JURIST - Discussion Archive: Milosevic Trial

The Hague Tribunal and NATO are using TIME to kill Mr. Milosevic and in this way they will not need to answer for their alleged crimes. TIME, as all of you know, is a scarce commodity for Milosevic. He has three month in which to prepare his defense. This is simply a “squeeze play” on his time and his health, which is nothing new. In Mr. May’s Court “Hungry judge’s soon the sentence sign, wretches hang so that jurymen may dine.”

The Canadian judges and I am sure Mr. Black could elaborate more clearly, must provide a FAIR TRIAL. What does this entail? They must provide as much time for the defense and the prosecution as is necessary for a fair trial. The prosecution and the defense must satisfy the judge on the “ISSUE OF HOW MUCH TIME IS NECESSARY” to cross-examine and to PREPARE ONES DEFENCE. The time factor obviously should be determined by the VOLUME OF EVIDENCE Milosevich needs to read and THE NUMBER OF WITNESSES that he needs to call. The RULING ON TIME must be an IMPARTIAL DECISION in order that Milosevic gets a FAIR TRIAL. The time factor is also important, during the conduct of the trial. JUDGE’S INVOLVEMENT IN THE TRIAL, such as interference with the cross-examination, guiding witnesses, and even guiding the prosecution case leads to INFRENGEMENT ON THE ACCUSED’S TIME. It is a fact that Mr. MAY HAS DONE ALL THOSE THINGS MENTIONED IN THE PREVIOUS SENTENCE, particularly when the witness was important to the defense BY MR. MAY’S ACTION Mr. Milosevic WAS DENIED A FAIR AMOUNT OF TIME AND A FAIR TRIAL as required by law. I WILL PROVIDE A STATISTICAL ANNALYSIS OF ONE SEGMENT OF THE TRIAL to illustrate HOW THE COURT PROCEEDING IS TAKING TIME FROM THE DEFENCE (MILOSEVIC) AND BY THIS NOT PROVIDING HIM A FAIR TRIAL. The following three TABLES are a statistical analysis of the TESTIMONY OF GENERAL CLARK.This information is available to anyone from the transcripts and is provided here for your evaluation. It is fortunate that I am not in Mr. May’s courtroom as he might have, by now, pulled a plug on my computer.

In short, this is how an official transcript of the Hague Tribunal looks: In the TABLES that follow the address directed to the court (prosecution, defence, amices) is individually categorized. For example, if prosecutor Nice addresses the court, this category in the table is labelled Mr. Nice. Questions, which Mr. Nice addresses to the witness, are labelled in the table as Question. The same applies to the amicus. If Mr. Milosevic address the court, that is labelled as Mr. Milosevic and sometimes as Accused. Questions which Mr. Milosevic addresses to the witness are tabled Questions. Answers by the witness are entered as Answers. When witness addresses the judges (Judge May) that address is tabled as Witness Wesley Clark.

The following three points, which most of you know, explain the courtroom procedure common in most courts around the world:

1. Prosecutor questions his witness (the first step in evidence). This, of course, is the most fluid part of the entire process since the prosecutor and the witness have practiced this part at length and in depth.

2. Once the prosecution is finished the defence cross-examines the prosecution witness. This, of course is the least fluid part of the entire process because there was no prior practice, and the aims are diametrical opposite. Amices then cross-examine the witness for the courts (judges) benefit with the intent to cover any missed or unclear investigation made so far.

3. Finally, during the re-examination the prosecutor deals with new evidence that the defence touched on as well the prosecutor tries to discredit some evidence, that may lead to unfavourable conclusions and that might influence the court (judges).

In examining the Wesley Clark segment from the transcripts, as an example of what goes on in this trial the following TABLE was compiled to illustrates who spoke, how many times they spoke, and how long they spoke. This is the essence of TABLE #1

Table #1

Speaker (Q & A)	Times he/she spoke	Words per speech
Mr. Nice	17	37
Question	133	22
Answer	130	46
Witness	3	8
Judges, May (99%)	17	20

Summary:

As you can see, there were 133 questions; prosecutor, Mr. Nice received 130 answers (98%). During this examination the judges spoke 17 times. Note the lengths of the Question and Answer

.PART #2:

In the following Table Mr. Milosevic cross-examines Wesley Clark. Table #2 illustrates how many questions he was able to put to the witness

Table #2

Speaker (Q & A)	Times he/she spoke	Words per speech
Accused/Mr. Milosevic	63	30
Question	142	67
Answer	91	81
Witness	45	115
Judges, May (99%)	140	38
Mr. Nice	15	53

Summary:

Mr. Milosevic asked 142 Questions and received 91 Answers, which is only 64% of the total questions asked. In asking the142 Questions Mr. Milosevic was interrupted by Mr. May 140 times which is 99% percent of the time. The other consideration here is the amount of time Mr. May allows Clark to respond. In the exchange between Milosevic and Clark the lengths of Question and Answer is out of proportion. Mr. Clark is allowed by Mr. May to make campaign speeches. Also note that prosecutor Nice spoke 17 times, presumably to help Mr. May in protecting their witness.

In the following TABLE #3 the friend of the court Mr. Kay has his kick at the can.

Table #3

Speaker (Q & A)	Times he/she spoke	Words per speech
Mr. Kay	18	43
Question	35	46
Answer	30	62
Witness	1	72
Judge, May (99%)	18	18

Summary:

In the 3rd (Clark) segment, Mr. Kay asked 35 Questions and got 30 Answers, which was 86% of the time. During Kay’s examination judge May intervened 18 times which was 51% of the time. Note the number and lengths of the Question and Answer

The most surprising exchange during entire Clark session was Mr. May’s dressing down of amices Mr. Kay with the following words Mr. Kay, I remind you of your role in this trial. (Transcripts, Page 30,553, line 10).<.b> It is obvious that Mr. May sees the amices as his poodles not as defenders of a FAIR TRIAL. Up to now that (dressing down) was exclusively reserved for amice Tapuskovic whom Mr. May, openly despised.

Even more surprising was the response by Mr. Kay, which in essence, esspecialy by his body language, said : is there a trace of decency (honesty) in you, judge May?

The last segment of this analysis Table #4 deals with the re-examination by the prosecutor Mr. Nice. This time without or with modest rehearsal we see the prosecutor doing all the talking and tells what the witness should have told the court. Letting the witness speak would have been dangerous so the prosecutors speaks for the witness. Let me remind you here that Nice spoke two times longer in the re-examination than in the examination of Clark..The FARCE ends with the judge thanking and releasing the witness.

Table #4

Speaker (Q & A)	Times he/she spoke	Words per speech
Mr. Nice	24	58
Question	43	40
Answer	38	27
Witness	10	40
Judges, May 99%	35	21

Summary:

In the re-examination Mr. Nice asked 43 Questions and received 38 Answers, which was 88% of the time. During the Question Mr. May intervened 35 times, which was 81% of the time. Since prosecutor Nice lost his bearings several times Mr. May did it his “duty” to queen and country in order to protect at that time (possibly) the next president of the US. We know now that sometimes, on this forum, we underestimate the American voter. I personally apologise to those that I have offended.

General Summary:

1. The gist of this segment of testimony which was similar to almost all other segments is summed up in Mr. Kay’s implicit response, “is there a trace of decency (honesty) in you, judge May?”

2.General Clark’s responses to Questions mimicked responses given by Albanian witnesses. The great general, like the Albanian; ‘village folk’ could not remember knowing or witnessing a single thing that did not fit into selected story.

,B>The big lie, however, was when General Clark, the champion of anti-terrorism, distinguished himself by proclaiming KLA not to be a terrorist organization when in fact everyone knows that the KLA was on the CIA list of terrorist organizations. All but one of the Albanian witnesses, out of fear for reprisal, testified that they did not know anything about KLA. In the similar fashion, Clark, albeit for different reasons, did not want to admit his love affair with Thaci and his KLA terrorists.

Tables presented here are free of any biases since they are derived from the Tribunals official transcripts and cannot be manipulated. The numbers support many of our intuitive observations about The Hague Tribunal.

These Tables show, at least to me, that the amount of time given to Milosevic during the prosecution phase of this trial was manipulated. Mr. May’s interference, his bias in the treatment of witness evidence, his speeches in guiding the testimony of witnesses, his support for the prosecution in order to shore up their arguments, both during the examination and in particular during Milosevic’s cross examination, took substantial time from the defence case. Milosevic’s time was substantially reduced by Mr. May’s interference in the proceeding and now he limits Milosevic to three month for the preparation of the defence case. Fair Trial you ask? This trial is like Colonel Saunders in a chicken coop deciding which chicken will be next.

Harmony and normal life amongst ethnic groups involved in the civil war during disintegration of Yugoslavia would have returned a long, long time ago had The Hague Tribunal been honest from the beginnings. For that, indictment of Mr. Milosevic and his co-workers should have been simultaneous with the indictment of Mr. Tudjman, Mr. Izetbegovic, Mr. Tachi and their co-workers and of course lets not forget the NATO leaders and their co-workers, who are now the accessories after the fact. Ten years ago they were the main perpetrators who instigated and also aided and abetted the conflict. Alleged NATO criminals need to occupy the cells at Scheveningen as well, not only for their acts of omission as members of the UN, and their wilful, intentional disregard of treaties but also for their war crimes against a sovereign nation that they initially destabilized. The quote ‘In this trial there is no question of according to the defendant a blind and impartial justice; the trial has been set the task of giving to an injustice a veneer of legality by cloaking it in the language of the law.’ from David Irving that Gogol provided is your answer to my last question in this post, but I am sure you have your own answer as well.Is Milosevic getting a Fair Trial you ask? That is a joke of the century.