fair to say that there are three different types of
13 bone trauma: One caused by a blunt instrument; another caused by a sharp
14 object; as well as trauma caused by a projectile?
15 A. Yes, I think that's a fair analysis, yeah.
16 Q. When we say "projectile," it includes both bullet and shrapnel;
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. In your report -- or in the course of your work, rather, you are
20 supposed to determine what is the consequence of a trauma caused by a
21 blunt instrument as opposed to trauma caused by a bullet or a piece of
22 shrapnel; correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Would you agree that you encounter problems when trying to
25 distinguish the consequences of trauma, in terms of what can be seen on
1 the bones?
2 JUDGE ORIE: Distinguish that from what? Any of the other types
3 of bone injuries?
4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. I believe in my previous question I asked the doctor about
6 determining the consequence of trauma caused by a blunt instrument as
7 opposed to trauma caused by a bullet or shrapnel. Now I was simply
8 asking him whether, in the course of his work, there are problems to be
9 encountered in terms of distinguishing between the consequences on the
10 bones between the two different types of trauma?
11 A. I'm not sure of the word -- what you mean by the word
12 "consequence," whether you mean -- if you're meaning distinguishing the
13 three types of trauma, that is one thing. Consequence means the effects
14 of that trauma. So I'm not quite sure what you mean by the word
16 Q. Firstly, I'd like to ask you whether it poses a problem in your
17 work to recognise how a certain injury was caused, whether it was a blunt
18 instrument or a bullet or shrapnel?
19 A. It depends on what tissues we have available. If we're just
20 looking at a bone, then we can -- we can usually distinguish which is
21 caused by a sharp instrument. It will be a cutting -- a cutting wound --
22 Q. I'm sorry --
23 A. -- in the bone.
24 Q. -- but my question was blunt instrument or bullet and/or
1 A. Okay.
2 Q. Not sharp instrument.
3 A. Yes, there sometimes can be difficulties distinguishing the two.
4 More often it is quite easy to distinguish the two because a bullet will
5 cause quite a distinctive pattern but there is a grey area in which, yes,
6 blunt force can be -- it can be a little difficult to say which is caused
7 by a projectile or blunt force, yes.
8 Q. You said yourself that in your work it isn't always easy to find
9 an entry round wound that can be ascertained with a sufficient degree of
10 certainty that it was caused by a bullet. If you compare bone injuries,
11 when do you encounter this problem of determining whether the injury was
12 caused by a blunt instrument or by a bullet or shrapnel?
13 A. Usually when parts of the bone are missing and we cannot piece
14 everything together, that would be the usual situation. If a bone is
15 very shattered, then it is most likely due to a gun-shot injury. If the
16 fracturing is less, then the distinction becomes more difficult. The
17 situation would be when perhaps there's a single fracture through the
18 bone or perhaps just one or two small parts of the fracture that could be
19 blunt force or it could be part of a projectile injury.
20 Q. Does it make it even more difficult to distinguish if you need to
21 distinguish between an injury caused by a bullet fragment and the other
22 types of injury?
23 A. Yes, a bullet fragment, by definition, will have less energy, so
24 it will hit the bone with probably much the same force as a blunt force
25 injury would -- that's -- that's correct, yes.
1 Q. Would you agree that post-mortem injuries can also be confusing
2 when trying to ascertain the cause of injury?
3 A. Yes, very much so.
4 Q. Would you also agree that the fact that you were unable to assess
5 the distance from which the shot was fired could also influence your
6 determination in terms of the source of injury?
7 A. To some extent, yes, if we're speaking about a shot fired from a
8 very long distance away, that -- you would have take that into
10 Q. I would like to put one last question regarding this topic by way
11 of a conclusion.
12 Is it correct that, as a scientist, you cannot exclude the
13 possibility that any or some of these people were killed in combat?
14 A. Yes, I can't -- I can't exclude that.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one follow-up question. Mr. Clark,
17 quite a few questions have been put to you on how difficult it is to
18 distinguish between different types of injuries.
19 THE WITNESS: Yes --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Is that what we find in your report where you said:
21 I'm unable to establish that it was a gun-shot injury and where you said
22 it is a possible --
23 THE WITNESS: Yes --
24 JUDGE ORIE: -- gun-shot injury but could also have been blunt
1 THE WITNESS: Indeed. And all these points that have just been
2 put to me would come under this possible category and would be ones which
3 I would not have included in my overall assessment of the cases.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's clear. Thank you.
5 Please proceed.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Let us look at page 6. We will now be discussing post-mortem
8 examinations and the specific findings. There you say:
9 "It is up to others to determine how many individuals this
10 entails precisely" --
11 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could Mr. Lukic provide
12 the reference.
13 MR. LUKIC: It's on the top of the page in English. "As already
14 noted," it starts there. And then it's: "Precisely how many
15 individuals ..." is under those bullet points.
16 Q. [Interpretation] You said that you examined 400 sets of mortal
17 remains but yet you believe that it is for others to determine precisely
18 how many individuals this represented; correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can we have the correct page in B/C/S on the
22 MR. LUKIC: Is on the screen, Your Honour. It's on the bottom of
23 the page.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. I missed that.
25 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
1 Q. [Interpretation] In your view, who is it who should determine the
2 exact figure?
3 A. Well, perhaps just to clarify, I'm entirely satisfied that there
4 was at least 275 individual people here. In fact, I'm satisfied that it
5 was 293 people based simply on looking at the bodies and recognizing
6 that -- is it -- that's a separate from that person, from that person,
7 from that person.
8 The problem comes with the body parts. Now some of these body
9 parts will belong to some of the bodies that we saw. Some will not and
10 will be a part of a completely different individual, perhaps one of the
11 bodies that had been removed in the robbing. That would be only
12 determined by DNA analysis. And I suspect that with DNA analysis and
13 being able to match up some of these body parts, the actual number of
14 individuals represented - and that's an important word "represented" - in
15 that Tomasica site will probably be higher than 293. From a pathologist
16 point of view, I'm just restricting myself to the physical individuals
17 that I can see, 293. It may be that there are more people represented in
18 that grave-site, but I'm not basing any analysis on that.
19 Q. It was not your role to determine the number of people involved;
21 A. No. It wasn't my role, no.
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Next I would like to ask for page 7
23 in the B/C/S version, whereas we should remain on the same page in the
24 English, page 6.
25 Q. On that page, we find the title: "Demographics." There you
1 discuss the number of males and females, as well as four sets of remains
2 that were not positively identified as belonging to either sex.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Next, you have a breakdown in the table to those who were under
5 20, the number being 22 individuals; then aged 20 to 35, 37 individuals;
6 35 to 50, 78 individuals; and over 50, seven individuals.
7 In your view, who is an adult?
8 A. This is my interpretation. I've taken anybody over 20 as an
9 adult. The anthropologists may have a slightly different definition.
10 They talk about sub-adults which may be down as 14, 15, or lower, I don't
11 know. This is my wording. And I've just specified it rather than
12 calling them adults. Well, sorry, when I talk about adult unspecified,
13 that it's clearly somebody who appears to be over the age of 20 but we
14 can't be more specific than that.
15 Q. Thank you. You say, therefore, that is your own interpretation,
16 your own categorisation. Is it correct, Doctor, that it is difficult to
17 establish the age of people older than 30 because their bones change very
18 slightly after the age of 30?
19 A. Yes, that's true.
20 Q. Is it correct that any assessment made by an anthropologist in
21 terms of an individual's age could vary significantly and that it
22 frequently depends on comparisons with other populations not originating
23 from the Balkans?
24 A. Yes, that's true. Although I gather that more experience has
25 been gained over the years from the Balkans populations.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Let us look at page 7 in English next
3 and 8 in the B/C/S. In the B/C/S, we need the top of the page.
4 Q. There you discuss clothing and possessions. You describe what
5 people wore, for the most part. Towards the end, you conclude -- we'll
6 get to the conclusion. Just one second.
7 In any case, in the first paragraph, you enumerate clothing
8 items, and you say jerseys, sweatshirts, long- or short-sleeve shirts,
9 sports shirts, T-shirts, trousers, tracksuit tops and trousers, some had
10 outdoor jackets.
11 Would you agree with me that this would not be customary for the
12 area of Prijedor in July? People would simply not be wearing such
13 clothes, unless they were preparing themselves to spend their night
15 A. I think that's true for some of them. But in amongst that
16 description of all the clothing, there were some people with very light
17 clothing, indeed, just a T-shirt, perhaps shorts. Most people, as I
18 recall, just had a shirt rather than any jerseys. But it's fair to say
19 that some had certainly an excess for clothing for that region in July,
20 yes. But that was the exception. That was the exception. And most
21 people just had what you would call ordinary clothing. Particularly the
22 fact there were lots of T-shirts and shorts, et cetera, would suggest a
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is all contained --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic --
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- in the report.
2 MR. LUKIC: Sorry?
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is all contained in the report.
4 JUDGE ORIE: And, Mr. Lukic --
5 MR. LUKIC: My question was would that show that somebody was
6 prepared to sleep outside.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Well, Mr. Lukic --
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Isn't that asking for speculation?
9 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's -- you said:
10 "Would you agree with me that this would not be customary ..."
11 What exactly did you refer to when you referred to "this"? Is
12 that --
13 MR. LUKIC: This type of clothing, that that many -- that amount
14 of clothing on somebody in July in Prijedor is not customary. The
15 temperatures are around 30 Celsius at that time.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Is this the witness -- expert to testify about
17 clothing of people in a certain region?
18 MR. LUKIC: This gentleman testified about clothing and draw
19 conclusions based on that.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So let me just read it again. Because
21 apparently you're referring to the line - and I now better understand --
22 MR. LUKIC: It's, yeah, paragraph 1, under the clothing and
24 JUDGE ORIE: Well, there are two lines there, the first one
25 describing more or less in general what kind of clothing was found. And
1 then there's a description of excessive clothing.
2 MR. LUKIC: I would --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just see what you're -- what you read to
4 the --
5 MR. LUKIC: I read the first part, Your Honour, and that was
6 according to me excessive also. Jackets --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's now -- first of all, in the first
8 line - but, Mr. Clark, please correct me when I'm wrong - there's a
9 general description of what kind of clothing was found, irrespective of
10 how many of such clothes were worn by an individual.
11 THE WITNESS: Indeed.
12 JUDGE ORIE: And that it was the second -- then it follows
13 slightly later, a portion which is talking about an excessive amount of
14 clothing on one person.
15 Mr. Lukic, if you read the first one, then -- and that exactly
16 explains why I asked you what you referred to as "this," but you were
17 referring to whatever was said about what you considered excessive,
18 although the witness has not qualified it as such, and you did not read
19 that part where the witness clearly says that he considered that to be
20 excessive clothing that. That confused me quite a bit, but it's now
21 clarified. Thank you.
22 MR. LUKIC: I hadn't read it yet. I intended to do so.
23 JUDGE ORIE: It doesn't make the question any less unclear.
24 Please proceed.
25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Doctor, you state your opinion here that you believed such
2 clothes to be excessive when you came upon several layers of clothes on a
3 body. For example, more than one pair of trousers; correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. We have already said that. Today would you be of the opinion
6 that in July in Prijedor it is customary for one to wear a sweater, a
7 woollen shirt, or outdoor jacket?
8 A. I have been in Bosnia in the summertime. I know it gets very
9 hot. I know that some summer days can get cold as well, and it depends
10 on what time of day it is, of course. But generally to me, as I've tried
11 to emphasise, the clothing was light clothing. Yes, some people did have
12 a jersey on, some did have a suit jacket, but that -- they were far fewer
13 in number than people who would be just wearing ordinary light outdoor
14 clothing. I mean, you only look at today, similar temperatures, you
15 would see a range of clothing worn by people in the same sort of
16 temperatures. So it depends on what people were specifically doing. But
17 I read no more into it than the clothing looked generally light clothing,
18 but there were a small number of people who I was surprised at the amount
19 of clothing that they were wearing.
20 Q. Could you quantify that; namely, how many people had clothing
21 that is inappropriate for the month of July in Prijedor?
22 A. I can't give you a figure. Again, I could look through the -- my
23 files. I would have thought if it was anything -- anything more than
24 about 20 people, I think that would be an upper estimate. I think it was
25 really quite a small number of people had excessive clothing.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Lukic, to put to the witness that in his
2 report he said that it is inappropriate for the month of July in
3 Prijedor, it's not correct. He didn't say so. Nothing can be found in
4 that respect in the report you were citing.
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] When I read that, I meant that it
6 seemed that some were wearing an excessive amount of clothing. That is
7 to say, several layers of clothing.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That's correct. And you should have put that to
9 the witness and not that it was inappropriate for -- especially for the
10 time, it is a special occasion.
11 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 [Interpretation] In the English version, page 7. I think that
13 we're already there. And then page 8.
14 Q. You refer to six cases.
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] In the B/C/S version, it's
16 paragraph 2.
17 Q. You say in six cases, the clothing showed signs of burning.
18 Would you agree with me that this might indicate shrapnel or shell
19 injuries sustained by these bodies?
20 A. There was nothing to suggest that. I would have anticipated that
21 if this was caused by shrapnel, then there would be evidence of shrapnel
22 in the bodies. There are many other reasons why that clothing could show
23 burning. Shrapnel would be a very low -- low down on my priority of
25 Q. Would you then agree at least that a conclusion would depend on a
1 pathologist's interpretation?
2 A. Sorry, interpretation of what?
3 Q. The traces that you found.
4 A. Well, all -- all I can say, that we saw clothing which had signs
5 of burning on it, I don't know what has caused that. But it certainly
6 did not immediately come to me that this -- this indicated shrapnel
7 damage and there was nothing else to support that in terms of other holes
8 in the body. You know, shrapnel does more than perhaps setting off of
9 burning. It would cause very irregular holes in the clothing. You would
10 expect to impact into the bodies. No signs of that. No sign of that at
11 all. So all I've said, there is some burning there.
12 Q. The clothing you examined had already been removed from the
13 bodies -- or, rather, did you examine the clothing at all; and, if, so
14 how did you go about that?
15 A. Yes, I did see the body -- you're correct, the clothing had
16 already been removed from the body. The clothing was in a bag within the
17 body bag after it had been washed. And at the end of autopsy we always
18 laid out the clothing, looked at it in detail, photographed it, and made
19 any comments. So, yes, we -- pathologists always saw the clothing after
20 it had been cleaned.
21 Q. Thank you, Doctor. Our time is up for today.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, Mr. Lukic, again, the last question, if
23 you look at page 7 and even the photographs and the description, the
24 question whether this witness examined the clothing at all is already
25 answered there. And, therefore, a useless question if not further
1 specified in any other way.
2 MR. LUKIC: I think it was specified in the first part, but I
3 didn't want to jump into the conclusions so I gave the doctor more space.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Let's -- Mr. Clark, we'll adjourn for the day. We'd
5 like to see you back tomorrow morning, 9.30 in this same courtroom. And
6 I again instruct you that you should not speak with anyone about your
7 testimony, either given already now or in the recent past in this case.
8 Well, recent past. At least in the past in this case, and any testimony
9 still to be given tomorrow.
10 You may follow the usher.
11 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
12 [The witness stands down]
13 JUDGE ORIE: We adjourn for the day, and we resume tomorrow, the
14 2nd of July, 9.30 in the morning, in this same courtroom, I.
15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.17 p.m.,
16 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 2nd day of July,
17 2015, at 9.30 a.m.