|
Content
/ Colormap • Page 3924 • {1/112} (1)Wednesday, 31 May 2000 [Open session] [The witness entered court]
--- Upon commencing at 9.42 a.m. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Good morning, ladies and gentlemen; good morning, technical booth; good morning, interpreters; good morning, legal assistants, court reporters; good morning, Mr. Harmon, (10)Mr. Cayley, Mr. McCloskey; good morning, Mr. Petrusic, Mr. Visnjic. Good morning to the expert. Good morning, Dr. Clark, have you had a good rest? THE WITNESS: Yes. Thank you very much. (15) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well. We're going to resume our hearing. I should like to remind you, Mr. Clark, that you are continuing to testify under oath, and you're going to continue to answer questions put to you by Mr. Cayley. (20)Mr. Cayley, you have the floor. MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning, Your Honours; good morning, Defence counsel. WITNESS: JOHN CLARK [Resumed] • EXAMINED by Mr. Cayley: [Cont'd] (25)
• Q.: Dr. Clark, just to remind you what I said
• A.: Yes, I do. • Q.: How many bodies and body parts, Dr. Clark, were found or were recovered and presented to you from that site? (15) • A.: Fifty-five bodies and two small body parts. • Q.: Dr. Clark, in life, what kind of people were they?
• A.: These were people, again, with a wide age
range. The estimate ranges potentially as young as 13,
(20)potentially as old at 85 or even older. Most of them
appeared to be over the age of 25. As far as we could
tell, all were male.
They appear to be a reasonably fit
population. One person had an old fracture of his leg,
(25)and somebody -- another one an old injury of his right
• Q.: What was the cause of death in the majority (5)of the cases from this site? • A.: Again, the majority of people died from gunshot wounds. • Q.: Was there any other evidence concerning any other weapons that might have been used? (10) • A.: There was, interestingly. The bulk of the people who had been shot appeared to have been shot by high-velocity rifles, as in Kozluk, but in one person, the hole -- the wound in the bone appeared -- it suggested to us possibly the use of a handgun, and in (15)five cases there was clear evidence of shotgun pellets in the bodies. • Q.: If you could place Exhibit 246. This was something of particular interest from this site, and if you could describe to the Judges your findings in (20)respect of this particular body.
• A.: There were two men who had recent injuries to
them, and I'm meaning injuries possibly in the few days
before the death. These were both men with gunshot
injuries to the legs, and we could tell that they
(25)hadn't occurred right at the time of death because they
• Q.: Thank you, Dr. Clark. If you'd place the (10)next exhibit on the ELMO, which I think is a close-up shot of the same. • A.: Yes. This is just a close-up shot in amongst the bandages, just to show the gunshot wound in his leg. This body was fairly well preserved. There was (15)skin and some soft tissue, so it was still possible to see a hole in the skin. • Q.: Now, Dr. Clark, if you could place Exhibit 248. I think the next three photographs demonstrate some of the classical injuries that you (20)observed.
• A.: This is a photograph of the back of a skull
with two bullet holes in the back of it.
Interestingly, these do not have the typical
pattern of high-velocity weapons with the shattering,
(25)so this may well have been a handgun injury. The other
MR. CAYLEY: Just for purposes of the record, (10)when Dr. Clark was referring to a bullet injury to a rib, that is Prosecutor's Exhibit 249, and the injury to the thigh bone is Prosecutor's Exhibit 250. • Q.: Dr. Clark, was there any evidence that suggested that these individuals had suffered injury (15)other than gunshot injury before death? • A.: Again, as in Kozluk, there were fractures of ribs, which could well have been crushing injuries in the grave with bodies being moved about. There were other fractures of the face and some of the other (20)bones, which could well have been from blows from a weapon or kicking. But as I explained yesterday, it's always difficult to prove these, but that possibility certainly does exist.
• Q.: If you could just place page 16, which is, I
(25)think, the summary of your findings, onto the ELMO. If
• A.: The screen is not on. My screen is not on, (5)so -- it's just easier to read than stretching over. • Q.: Of course. • A.: So this is a summary of the findings from the Nova Kasaba site. The site had four graves, individual graves, containing a total of 55 bodies and body (10)parts. Most of them were in just two graves. The victims were all male, and they ranged in age from 13 to 85, or potentially from 13 to 85. There were gunshot injuries in 87 per cent of the bodies, with the average number of shots per person being 2.7. The (15)highest proportion of the shots was to the trunk, with the head and legs next. Two people had bandaged wounds, suggestive of gunshot injuries suffered some time before. And there was evidence of shotgun pellets in five bodies, possibly from a gun discharged into the (20)grave after death.
• Q.: Thank you, Dr. Clark. If you could now turn
to page 17 of your report, which concerns the bodies
recovered from the sites at Konjevic Polje.
How many bodies were presented to you and
(25)your colleagues for examination from this site?
• Q.: Dr. Clark, what kind of people were these in life? (5) • A.: These -- the age range appeared to be from about 15 to 65, and out of the whole season, we had one female victim here. All the rest appeared to be male, but there's one very definite female victim. • Q.: Now, one matter of interest, if you could (10)place the next exhibit onto the ELMO. Could you explain to the Judges, sir, what this represents? • A.: Better that way. This is a makeshift stretcher, one of a number which were found in the grave, and it's just pieces of wood, branches, with (15)blankets tied between them. This very much suggested that it had been used to carry either wounded people or dead bodies and, presumably, had then been put into the grave, tossed into the grave, afterwards. • Q.: What was the most significant injury amongst (20)all of the bodies that you observed from this site? • A.: All of these people had been shot, and the commonest site where they were shot was the trunk. • Q.: What kind of weapon had been used?
• A.: These all appeared to be a high-velocity
(25)rifle weapon.
• A.: This is a very typical gunshot injury to the head just above and behind the right ear. So the front of the skull here, and the ear is round about here. (5)And here is a very typical entrance bullet hole, again with the fracturing going all over the skull. • Q.: Now, you stated a moment ago in your evidence that there was a case of a female, a female body found in this grave. Can you describe to the Judges your (10)findings in respect of that body?
• A.: This was an interesting case in many ways,
and it's a good example of the difficulties we had in
establishing cause of death in some people.
This was a woman who we estimated was aged
(15)anywhere between 16 and 30, and she had been shot twice
in the left leg. One of these was through the hip.
This is the left femur
[indicates], this is the part
that joins onto the pelvis
[indicates], and you can see
how the bone here is shattered and a bullet has gone
(20)through that. So she had been shot once in the left
hip and once just below the knee.
We could not prove any other injuries to her
body, let alone any other gunshot injuries. There was
two fractured ribs, but they didn't appear to be
(25)typical of gunshot injuries.
• Q.: Is it possible that she was placed alive and injured into the grave and suffocated? (10) • A.: That's entirely possible, yes. • Q.: Thank you, Dr. Clark. If you could place page 19 of your report onto the ELMO, which neatly describes your summary findings. MR. CAYLEY: Just for the purposes of the (15)record, the last exhibit that the witness was referring to is Prosecutor's Exhibit 253. • A.: This was a small site of two graves some distance apart, between them containing 12 bodies. One person from grave 1 was female, the only one from any (20)of the sites, and that's including Kozluk and the other sites we're discussing. There were gunshots in everyone, with three being the average number of shots to them. Most injuries were to the trunk, followed by the legs and the head. (25)
MR. CAYLEY:
• A.: We had 90 bodies and an additional 154 body parts. This was felt by the anthropologists to give a minimum number of individuals of 147, although I'm just taking this initially from the report. They may well (10)have a slightly more accurate figure now; I don't know. But it must be around about that, that number. • Q.: What kinds of people were they in life? • A.: These were again apparently a relatively healthy population. Nobody had any disabilities or (15)physical deformities. A wide age range again, potentially from 12 to 71, although one grave in particular, GL-05, had a preponderance of young people, with 46 per cent of the bodies there under the age of 24. All were male, as far as we could tell. (20) • Q.: Now, you state in your report, and indeed the Judges have already heard, that these sites or at least some of them had been extensively robbed? • A.: Yes, that's right. • Q.: Did that affect your work at all? (25)
• A.: Yes. It meant that bodies had been disturbed
• Q.: What was the most preponderant cause of death of the bodies that were examined by you and your (5)colleagues from this site? • A.: Once again, gunshot injuries was the commonest cause of death. • Q.: From what type of weapon? • A.: High-velocity rifles. (10) • Q.: Where were the majority of these individuals shot, what part of their body?
• A.: Well, it varied. The largest proportion was
to the trunk. Over 50 per cent of the victims had
gunshot injuries to the trunk. Next commonest was the
(15)head, and then the legs and the arms. There was one
particular pattern that emerged from the graves, and
this again was GL-05. This was the grave with the
preponderance of young men in it. There was a very
typical pattern of injury in these people of a gunshot
(20)injury to the back, to the middle of the spine.
Sometimes -- in a lot of cases that have the only
injury. In other -- some of the victims there were
additional shots perhaps to the head, but this was a
very repetitive injury and a constant finding of
(25)shattered bones in the middle of the spine.
(5) • A.: This was very much with the aid of the anthropologists, of course. This is a very good example. This is an upper arm bone. This is the top of the bone which goes into the shoulder. And quite apart from a injury at the lower end, if we ignore (10)that, this is the important part here. It shows that the very top of the bone is not completely joined to the bit just below it. And this is a sign of a young person, probably somebody no older than 17. So the person is still growing. After about this age, these (15)two parts were joined together. So the fact that they are still separate indicates that this is a young person. And this was a common finding in many of these bodies. MR. CAYLEY: Just so the record is clear, (20)Dr. Clark was referring to the extreme left-hand side of the photograph and the bone represented on that Exhibit, on Prosecutor's Exhibit 254.
• Q.: You said also in your evidence, Dr. Clark,
that a very common injury that you found was a gunshot
(25)injury from the back to the spine. I think there are a
• A.: Yes. The easiest way to show this is probably that way. This is the -- I wonder if the camera would (5)come out, if it panned out a bit. Essentially, what we're showing here is the spine coming down here, and this is the other part here. And in the middle of it here are at least two bones of the spine in small pieces, completely (10)shattered. And the ribs on either side, they're also partly broken as well. So this area here. Imagine this is the spine going down here, and it is shattered in the middle of it. I have -- this is typical of another case, (15)one of the bones in the spine, and this is part of the damage here. The spine is a very sturdy bone so it takes a lot of energy to fracture these bones, but this is part of the disruption here. • Q.: Dr. Clark, are these photographs and your (20)findings consistent with individuals being shot at from behind at fairly close range? • A.: Yes, they would be.
• Q.: Now, I think finally in this grave, the
bodies that were recovered that you and your colleagues
(25)examined, you found evidence of other forms of injury
(5)
• A.: Yes. Perhaps just before we do that, just to
say that there were a number of fractures of the skull
and some of the long bones, that's the legs and the arm
bones, which suggested perhaps kicking, stamping, or
blows from a heavy weapon.
(10)In addition to that, there were two cases
with very interesting injuries. These were injuries in
the skull. You can see the face here, and you have
this almost rectangular defect or hole in the side of
the skull which is not typical of gunshot injury and is
(15)much more suggestive of something with that relative
shape penetrating into the skull.
An even better example, perhaps, is this case
here, which shows a clear defect in the top of the
skull. He had another one at the back on the -- I
(20)think it was the left side of the skull. So there were
two like that. And that suggested very much to me that
some pointed object like a very firm blade, perhaps, or
an end of a crowbar or something of that shape had been
pushed into the skull.
(25)In these two -- well, this individual
(5) MR. CAYLEY: And for the sake of the record, Dr. Clark referred, first of all, to Exhibit 258 and then to Exhibit 257. • Q.: Dr. Clark, if you could just place your summary findings on the bodies and body parts recovered (10)and presented to you from Glogova, and again add any comments that might assist the Judges.
• A.: There was just one other injury type that we
haven't really mentioned, and that is that a number of
these bodies had clearly been burned. There was
(15)burning injury on both the clothing and on the bones
themselves. Almost certainly this occurred after
death, but it was a clear indication.
It was also very -- concentrated very much in
GL-05. This is the same grave site as the young men --
(20)as the young man who had been shot in the spine. These
were the ones showing the burning injuries.
This is the summary of the finding from the
Glogova site. It was a large complex site comprising a
number of separate graves, five of which were exhumed
(25)this season, that's 1999. There were a total of 90
(15) • Q.: Finally, Dr. Clark, it has been raised by the Defence with a number of other witnesses as to whether or not these individuals were the victims of combat or some other cause such as summary execution, and bearing in mind the limitations that you've already stated (20)about pathology evidence in this kind of case, could you indicate to the Judges those factors which in your viewpoint against these individuals having suffered these injuries as a result of combat?
• A.: There was certainly nothing to suggest that
(25)these were combat casualties. It is not something that
• Q.: Dr. Clark, one clarification. There's actually a mistake in the transcript. Am I right in (10)saying that in those cases where you could determine the direction of fire, that 77 per cent had been shot in the back or the side of the body? • A.: Yes. • Q.: And 23 per cent had been shot to the front of (15)the body? • A.: Yes. • Q.: Thank you. Sir, do you have anything further to add? • A.: No. (20) MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Dr. Clark. Mr. President, I can now offer the witness for cross-examination.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Thank you
very much, Mr. Cayley.
(25)Dr. Clark, you are now going to be answering
MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Thank you, Mr. President. (5) • CROSS-EXAMINED by Mr. Visnjic: • Q.: Good morning, Dr. Clark. Dr. Clark, during your examination-in-chief, you explained to us the process of post-mortem procedure. Could you tell us the dynamics of that (10)procedure; that is to say, how much work your team did in the course of a day, for example? How many post-mortem findings did your team have in the course of a day, for example? • A.: The average number -- we had at any one time (15)three pathologists in the mortuary. The average number of cases for each pathologist per day was between three and four. So we were seeing perhaps 10 to 12 cases each day. • Q.: During your testimony yesterday, you said (20)that you took parts of the body for DNA analysis? • A.: Yes. • Q.: Which parts did you usually select for this DNA analysis?
• A.: We usually used, where available, the middle
(25)part of the right thigh bone and, if available, a tooth
• Q.: In explaining bone injuries, you said that there were consultations between pathologists and (5)anthropologists. • A.: Yes. • Q.: Which opinion was the dominant one, which one prevailed? • A.: The pathologist. It was his responsibility (10)for the final report, and it was his opinion which prevailed. I have to say there was never usually much conflict between the opinions. • Q.: Was any member of your team in charge of the further identification of the bodies? (15) • A.: Only in the sense that we -- our scenes-of-crime officers, they looked in detail at any documents or any other artefacts taken from the body, which may have assisted further with identification. But we, as pathologists, did no more specific than what (20)has already been mentioned.
• Q.: Bearing in mind the overall conditions under
which you worked and the level of preservation of the
bodies that you did the post-mortems on, were you able
to analyse the positions, possible positions, between
(25)the victims and their attackers?
• Q.: In this connection, I think that my learned (10)colleague Mr. Cayley asked you something. He asked you about a conclusion that with individuals in the grave, there were 0,5 -- I don't remember the percentage. About 70 per cent were hit from the back, and I think that the question was whether that was at a close (15)distance or not. Were you able to determine distance in cases of that kind? • A.: No.
• Q.: In your findings in the report, you say that
one of the elements to ascertain the type of injury,
(20)that you use logic, common sense. On page 3 of your
report, I believe, in paragraph 5, you go on to give us
some exceptions. It is the last paragraph with respect
to the identification of injuries and wounds, the
recognition of the injuries. Can you tell us some of
(25)those exceptions?
• Q.: And in connection with that, could you tell us perhaps -- give us your opinion as to how many (15)individuals could have been hit after being placed in the grave? • A.: Based on that observation, I would have thought no more than a dozen, because it doesn't need to have been necessarily somebody else that the bullet (20)had gone through to lose its energy. It could have been some other object. But whatever, it had clearly, by the time it entered the victim's body, had lost a lot of energy and didn't have enough energy to get out the other side, if you like. (25)
• Q.: Can one of the conclusions be, for example,
(5) • A.: It would have to be a long distance, because these bullets have high velocity over a long distance. I don't know the exact figures, but I would have thought certainly more than 300 metres. • Q.: Thank you. On page 5 of your report -- that (10)is to say, my question is the following: In principle, should you state the causes of death in cases where many parts of the body are missing? What is your opinion on that?
• A.: If there is a part on the body -- even though
(15)large parts are missing, if there's an obviously fatal
injury in that body, I think it would be quite
justified in saying that was the cause of death. For
instance, if all we had was the upper half of a body
with the skull and the trunk, but both legs were
(20)missing, if there's a gunshot wound in the skull,
that's necessarily and inevitably fatal. So it doesn't
matter that the rest of the body is missing. That is
the fatal injury.
The reverse does not apply, however. If all
(25)we found was a gunshot injury to the leg and the skull
(5) • Q.: In the part of your report which speaks about post-mortems in Kozluk, you state that the degree of preservation of the body in the grave -- that is to say, that the preservation of the bodies was different, the degree of that and the degree of decomposition, and (10)you mention several reasons for that. Could one of the reasons be the fact that some bodies were exposed for longer periods of time to the elements, in comparison to the other bodies? • A.: That's possible, yes. (15) • Q.: Could one of the reasons be the fact that some bodies were buried straight away on the spot, whereas others could have been brought from elsewhere and buried? • A.: That's a possibility, if we're speaking about (20)a substantial time period, a time period such that the bodies could -- the decomposition process could develop quickly.
• Q.: In the section on Kozluk in your report, and
with the other graves as well, you make a table giving
(25)the numbers of shots per body, per person.
• Q.: Bearing in mind the state of the bodies during the post-mortems, the number of shots that you mention, is that the least number of possible shots per (5)person? • A.: Yes. This is the shots that we were very sure that this was a gunshot injury. There were other injuries on these bodies which could have been gunshot injuries, but we were not 100 per cent convinced they (10)were, so we didn't count these. So, yes, these are minimum numbers. • Q.: Is it also possible that the projectile passed through the soft tissues without injuring the bone and that is why you did not record that particular (15)injury, because the soft tissues had disintegrated, become decomposed? • A.: Yes, that's entirely possible. • Q.: Bearing in mind your experience, how often is the likelihood of this happening? (20) • A.: Well, there are bones in most parts of the body. The one part of the body which injuries could be reflected without leaving any bony injury would be the abdomen. So we may well have missed some abdominal injuries. (25)
• Q.: This possibility exists if the body is not
• A.: Yes. Yes. • Q.: In your report, you also state that in certain cases, some pathologists considered the cause (5)of death to be undetermined, whereas others, for the same description, thought that the description was sufficient to determine the cause of death. I suppose that that is due to different standards applied. • A.: Yes, that's correct. (10) • Q.: Could you elaborate on that, please. • A.: This was mostly for people who had been shot perhaps in the legs. Some people felt that a gunshot injury to, say the thigh, would necessarily have caused damage to blood vessels and could well have been (15)fatal. Others were a little more cautious and said, "Well, that's not" -- they weren't entirely happy with that, and we just had to go along with that. I think the numbers we're speaking about here are fairly small in that respect, but I think everyone (20)accepted that a gunshot injury to the head, any sign of a gunshot injury to the chest or the trunk or the pelvis was certainly a potentially fatal injury, and it was only with the limb injuries when we had some debate about that. (25)
• Q.: When determining the cause of death, on
(5) • A.: Yes. • Q.: The problem was in the translation. Fifty-five cases. And you also included the possibility of other causes as well. (10) • A.: Yes. • Q.: Is it possible, on the basis of traces on the sublingual bone, to establish knife injuries in the area of the neck?
• A.: I'm not familiar with the term "sublingual
(15)bone," but I presume you're meaning the bones of the
throat, the thyroid cartridge and the hyoid bone
probably. Yes, I understand your question.
Yes. These are bones which don't -- because
these are very fragile bones, these are bones that
(20)don't preserve well, and in the majority of people they
were no longer present. It is possible, if people had
had their throats cut, that you could injure these
bones but certainly by no means invariably. So I
wouldn't count it as -- the absence or presence of
(25)injuries to the bones I wouldn't count as a great
• Q.: My next question is: In view of the global impression that you have about the graves, would you allow for the possibility that some bodies were brought (5)from the outside, from different locations, and buried in individual graves subsequently? In individual cases, could that be a possibility or do you exclude that possibility? • A.: I don't exclude that, no. (10) • Q.: Thank you. In your report, you said that you conducted post-mortems on 292 bodies. On the other hand, Professor Wright, in his report on exhumations in Kozluk in 1999, on page 12, says that 291 bodies were exhumed. Is there an explanation for the difference? (15)
• A.: There could be. One possibility is that we,
in the mortuary -- because we had 292 bodies and we
also had a large number of body parts. Now, sometimes,
and this was particularly in some of the later graves,
what the anthropologists liked to call a body part, we
(20)felt more comfortable, having seen the body laid out
and cleaned up, to call it a body because it had all
the significant parts present, and I imagine that's
what the discrepancy is there. I think you will
certainly find that in the Glogova site where we
(25)changed from bodies to body parts quite a lot, but that
(5) • Q.: I should now like to go on to the part of your report dealing with the grave at Nova Kasaba. On page 14 of your report, the section dealing with the distribution of shots and injury patterns, we find that there were 33 shots to the head of the victim. You (10)also state, on the same page, in the section dealing with the direction of shots and distance fired, that it was not possible to determine the direction. In view of the fact that these were injuries to the head, is it possible that if they were inflicted (15)at close range, these injuries, that there would be traces on the bones of explosions, gunpowder explosions?
• A.: There may have been minute traces. Most of
the evidence on establishing distance of fire requires
(20)the skin and soft tissues, because that is where the
gunpowder and other deposits and the burning are
deposited. There may well be minute traces which get
into the bone themselves, but we certainly did not look
for them. I think it would be extraordinarily
(25)difficult to do that and there was no clear evidence of
(5) • Q.: In this particular case, that is, the Nova Kasaba grave, are there any traces confirming close-range fire, any evidence of that? • A.: There's no positive evidence of it and there's no negative evidence. In other words, we (10)cannot tell definitely one way or the other but it's not excluded. MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Mr. President, in view of the time, I don't know whether it would be convenient to have a break now. Should I continue with (15)my cross? JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] How much time do you need more or less? MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Not more than ten minutes, Mr. President. (20) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] I think then it is better to have a break now. So we're going to have a 20-minute break. --- Recess taken at 10.42 a.m. --- On resuming at 11.05 a.m. (25)
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] We are
MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Thank you, Mr. President. (5) • Q.: Dr. Clark, in the response you gave regarding the coordination of views among the individual pathologists regarding the cause of death, you said that some discussion occurred defining injuries to the thigh area. Did I understand you correctly? (10) • A.: Yes. Not just the thigh -- I just used that as an example -- but we discussed the findings between us as would happen in any professional situation. • Q.: If a person was injured in the thigh with a bullet from a firearm with large destructive power and (15)from a relatively close range of a few metres perhaps, and the nervous sciatic was damaged in the process, in your opinion would that person's life be in danger? Would it be fatal, in other words?
• A.: It would not be necessarily immediately
(20)fatal. In fact, it wouldn't be immediately fatal. The
person would be disabled. They certainly wouldn't be
able to walk. They would start losing blood. But it
is a treatable condition if emergency first aid is
given to try and bandage these wounds. If the person
(25)was left with a large gaping injury to the thigh and
• Q.: That person, what are the possibilities for (5)that person to move about without assistance? • A.: Well, one can never underestimate what people can do in situations, and they potentially could crawl or heave themselves around. Yes, that's a possibility. • Q.: Could that person cover a certain distance, a (10)kilometre, or several hundred metres, or maybe more, if you can give us an answer? • A.: I think it's almost impossible to answer these questions. I would say nothing is impossible, and a person with the will power and the strength of (15)will to do that could probably do that. • Q.: Thank you. My next question has to do with the Glogova grave. On page 21, you describe the number of shots on the bodies. In accordance with your previous (20)answer, I assume that in this case too, these are the minimum number of shots per person. Is that correct? • A.: That's correct, yes.
• Q.: You have seen Exhibits 257, 258, that is, two
skulls, Prosecution exhibits, on which injuries are
(25)shown inflicted by a blow with a blunt object. Could
• A.: I cannot say for definite this was ante-mortem or post-mortem, just as with the gunshot (5)injuries. All I can say is that these were the only injuries on this person, and that must raise the possibility that these happened in life. • Q.: But the possibility of them being inflicted post-mortem is not excluded, is it? (10) • A.: It's not excluded. I'm not sure how it would be inflicted, but I can't exclude that these are post-mortem injuries, no, particularly bearing in mind that there are two of them. • Q.: In this grave, that is, Glogova, were there (15)several burials, in your opinion? • A.: Yes, there appeared to be several different graves within the overall grave site.
• Q.: Dr. Clark, in answer to a question by my
learned friend Mr. Cayley, you spoke about your overall
(20)impression regarding the causes of death in all the
grave sites on the basis of your investigations in
1999. If we exclude Nova Kasaba grave site, Konjevic
Polje, and perhaps a part of the grave site in Glogova,
is there a greater probability that the persons buried
(25)in those graves did not meet their death as a
• A.: I think that is fair to say, because one of
the pointers against all of these people, that is, all
the four grave sites being combat casualties was the
(5)fact that in Kozluk, at least, so many had blindfolds
and ligatures and disabilities. So in that sense, the
fact that Konjevic Polje, Nova Kasaba, and Glogova,
none of the victims there had blindfolds or ligatures,
none of them had any obvious physical disabilities,
(10)yes, that does reduce the pointers against, but still
doesn't take away from the fact that there were no
injuries from other military weapons.
And I stress that in combat situations, the
commonest type of injury are injuries other than
(15)bullets; in other words, fragmenting items such as
grenades and shells. And this has been shown
repeatedly in many conflicts, not least in Croatia in
1992. Also, we still have the evidence that the bulk
of people had been shot to the back of the body rather
(20)than the front, and the absence of the large numbers of
wounded which we would expect in a combat situation.
But to return to your overall initial
question, yes, excluding Kozluk, the pointers against
the other three grave sites being combat casualties are
(25)reduced. I would accept that.
MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] That ends my cross-examination, Mr. President. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you (5)very much, Mr. Visnjic. Mr. Cayley, some additional questions? MR. CAYLEY: I just have a few questions, Your Honour. • RE-EXAMINED by Mr. Cayley: (10) • Q.: Dr. Clark, could you find in the pile of photographs Exhibits 248, 252, and 256. Actually, if you could place 252 onto the ELMO first. Dr. Clark, this is a skull that we've already discussed, and it's from the Konjevic Polje site. (15)That's where the body was recovered from. Is that correct? • A.: Yes, that's right. • Q.: Would you agree with me that the bullet to the side of the head is a fairly well-aimed shot if one (20)was intending to kill this individual? • A.: This would be the immediate assumption, yes.
• Q.: If you could then place Exhibit 248 onto the
ELMO. This is from another grave. This is Nova
Kasaba.
(25)Again, considering the shot to the middle of
• A.: Yes. And we had a large number of people in which this was a very typical injury, an injury -- a (5)bullet hole to the back either in the midline or just to the side of it. This was a very common finding. • Q.: If you could finally turn to Exhibit 256, which is from Glogova, and this is, I think, a shot to the middle of the spine from the back, is it not? (10) • A.: Yes. Better like that. Yes, that's right. • Q.: Again, stating the obvious, if you were intending to kill somebody, this is a place where you would shoot them? • A.: Well, not necessarily. I mean, it's a shot (15)to the middle of the back. It's not an area which would be immediately fatal. • Q.: But it could be fatal? • A.: It could be fatal, yes, but it's not as immediately fatal as a shot to the back of the head. (20)
• Q.: Now, considering these three photographs, and
we spoke about distance, the distance from which
somebody could have fired to actually hit these three
individuals, I know you've stated that in order to
determine distance accurately, you need to be able to
(25)inspect soft tissue, but would you agree with me that
(5) • A.: Yes, I agree entirely. They are, if you like, targeted areas, and it is easier to target somewhere the closer you are to the person, yes. • Q.: No further questions, Dr. Clark. MR. CAYLEY: No further questions, (10)Mr. President. Thank you. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you very much, Mr. Cayley. Judge Fouad Riad. • QUESTIONED by the Court: (15) JUDGE RIAD: Good morning, Professor Clark. • A.: Doctor, not professor. JUDGE RIAD: You are a senior lecturer. • A.: Yes.
JUDGE RIAD: In my country they would call
(20)you Professor. Now, just one question and then -- two
questions perhaps. The first one is a minor one. You
might be able to tell me about it. You said that in
Glogova site, they each started at 12 and from 12 to
71. What was the percentage of the children? Twelve
(25)is children, I mean, between 12 and 18, for instance.
• A.: I don't know that, and I'm going to be a little hesitant of giving ages. This is more the anthropologists who determine this. What I can say is (5)from their reports they gave us ranges, and they ranged from as young as 12. That's not to say that we had a 12-year-old, but within the limits of being able to determine these things, it could have been as young as that. (10)I don't know -- all I do know is that in GL-05, there was a preponderance of young people. I think we're speaking about people in their late teens, early 20s mainly, rather than 12- or 13-year-old children. (15) JUDGE RIAD: In their teens? • A.: Yes, late teens. JUDGE RIAD: Late teens would be 16 or 17? • A.: Yes. JUDGE RIAD: That's a teenager. (20) • A.: Yes, late teens. JUDGE RIAD: But if they couldn't decide if they were 12 or 13, how could they decide that they had people at the age of 85? Is it easier to --
• A.: No. It's easier to age people the younger
(25)they are.
• A.: Yes. JUDGE RIAD: How could they age that people were 85? (5) • A.: That's a sort of broad range they've given. I mean after the age of about 45 or 50, it's actually very difficult to age them at all, and this was just an upper range they gave. I mean, I suppose they could have said a hundred, but there's no real cutoff point. (10) JUDGE RIAD: But definitely it was old age? • A.: There were people who could have been older, yes. The trouble is after about the age of 40 or 50, it's almost impossible, just from looking at the bones, to say that that person was 50 or was 60 or was 70. (15) JUDGE RIAD: After the age of 50 or 40? • A.: Possibly that, yes. Forty, mid-40s to 50, it becomes increasingly difficult to tie down an age even within about 10 or 15 years. JUDGE RIAD: And you mentioned -- just (20)another little question -- most shots or injuries were from gunshots, and you said it was, for instance, 87 per cent in Nova Kasaba. What was the source of the other injuries in such cases?
• A.: Well, 87 per cent, I suspect, is an
(25)underestimate. That was the number of gunshots which
JUDGE RIAD: Now I come to my main question,
and perhaps it's due to a difference between your
scientific approach and the social science approach.
In the social science approach, there is always room
(20)for doubt, but sometimes in the scientific approach you
are more categorical. So I would like to understand
more your answer concerning the possibility that the
injuries resulted from a fight or battle injuries.
First, in your answer to the Prosecutor, you
(25)said that you cannot refute entirely that these
• A.: Well, to be fair, I was asked to exclude
Kozluk by the Defence, and that was a rather separate
grave because that was the only grave with the people
with ligatures and blindfolds. And I would have
(25)thought that's a very, very strong pointer against
JUDGE RIAD: And the others? • A.: The others are less, because we don't have that factor. (5)I see what -- you're trying to say, "Why is there any doubt?" Well, it depends what you mean by "combat casualties", and it's up to others to put that forward. But we have people who have been shot. Now, (10)this is two groups of men facing each other or fighting each other. It is still possible that in that situation, a number could be shot in the back, if there was surprise from a different direction. If it's a situation that the only weapons being used in that -- (15)unusually being used in that situation were guns, then that still leaves a possibility. So it very much depends on what sort of combat is being presented. JUDGE RIAD: So in the other sites, there is a possibility there could have been a combat? (20) • A.: I can't entirely exclude it, no. JUDGE RIAD: You can't entirely? • A.: No. JUDGE RIAD: But, for instance, for --
• A.: But I'm saying the findings would be very
(25)untypical from all the other findings from other
JUDGE RIAD: They are strong pointers? • A.: Yes. JUDGE RIAD: But only in Kozluk, it was -- • A.: Kozluk is even more strong, because it's (10)inconceivable that you could suggest that people were fighting with their hands tied behind their backs or fighting with blindfolds. JUDGE RIAD: Were there any people with hands tied behind their backs in the other sites? (15) • A.: No, none at all. JUDGE RIAD: Not at all? • A.: No. JUDGE RIAD: But the other pointers were there; shots in the back? (20) • A.: Yes, the other pointers were certainly there. JUDGE RIAD: Were certainly there? • A.: Yes. JUDGE RIAD: Thank you very much, Dr. Clark. (25)
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Thank you
JUDGE WALD: Dr. Clark, I have just one
question.
(5)In your summaries of the various sites from
which you examined bodies, you pointed out -- in a few
cases, you pointed out similarities or what might be
systemic patterns in the places where the shots
appeared in the bodies, et cetera. You've also pointed
(10)out the differences in the ligatures, the presence of
ligatures and blindfolds in Kozluk.
Would you say, looking at all the sites from
which you have examined bodies, and excluding for the
moment the possibility of combat, excluding the
(15)hypothesis of combat, and accepting the hypothesis
which I did take to be the one that you thought more
likely, that there had been mass executions of some
sort at these various sites, would you say that your
observations of the patterns of injury were more
(20)consistent with all of those burials being under a
unified plan or part of a general motus operandi, or
would they be just as consistent with a hypothesis that
you could have had four or five spontaneous killings,
of executions, unconnected with each other, which
(25)resulted in the bodies that went into the different
• A.: There were different patterns between some of the graves, and I would suspect that this was different -- these were different incidents, albeit (5)carried out in the same general intention. But we did have some slightly different patterns. I was mentioning the very distinctive pattern in Glogova, the shots in the back. Some of the grave sites, the average number of shots was higher than others, so that (10)there were subtle differences between some of the grave sites -- between the grave sites, yes. JUDGE WALD: And your general -- just to follow through on that, your general knowledge and observations of mass graves or the results of (15)executions here and in the past would have led you to tilt in which direction; that these grave sites were basically part of a single operation or they just as consistently could have come about from spontaneous reactions in different places? (20) • A.: I'm not sure that I can distinguish the two, if the two should necessarily be distinguished. If you're saying this is the same person or group of persons going around and killing all of these people --
JUDGE WALD: Not the same persons, perhaps,
(25)but some general pattern, command operation.
(5) JUDGE WALD: Thank you. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you very much, Judge Wald. Dr. Clark, I shall perhaps go a little further but along the same path as my colleagues. (10)Your experience has allowed you to reconstruct the situation that occurred before what you actually observed, and you were asked, when doing these post-mortems, in a sense to reconstruct the situation prior to death. Are you in a position to give us a (15)general idea, after having observed a large number of bodies and body parts, are you in a position to give us a general idea of what you were able to reconstruct, the situation that led up to these consequences that you actually observed? I don't know if I was clear (20)enough.
• A.: Yes, it's a difficult question. Our main --
my main expertise was in looking at the bodies. I
think you've got to take into consideration the
findings at the grave sites and how bodies were placed
(25)in the graves, which I don't have any detailed
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you very much. Mr. Cayley, I think we have some documents to admit. (10) MR. CAYLEY: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. We do. The first exhibit is Prosecution Exhibit 195, which is a document that shows the sites which Dr. Clark was concerned with; Exhibit 235, which is his (15)curriculum vitae; Exhibit 236, which is his report; 236A, which is the B/C/S version of that report; 237, which is the example of the autopsy report, and 238, which is the table of nationalities of his staff. 239 to 257 are the photographs. If I could apply for (20)formal admission of those exhibits. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Visnjic, have you any objections? MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] No, Mr. President. (25)
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Then the
THE WITNESS: Thank you very much. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, (10)Mr. Cayley.
MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, just before the
next witness, there's a small housekeeping matter, and
it concerns the evidence of Mr. Jean-Rene Ruez.
Mr. Ruez testified on the 15th of March of
(15)this year in respect of an exhibit, Prosecutor's
Exhibit 22/8. This is on page 742 of the transcript.
He stated that that photograph was taken in April of
1998, and he was mistaken. The Prosecutor's records
indicate that that photograph was, in fact, taken on
(20)the 21st of April, 1997.
My learned friend Mr. Harmon has spoken with
the Defence on this matter. They are in agreement to
stipulate to that fact in order to correct the
transcript, and I bring it to the Court's attention so
(25)that it can be placed on the transcript.
MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Mr. President, we have discussed this matter with representatives of (5)the Prosecution, and after the evidence provided, we agreed that this was indeed an error. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] In that case, Madam Registrar, will you please take note of this and make the correction in the transcript along (10)the lines proposed by Mr. Cayley. Is that all right now?
MR. CAYLEY: Yes, Mr. President.
The next witness is going to be taken by the
senior trial attorney, so I will retire to the back and
(15)allow him to come forward. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Good morning, Dr. Lawrence. Can you hear me? THE WITNESS: Mr. President, yes, I can. (20) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Please read the solemn declaration that the usher has handed to you.
THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will
speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
(25)truth.
WITNESS: CHRISTOPHER LAWRENCE JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] I think (5)that you are quite familiar with the proceedings in a courtroom, so you will feel quite at ease. Is that true? THE WITNESS: Thank you, Mr. President. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] (10)Dr. Lawrence, you will first be answering questions put to you by Mr. Harmon. Mr. Harmon, you have the floor. MR. HARMON: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Good morning, Your Honours, (15)Mr. President, counsel. • EXAMINED by Mr. Harmon: • Q.: Good morning, Dr. Lawrence. • A.: Good morning, Mr. Harmon. • Q.: Now, because we speak the same language, I'm (20)going to ask you to pause after I finish my question so the interpreters have time to catch up with the final interpretation of the question, and I'll pause after you give an answer so they can do the same. • A.: Yes, I understand. (25)
• Q.: All right. First of all, Dr. Lawrence, could
• A.: Christopher Hamilton Lawrence. Lawrence is spelled L-a-w-r-e-n-c-e. (5) • Q.: What is your current occupation, Dr. Lawrence? • A.: I'm a forensic pathologist employed at the New South Wales Institute of Forensic Medicine in Sydney Australia. (10) MR. HARMON: Mr. President, Your Honours and counsel should have a copy of the curriculum vitae of Dr. Lawrence. It's marked as Prosecutor's Exhibit 221. • Q.: Let me just take you through some of the salient portions of this CV, Dr. Lawrence. First of (15)all, what is your nationality? • A.: I am Australian. • Q.: Can you inform the Trial Chamber of your educational background, please?
• A.: I have a medical degree from the University
(20)of Sydney, where I graduated in 1983. That is the
American equivalent of the MD. I have a science degree
in physiology also from the University of Sydney. I am
a fellow of the Royal Australasian College of
Pathologists, which as a pathologist, it is the
(25)American equivalent of the board certification in
• Q.: Now, let me focus on your education. When you received your Bachelor of Medical Science in physiology, did you receive any prizes or medals? (5) • A.: Yes. I was the winner of the P.O. Bishop Medal and the H.G. Chapman prize for that thesis. • Q.: And what -- can you explain those prizes and why they were awarded? • A.: They were awarded to the top Bachelor of (10)Medical Science graduate of the year. • Q.: Now, let me turn briefly to some other aspects of your career. Between October 1989 and June of 1991 were you appointed as a specialist in forensic medicine in New South Wales, to the Institute of (15)Forensic Medicine in Glebe, Australia? • A.: Yes, I was. • Q.: Between June of 1991 and June 1993, were you a Fellow in forensic pathology in the State of New Mexico in the United States at the Office of the (20)Medical Examiner at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine in Albuquerque? • A.: In the first year, I was a Fellow. In the second year I acted as a staff pathologist at the Office of the Medical Investigator. (25)
• Q.: Now, from August of 1994 until the present
• A.: I do. (5) • Q.: Now, in addition to those qualifications, Dr. Lawrence, have you been accepted as an expert in the field of forensic pathology in the courts of your country? • A.: Yes, I have. (10) • Q.: And have you been accepted as an expert in the field of forensic pathology in courts in the United States? • A.: Yes, I have been accepted -- sorry. Yes, I have been accepted as an expert witness in the States (15)of New Mexico and Colorado. • Q.: Now, Dr. Lawrence, we've heard, in the last few days, testimony about the composition of exhumation teams that examined human remains in Bosnia at various times and the interrelationship between anthropologist (20)and pathologist. I don't intend to ask you a great deal about anthropology, but have you had some training in anthropology? • A.: Yes. Sorry. Yes, I have had training in forensic anthropology. (25)
• Q.: Can you describe just the extent of that
• A.: In addition to practical experience, I have attended a number of courses. • Q.: Where were those courses? (5) • A.: I attended courses at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology course which was run in New Mexico, another forensic anthropology course run in New Mexico, and a course run in the investigation of buried remains in (10)Brisbane. • Q.: Thank you very much, Dr. Lawrence. Now, what was your role in exhumations conducted by the Office of the Prosecutor in Bosnia in 1998? (15) • A.: I was the -- sorry. I was the chief pathologist in Bosnia for the ICTY in 1998. MR. HARMON: Now, could I have Prosecutor's Exhibit 259 placed on the ELMO, please. • Q.: Perhaps that is in front of you, (20)Dr. Lawrence. If not, the usher will assist you. It is this exhibit. Now, Dr. Lawrence, how many sites were exhumed in 1998? • A.: Eight sites. (25)
• Q.: Was it your responsibility to examine the
• A.: Yes, it was. • Q.: Now, does the Prosecutor's exhibit which has been placed on the ELMO identify in orange the sites (5)from which you examined human remains? • A.: Yes, it does. • Q.: We've heard testimony earlier in this case, Dr. Lawrence, but for the sake of clarity for the people in the gallery, only one of the sites that you (10)exhumed was a primary grave site? • A.: Yes. One of the sites was a robbed primary site. • Q.: And all of the -- and that is the site that is indicated as the dam; is that correct? (15) • A.: That's correct. • Q.: The other locations marked on this exhibit in orange were secondary grave sites? • A.: Yes. • Q.: And you examined the human remains from each (20)of those sites; is that correct? • A.: Yes. • Q.: When I say "you," I mean you and members of your staff. • A.: Yes. (25)
• Q.: Now, Dr. Lawrence, in respect of each of
• A.: Yes, it was. (5) • Q.: Now, in front of you, Dr. Lawrence, are the reports that were prepared by you. MR. HARMON: And for the record, Your Honours, that includes Prosecutor's Exhibit 261, which is the primary site of the dam; 262, which is the (10)secondary site CR-12; a report on autopsies at 263 dealing with Cancari Road 3; 264 dealing with autopsies for the Hodzici Road site 3; 265, Hodzici Road site 4; 266, which deals with the findings in respect of Hodzici Road 5; 267, which is Zeleni Jadar site 5; and (15)lastly, 268, which is the Liplje site 2. • Q.: Now, Dr. Clark -- Dr. Lawrence, I'm sorry, in addition to those reports that deal with sites that were exhumed and your analysis of the human remains from those sites, did you also prepare a report in (20)respect of human remains found on the surface at Kozluk? • A.: Yes. There were two body parts recovered in 1998, and those were examined because it was felt incorrect to leave them till the next year. (25)
MR. HARMON: And that, for the record, the
• Q.: Now, Dr. Lawrence, we've heard about the procedures that were used by Dr. Clark and his team (5)that assisted him in respect of the exhumations in 1999. You operated in Bosnia in 1998, and I'd like to focus then on your procedures on what facilities were available to you. Could you, first of all, describe to the (10)Trial Chamber the morgue facility that was available to you? • A.: Yes. The morgue facility used was the same one as was used in 1999. It is the Gradska Groblja mortuary facility in Visoko. It had three tables; it (15)had facilities for fluoroscopic equipment, and a secure room where evidence could be locked. During the course of the year, we had more material than we could conveniently handle in that facility, and for the last third of the year, we also (20)used two temporary mortuaries which were also on the site which also had another three or four tables in them in order to facilitate the processing of the remains.
• Q.: Dr. Lawrence, in order to convey succinctly
(25)the procedures that you used in 1998 that were followed
• A.: Yes. The body bags were received in a (10)locked, refrigerated container. I had one key. The crime-scene officer from the scene had one key. We removed the bodies from the refrigerated container as we were using them and locked it after we had taken the bodies out. The bodies were taken out, (15)and as soon as the body bags were opened, a photograph was taken of the contents of the body bag. The body bag would then be taken by the pathologist who is going to handle the case and X-rayed using a portable X-ray equipment, a fluoroscope. (20)
• Q.: Now, let me stop right there for a moment,
Dr. Lawrence, and I'd like you to take a look at
Prosecutor's Exhibit 262, which is the report on
autopsies of human remains from Cancari Road site 12.
There are four photographs following page 5 of your
(25)report, and I'd like you to take each of those
MR. HARMON: For the record, Your Honours, in that report, Dr. Lawrence will be referring to the four (5)photographs immediately after page five of his report. • Q.: I see you've placed the first photograph on the ELMO. Why don't you describe this particular procedure.
• A.: This photograph depicts or shows an image
(10)made by the fluoroscope. It depicts the -- a left
elbow joint with the joint itself in the centre of the
picture. You can see a number of fractures in the bone
just above centre here, and you can see a shadow here
which represents a metal object which is, in fact, a
(15)bullet.
Now, the pathologist would look on the
fluoroscope for fractures and for bullets. If it was
convenient at the time, he would recover the bullet and
submit it for evidence. If not, he might wait and
(20)recover it later. He would also look for any bony
abnormalities that could be demonstrated on X-ray.
He would then prepare a handwritten report on
what he saw, and the body would then be taken from the
fluoroscope to the main area where it would be placed
(25)on a table.
(5)
• A.: Yes. This is from the same case as the
fluoroscope. It shows -- sorry. It shows the left
forearm
[indicates] on the right of the picture. There
is a hole in the skin here and a second hole here.
These correspond to bullet holes. This tissue • Q.: Would you turn to the next picture, please, Dr. Lawrence. What is that?
• A.: This shows
[indicates] the bullet that we
(15)could see -- sorry, the bullet is slightly to the left
here. This shows the bullet recovered from the soft
tissue. You can see it has the same outlines as the
X-ray image. This was marked and submitted for
evidence.
(20)Now, finally, to confirm the presence of
the gunshot wound, this is the same case again
• Q.: Thank you, Dr. Lawrence. Why don't you continue with describing the procedure. After the human remains or the body is removed from the (5)fluoroscope room, what happens? • A.: Once the body is removed from the fluoroscope room, it's put on the main -- on the working table. It is searched, the clothing is removed, and the external surface of the body is examined for evidence of (10)injuries. Now, at this stage the procedure would vary depending on whether there was a large amount of soft tissue or the remains were skeletalised. • Q.: Now, why don't we start with the procedure with the body that has a large amount of flesh (15)remaining on it. First of all, so we're perfectly clear in what you mean by that, if you would turn to your report, Prosecution Exhibit 263, the image following page 6 of that, would you place that on the ELMO, please. What is that? (20)
• A.: This is a body from Cancari 3, showing a
relatively intact body with relatively complete soft
tissue.
What you can see at the top is the head,
chest, the arms, pelvis, and the legs
[indicates]
(25)Relatively speaking for this site, this was a body with
• Q.: Dr. Lawrence, let's proceed with your (5)description of the procedure, with what happens when you have a fleshed body, what you do. We're going to come back later to the procedures when you have just a skeleton or skeletalised body.
• A.: The body would then be searched for items of
(10)identification, for personal items, and the clothing
would be removed. The body would then be washed, and
the pathologist would examine the external surfaces of
the body carefully for injuries. At that stage, the
clothing would be tagged with the case name and taken
(15)off. I'll come back to that in a minute.
The pathologist would then carry out --
sorry. At this stage, if there were external gunshot
wounds, for example, or other external obvious
injuries, they would be photographed.
(20)The pathologist, assisted by the assistant,
would then open the body, open the areas of injury, and
attempt to define them further. Where there were still
organs present, those would be examined for evidence of
significant injury. In the case of bony injury, the
(25)bones would be examined. If they were severely broken,
• Q.: Who would do the reconstruction of the bone? (5) • A.: The reconstruction of the bone would routinely be done by the anthropologists assigned to the case. • Q.: Now, in the course of examining the bodies, if you found an abnormal feature, for example, an old (10)injury or something that was unique, would you record that? • A.: Yes. We also examined the body for evidence of identifying features. These were old injuries, malformations, deformities, evidence of tooth decay, or (15)anything that might help later on identify the individual. • Q.: Now, do you have an example that you can illustrate that particular point in the exhibits in front of you? I believe if you refer to Prosecutor's (20)Exhibit 263, there may be one such illustration you could put on the ELMO.
• A.: I have two here.
The first of these, what you can see here
just to the left of the centre is a grossly-deformed
(25)ulna. That is one of the two bones of the forearm.
• Q.: Was your purpose in noting these kind of deformities to assist in later identification of (10)individuals? • A.: That was the primary purpose, yes. • Q.: All right. Do you have another illustration from the same exhibit? • A.: This is the spine of one of the bodies from (15)CR-3. What you can see is severe -- sorry -- severe sclerosis of the spine. This person effectively had a completely fused spine. This would be fairly characteristic and would have produced a large degree of incapacity. (20) • Q.: What other kinds of disabilities did you locate in the course of conducting medical examinations in 1998?
• A.: We found people with evidence of old
fractures of the hip that had never healed. We found
(25)old gunshot wounds with severe persistent damage to the
• Q.: Now, at some point in the procedure you've (10)been describing, you've done the medical examination of the flesh body, where does the anthropologist fit in?
• A.: The anthropologist, in the fleshed bodies,
would come in to do the reconstructions of the bones,
as I described. But their other function would be to
(15)look at the pubic bones, look at the skull, look at the
long bones, to try and ascertain the age and sex and
the height of the individual.
In addition, they had an important function,
in looking at the bony injuries, to consult with the
(20)pathologist as to whether these injuries occurred at or
around the time of death, i.e., that they are what's
called pari-mortem injuries, or whether they were
post-mortem injuries. Those are injuries that have
occurred after the time of death which may have
(25)occurred during the burial, digging up, reburial, or
• Q.: Now, I take it the pathologist and the anthropologist would consult about their respective findings. (5) • A.: Yes. • Q.: What would happen then?
• A.: After the pathologist had consulted with the
anthropologist and reviewed the reconstructed bones,
the pathologist would then prepare a handwritten
(10)report. He would often use diagrams to diagram the
areas of injury. He would hand over the pieces of
evidence that had been taken from the body to the crime
scene officer.
In the case of the clothing, the clothing
(15)would be taken off and washed. Once it had been washed
and dried, it would be examined by one of the crime
scene officers for the evidence of injury. The purpose
of this was that given that many of our bodies had lost
their skin, damage to the clothing was sometimes the
(20)only evidence we had that there may have been a bullet
injury. The clothing was also examined for evidence of
military origin and also for any characteristic
identifying features. Now, the crime scene officer
would then prepare a report on the clothing, indicating
(25)where he found damage.
• Q.: Now, would the clothing be tagged with a number similar to the tag number on the body itself? (15) • A.: As the clothing was removed from the body, the assistant would place a tag on every item, clearly marking the case number of the item. • Q.: After this report has been prepared by you, in consultation with the anthropologist, and after the (20)clothing has been examined, what's the next step in the procedure?
• A.: At that stage, the pathologist would check
the report, sign the typewritten -- sorry. A
typewritten copy would be made of the handwritten
(25)report, which would include the pathologist's opinion
• Q.: What would happen to the body? (5) • A.: The body, at the completion of the examination, would be resealed with the case number clearly written on it and would be stored for handing over to the Bosnian authorities. • Q.: Dr. Lawrence, let's take the other situation (10)that you described, because not all of the bodies that you were examining were fleshed. Is that correct? • A.: That's correct. • Q.: Why don't you describe then, if you will, to the Chamber, the procedure that was used when you had (15)skeletalised remains only. • A.: If I may show an example. • Q.: Yes, please, and if you would refer to Prosecutor's Exhibit 261, which is the report on the dam, I believe. I think there are two examples or two (20)photographs that you and I had discussed to show to the Trial Chamber to illustrate this particular point. They are the photographs that follow page 4, Dr. Lawrence.
• A.: This photograph shows the initial step in the
(25)process. This is a body bag
[indicates] which has been
(25)
• Q.: Now, you're turning the page and you'll show
• A.: That is correct. This is, in fact, the same case, Dam-001, after it had been washed and laid in an (5)anatomical -- roughly anatomical position. You can see at the top the two upper arm bones, the left shoulder blade, the sternum, the thoracic spine, and the ribs. The bones were cleaned up and aligned in this (10)anatomical position in an attempt to assess whether injuries had occurred in the pari-mortem period when all of the bodies were in an anatomical position or whether they could have occurred in the post-mortem interval. (15) • Q.: What would happen after that examination?
• A.: Again, the pathologist and the anthropologist
would both examine these and look for evidence of
injury. Some of the injuries, as you can see in this
particular one, this fracturing along here is almost
(20)certainly a post-mortem injury due to weathering and
damage. But the -- again, where there were fractures
of bones that were -- where it was difficult to see
what the actual centre of the injury looked like, they
would be reconstructed. Again, the bodies would be
(25)searched for injury, for identifying features. The
(10) • Q.: Now, Dr. Lawrence, you've shown us one example of an elbow being -- elbow bones being reconstructed by the anthropologist. I'd just like to illustrate that point one more time. If you would turn to Prosecutor's (15)Exhibit 263, which is your report from the Report on Autopsies of Human Remains from Cancari Road 3, and if you would put on the ELMO the illustration that follows page 9 of that report. I'd like you to, first of all, identify the exhibit and then explain it. (20)
• A.: This is the photograph referred to. This is
a skull from one of the bodies from Cancari Road 3. It
has been -- what we can see here is the top of the
skullcap, the front of the skull on the left there is a
gunshot wound in the centre marked by the arrow, with a
(25)series of radiating fractures. The white represents
• Q.: So, Dr. Lawrence, this is an example of a reconstruction of bone, in this case the skull, (10)performed by an anthropologist, that would assist you in your examination and determination of the cause of death. • A.: Yes. It would be quite hard to see the bullet hole until the fragments of skull were stuck (15)back together again. • Q.: All right. Dr. Lawrence, you have prepared eight complete reports of the eight exhumation sites from which human remains were removed in 1998. I do not intend to take you through each of these reports. (20)What I would like you to do is go through one of those reports, because the formatting in each of these reports is the same; is that correct? • A.: Yes, that's correct.
• Q.: And using the Prosecution Exhibit 263, which
(25)is the report on autopsies of human remains from the
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] [No translation] MR. HARMON: Yes. (10) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you very much. We're going to have a 20-minute break now. --- Recess taken at 12.20 p.m. --- On resuming at 12.45 p.m. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Harmon, (15)we're resuming. Please continue. MR. HARMON: • Q.: Dr. Lawrence, before the break I'd asked you to examine and take your report, which is the report of Autopsies on Human Remains from Cancari Road 3, and (20)we'll go through that.
MR. HARMON: But just so the record is
perfectly clear, the site indicated as Cancari Road 3,
Your Honours, has been linked to the Kozluk primary
grave site, as can be seen in Prosecutor's
(25)Exhibit 259. Those links were testified to by Dean
• Q.: Now, please, Dr. Lawrence, would you place on (5)the ELMO the Summary and Conclusions of the Autopsies from Cancari Road 3 site and just read into the record those findings, please.
• A.: Thank you. Summary and Conclusions on
Autopsies from CR-03.
(10)1. From the anthropological examination, the
grave at CR-03 site is estimated to contain at least
160 individuals.
2. All of the bodies where sex could be
determined, that's 126, were male. There was one
(15)subadult, a teenager, who wore some female clothing and
was of an indeterminate sex by anthropological
examination.
3. There was one individual between the ages
of 8 and 13 years, a child, and at least seven over the
(20)age of 65 years.
4. None of the bodies were carrying weapons
or wearing army or militia uniforms. One of the bodies
appeared to be wearing a blue uniform, but this did not
appear to be a police uniform or have obvious military
(25)insignia. In one of the general body bags, that is, a
• Q.: Let me just interrupt you there for just a (10)moment. Again referring to Prosecutor's Exhibit 259, CR-12 is linked to Branjevo Military Farm primary execution site. With that clarification, Dr. Lawrence, please continue reading from your conclusions. (15)
• A.: 6. Eight blindfolds were found on or around
the bodies at this site. Four of these were around the
face.
7. The bodies were decomposed but varied
considerably from having recognisable organs to
(20)complete skeletonisation with disarticulation, that is,
complete loss of soft tissue with separation of the
body parts.
8. There were 225 definite gunshot wounds,
five probable gunshot wounds, and 32 possible gunshot
(25)wounds in 148 bodies. The most frequent sites were
• Q.: Sorry, it says "48". You mean in the 148? • A.: In the 148 cases where gunshot wounds were found, there were between one gunshot wound, 89 bodies, and eight gunshot wounds, one body. The average number (10)of gunshot wounds in the bodies found with gunshot wounds was 1.5, that is, between one and two. There was no significant trend in the directions of the bullet tracks. That is, I could not tell you whether they had been shot from in front or (15)behind. MR. HARMON: Mr. Usher, if you could show that to the bottom of the page, please. • Q.: Continue, please.
• A.: 12. There were many post-mortem tampering
(20)injuries of the skull, ribs and pelvis, which would
tend to obscure pari-mortem, that is, injuries
occurring around the time of death, in these regions.
13. There were parts of 160 individuals in
the grave. Because of the separation of the body
(25)parts, these were collected in 383 body bags (see
(10) • Q.: Dr. Lawrence, thank you. Let's continue taking a tour of this particular report, because you said the format is the same. I see, following your summary, there's an introduction. Can you briefly describe what's in the (15)introduction of each of these reports? • A.: The introduction describes the transfer of the bodies to me and also describes the numbering system used throughout the report. • Q.: Will you turn to page 4 of your report, (20)because that is a description of the staff members that assisted you in the 1998 autopsies. Would you put that on the ELMO, please. Now, was this a multinational staff that was assisting you, Dr. Lawrence? (25)
• A.: Yes. I had at least 14 different nations
• Q.: If we start with the pathologists, can you identify the nations from which these pathologists came? (5) • A.: Dr. Bentley is currently working as a forensic pathologist in North Ireland, Northern Ireland. Dr. Marie Cassidy a very experienced forensic pathologist currently working in Ireland. Andrew Davison is a forensic pathologist working in (10)Edinburgh. I work in Australia. Dr. Walter Marty is a widely-published expert on ballistics who is from Switzerland. Professor Helmut Maxeiner is a professor of forensic medicine at Berlin in Germany. Dr. Yvonne Milewski is the chief medical examiner at the Bronx in (15)New York. Alain Miras is forensic pathologist from France. Fritz Priemer is a forensic pathologist from Germany. Dr. Marcus Rothschild is a forensic pathologist again from Berlin. • Q.: Dr. Lawrence, you were also assisted by (20)autopsy technicians. First of all, can you define what the role of an autopsy technician was?
• A.: The autopsy technicians basically assisted
the forensic pathologist and did a lot of the handling
of the bodies from out of and into the morgue. They
(25)also processed some of the clothing and generally
• Q.: Is this a multinational group of people as well? • A.: Yes. In amongst these, Deborah Brown is from (5)Scotland, as is Ishbel Hunter. Carl Lyon is from Ireland. Robert McNeil is from Scotland. Alfie Moss is from England. Geoff Welburn is from Australia. Paul Woods is from England. • Q.: Let me just turn to the category of (10)radiographers. Tell us about, first of all, what they did and where they are from. • A.: The radiographers ran the fluoroscope. That's the mobile X-ray machine. They are technical people who are used to performing X-rays and basically (15)ran and maintained the X-ray equipment. • Q.: Where are they from? • A.: Again, all of the people shown there are currently working in London. One of them is Irish. I think the rest are all English. (20)
• Q.: And lastly in this group of specialists,
there are anthropologists identified in the upper
right-hand corner, and we have heard from one of those,
Mr. Baraybar, so I don't need you to identify him. But
can you identify the others, please, and tell us where
(25)they are from?
• Q.: Without identifying where these people are from, there's a category of people as "Data Entry". (15)What did they do? • A.: Their main job was to transform the written reports into typed reports, but they also collated the reports, chased up the signatures, and prepared some of the documents for handover of the bodies. (20) • Q.: And your logistics officer is identified. What was his role?
• A.: His job was to basically provide us with
things like scalpels and gloves in a country where it
was quite difficult to maintain supplies. Forensic
(25)work requires a lot of disposables, and his job was to
• Q.: Without going through the remaining people and their identities and their nationalities, I take it (5)they also were multinational. • A.: Yes. The crime scene officers were principally Dutch, but there were Australians amongst them. My interpreter was Bosnian. • Q.: The next significant part of your report is a (10)section that deals with the procedures of the autopsy. That starts at page 5 of your report. Since you've testified already about the procedure, I'm not going to ask you to repeat that. So carrying on with your report, then you (15)have a section devoted to the autopsy findings, is that correct, which is the section dealing with the minimum number of individuals, the age of the individuals, the sex of the individuals, and the description of the injuries? (20) • A.: That's correct. • Q.: And is it in that section where you outline your findings in greater detail in respect of the human remains examined from this particular site?
• A.: Yes. I've given -- some of the material is
(25)anthropological and is included really to make sense of
• Q.: Two hundred twenty-five? (15) • A.: Sorry, 225. I can't read. Table 2 on page 9 shows the number of gunshot wounds in each of the bodies. You can see that they range from 1 to 8. We have a lot with just 1, and then a smaller number above that. The average -- if you (20)look at the average of the bodies that actually had gunshot wounds, the average is 1.8. • Q.: Now, could you turn to your third table under this aspect of your reports found on page 10.
• A.: We attempted to tell the direction from which
(25)the people had been shot. Now, given that all but one
• Q.: Now, in all of your reports there appears to be a diagram. You will see it on the next page. Will you tell us what this represents, please. • A.: Can I -- (20) MR. HARMON: Mr. Usher, can you move that ELMO.
• A.: Thanks. This is a composite picture that I
created from looking at the X-rays, the diagrams, and
the descriptions of the gunshot wounds, and I have
(25)effectively placed all of the gunshot wounds onto one
(10) MR. HARMON: • Q.: Now, Dr. Lawrence, would you turn to the next page, please, and explain what that table represents. If we could focus down on table 4, please. MR. HARMON: Mr. Usher, perhaps you could (15)assist the witness in focusing down on the -- • Q.: It should be done for you, Dr. Lawrence.
• A.: Just zoom it down on to the diagram. Okay.
Basically, this shows the projectiles
recovered from this scene. It's again a summary of the
(20)total number recovered. We found 88 complete or
essentially complete bullets; 155 bullet fragments
which weren't further specified; 57 jacket fragments,
these were copper jacket fragments; and 35 lead
fragments which appeared to come from the core of the
(25)bullet.
• A.: This is a summary of all of the ligatures or potential ligatures which were found at the site or in the autopsy suite. What I have described is the number, the body (10)bag number that the material came from; a rough description of the material it was made of; the dimensions in width; the circumference of the loop; the number of loops, and the location. You will note that 25 of these were (15)associated with the hands, 8 were associated with the body but not obviously around the hands, and 4 were found loose in the grave. • Q.: Dr. Lawrence, turn to page 15 of your report, please. Did you create a similar table for blindfolds (20)that were recovered from the bodies from CR-03? • A.: Yes. This is the table that I prepared for the potential blindfolds. Again, the body bag number, the material it was made of, the width, the circumference of the loop, and the location. (25)
• Q.: Now, the next section of your report you can
• A.: The cause of death section starts with the
(5)intrinsic problem in dealing with extensively broken-up
skeletal remains; that is, how do you describe the
findings in bodies that are not complete?
In bodies that are complete, you can assess
the whole of the body and reach a conclusion as to
(10)whether or not you have a cause of death.
If, for example, a body is broken in half, we
have the upper half of the body and we have the lower
half of the body, and we are unable to relate them
together. We've got a very large number of potential
(15)victims; they are broken up. We were, in general,
fairly unsuccessful in being able to relate one part
with another part. We did have occasional successes,
mostly related to the identification of clothing on the
upper part and lower part, and occasionally where there
(20)was a condition present which was identified in both,
for example, our gentleman with the very short forearm,
we were able to associate with other malformations of
the body, but in general, we were not able to match up
the top halves and bottom halves.
(25)Now, the pathologist would be given a body
• Q.: Dr. Lawrence, thank you. Let's continue the (20)tour of your report then. If you'd turn to page 18. I'd like you to tell the Judges what you also included in your report. • A.: There's a description of the clothing that was found. (25)
• Q.: Would you put that on the ELMO, Dr. Lawrence,
• A.: We were obviously looking for items of military clothing. In this site, there was one body wearing a Yugoslav National Army jacket and a blue (5)uniform which did not appear to have definite military insignia. We also had one body which was carrying an unfired round or cartridge in the jacket pocket. There were no other -- there was no other evidence of weapons. (10) • Q.: Did you note in your report any identifying documents that you recovered from the bodies? • A.: Yes. We had a number of documents which would give a provisional identification. Again, you can see here the body bag number; what the item was; (15)the name and family name of the individual; if I could tell the date of birth; and if it was a pass, the numbers on it. • Q.: Let me turn now to page 19 of your report. There's an extensive table which continues for many, (20)many pages, Dr. Lawrence. I want to ask you some questions about this. First of all, what is this table?
• A.: This is, if you like, the summary of every
body bag that we received. This is -- I've attempted
(25)to be as open and transparent as I can in showing what
• Q.: Dr. Lawrence, we won't go through all of this (10)report but there are a number of terms I'd like you to define. For example, "not ascertainable," and that appears in the "Cause of Death" column. There's "not ascertainable," "undetermined," "probable gunshot wound," and "possible gunshot wound." Can you explain (15)those terms? • A.: I was dealing with a number of people from different jurisdictions. A lot of my training is American based, and I tend to use the term "undetermined." A lot of the British pathologists use (20)the term "unascertained," "unascertainable," or "not ascertained." For veracity, I have written down what the pathologist who handled the case called it, not what I would call it.
• Q.: Lastly in your report, Dr. Lawrence, I would
(25)like you to refer to page 30 of your report, and I'd
• A.: This table shows all of the features in all of the bodies that we observed that might assist in (5)identifying the individual if once the process of reconciliation with the information from the living is complete; that is, for example, individual number 319 had had a previous shrapnel injury, a healed shrapnel injury in the left hip, so with other information this (10)might lead to identification of this particular individual. • Q.: So one would find in here the shortened ulna, for example, that you described? • A.: We would find all of the old injuries (15)described. We would find all the disabilities, the man with the fused spine. • Q.: I see also there are artefacts such as hearing-aids and -- • A.: Yes. (20) • Q.: -- tin boxes and the like. • A.: Yes.
• Q.: Now, I won't go through all of your
comprehensive reports, Dr. Lawrence, but what I would
like you to do, please, in respect of the eight reports
(25)that you did prepare, I'd like you to summarise your
• A.: To summarise all of the graves that I dealt with in 1998, there was a minimum number of individuals of 883; there were 2.239 body bags; there were 254 (5)relatively intact bodies. • Q.: Now, let me interrupt you right there. Two hundred and fifty-four relatively intact bodies. All but one of the sites that you examined were sites that -- where the bodies had been removed from another (10)location and reburied? • A.: Yes, that's right. • Q.: So is a number of intact bodies consistent with the removal bodies from one site to another? • A.: It's consistent with it. (15) • Q.: Please continue with your findings.
• A.: Now, based on the anthropological evidence,
there were 7 children, that is, people between the ages
of 8 and 13; 48 teenagers; 96 young adults. The bulk
of the people were over the age of 25, approximately
(20)688. At the other end of the range, there were
12 between the ages of 55 and 65, and there were at
least 9 over the age of 65. Of the 883 individuals,
686 were identifiable as male and 197 were not
determined.
(25)There were 1.307 definite gunshot wounds.
(10) • Q.: Fifty or 55? • A.: Sorry, 50 [Realtime transcript read in error "55"] had an undetermined cause of death, and that includes 13 where they were probable or possible gunshot wounds. (15)Ligatures, there were 53 definite ligatures associated with the arms and potentially as many as 83. Blindfolds, there were 44 definite blindfolds and potentially as many as 103. And possibly identifying documents were found on 53 bodies, either at the site (20)or at the morgue. • Q.: Dr. Lawrence, thank you very much.
MR. HARMON: Mr. President, I have concluded
my examination of Dr. Lawrence.
In the transcript there is an error. Sorry,
(25)Mr. President. The witness corrected --
MR. HARMON: The transcript is in error on 13:26:46. I asked the witness whether it was 50 or 55. The witness answered "50" and the transcript still (5)reflects "55." So on the question of -- I can ask the witness one more time. • Q.: Dr. Lawrence, insofar as the number of individuals who had an undetermined cause of death, how many individuals did that represent? (10) • A.: There were 50 individuals with an undetermined cause of death. MR. HARMON: Thank you. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you very much, Mr. Harmon. (15)Mr. Visnjic, do you have -- I'm sure you have many questions. MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Mr. President, not that many. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well. (20)Let us see how we go, and we'll have a break somewhere along the line. Dr. Lawrence, you shall now be answering questions put to you by Defence counsel Visnjic. • CROSS-EXAMINED by Mr. Visnjic: (25)
• Q.: Good afternoon, Dr. Lawrence. Dr. Lawrence,
• A.: Yes. (5) • Q.: According to the evidence presented by the Prosecution to the Court, this site is termed a secondary grave site in comparison to the primary grave site of Glogova. • A.: Yes, I believe so. (10) • Q.: Within the frameworks of your report, you provide a table which represents the number of injuries from firearms and shrapnel on the bodies. • A.: Yes. • Q.: Bearing in mind a statement made by your (15)colleague Dr. Clark, I assume that you are dealing with the minimum number of injuries from a bullet or gun or shrapnel on the bodies. • A.: In those cases with shrapnel wounds, we've described all of the bodies where we identified actual (20)possible shrapnel wounds. It is, of course, possible, given the decomposition, that some of the injuries and some of the shrapnel had been lost from the body. So, yes, it is probably a minimum.
• Q.: I assume that this same question would be to
(25)whether this is the case with the injuries caused by
• A.: I think I am a little less conservative than Dr. Clark, but, yes, I think there were probably more gunshot wounds than we're reporting. (5) • Q.: During your examination-in-chief, when you introduced your associates, you said you had a pathologist who had many reports on ballistics published. • A.: Yes. (10) • Q.: Bearing in mind the injuries and the wounds caused by the shrapnel and the remnants you found in the bodies of the victims, were you able to ascertain perhaps the type of firearm used, the type of weapon used; not in detail, but generally speaking, the type (15)of weapon? • A.: In general, the type of injuries were those caused by a medium, high-powered rifle. • Q.: What about in the case of shrapnel, the shrapnel you found? (20) • A.: I am a forensic pathologist with some working knowledge of ballistics. I don't have working knowledge of ordnance.
• Q.: Thank you. In your report, in one body you
found fragments of some safety glass, and I suppose it
(25)was glass from a vehicle, an automobile.
• Q.: Do you have an explanation for that perhaps? • A.: Yes, I do have an explanation. I understand that in the Kravica warehouse, there were a number of (5)parts of cars. I assume that the safety glasses probably come from one of those vehicles, although I guess fragments of safety glass might be found incidentally in other places. • Q.: At what depth was the safety glass found with (10)respect to the surface of the body? • A.: If I might -- I'm not sure I know that. I didn't do the actual autopsy. If you give me one moment, I will just ... It's described as being found in the pelvis. (15)I'm sorry I can't be more specific than that. • Q.: In view of the position that the glass was found, the place it was found in the pelvis, as you say, embedded in the pelvis, does that perhaps indicate that the body hit an object which was moving at a high (20)speed, in view of the spot where the glass had become embedded? • A.: Sorry. Could you just repeat the first part of that question?
• Q.: In view of the spot that the glass was found,
(25)as far as I was able to see, you found it embedded in
• A.: No. My understanding is it was found in the pelvis in the soft tissue. • Q.: I see. Thank you. Well, if we take that to (5)be the case, is it possible that the glass got to the place it was found through the impact of the body with an object having the glass, a strong impact? • A.: I guess it's a possibility. I had always viewed it as being -- the glass being accelerated into (10)the body, the opposite way. But I can't exclude it. I don't remember seeing major tears of the soft tissue over it to suggest that it had struck an object, so my assumption was that it was glass that was accelerated into the body rather than the body accelerated against (15)an object. • Q.: In your opinion, can a particle of glass penetrate the skin, perforate the skin, if it is, say, on the floor of a room of some kind? • A.: Yes. (20)
• Q.: Bearing in mind the number of injuries in
this last grave site and the number of shrapnel
injuries, in particular, in keeping with that, this
Zeleni Jadar 05 grave site, does it differ in any way
from the primary and secondary grave sites that you
(25)examined?
• Q.: Dr. Lawrence, in case of conflict, that is to (5)say, combat operations between two sides, the assumption is that if the two sides are facing each other in a sort of front-line position, that most of the injuries would be caused through a projectile entering the body from the front? (10) • A.: Yes. • Q.: In the case of having a group of people in an encirclement under siege, would this assumption be brought into question? That is to say, if the combat operations were such that the people were coming under (15)crossfire, would, according to your experience, this assumption be seriously jeopardised? • A.: I'm not sure I can help you on that. I don't know. MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] I apologise, (20)Your Honours. I have just one more question. May I take a minute to confer.
• Q.: And following on from my last question, can
you tell us, in a situation that I tried to describe a
moment ago, where would most of the injuries be located
(25)on the bodies as a consequence of this type of
• A.: An encirclement? • Q.: Yes. • A.: I think they could be anywhere around the (5)body. MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Thank you. Dr. Lawrence, during your examination-in-chief, you have dealt with most of the things that were not clear in the testimonies of the previous witnesses. This was (10)asked you by the Prosecution. Therefore, the Defence has no further questions of this witness, Mr. President. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you, Mr. Visnjic. (15)Mr. Harmon. MR. HARMON: Dr. Lawrence, I only have one question. • RE-EXAMINED by Mr. Harmon:
• Q.: Reference was made to the Zeleni Jadar site,
(20)and I was going through this report and I've realised
that I failed to ask you one question.
In the Cancari road report that you prepared,
we put on the ELMO the staff and you identified various
members of the staff. In looking at the staff used in
(25)the Zeleni Jadar autopsy reports, there appear to be,
• A.: Yes, yes. The people would come from between two weeks to a month. Each of the sites would usually (10)have different personnel. MR. HARMON: All right. Thank you. I have no additional questions, Mr. President, Your Honours. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you (15)very much, Mr. Harmon. Judge Fouad Riad has the floor. JUDGE RIAD: [Int.] Thank you, Mr. President. • QUESTIONED by the Court: (20) JUDGE RIAD: [In English] I can still say good morning, Dr. Lawrence. • A.: Good morning, Your Honour.
JUDGE RIAD: You said something which struck
me. You said you were less conservative than
(25)Dr. Clark. What does that mean in your field?
JUDGE RIAD: I see. For instance, you (20)mention that, just as an example, that 44 were blindfolded and potentially as many as 103. Is that what you call potentially 103?
• A.: Well, the 44 are the number that we found --
this is the -- these are the blindfolds, the -- sorry,
(25)I'm just -- right.
JUDGE RIAD: Then let us come to the ages you mentioned. You say there were seven children between 8 and 13. (15) • A.: That's right. JUDGE RIAD: Do you have -- could you determine, with precision, the age of a child? Or let's say not exactly but under 13, over 13? • A.: That's a question you should probably put to (20)the anthropologists, because they are the ones who formally did the -- JUDGE RIAD: They did that? • A.: They are the ones who did the identification. They did that. (25)
JUDGE RIAD: But you seem to be corroborating
• A.: Yes. I believe that they are around that age, yes. JUDGE RIAD: And also the people over 65, you (5)can say that a person is over 60 or under 60? • A.: Age estimation over the age of 50, using the current techniques, is quite difficult. Sometimes you get a better impression from just looking at the development of osteoarthritis and those sorts of (10)things, the loss of bone and so forth. That is, again, an estimate, but I think that you will find that there were -- given the other evidence, the hearing aids and so forth, I think there probably were a number over that age. But, again, this question, the expert on (15)this is the anthropologist, not me. JUDGE RIAD: Now, in an exchange of, let's say, of ideas with Defence counsel, you mentioned that you could not answer his question when he told you what would happen if people are encircled and how they would (20)be wounded and so on. Could you continue this debate? • A.: Yes. I do not claim to be a military expert. I have some understanding of what might happen.
JUDGE RIAD: In the light of the wounds that
(25)we have at the deaths, could it have happened to people
• A.: I think it's possible. Whether it did occur, I don't know. (5) JUDGE RIAD: I mean in light of your experience in this case. • A.: Again, I was not as successful as Dr. Clark in determining the direction of all of -- from which these all came, so I don't think I can make a strong (10)conclusion as to the direction, and hence I can't tell which -- can't really answer that question from a pathological point of view. JUDGE RIAD: Thank you very much, Dr. Lawrence. (15) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you very much, Judge Fouad Riad. Judge Wald has the floor. JUDGE WALD: Dr. Lawrence, in your Cancari number 3 report, in table 7 on page 18, this was the (20)provisional identification by documents. Do you have that? • A.: Yes, I do.
JUDGE WALD: Okay. I just wondered if you
could explain to me two items in there. One, several
(25)times it says "pathology report." That doesn't mean
• A.: Yes, yes, there was one -- JUDGE WALD: It does. What would be an (5)example of that? • A.: I think one of them had a blood count or something. Yeah, it was a report from a -- JUDGE WALD: It's the same thing, basically. It's like a medical letter. (10) • A.: Yeah, medical letter. JUDGE WALD: Okay. The second item in the same column is "Red Cross Letters". Do you happen to know what just the gist of a Red Cross letter would be that several people had, apparently? (15) • A.: Yeah, I mean probably somebody else can explain it better, but these were messages that appeared to be transmitted to and from people, to refugees. They had gone through the Red Cross. Now, obviously they had letters from people and to people, (20)so it was sometimes difficult to tell necessarily who was the recipient, and sometimes they might carry letters from more than one individual. But these were the letters that were transferred through the Red Cross to these people. (25)
JUDGE WALD: Thank you.
• A.: I'm not familiar with the customs in this court, but I think in Australian courts I would tell (10)you when I think I'm being dragged out of my area of expertise, and I think I'm being dragged out of my area of expertise here.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Yes. I
asked this question because you said that in that kind
(15)of situation, the people in the centre could -- that
the gunshots were coming from several directions. But
if you shoot from this direction, for the person in the
middle the gunshot could go ahead of the person in the
middle.
(20)I asked you this question because you did
give your opinions, but of course I won't insist and I
understand your answer fully, Dr. Lawrence, and accept
it.
Mr. Harmon, have we got any documents to
(25)tender?
(20) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Visnjic, have you any objections? MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Mr. President, no objections.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Madam
(25)Registrar, would you take note of the different
THE WITNESS: Thank you, Mr. President. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, (10)Mr. Visnjic, I see that you're on your feet.
MR. VISNJIC:
[Int.] Mr. President,
I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to
request that our expert, Mr. Stankovic, also be allowed
to leave the courtroom. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, and we should like to thank him as well. MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Thank you, Your Honour. (20)
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Mr. Harmon,
normally this is the time for our 20-minute break,
which means that we would have 10 minutes after the
break. The question now is the following: Are we
going to take a break now, and do you have something
(25)for the other ten minutes left, or are we going to
MR. HARMON: I think it would be appropriate to complete our work today if all I have left is ten (5)minutes. So thank you very much, Mr. President, Your Honours. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Do you agree, Mr. Visnjic? MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] I do indeed, (10)Your Honour. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well. We're not going to have a break and come back into the courtroom, but we'll go on and tomorrow at 9.30 we will resume. (15) --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.55 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday, the 1st day of June, 2000, at 9.30 a.m. |
