151104ED

Page 40795

1 examination, otherwise I would have to object all the time, get on my

2 feet, interrupt.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Well, at least organise your re-examination in such

4 a way that you start with the most important matters, and then we're able

5 to follow what level of importance and what level of relevance we are

6 going through the -- so don't leave the most important and the most

7 relevant questions for the end and the less relevant to start. Organise

8 it in such a way that you convince us that it's really of great

9 importance and great relevance and could not have been dealt with

10 earlier.

11 We leave it to that for the time being.

12 Mr. Poparic, you had to wait for 20 minutes. Apologies for that.

13 We'll now continue, and I remind you that you're still bound by the

14 solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of your testimony.

15 Ms. Edgerton will now continue her cross-examination.

16 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.

17 WITNESS: MILE POPARIC [Resumed]

18 [Witness answered through interpreter]

19 Cross-examination by Ms. Edgerton: [Continued]

20 Q. Good morning, Mr. Poparic.

21 A. Good morning.

22 Q. I'd just like to deal very briefly with the incident we broke off

23 dealing with - and that's incident F-8 - and take you right away to image

24 117 in your report and it appears between paragraphs 144 and 145.

25 Now, you see your image 117. Now, I just want to ask one

Page 40796

1 question before we begin. You didn't inspect - just to be perfectly

2 clear - you didn't inspect the actual physical hole in the tram, just

3 this one photograph; right?

4 A. Of course.

5 Q. Right. And yesterday, when you talked about bullets making

6 perfectly round holes, I would -- I just want to understand the import of

7 what you're saying. You're saying, is it your contention that bullets

8 always make perfectly round holes?

9 A. No. Only if the impact is at an angle of 90 degrees. Any other

10 angle produces an elliptical cross-section.

11 Q. So you're -- it's -- you're saying that the distance from the

12 target - the distance the bullet has to travel - has no effect on whether

13 or not it makes a perfectly round hole; is that what you're saying?

14 A. No, that's not what I'm trying to say. I'm trying to say that

15 the shape of the hole depends on the angle of impact, and the angle is

16 also related to the distance, et cetera. It's part of the trajectory.

17 Q. Does the shape of the hole depend on the velocity the bullet is

18 travelling when it impacts?

19 A. We could say it does; but in this case, since the velocity is

20 very high, we get a perfect imprint. I reminded you what high velocity

21 means. When a bullet at high velocity hits glass, the glass is not

22 shattered; that's why you get a good imprint.

23 Q. So the shape of the hole depends on the velocity of the bullet?

24 A. In this case, no, because the velocity is high. It's a specific

25 case. We are not talking in general. If we are talking in general, then

Page 40797

1 we can consider what you are saying; but in this specific case, no.

2 Q. Does the shape of the hole depend on the bullet type?

3 A. Of course, it depends on the size.

4 Q. I didn't ask about the size of the bullet. I asked about the

5 type of the bullet.

6 A. Well, since a bullet is round in shape, in this case, I would say

7 no.

8 Q. So because bullets are round, they produce perfect holes if

9 they're fired at high velocity; that's your position?

10 A. No. My position is that the imprint on such a surface would be

11 good even if the bullet is not round. Let's say that it had a star-like

12 cross-section, the imprint would look like a star. I have cases when

13 projectiles have wings and then you get the shape of wings on the

14 imprint. It doesn't matter what the shape is. The shape remains the

15 same.

16 Q. And does the shape of the hole depend on the material the bullet

17 impacts?

18 A. Yes, that much is true. If it's a soft material, for instance,

19 canvas, the imprint would be less clear; but if it's a solid material,

20 such as this tin sheet, then we get a very clear imprint.

21 Q. And that tin sheet is material you didn't -- it's made of

22 material you didn't analyse; right?

23 A. I did not analyse it and there was no need because I know the

24 specifications of the tin that is used for this kind of product.

25 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... you don't need to repeat

Page 40798

1 yourself and you're repeating yourself from yesterday, so let me move on.

2 So if -- even if we were to assume that bullets would make a perfectly

3 round hole from a 90-degree angle, if they were entering from a

4 90-degree, angle - which I don't accept is accurate for a minute - but if

5 we were to assume that, to conduct the type of analysis that you carried

6 out in this case, you would have to take a photograph at a perfect

7 90-degree angle as well; right?

8 A. Yes. This photograph was taken at that angle, more or less, it

9 was taken up close; and if there are any errors in terms of angle, they

10 are very small. That is why I could analyse it well. It was the only

11 case where a magnification of the hole existed. In other cases, such

12 photographs were not available. This is the only case with a zoomed-in

13 picture of a bullet.

14 Q. [Previous translation continues]... Mr. Poparic. You're just

15 saying that because you weren't there at the time this photograph was

16 taken, you don't know the angle it was taken from, and all we've got in

17 front of us is an enlargement. You have no idea what angle this photo

18 was taken from, do you?

19 A. I do. I explained already. It was taken up close and could only

20 have been taken from an angle very close to 90 degrees. Of course, I

21 don't know it in absolute term, by the margin of error is very low.

22 Q. Mr. Poparic --

23 MR. LUKIC: [Previous translation continues] ... otherwise we'll

24 have -- we'll go for days. The witness has the right to answer the

25 question the best way he knows how to. He cannot be told how to answer

Page 40799

1 the question. He has to be let to answer the question.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Well, let's ... in general terms, I would agree with

3 you. To say that you would need more days, Mr. Lukic, on the basis of

4 just this may go a bit far.

5 Witness, you said it was taken up close and could only have been

6 taken from an angle very close to 90 degrees and that you don't know it

7 in absolute terms but that the margin of error is very low.

8 What would you want to add to that which seems to be an answer to

9 the question?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think I said it all. The error

11 is small, and I've already explained how the photograph was taken.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, there's also -- Ms. Edgerton is also

13 bound by time, so if she has received an answer to her question, often

14 where the witness has an inclination to go well beyond that, it is not

15 under all circumstances impermissible to interrupt the witness.

16 Witness, could you tell us if it would be -- well, let's say, not

17 90 degrees but 80 degrees, what would be approximately the oval -- what

18 would be the distortion compared to a full circle, do you know?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There would be some kind of

20 deformation of the circle, albeit it small; I don't know to which side,

21 though. It is very important to which side the angle is turned.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I interrupted you because you were not giving

23 an answer to my question. Apparently you do not know exactly how it

24 would change, in centimetres or millimetres, the shape of the hole.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As regards the size itself, the

Page 40800

1 difference would be very small, although I can't tell what you it would

2 be off the top of my head. In any case, there would be a very small

3 deformation to the circle.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would you also agree that if there is a

5 possible margin of error in how you put the circles in the -- on the

6 photograph, if you move it just a few millimetres, it would still be more

7 or less the black hole, isn't it? There's some margin of appreciation

8 there.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct. I did bear that

10 in mind. I based my conclusion on the difference related to the

11 direction that is alleged as the trajectory of the projectile, and the

12 right angle - and the difference taken into account - allowed ne to draw

13 my conclusions to sufficient degree of accuracy.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, again you're not answering my question, but I

15 leave it to that.

16 Ms. Edgerton.

17 Judge Fluegge would have a question.

18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I'm sorry for that.

19 You said, I quote: "It was taken up close and could only have

20 been taken from an angle very close to 90 degrees."

21 What is the factual basis of your knowledge that this was taken

22 have a close distance?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I had the photograph that I used.

24 It comes from the photograph. In my assessment, it was taken at a

25 distance of 50 or 60 centimetres, so quite up close. One could see the

Page 40801

1 hole very well, and it was obviously the intention of the photographer to

2 show the shape of the hole.

3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Do you know which camera was used?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't.

5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Edgerton.

7 MS. EDGERTON: Could we just go one page earlier in both

8 languages in Mr. Poparic's report, please, to image 116.

9 Q. And you see it on the right-hand side of the page in front of

10 you, Mr. Poparic.

11 MS. EDGERTON: Could we just blow up the English page, please.

12 Q. That's the photograph you're talking about, isn't it,

13 Mr. Poparic? That's the photograph you enlarged to make the image that

14 appears as 117 in your report; right?

15 A. No.

16 Q. Oh, fine [Microphone not activated] --

17 A. No, no. I referenced the photograph in question.

18 Q. So, Mr. Poparic, we don't have the report -- we don't have the

19 photograph -- we don't even have the photograph you enlarged to make your

20 image 117, do we? It's not in your report?

21 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that's a question, I take it.

22 MS. EDGERTON: Yes.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not in the report itself, but it is

24 referenced. It was an exhibit from the Galic case; that is where I found

25 the photograph. I would have never been able to do this on the basis of

Page 40802

1 the photograph you showed; it would take much magnification and it

2 wouldn't be clear.

3 MS. EDGERTON:

4 Q. Mr. Poparic, let's move on then and thank you, you've answered my

5 question. I'd like to go on to incident F-11 which is at page 188 in

6 your report in English and B/C/S page 183, paragraphs 171 to 192.

7 So this is an incident, Mr. Poparic, where -- and it took place

8 on the 8th of October, 1994, and it's an incident that involves the

9 targeting of two trams within minutes of one another and pedestrians.

10 And your contention is that the origin of fire in all three incidents was

11 a shooter in the Executive Council building and not from anywhere in

12 VRS-held territory; is that fair?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Now, your position is based on a number of things: Dust clouds

15 on a bit of film; right?

16 A. Right.

17 Q. Glass shards on another bit of film?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. A bit of film on which General Rose appears?

20 A. No.

21 Q. Rather than getting into an argument of what bit we're talking

22 about, I'll just move on and we'll come back to this.

23 The angle of fire as measured by UNPROFOR?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And the position of a man who was killed riding in tram 206?

Page 40803

1 I've covered just about everything now; right?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. All right. Let's deal first with the dust clouds --

4 A. And if I may add, witness statements.

5 Q. Mr. Poparic, the more you add without me asking you, the longer

6 you're going to stay here. So let's talk about dust clouds.

7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Ms. Edgerton, that was unfair because you put two

8 questions and he was waiting for the translation of the questions.

9 MS. EDGERTON: Oh.

10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And this second question you put to the witness

11 he addressed in his answer.

12 MS. EDGERTON: I accept that. Thank you.

13 Q. Mr. Poparic, it's correct that you admitted in your Karadzic

14 testimony that your dust cloud analysis isn't based on any published

15 studies or trials; right?

16 A. It is not based on the results of published studies, but these

17 are some general principles of the strike theory. I don't know what your

18 interpretation of it may be, but I have never claimed that the method was

19 unreliable.

20 Q. And I'm just going to ask you about what you said in the Karadzic

21 case. And when we asked you this in the Karadzic case, this very same

22 question, your answer was, at pages 39252, 19 to 21, 65 ter 32790,

23 page 90, your answer was:

24 "A. It is based on experience. I see no reason for conducting a

25 study. It would be irrelevant."

Page 40804

1 That was your evidence in the Karadzic case; do you stand by it?

2 A. I do. What I had in mind was my experience, which is very

3 extensive, and I know what kind of dust trail is left at a sharp angle as

4 opposed to other angles - I have seen it countless times - however, as I

5 said already, I also base it on the strike theory.

6 Q. And --

7 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, I'd like to briefly pay

8 attention to the transcript where Judge Fluegge intervened, because

9 otherwise it may be very difficult to understand.

10 I think that when you put the question to the witness:

11 "All right. Let's deal first with the dust clouds --"

12 That it was then the witness who said:

13 "And if I may add, witness statements."

14 And he rightly did so because you suggested to him that you had

15 dealt with every source, and therefore it was totally appropriate for the

16 witness to add this because he corrected a suggestion which was wrong.

17 But I think it should be clear on the transcript that it was not your

18 question in which it was said: "And if I may add, witness statements"

19 but it was the witness who introduced that.

20 Let's proceed.

21 MS. EDGERTON: Yes, absolutely accepted.

22 Q. Now, in terms of your experience that you've just talked about,

23 it's correct that you also testified in the Karadzic proceedings that

24 your experience is with level trajectories; right?

25 A. Right.

Page 40805

1 Q. And there's no citations in your report to any publications that

2 deal with -- or that detail what conclusions we could draw from the shape

3 and size of dust clouds by a bullet striking the ground, are there?

4 A. Correct.

5 Q. So you're just asking us to take your word for it that this

6 necessitates the conclusion that the bullets in this case hit the ground

7 at a high angle of descent; right?

8 A. It is rather difficult to answer it with a yes or no because I

9 don't fully agree with this assertion. I do not assert that you have to

10 take my word for granted. I thought it was well explained why it should

11 be taken into account, at least in my view.

12 Q. Thank you. Now I just want to move on to the shards of glass.

13 Now you told the Judges in your testimony in-chief that shards of glass

14 or the shards of glass shattered on the ground by this tram were evidence

15 that the tram was hit at that place where we saw the glass on the ground.

16 Now you've spent a little bit of time today explaining your testimony

17 yesterday which was that glass doesn't shattered when it's pierced by a

18 bullet, and maybe you need to explain why -- and I'll read you exactly

19 what you said yesterday. You said:

20 "When it pierces the glass, the velocity" -- actually, no, let me

21 go earlier.

22 Referring to F-8 you talked about the speed of the projectile and

23 the homogeneity of the material. And you said:

24 "So it's out of the question. The best example is glass. When

25 it pierces the glass, the velocity is such that the glass is not

Page 40806

1 shattered."

2 So putting your testimony yesterday against your earlier evidence

3 about the glass shards, you contradict yourself; right?

4 A. No, no, I can explain.

5 Q. I think you should explain the contradiction. Would you like to

6 do that?

7 JUDGE ORIE: Or to explain whether there's no contradiction,

8 Ms. Edgerton --

9 MS. EDGERTON: Accepted.

10 JUDGE ORIE: -- please try to -- it's the witness who testifies.

11 Please proceed. Can you please explain.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I mentioned glass in the

13 previous case, I mentioned it because there are great differences in

14 terms of material between glass and steel, plus there are different types

15 of glass. There are numerous examples of rifle bullets flying through

16 glass panes without the pane being shattered, with only a hole left

17 behind that projectile. That is why I said that there are such cases

18 where the glass is not shattered but, rather, intact with some cracks

19 around the hole. It doesn't mean, though, that it will not shatter

20 later, especially because in this specific case we don't know when it

21 happened and perhaps there could have been two bullet, the other one

22 shattering the pane. It is not mandatory that the pane wouldn't shatter,

23 but there are many cases where bullets fly through the glass, leaving

24 just a very clear hole with cracks. On the other hand, I do not try to

25 say that a glass pane not shatter if hit by a bullet, so neither is

Page 40807

1 mandatory. It doesn't have to shatter as a must.

2 MS. EDGERTON:

3 Q. So you've just said that there are cases where, when glass is hit

4 by a bullet, that it could shatter later; yet you pointed out to the

5 Trial Chamber that the evidence of the shards of glass shattered on the

6 ground beside the tram were indisputable evidence that the tram was hit

7 at the place where we saw the grass [sic]. Now, in fact, based on what

8 you've just said, we can't exclude the possibility that the glass could

9 have been hit somewhere other than where you say the tram stopped?

10 A. I think it was hit at that spot, and I can explain why, with your

11 leave. We've already discussed it during examination-in-chief, but I can

12 explain.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, perhaps in your explanation you focus on what

14 was put to you by Ms. Edgerton. Ms. Edgerton says: You told us that the

15 shattering may occur later, therefore how could you conclude for certain

16 that the shattered glass indicates where the shot was fired because it

17 could have been earlier? That's the question. If would you explain that

18 to us, not why - otherwise - your conclusions are right or wrong but that

19 element.

20 Please.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will try. We've touched upon

22 that in examination-in-chief. I said that I base my conclusion on

23 witness statements, and the witnesses said that --

24 JUDGE ORIE: I'm stopping you there, because that may be other

25 good reasons to draw your conclusions. Please focus on the matter which

Page 40808

1 was raised. We are not inviting you to defend your final conclusions.

2 You were asked a question about what conclusions you can draw alone from

3 finding the shattered glass there, in view of your testimony that

4 sometimes it shatters immediately, sometimes it does later, and sometimes

5 it just leaves a hole. That's the question.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this case, it shattered and fell

7 on the ground next to the tram where it was stopped.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Which leaves the question: Why? Where you said

9 sometimes it shatters, why you could conclude that in this case it

10 shattered immediately?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because the shards are next to the

12 tram.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think that somebody

15 shattered the glass subsequently.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Well, nevertheless you testified that sometimes it

17 shatters after the impact and not immediately at the time of the impact.

18 But please proceed, Ms. Edgerton.

19 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.

20 Q. And also in your examination-in-chief, talking about this

21 incident at transcript page 40511 to 40512, you said -- you referred to

22 the UNPROFOR reports about the incident and you said:

23 "In the grass they found six craters and managed to put antenna

24 of radio equipment there, and that shows that the angle was also much

25 bigger than the one that was possible if fire had come from positions of

Page 40809

1 the VRS. If that had a been the case there would have only been a

2 shallow furrow. An antenna couldn't stick into it. Practically it would

3 fall on the ground."

4 So your position is if the shot in this case came from VRS-held

5 territory, the projectiles would have come in at a shallow angle; right?

6 A. Right.

7 MS. EDGERTON: I would like to play a very short bit of film in

8 that regard now, please now, P784 and I think it might be even less than

9 a minute.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Before we do so, if you say, "very shallow angle,"

11 where do you think an angle is still shallow and where -- what makes --

12 is that 30 degrees? 20 degrees? 15? 40? Where do you make it?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this case it is below 10

14 degrees. The highest degree that could have been achieved from VRS

15 positions was 5.71 degrees at house number 12, as marked by UNPROFOR.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Again, you're not answering my question,

17 unfortunately. I didn't ask you what -- what -- what the --

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Below 10 degrees, as I said.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You say it's shallow if it's below 10 degrees?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When you say "shallow," do you mean

21 a low angle, a small angle? Let me try to be clear because I'm confused

22 about the interpretation. If the angle is below 10 degrees, the furrow

23 will be shallow, the trace left will be shallow; that's what I wanted to

24 say.

25 JUDGE ORIE: We leave it to that for the time being.

Page 40810

1 Please proceed.

2 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you. And I should note we're not going to

3 play P784 with any sound. If we could play it, it begins at time code --

4 oh.

5 [Video-clip played]

6 MS. EDGERTON: Stop, at time code 46:7.

7 Q. These -- this is film of the UNPROFOR officers doing their

8 analysis with the antenna. I'm just going to ask that we back up a

9 couple of seconds and then continue and then I'm going to ask you a

10 question.

11 [Video-clip played]

12 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.

13 Q. That film of UNPROFOR doing their line-of-sight analysis with the

14 antenna shows that there was only a shallow furrow. The antenna, just

15 like you said it was, would -- was practically falling into the ground.

16 That shows an angle consistent with fire from VRS-held territory, doesn't

17 it, according to your own analysis?

18 A. In this footage I cannot estimate the angle at which the antenna

19 is set, but I maintain that if the bullet came in at an angle of

20 5 degrees, it's absolutely impossible for it to land in that hole.

21 MS. EDGERTON: Your Honours, I see it's break time.

22 JUDGE ORIE: It is.

23 We'll take a break. We'd like to see you back in 20 minutes.

24 You may follow the usher.

25 [The witness stands down]

Page 40811

1 JUDGE ORIE: We'll resume at ten minutes to 11.00.

2 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.

3 --- On resuming at 10.50 a.m.

4 [Trial Chamber confers]

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.

6 MR. LUKIC: I would like to interrupt before the witness is with

7 us. I have two translation issues.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

9 MR. LUKIC: At page 20, line 3, the witness mentioned --

10 [The witness takes the stand]

11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Shall the witness wait outside the courtroom.

12 MR. LUKIC: Yes, may be better.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be -- Mr. Poparic, could you, one

14 second.

15 [The witness stands down]

16 MR. LUKIC: It's nothing major but then it can be checked with

17 Mr. Poparic. So here, page 20, line 3, he said:

18 "There are great differences in terms of material between glass

19 and steel ..."

20 After this comma, he said:

21 "... unlike metal glass is amorphous material," and then it goes

22 "plus ..."

23 Obviously there was something that was before, so that could be

24 checked with him and --

25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It's a question if the transcript is correct and

Page 40812

1 not a translation issue.

2 MR. LUKIC: Yes, I don't -- I didn't hear that it was translated,

3 so whatever was translated is entered in the transcript.

4 JUDGE ORIE: I will try to deal with it in a quick way.

5 MR. LUKIC: Yes. And then page 24, line 8, in this sentence:

6 "It's absolutely impossible for it to land in that hole."

7 It appears that it's addressing the bullet, but actually what

8 witness was addressing is antenna. So it's -- then it should be:

9 "It's absolutely impossible for it to be placed in that hole."

10 So I would like you to check with him. Because he was --

11 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. We'll check both items.

12 Could the witness be escorted in the courtroom.

13 [The witness takes the stand]

14 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, we briefly discussed in your absence a few

15 possible errors in translation or transcription. I go with you through

16 them.

17 First, I read part of an answer as it was translated and

18 transcribed. It was about -- I read it:

19 "I mentioned it because there are great differences in terms of

20 material between glass and steel, plus there are different types of

21 glass."

22 Is there anything in what I just read to you, what is missing

23 from your answer?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot remember whether it's in

25 that sentence, but I meant the difference in homogeneity of material

Page 40813

1 between glass and metal. And I said glass is amorphous, which means that

2 it's structure is not always equal in all parts. That was the essence.

3 JUDGE ORIE: I think that was, indeed, the issue raised.

4 Then I would like to take you another part, and I read the answer

5 as it was translated and transcribed for us. You said:

6 "In this footage, I cannot estimate the angle at which the

7 antenna is set, but I maintain that if the bullet came in at an angle of

8 5 degrees, it's absolutely impossible for it to land in that hole."

9 Is there any correction you'd like to make to what I just read to

10 you? And perhaps you focus on the last part of what I read.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This conclusion is correct. I

12 didn't -- I can't remember whether I said 5 or 5.71 about the angle at

13 which it was possible to fire a bullet from the positions of the VRS. I

14 don't know if I said 5.71, but that's basically it.

15 JUDGE ORIE: If you'd focus on the last, and I repeat that

16 portion:

17 "... it's absolutely impossible for it to land in that hole ... "

18 Is that what you said and did you -- and could you explain what

19 you meant by "it"?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, it's impossible for the furrow

21 to be such as to set the antenna there. It had to be a shallow furrow,

22 and then the antenna could not be placed in it.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I think we've dealt with it.

24 Ms. Edgerton, you may now proceed.

25 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.

Page 40814

1 Q. Now, the film that we just saw, P784, before we broke, includes,

2 Mr. Poparic, images that you included in your report at page 199 as

3 image 149 - and you did that without actually citing to a specific piece

4 of film - but there you say that these images depict UNPROFOR member

5 pointing out a detailing on the BiH Executive Council building to

6 General Michael Rose.

7 Now in the Karadzic case, you can confirm that in the Karadzic

8 case, when you first listened to this film, it had no soundtrack, right,

9 because that's what you said in the Karadzic case?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. So you also confirmed that your assertion that an UNPROFOR member

12 is pointing out a detail on the Executive Council building is just an

13 assumption?

14 A. No, it's no assumption. He was showing a shape and pointing at

15 the building. It's just one action that I noticed in the footage. I did

16 not make any claims on the basis of that and I didn't assume anything.

17 Q. P670, which is the UNPROFOR report -- leaving the video aside.

18 P670, which is the UNPROFOR report that you spent a lot of time on in

19 your analysis, has no mention of anyone in UNPROFOR suspecting that the

20 shots came from the Executive Council building. You saw that, so you

21 would agree? There's not a single mention in that report of the shots

22 coming from the Executive Council building?

23 MR. LUKIC: Ms. Edgerton does not allow translation to finish.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, the proper way of saying is: Could

25 Ms. Edgerton please wait until -- rather than to use an angry voice.

Page 40815

1 There's no reason for that.

2 At the same time, Ms. Edgerton --

3 MS. EDGERTON: Slow down.

4 JUDGE ORIE: -- it's true, slow down. Wait for the translation

5 to be finished.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. If that number denotes the

7 video we saw before, I didn't have the opportunity to see it. I saw a

8 movie which contains some parts of it and others not. For instance, I

9 had not seen before the part with the antenna. And in the movies that I

10 saw, there was no sound; I wasn't able to hear anything.

11 MS. EDGERTON:

12 Q. So you never saw film of UNPROFOR with the antennas before making

13 your assertions about the angle at which they would have hit the ground;

14 is that what I understand you to say? Can you just tell me if I have

15 that right?

16 A. No, you did not. I talked about the video, P670, in general. I

17 didn't have the footage filmed by UNPROFOR. I had the opportunity to see

18 a compilation of sorts which doesn't have all of these segments. I had

19 never seen the antennas or the whole report about the antennas.

20 Q. Thank you. Now the male victim whose profile you draw in your

21 report at your page 197, image 147, is the next thing I want to turn to.

22 And in respect of that, I just want to get you to confirm your testimony

23 in the Karadzic case in relation to that man.

24 It's correct, isn't it, that you specifically acknowledged that

25 if his position was different from your assumption that he was sitting or

Page 40816

1 standing at the time he was hit, that the -- your argument that the

2 shots -- according to which the shots were fired from the

3 Executive Council building would be brought into question. Can you

4 confirm that?

5 A. No, no.

6 Q. All right. I'd like to show you your testimony in the Karadzic

7 case.

8 MS. EDGERTON: 65 ter number 32788, please, it was on the 30th of

9 May, 2013.

10 Can we go over to e-court page 53, please.

11 Q. So here you said, talking about this incident and this man, to

12 His Honour Judge Morrison the following. He said:

13 "Just one matter --" that's at line 3 at page 39019.

14 "Just one matter. I mean, that assumption is predicated on the

15 basis that the victim was in a vertical or near-vertical position at the

16 time of the impact on the ground [sic]. If he had, for instance, been

17 leaning over at the time of the impact of the round, the [sic] assumption

18 wouldn't stand, would it?"

19 And you responded:

20 "[As read] That is correct. He was leaning over, that is

21 correct, can be called into question."

22 Are you prepared to -- do you stand by the testimony you gave to

23 His Honour Judge Morrison in the Karadzic case?

24 A. I do, but I don't think your question is fair because I did not

25 deal with that in my report. I should like to be allowed to explain

Page 40817

1 how --

2 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, first of all, the question was whether you

3 stand by what you said in the Karadzic trial. That is a question which

4 is fair; no question about that.

5 Then there was one minor thing, however, Ms. Edgerton. I heard

6 you read what is transcribed to us:

7 "He was leaning over, that is correct ..."

8 What he said and what we find in the transcript is:

9 "If he was leaning over, that is correct ..."

10 You misread there.

11 MS. EDGERTON: Yes, yes.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Now, listen carefully to Ms. Edgerton's next

13 question. If there's anything unfair in what was asked from you at the

14 time of your Karadzic testimony, then Mr. Lukic certainly will -- I take

15 it you have drawn his attention to that or that he can deal with that if

16 need be.

17 Please proceed, Ms. Edgerton.

18 MS. EDGERTON:

19 Q. So you have no idea what position this man was in at the moment

20 he was shot, do you?

21 A. [No interpretation]

22 THE INTERPRETER: We cannot hear what the witness said.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat your answer and speak into

24 the microphone.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Now I do have a picture.

Page 40818

1 MS. EDGERTON:

2 Q. No, my question to you relates to the man's position at the

3 moment he was shot. It's correct, isn't it, he could have been

4 crouching, turning, talking, even lying on the floor at the moment he was

5 shot. We have no evidence of what he was actually -- how he was actually

6 positioned at the moment he was shot, do we?

7 A. Yes, we have data. We have information and evidence.

8 Q. Are you trying to say that the picture on which you based your

9 drawing in your report is that evidence?

10 A. Not only.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Let's get to the point. What is there you know now

12 about the position of the man? Is that statements? Is that anything

13 else? Could you clearly -- not conclusions, et cetera, but just what

14 information do you have which is not yet in the report?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That information is in the report,

16 but I can say it. First of all, we have the information in which part of

17 the body he was hit and where the bullet ended up, and we have an image

18 of the tram where the man was injured, it's tram 206, it's the first one.

19 And based on the traces of blood in that tram - in one video we have seen

20 today - we see where he could have been, in the front part of the tram.

21 And there are only two locations.

22 JUDGE ORIE: I'll stop you there. It's not an answer to the

23 question. The question is not where he was but how he was positioned,

24 lying up, et cetera. And you say: Where you could have been. We're not

25 interested in analysis of where he could have been -- we may be

Page 40819

1 interested in that, but if you could tell us what exactly the information

2 is on which you think you can determine, or what this Chamber can

3 determine, what the position of this victim was, lying, standing, bending

4 over, whatever.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He was standing, and that's

6 indicated by the damage inside the tram. In no other position could he

7 have been injured the way he was. The glass is intact. There are some

8 traces -- there are no traces below the seat, and the only thing

9 consistent with his injuries is that he was standing and there are some

10 traces of blood on the side of the tram inside, which indicates that he

11 was standing.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Edgerton.

13 MS. EDGERTON:

14 Q. And with respect to incident F-16 in your report, which is

15 incident F-15 in this indictment, and it's at B/C/S page -- it begins in

16 a section at B/C/S page 232, English page 239. Just like the case of

17 this man, your argument is predicated on the basis that the victim was

18 taking a certain position. Now, your argument is predicated on the basis

19 that Mr. Agovic was sitting facing directly forward in his seat at a

20 45-degree angle vis-à-vis the tram. So when I -- and you confirmed that

21 to me in the Karadzic case at e-court page 32790 -- pardon me. 65 ter

22 number 32790, e-court pages 78 to 79.

23 You said:

24 "It's assumed that his sitting position was normal."

25 So your point, your position, your argument, wouldn't be valid if

Page 40820

1 Mr. Agovic's body had been angled a bit to the left or a bit to the

2 right, would it?

3 A. As to a little bit to the left or a little bit to the right, that

4 has been analysed and the conclusion would remain the same. As for the

5 assumptions you mentioned, these are all facts that are in the -- the

6 case file.

7 Q. If Mr. Agovic had been bending over, if he had been turning, if

8 he had been talking, your argument with respect to the angle of fire in

9 this incident comes into question, just like the incident we've just

10 finished with. Because you've just said --

11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Wait for the translation.

12 MS. EDGERTON: Oh. I apologise. I thought I was. Sorry.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All the witness statements,

14 including Mr. Agovic's, indicate that he was not even making any

15 movements, he was not bending or anything. If you have any specific

16 information, then we can discuss what positions those could have been.

17 We cannot talk like this.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, could I ask you: If you say, if someone is

19 not saying in a statement that he was bending over, then you take it for

20 a fact that he was not?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Even if the person had been

22 bending, in view of the height at which he was hit --

23 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Witness, would

24 you please answer my question. My question was: If someone in a

25 statement doesn't say that he was bending over, you take it for a fact

Page 40821

1 that he was not bending over?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

6 Please proceed.

7 MS. EDGERTON:

8 Q. And I just want to skip over -- actually, I'd like to ask you one

9 more question about this incident.

10 Your report shows you had a look at the criminal investigation

11 file for this incident. Now, so that you --

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. So then you would know that this report emphasises the fact that

14 other trams immediately behind this one were fired on from the same Serb

15 positions and immediately afterwards there was an exchange of fire

16 between UNPROFOR and this position - and that's at P612, English page 8;

17 B/C/S page 7.

18 So having looked at the investigative file, you saw that?

19 A. I saw that stated and I had no other information, but I didn't

20 base my analysis on what was happening around. I based it on the

21 possibility that the tram was hit as alleged from the positions said, so

22 I analysed all the traces that were sufficient for me to make this

23 analysis.

24 Q. So you -- what you're saying is you didn't think the evidence

25 that UNPROFOR responding to the alleged origin of fire in VRS-held

Page 40822

1 territory was relevant to your analysis; that's what you're telling us?

2 A. I wasn't going to say that. I wanted to say that I did not have

3 information. It was stated by a witness who was not in the area but she

4 only heard an exchange of fire, and there was a French UNPROFOR member

5 apparently who was wounded. On the basis of that statement, I don't know

6 where that exchange of fire was and I would have to speculate. It was

7 stated as such, though, but I based my conclusions on my analyses on the

8 basis of the traces left. I don't know what happened before or later. I

9 cannot relate that to the case. I have no information that would make me

10 establish a connection between the two or even three incidents. I don't

11 know how many there were exactly.

12 Q. I'd like to move on to incident F-14 in your report which is F-13

13 in this indictment, and the section in your report that that deals with

14 begins at English page 225, B/C/S page 218, paragraphs 209 to 218.

15 Now if we can just go over to your image 164, which is I think at

16 English page 221 and -- pardon me, B/C/S page 221; English page 228.

17 Thank you.

18 Now you say in the caption of this report without citing to any

19 part of Huso -- pardon me, the caption to this image without citing to

20 any part of Huso Palo's testimony per se, you say that the circle that

21 says tram 263 is the position of the tram according to his evidence. But

22 you know that -- but you know that that's not where Huso Palo says the

23 tram was, don't you? In fact --

24 A. I know that Huso Palo said that the tram was at that location.

25 He clearly stated that as he was about to go across the intersection, he

Page 40823

1 could hear it - the fork, that is to say, for the tram, that Huso Palo

2 testified about.

3 Q. Mr. Poparic, Huso Palo, in his statement given to the police on

4 24 November 1994, which is 65 ter number 1D00691, states that the tram

5 was hit when he reached the section between the technical school and the

6 Marsal Tito barracks, specifically turning towards the railway station.

7 In his statement P162, dated February 24, 1996, he says that the tram was

8 hit between the technical school and the Marsal Tito barracks. And then

9 in his testimony in the Dragomir Milosevic case, in 1D05751, he says that

10 the tram was fired at between the two museums.

11 None of that evidence puts tram 263 at the location where you

12 marked it. In fact, according to the evidence of Huso Palo, tram 263 was

13 further east in the intersection, wasn't it?

14 A. No. The first two statements he provided that were available to

15 me indicate that spot. As for what he said in his testimony, I did not

16 have it at my disposal. It is further towards the east, that is correct;

17 but the first two statements are precisely at the location where I

18 indicated, perhaps not to the metre, but that is the intersection.

19 Q. Well, in fact, the effect of the difference between whether the

20 tram is in the intersection or not, the effect of it puts the tram in

21 better view of four white sky-scrapers in Grbavica where you agreed there

22 were VRS sniping positions, and that's what Mr. Palo's evidence does?

23 A. Well, there are two issues here. If it is correct that the tram

24 was where he put it in his testimony, he was not visible from the white

25 high-rises, as we could see in the photograph you showed yesterday. He

Page 40824

1 was then at the Holiday Inn and visible from the Metalka building, and I

2 treated it in my report. In that case, it was visible from the Metalka

3 building and not from the white high-rises. If he was at the

4 intersection as I marked, according to his two statements provided

5 previously, then it was visible from the white high-rises but not from

6 the Metalka building. That is the only difference; however, I treated

7 both scenarios in the report.

8 Q. One --

9 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you one question. You said in one of

10 your previous answers:

11 "It is further towards the east, that is correct."

12 When did you learn that it was further to the east, which you now

13 say is correct?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The testimony of Huso Palo, I

15 learned about it now, but there are other testimonies indicating the

16 place he pointed out. I had learned that previously and that is why --

17 and analysed both tram positions.

18 JUDGE ORIE: So I do understand that while Ms. Edgerton was

19 reading to you a statement that you never had -- oh, his testimony, you

20 never heard about that before?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I had not heard that testimony of

22 his previously, but I did hear the testimony of others, that he was at

23 the place he indicated. Therefore, I was aware of the two positions, and

24 I analysed them both in the report. There's no dispute.

25 MR. LUKIC: We can get exact citation from the transcript, since

Page 40825

1 we want to check it and it's not read from the transcript.

2 JUDGE ORIE: If there's any doubt about that, Ms. Edgerton,

3 you're invited to read literally from the transcript. If you did not --

4 and if you did, please give the reference to Mr. Lukic.

5 MS. EDGERTON: I didn't read exactly, but I can certainly give

6 the page and line reference. It's --

7 JUDGE ORIE: And would you then also read it -- if you did not

8 read it exactly, could you then please read it exactly so that we have an

9 opportunity to verify that now.

10 MS. EDGERTON: It's at 1D05751, please, e-court page 3, lines 14

11 to 17 Mr. Palo says:

12 "I remember the date. I remember the date that I read. On that

13 day, I drove a tram between Marin Dvor and the technical school and the

14 Marsal Tito barracks. I was fired at between the two museums. On the

15 left there were the four sky-scrapers and there was firing."

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, that's at least one of the sources which

17 is pretty accurate, I would say, as far as between the two museums.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.

19 MR. LUKIC: [Previous translation continues] ... I apologise.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps during the next break if you need

21 further references then we don't need to spend time on it in court,

22 unless there's any accuracy and then, of course, we would --

23 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, but we have to have a reference to

24 be able to check. I wouldn't raise --

25 JUDGE ORIE: No, but that's the reason why I -- this was an open

Page 40826

1 invitation to Ms. Edgerton to give you those references for the other

2 sources she mentions, and then can you check it. And if there's any

3 problem, we'll hear it.

4 Please proceed.

5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And Ms. Edgerton referred earlier to the

6 document, the number.

7 MR. LUKIC: But not the page, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That's true.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, as precise as possible, Ms. Edgerton, for

10 Mr. Lukic so that he can always verify.

11 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you. I'll always do my best.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.

13 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.

14 Q. Just one last thing with respect to this incident is --

15 A. I apologise. I apologise, if I may, since I was answering the

16 question as the testimony of this person was read out, he said that he

17 was at the location I indicated. He did not change it. He said between

18 the two museums, one of them being the museum of the revolution, the

19 other one being the national museum. He confirmed the location; it is

20 just that he described it differently. That location is identified in

21 image 164 of my report. You can look at image 164, the two musea are

22 marked with 3 and 4, and he stated that the tram was between the two.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Which doesn't allow any plotting. It could be

24 anywhere between the two, isn't it? Could be further to the east as

25 well. It is still between number 3 and number 4 on your sketch, isn't

Page 40827

1 it?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct. Then it would be

3 visible from the four high-rises but not visible from the Metalka

4 building. That is the gist of it.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but you just don't know. It's just between the

6 two, between 3 and 4, and you put it somewhere arbitrary.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Around there, approximately. That

8 is how I indicated it and analysed it. What I'm trying to say is that he

9 did not testify differently to that, but he confirmed it.

10 JUDGE ORIE: You've answered my question.

11 And may I take it that 263 and 263 [sic] as we find it on the

12 sketch is some kind of an error. On the plotting, it is 263; in the

13 legenda, it is 236.

14 [Trial Chamber confers]

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is a mistake. It was copied

16 from elsewhere.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, let's try to avoid mistakes.

18 Please proceed, Ms. Edgerton.

19 MS. EDGERTON:

20 Q. One more hopefully short area with respect to this incident. You

21 said in your testimony in-chief that given their position and their

22 detailed explanations and given the description of their wounds - and

23 that's referring to the two victims - that they could only have been hit

24 if the bullet came through the joint of the articulated tram, the soft

25 part; but in that case, it would not have come from the building of the

Page 40828

1 Executive Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina and not from the Metalka or

2 the high-rises, irrespective of the tram's location.

3 Now, and I just want to focus on Mrs. Karacic, one of the victims

4 in this regard. During your cross-examination in the Karadzic case, you

5 confirmed you had never seen the entry or exit wounds Mrs. -- the

6 injuries Mrs. Karacic suffered that day. Can you confirm that?

7 A. Yes --

8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness kindly

9 repeat his sentence. We did not understand.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Could you repeat your sentence. You were not

11 understood.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not see the wound, but I did

13 see a report indicating where the entry and exit wounds were.

14 MS. EDGERTON:

15 Q. And can you also confirm that in the Karadzic case you agreed

16 there were no measurements in the official report showing the vertical

17 distance the bullet fragment travelled inside her arm?

18 A. That is correct. There's only a general description.

19 Q. And --

20 JUDGE ORIE: Could I give some guidance both at this moment to

21 you, Ms. Edgerton, and also later to you, Mr. Lukic. At various moments

22 several times this Chamber pointed at the fact that this witness is doing

23 our job assessing/evaluating the evidence, et cetera, et cetera. Now by

24 focussing so much on all which is beyond his expertise, you are taken by

25 the witness rather than to stick to what this witness could tell us, and

Page 40829

1 that is what is within his expertise. I'm afraid that happened quite a

2 bit during examination-in-chief, it happens in cross-examination as well,

3 and it may have all been triggered by the way the witness deals with such

4 matters in his report. But I think we are the ones -- the lawyers know

5 where the limits are of expert evidence, and if you would stick to that

6 more strictly, then that would certainly shorten some of the time. And

7 perhaps it shouldn't have been there already from the beginning, but

8 that's too late to establish at this moment.

9 Please proceed.

10 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you. And now I want to move over to F-12

11 which is at English page 210, B/C/S page 204, and paragraphs 193 to 208.

12 Q. Now -- and this is the incident dealing with Mrs. Sokolovic and

13 her son Nermin.

14 Now you would accept that if the mother and boy who were shot in

15 this case were standing at the zebra crossing at the intersection of

16 Zmaja od Bosne and Franje Rackog at the moment they were shot, they would

17 have been visible with the naked eye as civilians to any shooter in the

18 Metalka building. You'd accept that, wouldn't you?

19 A. Based on all the material shown to me --

20 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

21 A. -- I analysed --

22 Q. I don't want to hear about the material. Mr. Poparic, I want to

23 hear, based on -- Mr. Poparic.

24 A. I can't --

25 Q. -- I want to hear - based on your experience and whatever

Page 40830

1 expertise you might have and from your personal visits to the area -

2 whether you'd accept that if they were standing at the location I said,

3 they would be visible with the naked eye as civilians to any shooter.

4 A. If they were standing at the place alleged, they would have been

5 visible. That is not something I disputed.

6 Q. And at a distance -- and you -- you would agree with me that

7 Metalka building is about 300 metres from the location I've just

8 described; right?

9 A. Right.

10 Q. And at a distance of 300 metres, the victims in this case were

11 targets that were easily attainable with one well-aimed shot from the

12 Metalka building, weren't they?

13 A. A good shooter could make that hit.

14 Q. Now just in terms of the thrust of --

15 JUDGE ORIE: I see -- your microphone was open as is mine now but

16 I can't hear anything through our earphones. And I think it's now okay

17 again.

18 Please resume.

19 MS. EDGERTON:

20 Q. Now just in terms of thrust of your argument, I want to deal with

21 two points, and that's your assertion that Sokolovic and her son were hit

22 in a cross-fire, and you say that in paragraph 204; and that the boy was

23 shot in a different location, and you say that at paragraph -- English

24 page 290, B/C/S page 271.

25 MS. EDGERTON: I think I've got those pages right.

Page 40831

1 Q. So just with respect to the first point about the cross-fire.

2 You can confirm, can't you, that -- I'd like you to confirm your

3 evidence in the Karadzic case that anything you saw -- no, let me

4 rephrase that, if I may.

5 In terms of the cross-fire, you specifically accepted that you

6 could have been referring to UNPROFOR's anti-sniping team's responding to

7 the source of fire in this incident, right, and not cross-fire between

8 the warring factions?

9 A. No. I don't think you stated what I said properly. I simply

10 registered that in his statement she said that once she approached the

11 municipal building, shots were heard and people fell to the ground. I

12 was not discussing any exchange of fire.

13 As for what you said about the anti-sniping team, you put it to

14 me in my Karadzic testimony, but that happened afterwards. And then,

15 based on what you read out to me, I could not confirm where the shooting

16 occurred. It was a simple daily report by UNMO, no direction of fire was

17 indicated in the document. Therefore, I exclude the possibility of an

18 exchange of fire between UNPROFOR and someone else, because I simply did

19 not have such data. You put to me later on that there was a report

20 showing that UNPROFOR intervened on the day, but I didn't see where or in

21 what direction. There was just some very general information.

22 Q. Let's have a look at that UNPROFOR report.

23 MS. EDGERTON: It's 65 ter number 11215.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton, whether there was fire or not is a

25 factual matter for which we do not need expert evidence. I think we --

Page 40832

1 yesterday or the day before yesterday we had lengthy discussions about if

2 you hear shots fired that it's important to know whether it happened

3 immediately after the incident or before that, but even that is not

4 something which falls within the expertise of this witness. It is just

5 dealing with a few matters where he went out, where he started

6 interpreting all the evidence. Now we hear that he had looked at this

7 but he hadn't available that -- and that's, of course, not what really

8 matters at this moment.

9 I would have a very short question to you. In paragraph 204,

10 when you say that what you saw on the video, that that indicates that

11 fighting was going on at the time and that fire was being exchanged

12 between the warring parties, are you referring to any firing you heard in

13 that video which preceded the incident?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If the footage is accurate, it is

15 something that happened later, but the video is a compilation --

16 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- it should be afterwards.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Therefore, it doesn't say anything about any

19 exchange of fire before that.

20 Second, if you hear shots being fired and if you conclude that

21 there is an exchange of fire, what is there that makes you so sure that

22 it's a fire exchange between the warring parties and not any other party?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't say there was an exchange

24 of fire. I did not analyse the footage. I just wanted to show that

25 something could be heard --

Page 40833

1 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Witness, I stop

2 you there and take to you paragraph 204. You are describing that in the

3 video that what you hear and what you see, and you said which indicates

4 that fighting was going on at the time and that fire was being exchanged

5 between the warring parties.

6 As far as the time is concerned, you have now confirmed that it

7 must have been after the incident. Now how can you hear if you hear a

8 shot, who fires it, and whether it's from the warring parties?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this paragraph, I only indicate

10 what I could hear on the footage because it seems that there was some --

11 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... and I asked you:

12 How can you hear that the shots you hear are part of an exchange of fire

13 between the warring parties? That's my question.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is only an assumption, but I did

15 not rely on it when analysing the case. It was just a statement --

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

17 Please proceed, Ms. Edgerton.

18 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you. I think can I deal with one more

19 incident hopefully before the break very quickly.

20 Q. It's F-3 in Dobrinja, Mr. Poparic. And just -- and the way I

21 want to deal with that is this: In your report, you specifically

22 accepted that SRK forces manned and maintained observation posts in the

23 tower of the church in Veljine, and that was based on a document I showed

24 you during your cross-examination in Karadzic and I need to show you the

25 document now.

Page 40834

1 MS. EDGERTON: It's P2389.

2 Q. So two-thirds of the way down the first page in your language -

3 and by the way, this is an Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina

4 intelligence report of the 5th Motorised Battalion dated 2 October 199 --

5 pardon me, 5th Motorised Brigade dated 2 October 1993.

6 So about two-thirds of the way down the first page and at the

7 English page 2 at the top of the page, there's a paragraph that says:

8 "The enemy uses the church at Veljine exclusively as an

9 observation post. According to our information till now in the church

10 there are six observers per shift. The observers are armed with snipers

11 and one PAM which is in a well-fortified nest in the church. From the

12 church, fire is rarely building opened, and when it is opened, a sniper

13 with a silencer are used."

14 These are exactly the types of weapons you identified last week

15 as being able to target the victim in this incident, aren't they?

16 A. It could have, but it's not the only weapon that could have fired

17 that particular shot. I didn't say it was the only one.

18 Q. No, I didn't ask you about these being the only ones, but you've

19 answered the question now. Thank you.

20 MS. EDGERTON: And I think that takes us to the break,

21 Your Honour.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'd like to see you back in 20 minutes from

23 now. You may follow the usher.

24 [The witness stands down]

25 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton, you promised that you would give us a

Page 40835

1 better insight in the time you would still need by the end of this

2 session.

3 MS. EDGERTON: Yes. And I think, Your Honours, subject to the

4 answers, I might need 20 minutes more.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Twenty minutes more than you had asked -- then you

6 announced earlier, that's 20 minutes more now or 20 minutes above the

7 seven and a half hours?

8 MS. EDGERTON: Twenty minutes from now.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Now.

10 MS. EDGERTON: From when we resume, Your Honours.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Then one second.

12 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

13 [Trial Chamber confers]

14 JUDGE ORIE: You've used seven hours and nine minutes, so

15 20 minutes would bring you to seven hours, 29 minutes. You have one

16 minute left, Ms. Edgerton, at the end. That's --

17 Mr. Lukic, please also keep in mind the guidance I earlier gave

18 as to what should be covered and what should not be covered with this

19 expert witness. And unless you have anything to add at this moment,

20 we'll later hear from you how much time you really need. As I said

21 before, the five hours are, as matters stand now, not accepted yet by the

22 Chamber.

23 We take a break and resume at quarter past 12.00.

24 --- Recess taken at 11.56 a.m.

25 --- On resuming at 12.17 p.m.

Page 40836

1 JUDGE ORIE: Before the witness enters the courtroom, Mr. Lukic,

2 the Chamber was informed that you proposed a changed schedule.

3 Now, as far as the next witness is concerned, of course, if there

4 are any personal matters which are needed, but at the same time we'd

5 rather not interrupt at this moment the evidence of Mr. Poparic; we'd

6 like to finish that.

7 Now, we don't know -- for how much time was the necessary witness

8 scheduled?

9 MR. LUKIC: He should go tomorrow and Monday because he --

10 JUDGE ORIE: Tomorrow and Monday. And when is the -- I do

11 understand that there is some surgery within the? Family.

12 MR. LUKIC: Tuesday.

13 JUDGE ORIE: When is that? That's Tuesday. So --

14 MR. LUKIC: Or we return home and bring him at some other time.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And if you would have another witness, then --

16 but you may not have him available. We also could consider to see

17 whether -- no, I can't extend the session tomorrow because I have

18 commitments elsewhere, but perhaps with two Judges the -- perhaps is a

19 possibility because -- I'm speaking too quickly. We have considered your

20 request for how much time you'd need for Mr. Poparic. I make a few

21 observations.

22 First of all, Ms. Edgerton now remains within the time-limits she

23 stated before, so that is not a reason anymore. Second, you have

24 presented a report together with Witness Subotic which in many respect,

25 really, is beyond what the expertise can tell. Third, Ms. Edgerton took

Page 40837

1 quite some time to take the witness back to everything he had changed or

2 thus corrected in his Karadzic testimony, and that's of course something

3 you should have done before. That's not for cross-examination. If the

4 witness states or testifies in slightly different way in another case,

5 you should anticipate that; and you can't just blame the Prosecution for

6 taking a lot of time of that.

7 And then we had the general problem which is going beyond the

8 expertise triggers of course also the Prosecution to respond, but again,

9 the basic problem there lies within your expert not being able to limit

10 himself to what his expertise tells him. Evaluating statements of other

11 witnesses is really not something such a witness should do. A lot of

12 assumptions. There are many reasons. For those reasons we have

13 considered your request and we consider that you should finish your

14 re-examination tomorrow in the second session, which still leaves you --

15 MR. LUKIC: I really cannot, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Well, we impose these limits to you. There is some

17 time left today and then you have approximately three hours for

18 re-examination. And again, I gave you the reasons why this Chamber

19 considers it appropriate to not grant you full five hours you are asking

20 for.

21 We'll now continue. Ms. Edgerton, your 20 minutes will start

22 soon, that is when the witness enters the courtroom.

23 [Trial Chamber confers]

24 JUDGE ORIE: To the extent I was unclear - and my colleagues have

25 drawn my attention to it - I said you have presented a report where I

Page 40838

1 referred to the Defence, a report for this witness, which I left out, for

2 Mr. Poparic, together with Ms. Subotic. I'm not at this moment referring

3 to the third author, but that's what I meant to say.

4 [The witness takes the stand]

5 JUDGE ORIE: And then, of course, I don't know exactly how much

6 time is scheduled for the next witness but whether we could deal with it

7 tomorrow in an extended session is still to be seen, although I couldn't

8 go beyond quarter past 2.00 but we'll see whether there's any possibility

9 to perhaps even finalize the testimony of the next witness already by

10 tomorrow.

11 Mr. Poparic, we'll continue.

12 Ms. Edgerton, I'll have a close look at the clock.

13 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.

14 Q. Mr. Poparic, I want to go back to your -- the outset of your

15 examination-in-chief where referring to video-clips taken by

16 Mr. Van Lynden of a burning building in Cengic Vila in December 1992 you

17 made some statements. And in respect of that incident or evidence of

18 Mr. Van Lynden you said at T.40373, lines 11 to 14, and it's referring to

19 the question whether tracer bullets shown in a video were incoming or

20 outgoing from the burning building. You said:

21 "Now, had this bullet been fired from any position of the Army of

22 Republika Srpska Grbavica, I don't know where, it couldn't have had this

23 kind of trajectory. The angle would have been much smaller. It would

24 have almost -- it would -- it would almost have a straight trajectory in

25 relation to the building."

Page 40839

1 And then you are said at 40373, lines 18 to 20:

2 "And any bullet that would be fired at this building would

3 basically hit this building at a 90-degrees angle."

4 So when you say "straight trajectory" in relation to the building

5 you mean horizontal; right?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. So if that building had been shot at from VRS-held territory, the

8 trajectory of the bullet would have been horizontal; that's what you're

9 saying?

10 A. No, it can't be absolutely horizontal. It would be a smaller

11 angle. In fact, if we are talking -- we have to look at it at a -- in a

12 vertical plane. In the horizontal plane, it's at an angle relative to

13 the axis of the building. If we are looking at the front of the

14 building, in the horizontal plane, it would be an angle between the

15 trajectory and the building; and in the vertical plane, it would be the

16 angle at which it impacts the building.

17 Q. I'd like to you have a look at some still frames we've made of

18 that same building, and they're referred -- or the film from which

19 they're made is referred to in Mr. Van Lynden's statement, P66, at

20 paragraph 126, English page 33. And he says that this film is film taken

21 from the side of the building that we saw in the clips you were looking

22 at in your examination-in-chief by a cameraman from the Holiday Inn. And

23 we're going to play those now slowly.

24 MS. EDGERTON: 65 ter number 33380, 56 still frames from

25 V000-3772. And we're going to show that, actually, from our terminal

Page 40840

1 from time code, I should say, 1:48 to 1:58. So we're going to show them

2 slowly as we can, one after the other.

3 [Prosecution counsel confer]

4 [Video-clip played]

5 MS. EDGERTON: Stop right there.

6 Q. Have a look at this image.

7 MS. EDGERTON: We're at number -- I'll put the number of the

8 still on the record in a minute when we can find it.

9 And go further slowly, please.

10 [Video-clip played]

11 MS. EDGERTON: Stop right there. Keep going.

12 [Video-clip played]

13 MS. EDGERTON:

14 Q. So, Mr. Poparic, what we saw was a bullet coming in at a

15 horizontal trajectory. Did you see it too?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. So, according to your own theory, that means the bullet is coming

18 in from Serb-held positions; that's what you said?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Thank you.

21 MS. EDGERTON: Could I have these frames as a Prosecution

22 Exhibit, please.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Could I again look at them. Could you just go ten

24 frames back and then slowly move again so that ...

25 [Video-clip played]

Page 40841

1 JUDGE ORIE: I think we needed to go further back. Yes.

2 [Video-clip played]

3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Stop.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps even a tiny little bit further back one or

5 two.

6 [Video-clip played]

7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. It's tendered.

8 Mr. Lukic, no problems? I think it's a novelty to have the

9 stills in a row, but it has not been released and -- 33380 is not yet

10 uploaded or released in e-court if I understand Madam Registrar well.

11 Madam Registrar, could you already reserve a number.

12 THE REGISTRAR: 33380 receives Exhibit Number P7616,

13 Your Honours.

14 JUDGE ORIE: And I understand that it's now uploaded and

15 released.

16 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

17 JUDGE ORIE: It is. Therefore, P7616 is admitted into evidence.

18 Please proceed.

19 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.

20 Q. Now just for one last incident, I want to go over to one of the

21 things you dealt with in your Annex 6, and it's your incident number 2

22 involving 120-millimetre mortar shelling next to a building that housed a

23 temporary school on 9 November 1993, killing the teacher, Fata Gudic

24 [phoen], and three students all under the age of 10 and injuring a number

25 of other people. I would like us to have look at 65 ter number 33379,

Page 40842

1 please, which is the investigative reports -- one of the investigative

2 reports created around that day. And, for the record, it's the same as

3 1D05670, which is referred to in -- pardon me. I have the number wrong.

4 It's the same as 1D00742, which is referred to in footnote 530.

5 So --

6 JUDGE ORIE: You said Annex 6, I think you said. Could you give

7 an e-court page where to start approximately so that ...

8 MS. EDGERTON: In a minute.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then we'll wait for that. Please proceed.

10 MS. EDGERTON: I have it at English page 324 -- no.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

12 MS. EDGERTON: I stand corrected. I correct myself. English

13 page 323.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

15 MS. EDGERTON: So this report is the same as 1D00742 but it's

16 been scanned in colour.

17 Q. Now, you must recognise this report then since you referred to it

18 and you used some of the pictures from it in your own report; right?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And it's from image 16 in your report that you ascertain the

21 azimuth -- actually, let me go back for a minute.

22 As part of this report, you would have reviewed witness -- you

23 would have reviewed witness statements, right, witness statements

24 compiled related to this shelling?

25 A. Correct.

Page 40843

1 Q. That -- that would include the statements of people who heard the

2 shell being fired from Nedzarici; right?

3 A. Correct.

4 Q. Now, from your report, image 16, and that's on English

5 page 328 --

6 JUDGE ORIE: I think it's 329, but --

7 MS. EDGERTON: Pardon me. It is indeed.

8 Q. It's from this image of the shell that hit Trg Zavnobih on this

9 day; right?

10 A. Correct.

11 Q. Now I'd like to go to 65 ter number 33148. It's another police

12 report dated November 1993, the day after the incident, with more and

13 additional photo documentation.

14 MS. EDGERTON: Can we go, please, to page 12 in B/C/S and page 11

15 in B/C/S.

16 Q. And there's a translation thing I'd like you to correct,

17 Mr. Poparic, so if you could just -- if my friend Mr. Registrar could

18 enlarge the subject line under the heading "Foto Dokumentacija," please,

19 and maybe you need to make it a little bit bigger. Thank you.

20 It's correct, isn't it, that this is a photo documentation file

21 for a shelling at a place called Trg Rade Koncara dated 9 November 1993;

22 right?

23 A. That is written on this cover page.

24 Q. Now can we go to the next page, I think in both languages,

25 page 13 in B/C/S and page 11 in English, it should be.

Page 40844

1 So, Mr. Poparic, this image that we see now is the same thing as

2 image 11 in your report, isn't it?

3 A. It's on image 11, yes.

4 Q. Let's go now again over to page 14, the next page in B/C/S. So

5 the image we see here is identical to your image 16.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. So you've ascertained the azimuth of the shell that hit the

8 school and killed the school teacher and three children using a

9 photograph of the wrong shell crater; that's what this shows?

10 A. No.

11 Q. No, Mr. Poparic, the caption on your image 16 says:

12 "The place where shell exploded at the corner of the building at

13 Trg Zavnobih."

14 That's not what this shell -- what this picture is of. Can you

15 see that or not?

16 A. I don't understand. Picture 16 and this picture are the same.

17 Q. Thank you.

18 MS. EDGERTON: Could I have this -- these two investigative

19 files, please, admitted as Prosecution Exhibits, that would be 33148 and

20 33379.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, before we do that --

22 Witness, the issue apparently is that Ms. Edgerton puts to you

23 that you used a picture from another incident to establish the angle of

24 descent in the incident you're describing in your report. Any comment to

25 that? Or do you think what you described here is the same as what the

Page 40845

1 investigative -- the photographic documentation is about?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have an explanation. The

3 photograph that I put in the report which is better quality was received

4 from KD477 [as interpreted]. It was taken at the Zavnobih Square and I

5 had a certain photo documentation file about the Zavnobih Square and they

6 are consistent, these pictures, with this one here. It says there that

7 there were pictures of the Rade Koncara Square which I didn't have but

8 these here show that this is it the Zavnobih Square, as suggested by the

9 witness.

10 JUDGE ORIE: A very long answer. Is the incident you're

11 describing in this report -- in your report, which shows image 16 as

12 basis for your assertion of the angle of descent, is that the same

13 incident as the photographic documentation deals with? That's the simple

14 question.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These are the same photographs, but

16 I'm --

17 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... didn't ask you.

18 We can see that these are the same photographs.

19 Is it the same incident you're describing in this report where

20 you take to -- as an illustration image 16, is that the same incident as

21 is dealt with in the photographic documentation? There 's a simple yes

22 or no, I would say.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's not simple. I deal with this

24 photograph, but I consider it's the incident I put here, not the one

25 that's written there. Over there, it said it's Rade Koncara Square;

Page 40846

1 that's not the incident I'm dealing with. I have evidence that that

2 belongs to the Zavnobih Square.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I'm talking about the incident. So you allow

4 for the possibility that you used image 16 as an illustration of what you

5 deal with there, although it comes from another -- a report related to

6 another incident?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Those are the same photographs. I

8 used that photograph --

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that was not what my question was about.

10 I didn't suggest that they are not the same photographs.

11 Mr. Lukic, if there's any -- any translation.

12 MR. LUKIC: Yes, this is totally -- completely misleading. The

13 same document we were shown page --

14 JUDGE ORIE: One second. One second. One second. Before you

15 start explaining everything, can we do it in the presence of the witness

16 or not?

17 MR. LUKIC: Yes. He just said: I have the evidence that this is

18 for the incident --

19 JUDGE ORIE: -- he talks about the street --

20 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

21 JUDGE ORIE: -- about a place.

22 MR. LUKIC: Yes. That's the -- this is -- those pictures were

23 for that incident, and I will show you in the same document.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Well, if the witness says it's the same

25 incident --

Page 40847

1 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

2 JUDGE ORIE: -- then we'll hear from you in re-examination

3 whether the photographic documentation --

4 MR. LUKIC: -- I don't have time because this is misleading.

5 This is misrepresentation of the evidence --

6 THE INTERPRETER: Speakers are kindly asked not to overlap for

7 purposes of B/C/S interpretation. Thank you.

8 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... certainly start

9 with the most relevant and most important issues. If you say this is

10 misleading, then one --

11 MR. LUKIC: -- one page --

12 JUDGE ORIE: -- that should be one of the first issues you would

13 raise in re-examination --

14 MR. LUKIC: -- Your Honour, just to see one page before the page

15 was shown to us which -- which clarifies everything.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton.

17 MR. LUKIC: So Ms. Edgerton can then explain why she didn't show

18 that page.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton, the Prosecution firmly takes the view

20 that the photographic documentation is about an incident different from

21 the incident described by the witness and illustrated by image 16?

22 MS. EDGERTON: And I think it would be useful or helpful to see

23 if we could have an English translation of the line underneath the

24 photograph that we have on the left-hand side. And --

25 JUDGE ORIE: Well, then show it -- I mean, it's clear, it's clear

Page 40848

1 here are two completely opposing positions.

2 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

3 JUDGE ORIE: You say it's misleading.

4 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton is now certainly aware how important --

6 MR. LUKIC: -- she's jumping to another topic, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton is certainly aware, if she's misleading

8 the witness in this respect, that she'll be heavily criticised by the

9 Chamber. I leave it to that at this moment because you know misleading

10 from whatever side is something that the Chamber accepts. Whether it is

11 or not we'll find out on the basis of what follows, either questioning by

12 Ms. Edgerton or questions put to you, and I think Ms. Edgerton would like

13 to draw your attention to the title under the photograph. I don't know

14 whether you should call that a title but a description beneath the

15 photograph in the photographic documentation.

16 Ms. Edgerton, you may proceed.

17 MS. EDGERTON:

18 Q. Do you know where Rade Koncara Square is in relation to

19 Trg Zavnobih?

20 A. I do.

21 Q. It's about 500 metres away; right?

22 A. Right.

23 Q. So -- and you don't take issue with the fact that there was a

24 shelling on Rade Koncara Street on 9 November -- Rade Koncara Square on

25 9 November 1993, do you?

Page 40849

1 A. I have no such information.

2 Q. So when you made the allegation that police had covered up the

3 fact that there were two shells that landed on Trg Zavnobih, you weren't

4 referring to the shelling on Rade Koncara Street at all; is that what

5 you're saying -- Rade Koncara Square, pardon me?

6 A. I wasn't aware of that.

7 Q. And now going back to your answer to an earlier question which

8 was whether or not you had seen the statements of people who said they

9 heard the shell being fired from Nedzarici, I'd like to ask you this:

10 That would imply these witnesses were involved in the cover-up you're

11 alleging; right?

12 A. No, it is simply the way they perceived it.

13 Q. Well, you allege the police covered up the fact that two shells

14 had landed at Trg Zavnobih and that --

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And that the origin of fire of Nedzarici was incorrect. That

17 would imply -- your allegation of a cover-up implies a conspiracy,

18 doesn't it?

19 A. I wouldn't say it is a conspiracy, but the fact that the other

20 shell was not shown is true.

21 Q. Well, when witnesses and survivors say the shells are fired from

22 Nedzarici, are you saying that they're lying or that they are part of the

23 conspiracy?

24 A. No. No.

25 Q. Irrespective, then, of what you feel their perception is, you

Page 40850

1 chose to disregard that evidence; correct?

2 A. I was guided by the traces. That is the strongest proof for me.

3 I did not neglect anything. I simply analysed the traces as shown to me

4 and the policemen who brought the photographs said they originate from

5 the Zavnobih Square.

6 MS. EDGERTON: So -- no, I think I'll leave at that. I hope,

7 I've tried in my question, given the witness's answers with regard to

8 misunderstandings, I hope I've - for all of us - been able to come to the

9 bottom of that. We've found reports of a shelling 500 metres away on the

10 same day, and the witness now has said that he simply wasn't aware of

11 that.

12 JUDGE ORIE: There's no need to repeat what the witness said.

13 Please. You are done?

14 MS. EDGERTON: Yes.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Then we will -- now, yes.

16 MS. EDGERTON: Oh, just to put on the radar, Your Honours, as

17 discussed and requested, we've had a team working on assembling the

18 investigative files for the incidents we referred to earlier. We have a

19 tentative list here, Your Honours, but in the interests of accuracy, I

20 would just like to take a little bit more time to verify the contents and

21 put it in the format that Your Honours had requested.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll hear from you.

23 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

24 JUDGE ORIE: I interrupted you, Ms. Edgerton, when you tendered

25 two documents, that's 65 ter 33379, which would receive number?

Page 40851

1 THE REGISTRAR: P7617.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.

3 The next one would be 65 ter 33148.

4 THE REGISTRAR: Receives Exhibit Number P7618, Your Honours.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.

6 Mr. Lukic.

7 MR. LUKIC: No, no, don't remove this document from the screen.

8 Put it back. Now it's P7618, please.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

10 MR. LUKIC: First I'll start with page 62 from our transcript

11 where Ms. Edgerton - it's page 62, line 7 - said in her questions:

12 "When witnesses and survivors say the shells," plural, "are fired

13 from Nedzarici ..."

14 So she is talking about plural. Then at page 61, 13, the

15 question was, I quote:

16 "So when you made the allegations that police had covered up the

17 fact that there were two shells that landed on Trg Zavnobih, you were not

18 referring to the shelling on Rade Koncara Square at all, were you?"

19 So obviously there is a plural.

20 In this document that is in front of us now, P7618 -- can we see

21 pages 12 and -- in B/C/S and 11 in English, and that was shown to the

22 witness as cover page for the photographs we saw. It was presented that

23 only should be some translation issue because in English it says

24 "Toncar," in B/C/S it says "Koncar," and this is -- it says "Foto

25 Dokumentacija," so "Photographic Documentation." Can we go back one page

Page 40867

1 MR. TIEGER: Understood. Thank you.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes?

3 Then could the witness be escorted in the courtroom.

4 [The witness takes the stand]

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, please proceed.

6 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

7 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Poparic, you were asked about the incident

8 F-5 of 2nd November 1993. I will now show you a document which is now

9 marked P07592.

10 When you see the photograph, you will remember. It was put to

11 you that you marked the place wrong by 130 metres. I think you had

12 started to answer, but I would like to ask you -- you started to answer

13 at 4085 -- [In English] 40585.

14 [Interpretation] Line 4 and on. And I want to ask you: Why did

15 you believe it was not necessary to change this part of your finding?

16 A. [No interpretation]

17 THE INTERPRETER: The witness's microphone is off.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, perhaps you switch the button so that your

19 microphone is on. Yes.

20 THE WITNESS: Okay.

21 JUDGE ORIE: After so many days in court, you are already able to

22 handle matters without the assistance of the usher.

23 Please proceed.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believed I did not need to change

25 anything because I had conducted the whole analysis precisely from this

Page 40868

1 place up there, and I found later that I really marked in this image, 88,

2 this spot that was 130 metres away, but that's a purely technical error

3 made during the drawing. The entire analysis was made for the upper

4 point that is the real place of the incident.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask here one clarification.

6 I remember that you had these sketches - that's part of your

7 analysis - but that certainly goes from the lower position, not from the

8 higher-up position, isn't t?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct. That's what I said. I

10 said that through a technical error when making the sketch, and I can

11 explain how that functions, how the error could occur. But the entire

12 analysis and the directions that I drew, they applied to the position

13 where the incident really happened. What was shown on the image is a

14 technical error, but I stand by all the assertions that I put in my

15 paper.

16 JUDGE ORIE: That means that from that higher-up point you find

17 exactly the same obstacles in terms of line of sight, et cetera, as you

18 would finds it from the lower point, because the lower point gives a

19 wide, open area, whereas the higher-up point where there is far more --

20 far more houses, et cetera, I have some difficulties in understanding

21 that the outcome would be exactly the same.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Probably not. I did not go to the

23 lower point, but according to the position I conclude that the view would

24 be much broader. The one that I drew here, the one that I marked, I

25 marked it to show the view from the place of the incident. Everything

Page 40869

1 applies to the place of the incident. And by technical error, I marked a

2 spot a bit lower.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

4 MR. LUKIC:

5 Q. [Interpretation] Did you mark this lower spot at this photograph

6 only or in other photographs? Could you just explain how this technical

7 error occurred.

8 A. I worked in a programme call Corel. I upload the photograph and

9 then I apply lines. When all the lines have been applied, I group them,

10 and they become one feature; and then I create a new photograph showing

11 this group of lines. But sometimes it happens when you first draw these

12 lines if the mouse moves a little, the lines also move, and I

13 inadvertently put them in this point, because when you move one, you move

14 all of them together. That's the only way I can think this mistake could

15 have happened.

16 Q. Thank you. In the Karadzic case, what mistake was pointed out to

17 you? Do you remember what was put to you today?

18 A. The discussion was not about this place; if that had been

19 noticed, I would have corrected it. The only objection was to the width

20 of the field. I said at the time that to me it is not crucial. I can

21 agree, it could be a little wider or a little narrower, as you wish,

22 because the point of this image is not to show the width of the field of

23 vision. It was just to show the two sides, the two warring sides, from

24 which this place is visible. That's why I didn't correct anything in

25 this photograph because, in my view, it doesn't change anything to what

Page 40870

1 has been done.

2 Q. Let us look at your report now, D01330.

3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We'll need only the English version,

4 because we need one photograph.

5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Which page?

6 MR. LUKIC: We need page 123, please, in English. And if we

7 could enlarge this photo from this page.

8 Q. [Interpretation] This is a photograph from the video made by the

9 OTP investigator, Barry Hogan. On this photograph, could you please mark

10 the territory controlled by the BH Army, visible from this place, of

11 course.

12 A. Across here. You see this lamppost and perhaps a bit further, in

13 this direction.

14 Q. Put number 1, please.

15 A. Accidentally it looks like 4. Can it stay 4?

16 Q. We'll say --

17 JUDGE ORIE: Could the usher assist. We still need the

18 assistance of the usher now and then, and then you make it a 1.

19 THE WITNESS: [Marks]

20 MR. LUKIC: If the usher can change the colour, please.

21 Q. [Interpretation] Could you now mark the territory under the

22 control of the VRS.

23 A. It would be here, going further.

24 Q. And put number 2 now, please.

25 A. [Marks]

Page 40871

1 Q. Thank you.

2 MR. LUKIC: Can we save this image, please, as next Defence

3 exhibit.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

5 THE REGISTRAR: Image 85 on page 123 of document D1330 marked by

6 the witness receives Exhibit Number D1339, Your Honours.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.

8 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

9 Can we now see from the same document next photo, it's on page

10 125, please. So we need upper, upper picture, or image.

11 Q. [Interpretation] On this photograph, Mr. Poparic, can you explain

12 in what way you established the territory from which the place of the

13 incident is visible?

14 A. At the time when I was there, a lot of buildings have been built

15 that are very specific, very characteristic, so I could use them. This

16 photograph is not the best. In the previous one, we could see the left

17 side too, and we can see there is a good view to the target. And this

18 one is made closer to the place of the incident, or maybe it was zoomed

19 closer. In the previous photograph, we saw that it is a broad area

20 where, in the distance, you can see the buildings, and based on the

21 angle, I drew the lines roughly. And also using the available separation

22 line from the 1995 map, I drew these lines of separation and thus

23 obtained a clear picture what was on the VRS side, what was on the ABH

24 side, and which zone was neutral. That was the method I used.

25 Q. Speaking of which, it's not among the questions, but when you

Page 40872

1 mentioned this 1995 map and the incident was in 1993, did you have any

2 way of determining how often separation lines shifted in Sarajevo?

3 A. According to the documents available to me, there were no major

4 shifts, but when you get down onto the ground, you are able to see where

5 it could have been because there are rail tracks and roads which

6 represent certain restrictions. That's a natural position of the

7 separation line, and the separation line follows this natural boundary.

8 Q. Thank you.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Irrespective of whether the lines changed, could the

10 witness specify which 1995 map he used to mark that photograph?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Footnote 206, working map of the

12 chief of division of the land forces, 08282.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, is that in evidence before us?

14 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

15 JUDGE ORIE: That working map, is that in evidence?

16 MS. EDGERTON: It is. I can give you a number in just a moment.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please.

18 [Trial Chamber confers]

19 JUDGE ORIE: Meanwhile proceed, Mr. Lukic.

20 Yes, Ms. Edgerton.

21 MS. EDGERTON: I think P2952, page 1.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

23 Please proceed.

24 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

25 Can we see ...

Page 40873

1 [Defence counsel confer]

2 MR. LUKIC: Can we see P01130, please. Only English version.

3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It's on the screen.

4 MR. LUKIC: P. This is P.

5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Sorry, you're right.

6 MR. LUKIC: It's very similar number, Mr. Van der Weijden's

7 report and this report.

8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You're absolutely right.

9 MS. EDGERTON: I'm sorry, but we do have a public, redacted

10 version of that report so that this could be broadcast. It's, as I've

11 mentioned before, 65 ter number 28541B.

12 JUDGE ORIE: If we would use that, Mr. Lukic, then --

13 MR. LUKIC: I will use only one image from that.

14 JUDGE ORIE: If it's just image, then I think there should be

15 no -- I don't know what image but ...

16 MR. LUKIC: It's image on page 32, so if you want to check. I

17 don't think that we have to go to the private session because of this

18 image.

19 JUDGE ORIE: I haven't looked at it. In general I would suggest

20 to the parties that not to take any risk in this respect, but if it's

21 just a picture, nothing more, then we could proceed.

22 MR. LUKIC: So we need page 32 in English version. Yeah. And

23 maybe just enlarge the picture without the text.

24 MS. EDGERTON: And this can be broadcast. It's not been redacted

25 out of the public version.

Page 40874

1 JUDGE ORIE: So then let's proceed.

2 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

3 Q. [Interpretation] Are you familiar with this photograph,

4 Mr. Poparic?

5 A. Yes, I am. It comes from Mr. Weijden's report.

6 Q. What can we see in it? What place is this?

7 A. This is the place next to the fence we saw on the previous

8 picture seen just below the place of the incident, and the view is

9 towards the VRS positions. We can also see some very specific features

10 and buildings which assisted me in determining the direction. This is

11 not the view from the place of the incident, just so as not to get

12 confused.

13 Q. That was going to be my next question. I have to go to another

14 document, but could you please remember the angle.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Next we need to have a look at P7593. Do you know what we can

17 see on the upper photograph?

18 A. The upper photograph is mine, and below it is

19 Mr. Van der Weijden's photograph. That's how I understand it.

20 Q. We can see that Mr. Van der Weijden arrived at a much smaller

21 angle than the one you marked, where we can see both VRS and ABiH

22 positions?

23 A. That is partially correct. Mr. Weijden marked the area visible

24 from VRS positions, and the previous picture showed that. We see the

25 angles of 57 and 37 being the bearing taken from the point in the field,

Page 40875

1 and next to the fence is the 217 degrees angle as well as 237 degrees.

2 So the difference is 180 degrees. He marked these directions which

3 assisted him in determining the visibility angle from VRS positions. He

4 did not specify whether any of it could be seen from ABiH-controlled

5 territory.

6 Q. Would this angle have been the same had it been measured from the

7 place where Ms. Nafa Taric was standing when she was injured?

8 A. There would be a small difference because the place of the

9 incident is between 10 and 15 metres away from that wall, and there is a

10 small incline. The difference would be small but we wouldn't be able to

11 notice it on the image because it would 1 to 2 degrees. In -- basically,

12 it isn't that important because it is established that there was

13 visibility from VRS positions.

14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I put one question to the witness, although

15 we are approaching the end of today's hearing.

16 The upper map and the markings on it, it's based on a wrong

17 location; is that true? Do I understand your testimony previously today

18 correctly?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I claim that that the red,

20 blue, and purple lines were created based on what can be seen from the

21 place of incident with -- or due to a technical error, they were drawn in

22 the image slightly below that location. I think my finding --

23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Poparic, the yellow box on top of that map

24 puts the incident at a place where you previously said that was done by

25 mistake; correct?

Page 40876

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. If you look at the photograph

2 with the lines shown of 135 metres, you could see that the two buildings

3 are very similar in shape; and by mistake, I simply moved it slightly

4 downward.

5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This was not my question, but you agree that the

6 point in the yellow box is the wrong location? You agreed to that.

7 Thank you.

8 JUDGE ORIE: I have another --

9 When did you find out --

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, correct, no problem.

11 JUDGE ORIE: When did you find out that it was the wrong

12 location?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When Ms. Edgerton saw that. I

14 simply didn't check because I was quite certain I marked it in the right

15 spot. In my testimony in Karadzic, no one pointed out that mistake to

16 me. Therefore, I did not realise there was anything wrong.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Then I'm puzzled by one of your previous answers

18 because you said: I plotted it wrongly but I had -- I knew the right

19 place, and all my analysis is on the basis of the place where that person

20 stood. If you only found out here in court that you took the wrong

21 place, how could you possibly have based your analysis on the right

22 place, which you didn't even know until two days ago? I'm puzzled by

23 that.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We were speaking at cross-purposes.

25 I saw here that the mesh I created with the lines was placed next to the

Page 40877

1 building in the yellow box, but that is not the right location; however,

2 all of the values I calculated were analysed from the location itself --

3 JUDGE ORIE: But as you said before, it had -- and you started

4 even explaining it again, that you took the wrong place because that

5 house looked that much like the one you had seen on the photographs and,

6 therefore, I'm -- you say you plotted it wrongly, you found that out only

7 a couple of days ago, you have explained to us that you took the wrong

8 position because the house looked so similar, and now you're telling us

9 that the whole analysis was based on the accurate place, the right place,

10 and that it was only a technical error in your report that you drew the

11 lines through a computer programme slightly wrongly. I'm -- I'm lost, to

12 be quite honest.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. Perhaps we misunderstand

14 each other. I explained how the error was created. When I drew the

15 lines from the place where the incident took place, in the computer

16 programme I grouped the lines as a single object, and then can you move

17 them all together, without changing a thing.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes --

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] By error, I moved them and when I

20 corrected it, I also did not correct it to the right position, but the

21 angles were determined on the basis of what I established on the spot.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you have not addressed my concern,

23 unfortunately, but it's time to adjourn for the day.

24 Witness, we'd like to see you back tomorrow morning at 9.30 in

25 the morning in this same courtroom, and we expect to conclude your

Page 40878

1 testimony tomorrow. I again instruct you that you should not speak or

2 communicate in whatever way with whomever about your testimony, whether

3 already given or still to be given. You may now follow the usher.

4 [The witness stands down]

5 JUDGE ORIE: We adjourn for the day, and we resume tomorrow,

6 Thursday, the 5th of November, 9.30 in the morning, in this same

7 courtroom, I.

8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.20 p.m.,

9 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 5th day of

10 November, 2015, at 9.30 a.m.