Posted on 02/24/2003 8:39:22 AM PST by vooch
Part 2 of 2
Milosevic revealed to the Captain that he was listed by the Prosecution 'as the protected witness B-073', which he never required himself and which triggered a lengthy discussion among the judges and amici as a practice of making a rule out of the exception and actually forcing the protected witness status onto the witnesses.
Dragan also refused to sign a statement to the effect that what was said during the investigation or testimony can not be used against him. He confirmed to have received some EUR 4,000 towards his travelling expenses and the hotel accommodation, but 'you do not seriously think I could be bought for that kind of money?'.
The examination-in-chief by Dermot Groome consisted almost entirely of making the Captain read some reports not even connected with Krajina, where volunteers were being vaguely mentioned, and asking him to comment, to which he would answer that 'I wouldn't even know to point out where Ozren is on the map, I don't know these people that you mention, I have never even been in Bosnia…'
Seeing a futility of this, the Prosecution pulled out 'a secret video', which the Captain ridiculed in the end.
Let's get one thing clear: that JSO unit of which the 'important' video had been shown is not a paramilitary unit, it is a regular police unit for special operations. When the word 'paramilitary' is applied for civil wars in ex-YU, this simply means unofficial volunteer units, who put themselves under the unified command of the local Serb forces.
Therefore, when BBC News of 19 Feb. deftly put together such a yarn that 'Milosevic… paying tribute to Serb paramilitaries accused of ethnic cleansing', 'footage shot in a paramilitary camp', and then continue immediately with 'Captain Dragan told the judges Serb paramilitary did not act independently, but were part of the security services, the army or the police', there are three things amiss here: JSO was being pronounced a paramilitary unit accused of something, in the next sentence they switched to 'Serb paramilitary' meaning something entirely different (volunteer units), but deliberately equating it, and the words 'of Krajina' were omitted when speaking of who controls them, as pointed out in Part I of this report. This is not reporting, this is ice-skating laced with double meaning and gross hinting. Of course volunteer units could not act independently, but why jumping to conclusions about Serbia controlling them, when that was not what the witness said nor meant?
So, BBC spewed this propaganda and even put it in a highlighted inbox, not bothering to retract it the next day, when Captain Dragan explained how his meaning was distorted.
Contrary to the belief of some off-hand session-watchers, Captain Dragan was not a member of that JSO unit from the video, never has been and was not at the time of this celebration (it was 1997); he was an invited guest (as somebody who originally helped train some of its members while they were not the JSO members). Just like Milosevic was a guest, and both were given a token dagger as a gift to remember the celebration by, along with many veterans from other units who were also present. And the tradition of protecting the Serbs, as evoked by Franko Simatovic aka Frenki in his speech, applied to the individual members of the unit, who were previously fighting in various battlefields individually, before they joined the JSO. The speech also considered many other units of the Serbs from CRO and B&H, their training camps and their exploits, and in his PR effort to create the image for the unit, Frenki tried to establish the link to that tradition. The famous red berets, which originally were being given to kninjas after they finished their training course became a popular symbol, first throughout CRO and B&H and then even in Serbia with the 23rd parachute brigade of the Army and the JSO of the Police.
The Captain completely dismissed the importance of the video by explaining this was merely 'a nice show for the President and other high officials' to present the unit bigger and stronger than it ever was (it never surpassed the size of one company), the helicopter squadron mentioned were precisely 'two small Gazelles and one ancient Bell from the Viet Nam war; my friend from the US has a private fleet larger than that'. Captain Dragan gave his fatherly opinion to the judges: "I believe this video was being discussed much too seriously here."
The amicus curiae Kay took only few minutes, questioning the Captain mainly about the weapons that his unit had, as opposed to Croatian units that he directly fought at Glina, Skabrnja and Ljubovo: the Croats were the size of a brigade each time, much better equipped and with armoured vehicles. The only advantage the Captain had was the night-vision and communication equipment, used for behind-the-lines incursions.
Then, it was time for the Prosecution to save something by re-direct examination and, contrary to what the ICTY apologists write, it was nowhere near brilliant: Groome's face got all red, he was constantly being interrupted and corrected by judges and admonished by Kay and the witness was beyond his reach.
When he desperately tried to prove his own witness was lying/being hostile/not speaking good Serbian/was talking to Frenki about his testimony, he amply proved something else: the Prosecution's own technique of producing evidence by distortion.
In short: Captain Dragan stated he was told by Jovica Stanisic to leave Krajina, and his first thought was that this came from Milosevic. Upon reflection, he realized that he was being caught in feuds between Babic and Martic, Babic wanting to seize complete control, resenting the Captain as being 'a Martic man' and forced him to leave, by slandering him in media with 'he received money, finished the job and went away'. Stanisic just advised him to better remove himself from these political clashes, trying to protect him.
The Captain understood Babic had more authority than Milosevic and that it was the former who forced him away. Poor Groome tried to prove his witness crazy for stating such a stupidity and a lengthy discussion developed, including even judges.
Milosevic spoke up, almost laughingly offering help to clear the mess: the words missing were again 'in Krajina'. Yes, Babic was more powerful and influential in Krajina than Milosevic, so he was in a position to expel the Captain. How desperate the Prosecution is, clutching to such a sliver.
This testimony revealed the sinister practice happening when statements are being taken from the witnesses by the Prosecution's investigators.
Captain Dragan gave his statement on 26-27-28 August 2001. But, when Milosevic read out one paragraph from it, the witness said he doesn't recall 'ever saying this'. The same happened during the re-direct examination by Groome. The problem is the following: there are no questions in these statements, only the answers, packed together continuously like a story and worded and interpreted by the investigators, and not quoted verbatim.
This leaves them opened to misinterpretations, distortions, wild editing and taking out of context.
Here's one example. Milosevic quoted the statement: "In my opinion, the war effort was financed by the Serbian government, but I have no proof of that." The Captain denied ever using the term 'war effort', he thought that 'the question probably was whether any help was being sent, which of course was, and which was insufficient in my opinion, but this is absolutely distorted.'
Milosevic took the opportunity to slap May, saying that such practice is nothing new, that the value of statements concocted on the basis of answers to God knows which questions is highly dubious. May admitted that the audio recording doesn't exist and that we have to be 'satisfied with the statements such as they are'.
And when Groome pulled the same statement-reading in his re-direct, the Captain vehemently denied the formulation again and recognized the plot: that was the 'working version' of the statement, for which the investigators told him they would never use it, and there's another, revised version, signed recently. "This is not correct. These are your formulations, taken out from our conversation. We agreed this would never be used. I don't accept this statement, but the revised one, were the corrections have been made with Mr Sexton. I gave another statement, because of too many mistakes. This is a trick. I accept only the statement signed last week!" said the Captain, waving this piece of paper.
The solution to the problem by May? Both statements were introduced as evidence.
Captain Dragan and Milosevic chatted away the cross-examination almost like friends, certainly in a way of two people deeply aware what kind of false show they got themselves mixed up in. Speaking of his encounter in Belgrade with Jovica Stanisic, when he got an advice to get away from Babic-Martic political games, the Captain admitted his first reaction was to get angry with Milosevic for sending him such an advice ('I thought I would get your support'), but instead of that he had to leave. "And here they are accusing you of exactly the opposite; either way, it's a no-win situation for you and I wouldn't want to be in your shoes." Both men laughed.
Yet another Dubrovnik witness, this time an ITN journalist, one Paul Davis, started to testify on Friday. This is becoming ridiculous.
On Monday there will be no session.
spoken like a true Clintonista HumWarrior......
VRN
Perhaps with his court appearance out of the way Captain Dragan will start posting again.
Looks like another own goal for the prosecution.
They are not even remotely transcripts of conversations. Dragan stated that the "statements" were edited, translated, and reconfigured to be completely misleading.
Dragan was a prosecution witness called up by the prosecution. He was supposed to be a 'insider' who was going to finger SM. Instead he provided lots of testimony supporting the defense.
The Prosecution has egg all over its face and is trying to backtrack as much as possible.
It speaks volumes about the Prosecution when they have to slander their own witnesses.
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.