Posted on 11/26/2002 8:36:55 AM PST by Destro
Foreign - Tuesday 26.11.2002
Finnish investigator Helena Ranta to testify at Milosevic trial
Finnish forensic odontologist Helena Ranta has been called to testify at the United Nations War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague at the trial of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic.
Ranta's testimony is likely to be significant, because she was the head of the forensic investigations into the events in the Kosovo village of Racak in the winter of 1999, where about 40 Albanians were killed by Serb forces.
The event was something of a turning point in the Kosovo War. It was then that the Western countries took active political, and finally military action: NATO bombardment of Yugoslavia began in March of that same year.
At the trial so far, both the prosecutors and some witnesses have made reference to Ranta's report. Milosevic himself has also made frequent reference to Ranta's studies at the trial which began in February this year.
The exact date of Ranta's testimony remains unknown, as the court will not reveal the witnesses' schedules in advance.
"I would hope that the testimony would be given before Christmas. However, the schedule is a bit tight, which means that I will probably go to The Hague after the beginning of the year", Ranta said when interviewed by telephone.
She said that she expected to be questioned intensely by both the prosecutors, and by Milosevic.
"I will undoubtedly have to answer questions such as whether or not the events at Racak meet the criteria of a 'massacre'. I must be prepared for everything."
These kinds of fine distinctions had an especially important significance in the winter of 1999 when NATO member states were pondering whether or not a possible bombing war against Yugoslavia would be justified.
During the investigations Ranta found herself in a somewhat awkward situation, when she was called upon to give a legal opinion on the events of Racak. As a doctor Ranta refused to use any term other than "crime against humanity".
"Many expected Ranta to say that it was a massacre. However, she was not a lawyer. Instead, she worked to determine causes of death. Her task as a pathologist was not to define the events in legal terms", explained prosecution spokeswoman Florence Hartmann by telephone from The Hague on Monday.
During the events at Racak suspicions were voiced in the world press that the forensic team was working under pressure from the West. Ranta herself insists that there was no attempt by the United States or Germany to influence her conclusions.
The decision to call Ranta to testify comes at a somewhat strange time; testimony on the massacres in Kosovo had concluded at the trial, and now the focus is on the wars in Bosnia and Croatia.
"It is still the same trial, even though there are many parts. At first we believed that Ranta would not have to be there in person. We thought that her thousand-page report would have been sufficient evidence on its own", Hartmann said.
Experts say that the prosecution noticed too late that Ranta's personal testimony would be a very important part of the process.
On the last day of the Kosovo testimony the prosecutors asked the judges for permission to call Ranta to testify so that she might confirm what she had said in an interview in June with the Swiss publication Weltwoche, where she described the results of her investigations in Racak in detail.
The judges denied the prosecution's request to call her as a prosecution witness. Instead, they decided to call her to the stand themselves. This was seen as somewhat exceptional procedure in a UN court, where witnesses are usually called either by the prosecution or the defence, rather than by the judges.
Get a grip, pythag.
What distance constitutes 'close range firing'?
I believe we hashed this out previously and determined that GSR doesn't travel all that far from the barrel to the victim, ergo, the bullets in the ground trump your supposed 'debunking'.
About 2.5 - 3.0 meters. Less, if the murder weapon was a pistol. But you can look that up yourselves.
the bullets in the ground trump your supposed 'debunking'
The bullets in the ground signify nothing unless proper ballistic analyses are conducted.
Lidice, wonders.
Lidice.
You have never responded to the this, either:
"On the basis of ballistic analyses, the victims were shot at a range of less than 30 metres from the trench and then dumped in it." link
What would that prove?
The victims weren't dumped, wonders, they fell as they were shot.
In some cases, other material of human origin was found in association with bullets.
This is vaguely worded. To me, "in association with" connotes "found in the the near vicinity of" like the bit of someone's hand Ranta spoke of finding there. To you, it seems to connote the material was found on the actual bullets.
The victims weren't dumped, wonders, they fell as they were shot.
Well, I don't particularly care whether they fell where they were shot or whether they were dumped there, but I would like to know which way it was. Neither thing would definitively prove who did it, however.
The "fell where they were shot" doesn't square with the Finnish ballistics analyses I cited in the link I gave above. And it doesn't seem to square with the witnesses who said they were walking up the hill when they ran into another group of police who fired at them, and some near the rear managed to escape. Neither matches up with Clinton's claim that they were "forced to kneel in the dirt" and then shot execution-style. The wounds don't match the Clinton scenario either.
You seem determined that it happened just as Bubba said. I want to know how it really happened.
The Serbs extrajudicially executed a group of unarmed Kosovar Albanian villagers.
And "material of human origin was found in association" means that the bullets passed through a human and carried material along their path into the ground.
Perhaps when Serbia gets around to arresting and prosecuting (oh yeah, likely event...) the guys who perpetrated this massacre, they'll be able to tell us exactly what happened, huh?
Just like they've taken care of prosecuting those responsible for the murders at Ovcara farm, over 11 years ago... No need for the ICTY, right wonders?
Sez you and Bill Clinton and Bill Walker.
And "material of human origin was found in association" means that the bullets passed through a human and carried material along their path into the ground.
I might mean that. It means that to you. It very well might mean human material was found in close proximity to the bullets. As I said before, "in association with" is a vague term.
Perhaps when Serbia gets around to arresting and prosecuting (oh yeah, likely event...) the guys who perpetrated this massacre, they'll be able to tell us exactly what happened, huh?
Well, one Zoran Stanojevic was arrested and put on trial. KLA would not allow the judges, OSCE, human rights monitors, etc., into Racak. But I guess you remember that. link
And all the evidence supportive of Serb culpability, from the surviving witnesses to the forensic investigation results which completely trashed Milosevic's damage control efforts is thus discarded.
I don't think so.
It means that to you.
So what this is about is the meaning of the phrase "in association with".
Why stop there, wonders? Why not debate the meaning of the word "is" while we're at it?
To wit, the meaning of the statement in the executive summary is plain, and just because you are confused by simple statements is no reason to assume that the rest of the world also suffers from that affliction.
I'm not stupid, and you're not stupid. So do us both a favor and don't play the part and cease any attempts to dissimilate words from their meaning.
Stanojevic was not tried by any Serbian judiciary - my point about the uselessness of the Serbian legal system still stands. It was thoroughly compromised during Milosevic's tenure, and it remains compromised to this day.
Your points, wonders, have been addressed ad nauseum on other threads, and quite frankly, I find it fruitless to counter each and every repetition of faulty logic and outright lying every time I see them - as for Bubba, he's not pertinent to the central facts, so why are you attempting to discredit the investigation and it's results by introducing him? It's one of those logical errors I was referring to. Please make a note of it.
I make no judgements on you as a person, wonders, but your methods are unsound and your resultant opinions flawed, and I will not hesitate to point that out to you.
I used to read Hoplite's responses to your posts and half jokingly and silently think to myself, "Holy crap. This Hoplite character is so predictable, he may be a bot.
I'm starting to seriously believe the idea now.
Personaly I believe Hoplite is suffering from acute lack of self esteem and as a result has to compensate for this by dominating anything that he comes in contact with. What he can not dominate he destroys. Simply the world is wrong Hoplite is right.
Low self esteem is quite a problem in society these days and why would Hoplite be immune. FR is just another part of his own experience that his personality needs to control. Not once have I ever heard Hoplite say you have got a good point there or I agree with you. Hoplite should send posts to himself in which case he will no longer be in conflict, he will be in a position to agree with the only entity out there, that shares his point of view, himself.
I would suggest dealing with the low self esteem problem and once that has been addressed Hoplite will find that his ego which dominates him and his world will subside dramatically and he will one day take the big towards not being arrogant. Hoplite is intelligent but his need to fight with people sadly takes that all away. A case in point;
,b>Your points, wonders, have been addressed ad nauseum on other threads, and quite frankly, I find it fruitless to counter each and every repetition of faulty logic and outright lying every time I see them..
Here Hoplite in a defensive move to protect his perfection is lashing out and making a lame excuse in regards to Wonders concern that Hoplite does not address the points she brought up. Hoplite’s ego (which is in charge of Hoplites life) is very delicate and takes the egotistical point of view that Wonder's points have been address other places and thereby conveniently avoids taking responsibility and being accountable for his inaction in addressing Wonder’s legitimate concern. No worries Wonders this same thing is what turned me off on Hoplite. Its just a matter of seeing it for what it is.
Of course Wonder's logic is faulty and her point of view is being inferred to by Hoplite as lies. How arrogant. You Hoplite are the farthest from the truth to yourself and to what is going on in the world. Wonders is by far one of the most credible posters in FR and my dear Boy Wonders walks the walk so have some respect and you can start doing this by learning to respect yourself and stop acting like the real whipping boy you are. Do grow up little man.
You're one of the fraudsters I was warning Wonders against relying on for 'proof', Wraith - and the fact you've been to Kosovo has no bearing on whether you are telling the truth or not, as your veracity has been found wanting, wraith.
This is your bane, Wraith - people who can think and research for themselves.
Still nothing on that KVM patrol, huh?
You have reduced yourself to the level of Vooch, Destro, and Fusion - and you make a fine fourth for that quartet.
Flog away, Wraith.
Hoplite you grasp at straws whipping boy and this is how flawed you are. Yes Wonders has a point of view non of which you obviously respect. And you know why? You could not even agree with her about the above statement she made because your eggo was to busy in control freak mode that you failed to see and acknowledge what wonders was saying. The end result was simply you dismissing wonders as you have done to numerous individuals, hence your applicable title of "THE WHIPING BOY".
You have issues and they are not here on FR but in your head. Their are some good councilors out their. Perhaps a self help book or two. So long Whipping boy.
P.S. I believe Wonders may have a very valid point. Imagine that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.