1. Hague Tries Quietly to Murder Milosevic; His Defense in Financial
Crisis (PRAVDA.RU)
2. Murder At The Hague? - An Investigation Into The Alleged Suicide
Of Slavko Dokmanovic (F. J. Gil-White)
A USEFUL LINK:
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org
=== 1 ===
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/11/01/39019.html
20:51 2002-11-01
Hague Tries Quietly to Murder Milosevic; His Defense in Financial
Crisis
The Hague "Tribunal" show trial has disastrously backfired. Slobodan
Milosevic has so thoroughly defeated this NATO "court" that the
pro-NATO media has eliminated virtually all TV and newspaper coverage.
Since, because Milosevic is brilliant and because they are lying, the
Hague cannot "show" their trial, they are trying to defeat Mr.
Milosevic the way they find most natural: by murdering him. Meanwhile,
his support Committees have been hindered by a drastic lack of funds.
Last night Slobodan Milosevic suffered an attack of ultra-high blood
pressure, typical of his malignant hypertension. This condition,
requiring that a cardiologist monitor Mr. Milosevic, can easily cause
heart attack or stroke. His heart is already damaged.
On July 26, Richard May, the so-called judge at The Hague proceeding
against Slobodan Milosevic, made the following statement in "court":
"We have received a doctors' report which in its conclusion states
that the accused is a man exposed to a serious cardiovascular risk
which requires careful health monitoring in the future. The authors of
the report advise a reduction in the workload of this trial and advise
further treatment by a cardiologist."
Despite warnings from Yugoslav cardiologists and our committees, this
was the first time The Hague permitted even non-specialists to examine
President Milosevic. And despite their doctors' recommendation of
"careful health monitoring in the future.. a reduction in the workload
of this trial and. further treatment by a cardiologist," The Hague
has, illegally, done the opposite:
-His "trial" day used to end at 2 PM. Now it ends at 5 PM. He is
subjected to a long, tiring, absurd and humiliating security procedure
going to and from the "court" room. He gets back to jail so late that
he must choose: a short walk for some fresh air, or dinner.
-His cell is in an old Nazi prison. The windows are hermetically
sealed. The air is so dirty his wife reports her shoes are covered
with white dust after a two-hour visit.
-He is given poor quality, greasy foods instead of the
vegetable-centered diet required for a heart patient.
Under international humanitarian law it is illegal to deny a prisoner
necessary medical treatment. Given the requirements stated in the
doctors' report, it is clear that this worsening of Milosevic's living
conditions is an attempt to give him a stroke or heart attack and thus
"solve" the problem that he is defeating NATO.
What We Can Do
We urge everyone to publicize and protest this international crime.
You can protest directly by calling The Hague
at 3170 416 5000 or 3170 512 5334
Mr. Milosevic's support committees, the Freedom Foundation in Belgrade
and the ICDSM (International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic)
are in financial crisis. The Websites of the ICDSM and Milosevic's own
party, the SPS, are shut down for lack of money. The ICDSM's temporary
address is
http://emperor.vwh.net/icdsm/index.htm
We need to bring the Quebec attorney, Tiphaine Dickson, to The Hague
for consultations with Mr. Milosevic. Presently we do not have the
funds even for her plane fare.
The kidnapping and "trial" of Mr. Milosevic is an attack on all of us
- on Russia, for this attack is part of NATO's drive to the East; on
the rule of law, for the Hague "tribunal" is modeled on the
Inquisition; and on the United Nations, because this "tribunal" is run
by NATO, that is, by the war criminals who attacked Yugoslavia. It
criminalizes the UN.
It is thus of great importance that we not be silenced. If you have
not contributed to Mr. Milosevic's defense - to our *common* defense -
please consider doing so. Those of us who are directly involved have
exhausted our financial resources. We cannot continue without you.
You can make a donation in several ways. Please consult our Donations
page, which can be found at this time at
http://emperor.vwh.net/icdsm/donations.htm
Thank you.
Jared Israel, Spokesperson, International Committee to Defend Slobodan
Milosevic, USA
Vladimir Krsljanin, Spokesperson, Freedom Foundation, Yugoslavia
Jared Israel contributed this article to PRAVDA.Ru
=== 2 ===
Subject: Murder At The Hague?
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 10:33:44 +0100
From: "Vladimir Krsljanin" <vlada@...>
President Milosevic has not been able to appear this morning as well.
Those who are still in doubt whether to react or not, should read the
following analysis:
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/gilwhite/dokmanovic.htm
To join or help this struggle, visit:
http://www.sps.org.yu/ (official SPS website)
http://www.belgrade-forum.org/ (forum for the world of equals)
http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan
Milosevic)
icdsm temporary address:
http://emperor.vwh.net/icdsm/index.htm
for your donations:
http://emperor.vwh.net/icdsm/donations.htm
---
Is the Hague Tribunal (ICTY) murdering its prisoners?
Join our email list at http://emperors-clothes.com/f.htm
Receive articles from Emperor's Clothes Website
Send the link to this text to a friend. If you're reading this in
email, email this link to your friend:
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/gilwhite/dokmanovic.htm
==================================================
Murder At The Hague?
An Investigation Into The Alleged Suicide
Of Slavko Dokmanovic
by Francisco J. Gil-White
fjgil@...
http://www.psych.upenn.edu/~fjgil/
[4 November 2002]
==================================================
** Preface: Is Milosevic In Danger? **
Recently, trial proceedings at The Hague were interrupted
because of Slobodan Milosevic?s health problems. As reported in
the Ottawa Citizen:[1]
[Start Ottawa Citizen Quote]
The war crimes trial of former Serbian leader
Slobodan Milosevic was adjourned yesterday after he
complained of exhaustion, prompting fears that the
case may not be finished on time. Mr. Milosevic?has
been plagued by heart and high-blood pressure
problems, and suffered several bouts of influenza.
[End Ottawa Citizen Quote]
Supporters of Milosevic believe the Hague Tribunal is
deliberately trying to strain Milosevic in the hopes that he will
die of a heart attack or stroke.
They have reason to worry.
This past July, The Hague finally permitted doctors to examine
Slobodan Milosevic. Commenting on the doctor's findings, judge
Richard May said:[&]
[Start Quote From Hague Transcript]
JUDGE MAY: ??We have received a report, a medical report,
which in its conclusion describes the accused as a man with
severe cardiovascular risk which demands careful future
monitoring. The authors recommend that his workload be
reduced??
[End Quote From Hague Transcript]
However, subsequent to this report, Milosevic's conditions have
deteriorated and his workload has been increased.
Several prisoners at The Hague have died already in suspicious
circumstances. In this piece I consider the details surrounding
the dramatic case of Slavko Dokmanovic, whose death was
alleged by the tribunal to be a suicide. After looking at the
evidence, it is almost impossible not to conclude that
Dokmanovic was murdered at The Hague, while in detention,
and that the court authorities are covering it up. This precedent
establishes ample cause for worry about Milosevic?s fate.
** Did Dokmanovic Really Commit
Suicide? **
It was announced on June 29th, 1998, that Slavko Dokmanovic
had committed suicide in his cell, just one week before the
tribunal was to pass a verdict on the charges against him. The
Yugoslav government reacted to Dokmanovic?s death as
follows:[2]
[Start BBC Quote]
?Bearing in mind the circumstances accompanying
the Dokamovic case, including his arrest, trial,
medical treatment and attitude of the prison
authorities towards his health problems, the
[Yugoslav] Justice Ministry considers the tribunal
responsible for the death of Dokmanovic.
The ministry expresses its concern for the health of
the other war crimes indictees, and demands that the
tribunal undertake necessary steps to guarantee safety
and treatment in keeping with international
standards.
In regard with the above, the ministry has lodged a
protest by Justice Minister Zoran Knezevic to the
president of the tribunal, Louise Arbour.?
[End BBC Quote]
As this analysis will show, the Yugoslav government could, and
should have, leveled charges more serious than these. Had it
known the facts, certainly, it would have.
Consider first that, on the day that Dokmanovic?s death was
announced, the Associated Press wrote the following (the
emphases are mine):[3]
[Start Associated Press Quote]
??Dokmanovic had complained through his lawyers of
feeling depressed and had been visited regularly by a
psychiatrist, but he never hinted he was suicidal. In
fact, he was seen as having a good chance at
acquittal?"
[End Associated Press Quote]
A man accused of war crimes (especially if he is innocent!) may
naturally feel distraught and require psychiatric help. Feelings of
apprehension may rise immediately prior to the verdict. But
would a man expecting an acquittal commit suicide?
Every alleged suicide is a possible murder, so if a man with good
reason to live appears to have killed himself, the responsible
authorities are supposed to investigate with zeal-especially if
there are suspicious circumstances, as was the case for
Dokmanovic. About those circumstances, the same Associated
Press wire wrote:
[Back to the Associated Press]
?The body of Slavko Dokmanovic, 48, was found
hanging on the hinge of the door to his cell in the
U.N. court's detention unit in The Hague shortly after
midnight, tribunal spokesman Christian Chartier said.
?Chartier said Dokmanovic had complained to guards
Sunday afternoon that he was not feeling well, and he
was placed on a suicide watch. The guards checked on
him every half-hour and last saw him alive at 11:30
p.m. Sunday, he said.
The lights were on in his cell at that time, but shortly
thereafter, Dokmanovic managed to short-circuit the
electricity in his cell using an electric razor, and the
lights went out, Chartier said.
When a guard next passed by his cell just after
midnight, the body was found dangling in the
darkened cell.?
[End Associated Press Quote]
It is difficult to find anything here that makes sense.
First, if the guards last saw him alive at 11:30pm, and didn?t
check on him again until midnight, when the body was
supposedly found, then how can Chartier know that
Dokmanovic shorted the light in his cell *shortly after 11:30*?
Is he psychic?
Second, if Dokmanovic never even hinted at having suicidal
thoughts, why place him on suicide watch when he merely
complains about not ?feeling well?? But if he was placed on
suicide watch, why could he still hang himself?
A later wire, from Inter-Press Service, would have us believe
that this was in fact relatively *easy* because Dokmanovic?s
keepers obliged his supposedly suicidal intentions by leaving him
his tie![4]
[Start Inter-Press Service Quote]
??Slavko Dokmanovic, a 49-year-old Croatian Serb,
hung himself with a tie ?[at the] ? detention center in
Scheveningen, in the Netherlands, run by the
International Criminal Tribunal for Former
Yugoslavia (ICTY)
.?Dokmanovic's death was pronounced ?unfortunate?
by the ICTY, although it was never explained how a
man who tried to commit suicide twice while in
detention was left with a tie or an electric razor.?
[End Inter-Press Service Quote]
Notice that this is in direct contradiction to what we saw earlier:
a man first described as never even hinting that he was suicidal
is now alleged to have tried to kill himself twice before! Shall we
pick our favorite version? And if Dokmanovic was placed on
suicide watch, then it is not merely strange but downright
incomprehensible that they should have left him his tie or razor.
I contacted the 18th District Philadelphia Police Department to
obtain details about their policies in a suicide watch, and I
learned the following:
1) The prisoner is placed in a separate, Plexiglas cell.
2) Anything that could be used as a weapon, or used by
the prisoner to hang him/herself is removed. Ties, belts,
shoe-laces, etc.-all must go. Only a safety razor would
be provided (certainly not a real razor, or an electric
razor which the prisoner could use to electrocute
himself). The prisoner will be watched at all times
while operating the safety razor.
3) In Philadelphia, even the prisoner?s clothes are
removed and s/he is given a special jumpsuit made of
paper that cannot be used for hanging.
4) The prisoner is checked every *15 minutes*.
My informant, one Sergeant Walsh, was not sure why the
regulation time between checks is exactly 15 minutes, but he
agreed with me that this is probably so that especially crafty
prisoners will not find time enough to suffocate. Asked how he
felt about a 30 minute interval, he reacted with surprise-no, that
was *much* too long. We?ve been told, however, that Slavko
Dokmanovic was checked only every 30 minutes.
Sergeant Walsh also impressed upon me that suicide-watch
regulations are not flexible in the least, as failure to follow
them to the letter will result in suspension without pay. And when
asked what the procedure would be in case a prisoner placed on
suicide watch died, he said: ?To give you an idea of how serious
this would be, any time there is a cell block incident it is
investigated by a homicide unit.?
Now compare this to what the tribunal spokesman, Christian
Chartier, said to the press and see if you can find anything that
looks plausible. One version has Slavko Dokmanovic on suicide
watch even though he never hinted he was suicidal and merely
complained of not feeling well. The other version has him trying
to commit suicide twice before, but he is nevertheless given long,
30-minute intervals between checks, his clothes are not
removed, and-most scandalously-his tie and electric razor are
left in his cell! Why? To give him a better chance on his third
try?
We have nothing but suspicious stories here, and all the worse
for not being mutually consistent. But, troubling as these
questions may seem, they pale compared to those raised by
glaring inconsistencies in other reports of the discovery of
Dokmanovic?s body.
This, for example, is from Deutsche Presse-Agentur:[5]
[Start DPA Quote]
?On Sunday evening, Dokmanovic had again
complained about feeling unwell and was examined
by a doctor. He was immediately placed under
surveillance and a guard had checked on his condition
every half hour.
At 11.30 pm, everything had been normal, Chartier
said. But at midnight the accused had been found
dead.
Chartier was quoted by the British BBC as saying:
?Dokmanovic used an electric shaver to short-circuit
the light in his cell. When the prison guard went to
check on him he could not see in, so he opened the
door. That was when he discovered the body.??
[Start DPA Quote]
Notice what a different picture we get here. So casual. The
guard opened the door because...he could not see in! There was
no particular alarm about the light being out.
That is consistent with Dokmanovic complaining about not
feeling well and getting checked by ?a doctor,? not by a
psychiatrist. Very casual. Health problems: routine.
But this contradicts the Associated Press wire cited earlier,
which said that Dokmanovic was seen by a *psychiatrist* and
placed on *suicide watch*. And yet, both reports are from the
same day, and both cite the same Christian Chartier as their
source!
The report below, which appeared the next day in The
Scotsman, is also inconsistent:[6]
[Start Scotsman Quote]
?The judges were expected to deliver their verdict on 7
July. After a visit the next day, his lawyer, Domo Fila,
was so disturbed by Dokmanovic's mental condition
that he asked for his client's medication to be
increased and for a warder to check his condition
every 30 minutes.
According to Zoran Jovanovic, a legal colleague in
Belgrade, Mr Fila had been confident of securing
Dokmanovic's release. ?But he was not at all well
during that time,? said Zoran Jovanovic from
Belgrade.?
[End Scotsman Quote]
This account has Dokmanovic?s lawyer (Toma Fila, not as
written above) worrying about the supposedly suicidal
Dokmanovic, and requesting medication and checks every 30
minutes. The Scotsman?s information supposedly comes from
Jovanovic, a colleague of Fila?s, not from Chartier.
What are we supposed to believe? Concern about Dokmanovic
was raised either by a psychiatrist, a doctor, Dokmanovic
complaining to his guards, or by his lawyer. Subsequently, either
the prison guards, or his lawyer, decided to either put him on
suicide watch or on informal monitoring. The reason for this
was either because of depression or a health concern, and he was
either given medication or not (but either way they left him his
tie and razor even though in one of these universes he had
already attempted to commit suicide twice!). The source for all
of this is mostly one Christian Chartier, who is reported to have
said in one account that Dokmanovic was placed on suicide
watch, but in another (see below), that he was not placed on
suicide watch! If people are straightforwardly reporting the facts
from mostly *one source*-one man, Christian Chartier-is it
possible to get this many different stories in two days?
** The Washington Post Weighs In **
The following report in the Washington Post, on June 30th, rises
to new heights of creativity, providing yet a new story with a
more extended narrative (the emphases are mine):[7]
[Start Washington Post Quote]
?Officials at the U.N. war crimes tribunal in The
Hague concluded that the death of Slavko
Dokmanovic, 48, was a suicide. He had complained of
depression, they said, and on a doctor's
recommendation Sunday night had been put under
medication and subjected to stepped-up monitoring
with his cell lights permanently switched on.
Dokmanovic's 13-square-yard cell was lighted when
a guard passed on a half-hourly round at 11:30 p.m.,
tribunal sources said. But at the midnight check, the
lights were off -- deliberately short-circuited.
The suspect had been able to get the locked cell
door open, and in the darkness hanged himself with
an unspecified kind of cord suspended from a door
hinge, the sources said.
...Christian Chartier, a spokesman for the tribunal,
said the monitoring of Dokmanovic was ?not a
suicide watch.?
However, he said that in 1997 ?for the same
reasons? Dokmanovic had been put under even
closer observation that included round-the-clock
video surveillance.?
[End Washington Post Quote]
Deconstructing the absurdities in this tale takes some work
because there are so many of them, and so we have to take turns
holding some of them constant while considering the others.
First, we hear that Dokmanovic -- get this -- *unlocked his
cell door*! How likely is this? And why would Dokmanovic even
try it?
The ICTY?s detention center is a ?heavily-monitored
high-security prison,?[8] and sergeant Walsh (of the 18th
District Philadelphia Police Department) informs me that such
prisons will have cell doors that open to the *outside* so the
hinge knuckles are also on the outside. Dokmanovic, then,
cannot hang himself by looping a cord around the hinge without
first opening the door. This is therefore the only plausible reason
for a suicidal Dokmanovic to try to open his cell door.
But Sergeant Walsh also explained to me that the locks on cell
doors in a high-security prison would stump most accomplished
professional thieves even if they (1) had ample time; (2) did not
fear discovery; and (3) were on the *outside* of the cell.
The last point is important. Walsh explained to me that in such
prisons ?The door?s are perfectly smooth on the inside?there is
no door knob and there is no way-lock.? So even if
Dokmanovic, the ex-mayor of a small town, had the exotic skills
of a world-class professional thief who can pick the lock to a
?heavily monitored high-security prison? cell in well under 30
minutes (for he still needs time left over to hang himself and
suffocate), he could not even begin to attempt this because, on
the inside, where Dokmanovic found himself, there was
*nothing to pick*!
(...?!)
What is going on here? Let us begin with the least damning
interpretation This says that the tribunal authorities indeed
found Dokmanovic hanging from the hinge to his cell door.
When they realized this would have required that he first
*unlock* this door they concluded that Dokmanovic did this.
But if concluding ?suicide? requires that Dokmanovic perform
miracles, shouldn?t they conclude that he must have been
*murdered*? And so this interpretation forces the conclusion
that the Tribunal authorities are mentally retarded.
A more damning interpretation resolves the absurdities, and
does not require Tribunal authorities to suffer from mental
handicaps. Suppose that the allegation of Dokmanovic?s suicide
is a *lie* to cover up that the Tribunal authorities are
themselves complicit in murdering Dokmanovic. Like most
hasty lies, it is not very good, and it eventually dawns on the
spin doctors that Dokmanovic would have had first to open his
cell door (perhaps a reporter raised the question during a press
conference). But how to solve this problem given that Hague
officials had already said that Dokmanovic hanged himself on
the hinge to his cell door? Simple: say that Dokmanovic
managed to unlock this door.
Presto!
This explains the prevarications of the tribunal officials. What it
certainly does *not* explain, however, is why the Washington
Post mentions Dokmanovic?s superhuman miracles only in
passing. After all, Harry Houdini himself could not pull this off
in his wildest dreams. This was a front page headline all by
itself!
Is the Post asleep?
We already have more than enough, but just for sport, let us
imagine that Dokmanovic has magical powers with which he
picks a lock that isn?t there. Does the rest of the Post's story
now make sense?
Alas!
Dokmanovic still could not succeed in hanging himself, as he
cannot pass his tie around the hinge merely by cracking the door
ajar. If you try this at home you will find that the door needs to
be opened almost completely. So even if Dokmanovic was quick
and subsequently forced the door shut again, how can it go
unnoticed, in a ?heavily monitored high-security prison,? that
an *especially monitored* prisoner has opened his cell door wide
and momentarily fiddles at the door?s hinge? After all, as
Sergeant Walsh explained, there is always a guard, at all times,
in the cell block (see below).
Again for sport, let us say that we are gullible enough to accept
that Dokmanovic is a superhuman who can not only pick locks
that aren't there, but he manages to open his cell door wide and
then passes his tie over the hinge -- all unnoticed. Does the rest
of the Post's story now make sense?
Alas! No... Insurmountable absurdities remain.
Why did Dokmanovic short-circuit the light? If Dokmanovic
can pick a lock that isn?t there he is super-intelligent, so how
can this genius not understand that shorting the light-when he
is being closely monitored-will attract attention? Sergeant
Walsh tells me that ?any lights that would go off in the cells
should be noticed immediately?there is a ?turn-key,? who is a
cell block attendant, who monitors the cells the whole time.
There is always somebody in the cell block.? So, given that this
is the cell of an especially monitored prisoner in a
?heavily-monitored, high-security prison,? shouldn?t his light
going off be noticed with alarm? Especially given that a
short-circuit will cause *sparks*, causing a breaker to bust and
other lights to go off!
But suppose that the genius Dokmanovic was nevertheless so
stupid on this particular point that he decided to short the light.
If we assume that Dokmanovic did this *before* he miraculously
opened the door, then we only add to his miracles, for now we
have him unlocking the door *in darkness*. If we suppose
instead that Dokmanovic short-circuited the light *after*
opening the door we hardly make more sense: the sparks would
immediately attract attention to the open door-that is, the same
door that he must now open wide in order to pass his tie around
the hinge! And if we say that Dokmanovic shorted the light after
passing his tie over the hinge and closing the door again, then
we are saying that he tried his best to attract attention to
himself when he needed a few precious minutes by himself so he
could suffocate.
Why should Dokmanovic want to short-circuit the light?
As before, if the story is a hastily concocted lie, this can
explain the absurdities. Perhaps it was claimed that Dokmanovic
shorted the light in order to suggest that this is how he escaped
detection while committing suicide. The liars responsible, however,
did not pause long enough to realize that shorting the light is
precisely the sort of thing that would have brought guards rushing
to the cell of an especially monitored prisoner who is potentially
suicidal in a high-security prison.
Hasty lies often have problems of this sort.
Also consistent with the cover-up hypothesis is Christian
Chartier?s reversal on whether Dokmanovic had been put on
suicide watch. First he said yes, but now he says no. If this is
all a cover up, then the first claim was issued to make Dokmanovic
seem plausibly suicidal (only a suicidal person would be put on
suicide watch). But somebody then noticed that suicide watch
involves round-the-clock video surveillance, so Chartier came
up with a much improved story, as reported in the Post article:
Dokmanovic was not on suicide watch *this* time (so it is more
plausible that he succeeded), but he had been placed on suicide
watch-complete with video surveillance-on *other* occasions
(so he was, after all, suicidal).
Very convenient.
Despite this fix, there are problems with this point. The first is
that if we suppose Dokmanovic was not on suicide watch, but
that, as Chartier claims, he had a suicidal history, then why was
he not placed on suicide watch *this* time?
The second problem concerns the fact that we cannot accept
Chartier?s claim that this was not a suicide watch because of
the description: ?[Dokmanovic] had complained of
depression?and on a doctor's recommendation?had been put
under medication and subjected to stepped-up monitoring with
his cell lights permanently switched on.? A depressive prisoner
who gets medication and stepped up monitoring is on?what?
*Suicide watch*. So this again raises the question of how this
watch could be so incompetent (including leaving him his tie!) if
Dokmanovic indeed had a history of attempted suicides, as
Chartier claims.
Remember, the last points are all icing on my cake. I examine
them merely to offer further demonstrations that people are
lying. All we really need to make the case that a murder is being
covered up is the fact that Dokmanovic cannot pick a lock that
isn't there.
But this is what they claim he did!
Why didn?t the Western media notice any of this? If the Hague
Tribunal authorities had said that pigs flew, would they have
reported this with the same equanimity?
** The Tribunal?s Official Inquiry **
The Tribunal authorities supposedly conducted an inquiry into
Dokmanovic?s death. This ?inquiry? was entrusted to one Judge
Almiro Rodrigues, whose final report was presented on 21 July,
1998, and subsequently published on the Tribunal?s website.[9]
As we shall see, rather than resolve the absurdities, Rodrigues?
report introduces fresh ones. Not intended to be one, of course,
the report nevertheless reads like a guilty confession.
Here is the tribunal?s bulleted summary of their findings,
printed at the end of the report.
[Start Quote from Hague Tribunal Report]
Findings Of The Inquiry:
1. Dokmanovic was suffering from depression and, for
that reason, was under particular medical care;
2. From about 23 June 1998, Mr. Dokmanovic was
checked every half-hour, during low service hours;
[End Quote]
What are they telling us here? It?s confusing. The Tribunal
claims that Dokmanovic was depressed and was getting special
medical care for it. And starting a week before his death, we are
told, he was closely monitored. The two words apparently
missing from points 1 and 2 are ?suicide watch.? Why are they
omitted?
[Back to the Hague Tribunal?s Report]
3. Under the rules of the Detention Unit, a detainee
may keep in his possession all clothes and personal
items for his own use or consumption unless, in the
opinion of the Commanding Officer or the General
Director, such items constitute a threat to the security
or good order of the detention unit or the host prison,
or to the health or safety of any person therein;
4. This is the reason why items such as cutlery, ties,
shoe laces, electric and manual razors, electric cables,
are among those commonly found in a detainee?s cell
and were found in Mr. Dokmanovic?s as well;
[End Quote]
Now we can appreciate the fix the tribunal is in-they must try
their hardest to lay all of the blame on one person: Dokmanovic.
On the one hand, he must seem obviously suicidal, and must
have weapons handy, in order to preempt the argument that he
was murdered. But on the other hand-and here is the
difficulty-this ?obviously suicidal? Dokmanovic cannot have
been on ?suicide watch,? for otherwise it would be *criminally
negligent* -- wouldn't it? --
to leave any weapons in his cell.
Pity them: the tribunal authorities must walk a line so thin that
it vanishes!
The chosen story line is thus that Dokmanovic was getting
?particular medical care? because he was ?suffering from
depression,? and this whispers he supposedly had suicidal
tendencies without actually using the forbidden word. The word
must be avoided because if they actually write down ?suicidal?
then the reader immediately wants to know why he was not on
?suicide watch.?
Similarly, elsewhere in the report we are told that he got ?one of
the highest levels of supervision *other* than the 24-hour
watch by closed circuit TV.? In other words, *not* the highest
level of supervision because *that*, of course, would be a
?suicide watch.?
The ?conclusion? that the report would have us reach is
therefore that, since the ?Commanding Officer or the General
Director? had not made the relevant judgment call to put the
depressive Dokmanovic on the highest level of supervision (i.e. a
?suicide watch?), it is perfectly understandable (isn?t it?) that
an astonishing menu of weapons remained in Dokmanovic?s cell:
?cutlery, ties, shoe laces, electric and manual razors, electric
cables?? (the only thing missing was a loaded gun and some
hemlock!).
Nobody?s fault??
But the Tribunal's rhetorical strategy requires that would-be
skeptics read its report in a daze much closer to death than
distraction, and also that they not be reminded of earlier and
sloppier attempts by the Tribunal to walk this very same
vanishing line.
These earlier attempts relied on the allegation that Dokmanovic
had tried to commit suicide twice before but that they
nevertheless didn?t consider him to be suicidal! For example, on
June 29th, the Associated Press reported:[10]
[Start AP Quote]
?Although tribunal officials were familiar with
Dokmanovic's medical records, his depression and his
regular meetings with a psychiatrist, ?he was not
known to us as a suicide candidate,? Chartier said.
However, Chartier disclosed on Monday that there
had been a ?previous incident? last year in which
Dokmanovic was placed under tighter
supervision that included surveillance cameras in his
cell. He refused to elaborate.?
[End Quote]
What ?previous incident? that is *not* a suicide attempt could
cause prison officials to place Dokmanovic ?under tighter
supervision that included surveillance cameras in his cell?? That
is what a suicide watch is? They were obviously suggesting that
Dokmanovic was suicidal. However, at the same time, Chartier
explained that Dokmanovic ?was not known to us as a suicide
candidate?!
Is the press asleep? Why weren?t they hounding this Chartier as
if he were fresh-cooked meat?
In its official report about its supposed inquiry into itself, the
Tribunal has now made the official story less ridiculous, even if
it is still preposterous. Gone are any suggestions of past suicide
attempts. This is important because the Tribunal must avoid
convicting itself: if they say there were previous suicide
attempts, then Dokmanovic was suicidal and the Tribunal was
criminally negligent.
Despite this ?fix,? as we have seen, the line they must walk
vanishes.
[Back to the Hague Tribunal?s Report]
5. On the night from 28 to 29 June 1998, after 10.00
p.m, Mr. Dokmanovic twice attempted to commit
suicide by trying to cut his veins with a razor blade
and by attempting to hang himself using a tie;
6. These attempts were not visible to the guards
checking his cell. This check consists of opening the
little window on the cell door and looking through it
into the cell. If the guard notices something unusual
or abnormal, he must call at least one other guard to
be present before opening the cell door itself. On the
date in question, nothing unusual was detected until
midnight;
[End Quote]
In what universe does a detention facility institute 'checks' on a
prisoner that are so pathetically inadequate that they cannot
reveal to the guards doing the checking that Dokmanovic has
already attempted to commit suicide twice!
The tribunal is stating an absurdity. Merely on such grounds it
can be accused of criminal negligence. So why do they say this?
Because this item makes a very important point between the
lines: Dokmanovic was fanatically determined to commit
suicide. Look: he kept trying! With such determination, how
could the Hague tribunal authorities stop him?
So?nobody?s fault?
[Back to the Hague Tribunal?s Report]
7. Between 11.30 p.m. and 00.05 a.m., Mr.
Dokmanovic short-circuited the general power supply
of his cell by placing the two extreme prongs of a fork
(the middle prongs of which had been deliberately
bent) into one of the wall sockets. He did that in order
to avoid the regular half-hour guards checking his
cell;
[End Quote]
The story has changed. Before, they told us-and repeatedly-that
Dokmanovic did this with his electric razor. Now they say it was
with his fork.
Whatever?
However, since the Hague investigators cannot possibly have
asked the dead Dokmanovic what his motive was for
short-circuiting the light, one has to wonder how they know
what he *intended* by it. And notice what they want you to
believe: as I speculated above, they wish you to believe that
Dokmanovic shorted the light so that the guards would not
come to check on him.
*That* is why Dokmanovic succeeded?! Because, once in the
dark, the guards could not see what he was doing??!
However, we were told that Dokmanovic ?had been put under
medication and subjected to stepped-up monitoring with his cell
lights permanently switched on.?[11] And according to the
tribunal?s own report, Dokmanovic was under surveillance so
close that it was only one notch below their highest level of
monitoring. Well, if so, then for Dokmanovic to plunge his cell
into darkness would be the very thing to attract the attention of
his keepers-they would immediately check his cell, especially
given that shorting a light will produce sparks, bust a breaker,
and turn off other lights. It stretches credulity to the point of
rupture to think that Dokmanovic was so stupid he did not to
realize this. But even if he was, shorting the light should have
guaranteed discovery before he could commit suicide!
[Back to the Hague Tribunal?s Report]
8. Finally, he managed to hang himself by fastening
on to the top door hinge of his cell?s wardrobe the end
of a second tie that he had firmly attached around his
neck; Mr. Dokmanovic was found dead shortly after
midnight;
[End Quote]
This explanation at least removes the earlier absurdity where
the Washington Post has Dokmanovic unlocking his *cell* door
in order to commit suicide. But it is important to note that this
new explanation is a patch.
When the Washington Post alleged that Dokmanovic had used
the hinge to his *cell* door, it had lots of company. I was able to
find a total of 17 major newspaper stories that, immediately
after the story broke, reported that Dokmanovic had used the
hinge to his cell door, and also 20 wires that said the same
thing.[12]
On the other hand, I could not find a *single* newspaper article
that reported Dokmanovic hanging himself on the door to his
wardrobe. As for the wires, a couple of wires reported the
wardrobe version, but only *after* the tribunal had made this
report public on July 21st, 1998.[13]
Furthermore, the Washington Post didn?t merely report that
Dokmanovic had supposedly hung himself on the hinge to his
cell door, it went to the trouble of *explaining it*! In other
words, they told us that Dokmanovic unlocked his cell door by
way of explaining that he used the hinge to this door in order to
hang himself). Liars always talk too long?
The hanging-from-the-wardrobe version in the tribunal?s
report is obviously a patch to correct the preposterous lies that
were initially put out in haste.
The mind nevertheless boggles. Why did the tribunal?s
spin-doctors *not* hang Dokmanovic from the door to his
wardrobe from the very beginning? That would have sounded
immediately more plausible and would have never required a
patch for a preposterous lie.
I do not have an answer to everything, and I do not have access
to what goes on in the minds of The Hague spin doctors. But
one possibility is that perhaps Dokmanovic?s cell *had* no
wardrobe. I digress briefly to consider this.
Below is a diagram of Milosevic?s cell that appeared in Radio
Netherlands (do not take literally that the door opens to the
inside; Radio Netherlands is constrained to this because it must
fit everything in the rectangle):[14]
Milosevic?s cell features a closet (wardrobe), and the New York
Times says that ?every cell, measuring 10 feet by 17 feet [about
19 sq yards], has its own shower, toilet, closet and desk.? [15]
But this appears to be in error.
Radio Netherlands says that Milosevic?s cell is 18 sq. yards (3×5
m.), and so did Agence France Presse (15 sq. m.).[16] The New
York Times (above) says 19 sq. yards, as did the Times of
London,[17] and the Sunday Telegraph.[18] The slight
discrepancies suggest that Milosevic?s cell size is indeed in the
close neighborhood of 19 sq. yards. However, the Washington
Post says *Dokmanovic?s* cell was about 30% smaller, at only
13 sq. yards.[19] If this is true, then it is false that *every*
cell has the dimensions that the NYT gives, and Dokmanovic?s
smaller cell may not contain a wardrobe -- much less one with
a hinged door that requires space in which to swing open.
But is it possible for a paper to claim that all inmates have cells
of the same size when they don?t? Sure it is.
Martin Fletcher wrote this for the Times of London: ?Like all
other inmates, [Milosevic] is locked up from 8.30pm to 8.30am in
a 10ft by 17ft cell [19 sq. yards].?[20] And the *same* Martin
Fletcher wrote this in an article for the Ottawa Citizen: ?Each
man has a modern cell of about 12-square metres [about 14 sq.
yards].? [21] Clearly, two statements that say every prisoner has
a cell of size X cannot be simultaneously true if they each give a
different dimension. So Fletcher misspoke.
Why the mistake?
When Fletcher gave the larger cell area, he was reporting about
*Milosevic*; when he gave the lower cell area, he was reporting
about *other* inmates at The Hague. So it seems that Fletcher,
in each case, distractedly generalized to all other inmates the
cell size that was relevant to his current topic.
Fletcher gives a list of the things that one finds inside the
smaller cells: ?Each man has a modern cell of about 12-square
metres [about 14 sq. yards] with a window, basin, shower, toilet
and coffee machine.?[22] No wardrobe. Moreover, the 14 sq.
yards cell area that he gives is quite close to the size given by
the Washington Post for Dokmanovic?s cell: 13 sq. yards.
Thus, if Dokmanovic was murdered in a cell that did not have a
wardrobe, his murderers could not set him up as if he had hung
himself from the wardrobe. So they used the cell door. But
when it became clear that nobody was going to come look, and
that the only investigation would be in-house, they tossed out
the absurd story where Dokmanovic is a magical lock-pick and
simply changed it, 'explaining' that Dokmanovic had hung
himself from the (possibly nonexistent) wardrobe.
What changes if someone can prove that Dokmanovic's cell
really did sport a wardrobe?
Nothing. Because it never made any sense whatever for The
Hague officials to say that Dokmanovic hung himself on the
hinge to his cell door -- after unlocking it! -- if what he really
did was hang himself from the wardrobe. That anything so
preposterous was ever said, therefore, is strong evidence that
Dokmanovic did *not* hang himself -- not from the wardrobe
or anything else.
[Back to the Hague Tribunal?s Report]
9. All of the Rules of the Detention Unit concerning
Security were observed. No negligent behaviour was
identified;
[End Quote]
Right, nobody?s fault! By now you are fully entitled to reach a
different conclusion, and to observe how fortunate for the
tribunal that it investigates itself.
I now turn to the last bulleted point in the tribunal?s report,
which deserves some discussion.
** There Was No Post-Mortem! **
The last bulleted point in the Tribunal?s report says the
following:
[Back to the Hague Tribunal?s Report]
10. The investigation conducted did not evidence any
sign of violence either at the scene of the incident or
on the body of Mr. Dokmanovic that would suggest a
criminal act.
[End Quote]
This is where the Tribunal tells us that it is officially
exonerating itself.
But notice what the Tribunal?s acquittal of itself requires: not
much. There is no mention of a post-mortem, which is precisely
how one would establish that there was no evidence on the body
suggesting a criminal act.
If there *had* been a post-mortem, we would be hearing about
it (why should the Tribunal omit pointing out how professional
its investigation was?). The omission thus suggests that there
was no post-mortem.
It is not the only thing that does. The day Dokmanovic?s suicide
was announced, it was reported that ?Dokmanovic?s corpse was
taken to a nearby *hospital* morgue [my emphasis],?[23] and
also that ?Both the tribunal and local Dutch authorities have
launched investigations that *could include* an autopsy [my
emphasis].?[24] And the next day it was said that
?Dokmanovic's body is expected to be transferred to his family
after a *possible* post-mortem examination [my
emphasis].?[25]
Why all this talk about a *possible* post-mortem? As in most
other places, the law in the Netherlands makes a post-mortem
after an apparent suicide not optional but *obligatory*.
Professor Barend A.J. Cohen teaches Clinical Forensic Medicine
and Medical Jurisprudence at the Netherlands' School of Public
Health (NSPH) in Utrecht. Professor Cohen states:[26]
[Start Quote]
?According to the law of the Netherlands, it is the
responsibility of the Medical Examiner to investigate
all deaths from criminal violence, accident or suicide,
as well as those that occurred when the person was in
apparent good health, was not attended by a
physician, was imprisoned, or died in any suspicious
manner.?
[End Quote]
Dokmanovic?s death was alleged to be a suicide; it occurred
while he was imprisoned; he was not attended by a physician;
and there are all sorts of suspicious circumstances surrounding
it. In other words, Dokmanovic?s death satisfies four separate
conditions, only one of which is needed to force, by law, that the
Medical Examiner in the Netherlands investigate. Why then do
we hear that his body was taken to a *hospital*-not a
police-morgue, and that *maybe* there would be a
post-mortem? Why is there no report of a post-mortem in the
tribunal?s report of the inquiry?
When the death of Dokmanovic was announced at the end of
June, it was said that there would be a separate Dutch
investigation into his death.[27] On July 23rd, the Associated
Press was still saying that ?Dutch authorities are conducting a
separate probe and are expected to publish their findings within
a week.?[28] That wire was authored by Mike Corder and filed
at 07:58 Eastern Time. Only three hours later, at 11:05 Eastern
Time, Mike Corder filed a very similar wire but this time all
mention of a parallel Dutch investigation was dropped.[29]
There is something else that is funny about these two wires. The
first has the ironic title ?Yugoslav Tribunal Exonerates Staff,?
whereas the second has the title ?Tribunal staff, procedures not
to blame for suicide in custody.? Did somebody in the editorial
office ring up Mike Corder and explain to him that if the
tribunal exonerates itself this should be reported as *fact* rather
than as irony?
I looked for any mention of the report which the ?Dutch
authorities,? according to Corder, were going to publish in a
week?s time. But I found nothing. Nothing at all. What I did
find a week later, in a wire dated August 1st, is that another
Hague prisoner had died suspiciously.[30] And in a wire dated
August 12th, the Associated Press wrote the following:[31]
[Start AP Quote]
In recent months, two Bosnian Serb suspects have
died in their cells, prompting critics to contend that
inmates are getting inadequate medical treatment.
Suspect Slavko Dokmanovic committed suicide in his
cell in June, and on Aug. 1, detainee Milan Kovacevic
died of a heart attack. Both deaths have been followed
by tribunal investigations.
[End Quote]
A reference was made to a tribunal in-house investigation for
each of these cases. But absolutely nothing was said about an
investigation by the Dutch authorities. This is already *three*
weeks after the original Corder AP wire! In fact, no news item
ever said anything about any report of a Dutch investigation
getting published.
The internal investigation into the second death, that of Milan
Kovacevic, was again conducted by the same Judge Almiro
Rodrigues. The same Mike Corder, from the Associated Press,
wrote the following on Sept. 7, 1998:[32]
[Start AP Quote]
It took prison guards 35 minutes to contact a
physician after Kovacevic first complained of severe
pain, and a full hour before the doctor arrived,
according to the investigation led by tribunal Judge
Almiro Rodrigues of Portugal.
Although Rodrigues conceded that ?some criticism
may be leveled against the medical emergency
procedures,? he insisted the delay was not the cause of
death.
?The inquiry revealed no indication of negligence on
the part of the duty doctor ... or any other person,?
Rodrigues concluded.
?An internal inquiry also cleared the tribunal of
blame for the death in June, of Slavko Dokmanovic,
who hanged himself in his cell while awaiting the
verdict in his war crimes trial.?
[End AP Quote]
Once again Mike Corder said nothing about a Dutch
investigation. And he reported on the fact that the tribunal
cleared *itself* -- and twice -- quite matter-of-factly. Corder
had apparently learned his lesson.
If, as seems to be the case, there was no separate Dutch
investigation, and no post-mortem on Dokmanovic?s body, did
this not violate Dutch law? Apparently not, because ?The ICTY
detention centre?was built in 1994 inside a Dutch prison but is
not subject to Dutch law.?[33]
If the ICTY is indeed not subject to Dutch law, then the initial
reports of an impending Dutch investigation were in error. This
seems probable, because if this Dutch investigation had occurred
at all, and if its results concurred with those of the Tribunal?s
report, the latter would not have failed to loudly mention this. A
post-mortem may be obligatory under Dutch law, but the
Hague Tribunal obviously does whatever it wants when it
investigates itself.
Notice, when a prisoner on suicide watch dies in Philadelphia?s
18th district, this is very serious. ?To give you an idea of how
serious this would be,? Sergeant Walsh explained to me, ?any
time there is a cell block incident it is investigated by a
homicide unit.? Well, that?s Philadelphia. At the UN's
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY),
it is not so serious.
Why? Because the tribunal is a law unto itself; it answers to
nobody.
** A Convenient Suicide **
The convenient absence of a post-mortem by an independent
authority is added to another happy ?coincidence? for the
Tribunal. ?Dokmanovic?s death means the case is closed, and no
verdict will be released posthumously, tribunal spokesman
Christian Chartier said. ?You can't pass judgment on a dead
person.??[34] Poor Dokmanovic! Wherever else he went after
death, *under the law*, he is eternally in limbo.
But what a convenient twist of international law this is for the
tribunal! It avoids not merely the embarrassment of the expected
acquittal, and the spectacle of Dokmanovic giving press
conferences about how he was illegally kidnapped and
mistreated (this issue will be addressed in a forthcoming article).
That would have been bad enough. But try to imagine the
Tribunal having to explain that the man they illegally abducted,
and who subsequently died in custody, was innocent! That
would be a tremendous scandal. Better to keep people guessing
as to whether Dokmanovic was or not a war criminal, in which
case people will not be so sure that they should mourn him. It is
therefore very convenient that the expected ?not guilty? verdict
cannot be passed down posthumously.
About the inability to get a verdict at this point, Christian
Chartier said that ?It must be very frustrating for the family, for
the relatives of the victims, for the prosecution and the defense,
and maybe for historians.?[35] But why should this be
frustrating for the alleged relatives of the alleged victims? An
acquittal was expected! Is the tribunal?s spokesman suggesting
that we should consider this man guilty despite this expectation?
He sounds like one of the prosecutors...! Or is he suggesting that
the alleged families of these alleged victims would have found
catharsis in the acquittal of a man who was illegally kidnapped
and brought to the Hague, and who was nowhere near the
alleged massacres he was alleged to participate in?
As for historians, not to worry: they will have a field day when
they read this article.
Finally, since somebody could have raised questions later, it is
very convenient for the tribunal that some media outlets later
began untruthfully reporting that Dokmanovic had actually
been found guilty! For example, an Inter-Press Service wire, a
few months later, reported that ?[Dokmanovic] was found guilty
of involvement in the killing of more than 200 unarmed men
after their forcible evacuation from a Vukovar hospital in
November 1991. He died a week before he was due to
be sentenced.?[36]
This is perfectly false, as any reader can confirm by going to the
ICTY?s website and consulting their own posted documents
concerning the termination of trial proceedings against Slavko
Dokmanovic upon his death.[37]
** Conclusion **
The facts reviewed have already spoken for themselves, so a
short statement will suffice. The *best* we can say is that
Dokmanovic?s story argues for a ?tribunal? that is criminally
negligent with regard to the health and welfare of its prisoners,
and a mainstream Western media that is pathologically unable
to carry out the most elementary forms of reporting, let alone
questioning, analysis, and investigation.
But the above interpretation, terribly damning as it already is, in
fact is very difficult to swallow, for mere criminal negligence
does not explain why the Hague Tribunal?s report has neither
head nor tails, plus all the other sundry absurdities we have
reviewed. If we instead conclude this is a case of ?malice
aforethought? (?to kill either deliberately and intentionally or
recklessly with extreme disregard for human life?[38])-that is,
*premeditated murder*-we can explain the inconsistencies and
absurdities as resulting from an awkward cover-up.
Finally, if we add to all this that the press is not incompetent
but complicit, we can better explain its behavior. Because not only
was the mainstream Western media dishing out absurdities and
repeating what the Hague officials said with zero analysis, they
also failed to report crucial details. For example, no media
source mentioned that Dokmanovic was a leader for peace and
one of the signers of the Erdut peace agreement.[39] *Why*?
That turns out to be a crucially important omission.
Consider: is it plausible that Croatian leaders would have sat at
the table with Slavko Dokmanovic to talk peace if Dokmanovic
were really a notorious war criminal with blood fresh on his
hands, as the Hague Tribunal alleges?
Of course not.
So it is very important to both NATO and the Hague Tribunal
that ordinary people in the West not find out that Dokmanovic
was a leader for peace. The fact that the mainstream Western
media obliged NATO?s interests by giving us complete silence
on Dokmanovic?s background speaks volumes about the media?s
complicity. A forthcoming piece will examine the importance of
Dokmanovic?s role as a leader for peace in providing NATO
with a motive to kill him.
+
[Footnotes Follow The Appeal]
================================================
Please Consider Making a
Contribution to Emperor's Clothes
================================================
If you have been reading Emperor Clothes and find our articles
useful but haven't made a contribution in some time (or ever)
please consider doing so now. We're experiencing economic
difficulties and we can only produce this work if you help us.
Remember, the articles are *free*. We want everybody to read
them, and share them. But we also need money to survive.
Those of you who can afford to help us with your hard-earned
money are taking a stand against the lies that make war
possible. Those who cannot afford to help us should not feel bad;
we thank you for reading (it matters to us that you do), and help
us when you can!
Here's how you can help:
You can make a credit card donation by going to our
secure server at
https://emperor.securesites.com/transactions/index.php
You can use PayPal at
https://www.paypal.com/xclick/
business=emperors1000@...&no_shipping=1
You can mail a check to Emperor's Clothes, P.O. Box
610-321, Newton, MA 02461-0321. (USA)
Or donate by phone by calling us in the U.S. at
1 617 916-1705
Note: If you donate by mail, please let us know at
emperors1000@...
Thanks!
***
Send the link to this text to a friend. If you're reading this in
email, email your friend this link:
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/calif2.htm
To Subscribe to the Emperor's Clothes email list go to
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/f.htm
You'll receive texts posted at Emperor's Clothes
www.tenc.net * [Emperor's Clothes]
This Website is mirrored at http://emperor.vwh.net/ and at
http://globalresistance.com
*************
FOOTNOTES
*************
[1] Ottawa Citizen, November 2, 2002 Saturday Final Edition,
News; Pg. A18, 180 words, Milosevic's illness delays war crimes
trial, LONDON
[&] Court transcript July 25th, 2002 (p. 8642);
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/020725ME.htm
[2] BBC Worldwide Monitoring, June 30, 1998
[3] AP Worldstream, June 29, 1998; Monday, International news,
670 words, AP Photo AMS101, JENIFER CHAO, THE HAGUE, Netherlands
[4] Inter Press Service, September 22, 1998, Tuesday, 844 words,
RIGHTS-YUGOSLAVIA: DEATHS IN THE HAGUE "JUSTIFY"
BELGRADE STANCE, By Vesna Peric-Zimonjic, BELGRADE, Sep. 22
[5] Deutsche Presse-Agentur, June 29, 1998, Monday, International
News, 497 words, Serb war-crimes suspect found hanged in cell
days before verdict due, The Hague
[6] The Scotsman, June 30, 1998, Tuesday, Pg. 9, 601 words,
SERB WAR CRIMES SUSPECT FOUND HANGED IN CELL, Alex Blair
Foreign Affairs Reporter
[7] The Washington Post, June 30, 1998, Tuesday, Final Edition, A
SECTION; Pg. A11, 551 words, Serb Found Hanged in U.N. Prison;
War-Crime Suspect's Death Called Suicide, Charles Trueheart,
Washington Post Foreign Service, PARIS, June 29
[8] ?Hague officials also said that an investigation would be
launched into questions of how the suicide had gone undetected in the
heavily monitored high-security prison, which was located in the
nearby town of Scheveningen.? Facts on File World News Digest, July
2, 1998, EUROPE; Croatia, Pg. 458 G3, 163 words, War Crimes
Suspect Commits Suicide;
?Red brick walls stretch around the high-security compound here,
the largest prison in the Netherlands, with close to 750 inmates.
Within this compound, invisible from the road, lies the modern,
independent cell block, built by the Dutch government and leased to
the tribunal. Last year, its budget was $3.3 million, paid for by the
United Nations.? The New York Times, July 15, 2001, Sunday, Late
Edition - Final, Section 1; Page 8; Column 1; Foreign Desk, 1502
words, Milosevic's Abode: 10 by 17 Feet but No Dungeon, By MARLISE
SIMONS, SCHEVENINGEN, the Netherlands
[9] http://www.un.org/icty/bulletin21-e/dokman.htm
[10] AP Worldstream, June 29, 1998; Monday 09:44 Eastern Time;
SECTION: International news; LENGTH: 663 words; HEADLINE: AP
Photos AMS101-102; BYLINE: JENIFER CHAO; DATELINE: THE
HAGUE, Netherlands
[11] The Washington Post, June 30, 1998, Tuesday, Final Edition,
A SECTION; Pg. A11, 551 words, Serb Found Hanged in U.N. Prison;
War-Crime Suspect's Death Called Suicide, Charles Trueheart,
Washington Post Foreign Service, PARIS, June 29
[12] Major Newspapers that reported Dokmanovic hanged himself from
the hinge of his cell door. (No other newspapers made reference to
any specific door.)
1. The Baltimore Sun, June 30, 1998, Tuesday, FINAL
EDITION, Pg. 7A, 416 words, Serbian war crimes suspect hangs
himself; U.N. court was close to a verdict on his guilt
2. The New York Times, June 30, 1998, Tuesday, Late
Edition - Final, Section A; Page 6; Column 4; Foreign Desk, 918
words, Serb Charged in Massacre Commits Suicide, By MARLISE SIMONS,
THE HAGUE, June 29
3. The Times, June 30, 1998, Tuesday, Overseas news, 450
words, Serb war crime suspect found hanged in cell, Tom Walker
4. The Toronto Star, June 30, 1998, Tuesday, METRO
EDITION, NEWS; Pg. A12, 376 words, Accused war criminal found
hanged, (Reuters), AMSTERDAM
5. The Washington Post, June 30, 1998, Tuesday, Final
Edition, A SECTION; Pg. A11, 551 words, Serb Found Hanged in U.N.
Prison; War-Crime Suspect's Death Called Suicide, Charles Trueheart,
Washington Post Foreign Service, PARIS, June 29
6. The Seattle Times, June 29, 1998, Monday, Final
Edition, NEWS;, Pg. A9;, 702 words, AROUND THE WORLD
7. THE AUSTRALIAN, June 30, 1998, Tuesday, WORLD; Pg.10,
60 words, War crime suicide
8. Chicago Sun-Times, June 30, 1998, TUESDAY, Late Sports
Final Edition, NEWS; NATION/WORLD BRIEFS; Pg. 17, 593
words, World War II flying ace slain in home robbery.
9. COURIER-MAIL, June 30, 1998, Tuesday, NEWS; Pg. 18,
479 words, Suicide Serb beats war crimes verdict, CHAO J
10. The Gazette (Montreal), June 30, 19<br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
Crisis (PRAVDA.RU)
2. Murder At The Hague? - An Investigation Into The Alleged Suicide
Of Slavko Dokmanovic (F. J. Gil-White)
A USEFUL LINK:
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org
=== 1 ===
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/11/01/39019.html
20:51 2002-11-01
Hague Tries Quietly to Murder Milosevic; His Defense in Financial
Crisis
The Hague "Tribunal" show trial has disastrously backfired. Slobodan
Milosevic has so thoroughly defeated this NATO "court" that the
pro-NATO media has eliminated virtually all TV and newspaper coverage.
Since, because Milosevic is brilliant and because they are lying, the
Hague cannot "show" their trial, they are trying to defeat Mr.
Milosevic the way they find most natural: by murdering him. Meanwhile,
his support Committees have been hindered by a drastic lack of funds.
Last night Slobodan Milosevic suffered an attack of ultra-high blood
pressure, typical of his malignant hypertension. This condition,
requiring that a cardiologist monitor Mr. Milosevic, can easily cause
heart attack or stroke. His heart is already damaged.
On July 26, Richard May, the so-called judge at The Hague proceeding
against Slobodan Milosevic, made the following statement in "court":
"We have received a doctors' report which in its conclusion states
that the accused is a man exposed to a serious cardiovascular risk
which requires careful health monitoring in the future. The authors of
the report advise a reduction in the workload of this trial and advise
further treatment by a cardiologist."
Despite warnings from Yugoslav cardiologists and our committees, this
was the first time The Hague permitted even non-specialists to examine
President Milosevic. And despite their doctors' recommendation of
"careful health monitoring in the future.. a reduction in the workload
of this trial and. further treatment by a cardiologist," The Hague
has, illegally, done the opposite:
-His "trial" day used to end at 2 PM. Now it ends at 5 PM. He is
subjected to a long, tiring, absurd and humiliating security procedure
going to and from the "court" room. He gets back to jail so late that
he must choose: a short walk for some fresh air, or dinner.
-His cell is in an old Nazi prison. The windows are hermetically
sealed. The air is so dirty his wife reports her shoes are covered
with white dust after a two-hour visit.
-He is given poor quality, greasy foods instead of the
vegetable-centered diet required for a heart patient.
Under international humanitarian law it is illegal to deny a prisoner
necessary medical treatment. Given the requirements stated in the
doctors' report, it is clear that this worsening of Milosevic's living
conditions is an attempt to give him a stroke or heart attack and thus
"solve" the problem that he is defeating NATO.
What We Can Do
We urge everyone to publicize and protest this international crime.
You can protest directly by calling The Hague
at 3170 416 5000 or 3170 512 5334
Mr. Milosevic's support committees, the Freedom Foundation in Belgrade
and the ICDSM (International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic)
are in financial crisis. The Websites of the ICDSM and Milosevic's own
party, the SPS, are shut down for lack of money. The ICDSM's temporary
address is
http://emperor.vwh.net/icdsm/index.htm
We need to bring the Quebec attorney, Tiphaine Dickson, to The Hague
for consultations with Mr. Milosevic. Presently we do not have the
funds even for her plane fare.
The kidnapping and "trial" of Mr. Milosevic is an attack on all of us
- on Russia, for this attack is part of NATO's drive to the East; on
the rule of law, for the Hague "tribunal" is modeled on the
Inquisition; and on the United Nations, because this "tribunal" is run
by NATO, that is, by the war criminals who attacked Yugoslavia. It
criminalizes the UN.
It is thus of great importance that we not be silenced. If you have
not contributed to Mr. Milosevic's defense - to our *common* defense -
please consider doing so. Those of us who are directly involved have
exhausted our financial resources. We cannot continue without you.
You can make a donation in several ways. Please consult our Donations
page, which can be found at this time at
http://emperor.vwh.net/icdsm/donations.htm
Thank you.
Jared Israel, Spokesperson, International Committee to Defend Slobodan
Milosevic, USA
Vladimir Krsljanin, Spokesperson, Freedom Foundation, Yugoslavia
Jared Israel contributed this article to PRAVDA.Ru
=== 2 ===
Subject: Murder At The Hague?
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 10:33:44 +0100
From: "Vladimir Krsljanin" <vlada@...>
President Milosevic has not been able to appear this morning as well.
Those who are still in doubt whether to react or not, should read the
following analysis:
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/gilwhite/dokmanovic.htm
To join or help this struggle, visit:
http://www.sps.org.yu/ (official SPS website)
http://www.belgrade-forum.org/ (forum for the world of equals)
http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan
Milosevic)
icdsm temporary address:
http://emperor.vwh.net/icdsm/index.htm
for your donations:
http://emperor.vwh.net/icdsm/donations.htm
---
Is the Hague Tribunal (ICTY) murdering its prisoners?
Join our email list at http://emperors-clothes.com/f.htm
Receive articles from Emperor's Clothes Website
Send the link to this text to a friend. If you're reading this in
email, email this link to your friend:
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/gilwhite/dokmanovic.htm
==================================================
Murder At The Hague?
An Investigation Into The Alleged Suicide
Of Slavko Dokmanovic
by Francisco J. Gil-White
fjgil@...
http://www.psych.upenn.edu/~fjgil/
[4 November 2002]
==================================================
** Preface: Is Milosevic In Danger? **
Recently, trial proceedings at The Hague were interrupted
because of Slobodan Milosevic?s health problems. As reported in
the Ottawa Citizen:[1]
[Start Ottawa Citizen Quote]
The war crimes trial of former Serbian leader
Slobodan Milosevic was adjourned yesterday after he
complained of exhaustion, prompting fears that the
case may not be finished on time. Mr. Milosevic?has
been plagued by heart and high-blood pressure
problems, and suffered several bouts of influenza.
[End Ottawa Citizen Quote]
Supporters of Milosevic believe the Hague Tribunal is
deliberately trying to strain Milosevic in the hopes that he will
die of a heart attack or stroke.
They have reason to worry.
This past July, The Hague finally permitted doctors to examine
Slobodan Milosevic. Commenting on the doctor's findings, judge
Richard May said:[&]
[Start Quote From Hague Transcript]
JUDGE MAY: ??We have received a report, a medical report,
which in its conclusion describes the accused as a man with
severe cardiovascular risk which demands careful future
monitoring. The authors recommend that his workload be
reduced??
[End Quote From Hague Transcript]
However, subsequent to this report, Milosevic's conditions have
deteriorated and his workload has been increased.
Several prisoners at The Hague have died already in suspicious
circumstances. In this piece I consider the details surrounding
the dramatic case of Slavko Dokmanovic, whose death was
alleged by the tribunal to be a suicide. After looking at the
evidence, it is almost impossible not to conclude that
Dokmanovic was murdered at The Hague, while in detention,
and that the court authorities are covering it up. This precedent
establishes ample cause for worry about Milosevic?s fate.
** Did Dokmanovic Really Commit
Suicide? **
It was announced on June 29th, 1998, that Slavko Dokmanovic
had committed suicide in his cell, just one week before the
tribunal was to pass a verdict on the charges against him. The
Yugoslav government reacted to Dokmanovic?s death as
follows:[2]
[Start BBC Quote]
?Bearing in mind the circumstances accompanying
the Dokamovic case, including his arrest, trial,
medical treatment and attitude of the prison
authorities towards his health problems, the
[Yugoslav] Justice Ministry considers the tribunal
responsible for the death of Dokmanovic.
The ministry expresses its concern for the health of
the other war crimes indictees, and demands that the
tribunal undertake necessary steps to guarantee safety
and treatment in keeping with international
standards.
In regard with the above, the ministry has lodged a
protest by Justice Minister Zoran Knezevic to the
president of the tribunal, Louise Arbour.?
[End BBC Quote]
As this analysis will show, the Yugoslav government could, and
should have, leveled charges more serious than these. Had it
known the facts, certainly, it would have.
Consider first that, on the day that Dokmanovic?s death was
announced, the Associated Press wrote the following (the
emphases are mine):[3]
[Start Associated Press Quote]
??Dokmanovic had complained through his lawyers of
feeling depressed and had been visited regularly by a
psychiatrist, but he never hinted he was suicidal. In
fact, he was seen as having a good chance at
acquittal?"
[End Associated Press Quote]
A man accused of war crimes (especially if he is innocent!) may
naturally feel distraught and require psychiatric help. Feelings of
apprehension may rise immediately prior to the verdict. But
would a man expecting an acquittal commit suicide?
Every alleged suicide is a possible murder, so if a man with good
reason to live appears to have killed himself, the responsible
authorities are supposed to investigate with zeal-especially if
there are suspicious circumstances, as was the case for
Dokmanovic. About those circumstances, the same Associated
Press wire wrote:
[Back to the Associated Press]
?The body of Slavko Dokmanovic, 48, was found
hanging on the hinge of the door to his cell in the
U.N. court's detention unit in The Hague shortly after
midnight, tribunal spokesman Christian Chartier said.
?Chartier said Dokmanovic had complained to guards
Sunday afternoon that he was not feeling well, and he
was placed on a suicide watch. The guards checked on
him every half-hour and last saw him alive at 11:30
p.m. Sunday, he said.
The lights were on in his cell at that time, but shortly
thereafter, Dokmanovic managed to short-circuit the
electricity in his cell using an electric razor, and the
lights went out, Chartier said.
When a guard next passed by his cell just after
midnight, the body was found dangling in the
darkened cell.?
[End Associated Press Quote]
It is difficult to find anything here that makes sense.
First, if the guards last saw him alive at 11:30pm, and didn?t
check on him again until midnight, when the body was
supposedly found, then how can Chartier know that
Dokmanovic shorted the light in his cell *shortly after 11:30*?
Is he psychic?
Second, if Dokmanovic never even hinted at having suicidal
thoughts, why place him on suicide watch when he merely
complains about not ?feeling well?? But if he was placed on
suicide watch, why could he still hang himself?
A later wire, from Inter-Press Service, would have us believe
that this was in fact relatively *easy* because Dokmanovic?s
keepers obliged his supposedly suicidal intentions by leaving him
his tie![4]
[Start Inter-Press Service Quote]
??Slavko Dokmanovic, a 49-year-old Croatian Serb,
hung himself with a tie ?[at the] ? detention center in
Scheveningen, in the Netherlands, run by the
International Criminal Tribunal for Former
Yugoslavia (ICTY)
.?Dokmanovic's death was pronounced ?unfortunate?
by the ICTY, although it was never explained how a
man who tried to commit suicide twice while in
detention was left with a tie or an electric razor.?
[End Inter-Press Service Quote]
Notice that this is in direct contradiction to what we saw earlier:
a man first described as never even hinting that he was suicidal
is now alleged to have tried to kill himself twice before! Shall we
pick our favorite version? And if Dokmanovic was placed on
suicide watch, then it is not merely strange but downright
incomprehensible that they should have left him his tie or razor.
I contacted the 18th District Philadelphia Police Department to
obtain details about their policies in a suicide watch, and I
learned the following:
1) The prisoner is placed in a separate, Plexiglas cell.
2) Anything that could be used as a weapon, or used by
the prisoner to hang him/herself is removed. Ties, belts,
shoe-laces, etc.-all must go. Only a safety razor would
be provided (certainly not a real razor, or an electric
razor which the prisoner could use to electrocute
himself). The prisoner will be watched at all times
while operating the safety razor.
3) In Philadelphia, even the prisoner?s clothes are
removed and s/he is given a special jumpsuit made of
paper that cannot be used for hanging.
4) The prisoner is checked every *15 minutes*.
My informant, one Sergeant Walsh, was not sure why the
regulation time between checks is exactly 15 minutes, but he
agreed with me that this is probably so that especially crafty
prisoners will not find time enough to suffocate. Asked how he
felt about a 30 minute interval, he reacted with surprise-no, that
was *much* too long. We?ve been told, however, that Slavko
Dokmanovic was checked only every 30 minutes.
Sergeant Walsh also impressed upon me that suicide-watch
regulations are not flexible in the least, as failure to follow
them to the letter will result in suspension without pay. And when
asked what the procedure would be in case a prisoner placed on
suicide watch died, he said: ?To give you an idea of how serious
this would be, any time there is a cell block incident it is
investigated by a homicide unit.?
Now compare this to what the tribunal spokesman, Christian
Chartier, said to the press and see if you can find anything that
looks plausible. One version has Slavko Dokmanovic on suicide
watch even though he never hinted he was suicidal and merely
complained of not feeling well. The other version has him trying
to commit suicide twice before, but he is nevertheless given long,
30-minute intervals between checks, his clothes are not
removed, and-most scandalously-his tie and electric razor are
left in his cell! Why? To give him a better chance on his third
try?
We have nothing but suspicious stories here, and all the worse
for not being mutually consistent. But, troubling as these
questions may seem, they pale compared to those raised by
glaring inconsistencies in other reports of the discovery of
Dokmanovic?s body.
This, for example, is from Deutsche Presse-Agentur:[5]
[Start DPA Quote]
?On Sunday evening, Dokmanovic had again
complained about feeling unwell and was examined
by a doctor. He was immediately placed under
surveillance and a guard had checked on his condition
every half hour.
At 11.30 pm, everything had been normal, Chartier
said. But at midnight the accused had been found
dead.
Chartier was quoted by the British BBC as saying:
?Dokmanovic used an electric shaver to short-circuit
the light in his cell. When the prison guard went to
check on him he could not see in, so he opened the
door. That was when he discovered the body.??
[Start DPA Quote]
Notice what a different picture we get here. So casual. The
guard opened the door because...he could not see in! There was
no particular alarm about the light being out.
That is consistent with Dokmanovic complaining about not
feeling well and getting checked by ?a doctor,? not by a
psychiatrist. Very casual. Health problems: routine.
But this contradicts the Associated Press wire cited earlier,
which said that Dokmanovic was seen by a *psychiatrist* and
placed on *suicide watch*. And yet, both reports are from the
same day, and both cite the same Christian Chartier as their
source!
The report below, which appeared the next day in The
Scotsman, is also inconsistent:[6]
[Start Scotsman Quote]
?The judges were expected to deliver their verdict on 7
July. After a visit the next day, his lawyer, Domo Fila,
was so disturbed by Dokmanovic's mental condition
that he asked for his client's medication to be
increased and for a warder to check his condition
every 30 minutes.
According to Zoran Jovanovic, a legal colleague in
Belgrade, Mr Fila had been confident of securing
Dokmanovic's release. ?But he was not at all well
during that time,? said Zoran Jovanovic from
Belgrade.?
[End Scotsman Quote]
This account has Dokmanovic?s lawyer (Toma Fila, not as
written above) worrying about the supposedly suicidal
Dokmanovic, and requesting medication and checks every 30
minutes. The Scotsman?s information supposedly comes from
Jovanovic, a colleague of Fila?s, not from Chartier.
What are we supposed to believe? Concern about Dokmanovic
was raised either by a psychiatrist, a doctor, Dokmanovic
complaining to his guards, or by his lawyer. Subsequently, either
the prison guards, or his lawyer, decided to either put him on
suicide watch or on informal monitoring. The reason for this
was either because of depression or a health concern, and he was
either given medication or not (but either way they left him his
tie and razor even though in one of these universes he had
already attempted to commit suicide twice!). The source for all
of this is mostly one Christian Chartier, who is reported to have
said in one account that Dokmanovic was placed on suicide
watch, but in another (see below), that he was not placed on
suicide watch! If people are straightforwardly reporting the facts
from mostly *one source*-one man, Christian Chartier-is it
possible to get this many different stories in two days?
** The Washington Post Weighs In **
The following report in the Washington Post, on June 30th, rises
to new heights of creativity, providing yet a new story with a
more extended narrative (the emphases are mine):[7]
[Start Washington Post Quote]
?Officials at the U.N. war crimes tribunal in The
Hague concluded that the death of Slavko
Dokmanovic, 48, was a suicide. He had complained of
depression, they said, and on a doctor's
recommendation Sunday night had been put under
medication and subjected to stepped-up monitoring
with his cell lights permanently switched on.
Dokmanovic's 13-square-yard cell was lighted when
a guard passed on a half-hourly round at 11:30 p.m.,
tribunal sources said. But at the midnight check, the
lights were off -- deliberately short-circuited.
The suspect had been able to get the locked cell
door open, and in the darkness hanged himself with
an unspecified kind of cord suspended from a door
hinge, the sources said.
...Christian Chartier, a spokesman for the tribunal,
said the monitoring of Dokmanovic was ?not a
suicide watch.?
However, he said that in 1997 ?for the same
reasons? Dokmanovic had been put under even
closer observation that included round-the-clock
video surveillance.?
[End Washington Post Quote]
Deconstructing the absurdities in this tale takes some work
because there are so many of them, and so we have to take turns
holding some of them constant while considering the others.
First, we hear that Dokmanovic -- get this -- *unlocked his
cell door*! How likely is this? And why would Dokmanovic even
try it?
The ICTY?s detention center is a ?heavily-monitored
high-security prison,?[8] and sergeant Walsh (of the 18th
District Philadelphia Police Department) informs me that such
prisons will have cell doors that open to the *outside* so the
hinge knuckles are also on the outside. Dokmanovic, then,
cannot hang himself by looping a cord around the hinge without
first opening the door. This is therefore the only plausible reason
for a suicidal Dokmanovic to try to open his cell door.
But Sergeant Walsh also explained to me that the locks on cell
doors in a high-security prison would stump most accomplished
professional thieves even if they (1) had ample time; (2) did not
fear discovery; and (3) were on the *outside* of the cell.
The last point is important. Walsh explained to me that in such
prisons ?The door?s are perfectly smooth on the inside?there is
no door knob and there is no way-lock.? So even if
Dokmanovic, the ex-mayor of a small town, had the exotic skills
of a world-class professional thief who can pick the lock to a
?heavily monitored high-security prison? cell in well under 30
minutes (for he still needs time left over to hang himself and
suffocate), he could not even begin to attempt this because, on
the inside, where Dokmanovic found himself, there was
*nothing to pick*!
(...?!)
What is going on here? Let us begin with the least damning
interpretation This says that the tribunal authorities indeed
found Dokmanovic hanging from the hinge to his cell door.
When they realized this would have required that he first
*unlock* this door they concluded that Dokmanovic did this.
But if concluding ?suicide? requires that Dokmanovic perform
miracles, shouldn?t they conclude that he must have been
*murdered*? And so this interpretation forces the conclusion
that the Tribunal authorities are mentally retarded.
A more damning interpretation resolves the absurdities, and
does not require Tribunal authorities to suffer from mental
handicaps. Suppose that the allegation of Dokmanovic?s suicide
is a *lie* to cover up that the Tribunal authorities are
themselves complicit in murdering Dokmanovic. Like most
hasty lies, it is not very good, and it eventually dawns on the
spin doctors that Dokmanovic would have had first to open his
cell door (perhaps a reporter raised the question during a press
conference). But how to solve this problem given that Hague
officials had already said that Dokmanovic hanged himself on
the hinge to his cell door? Simple: say that Dokmanovic
managed to unlock this door.
Presto!
This explains the prevarications of the tribunal officials. What it
certainly does *not* explain, however, is why the Washington
Post mentions Dokmanovic?s superhuman miracles only in
passing. After all, Harry Houdini himself could not pull this off
in his wildest dreams. This was a front page headline all by
itself!
Is the Post asleep?
We already have more than enough, but just for sport, let us
imagine that Dokmanovic has magical powers with which he
picks a lock that isn?t there. Does the rest of the Post's story
now make sense?
Alas!
Dokmanovic still could not succeed in hanging himself, as he
cannot pass his tie around the hinge merely by cracking the door
ajar. If you try this at home you will find that the door needs to
be opened almost completely. So even if Dokmanovic was quick
and subsequently forced the door shut again, how can it go
unnoticed, in a ?heavily monitored high-security prison,? that
an *especially monitored* prisoner has opened his cell door wide
and momentarily fiddles at the door?s hinge? After all, as
Sergeant Walsh explained, there is always a guard, at all times,
in the cell block (see below).
Again for sport, let us say that we are gullible enough to accept
that Dokmanovic is a superhuman who can not only pick locks
that aren't there, but he manages to open his cell door wide and
then passes his tie over the hinge -- all unnoticed. Does the rest
of the Post's story now make sense?
Alas! No... Insurmountable absurdities remain.
Why did Dokmanovic short-circuit the light? If Dokmanovic
can pick a lock that isn?t there he is super-intelligent, so how
can this genius not understand that shorting the light-when he
is being closely monitored-will attract attention? Sergeant
Walsh tells me that ?any lights that would go off in the cells
should be noticed immediately?there is a ?turn-key,? who is a
cell block attendant, who monitors the cells the whole time.
There is always somebody in the cell block.? So, given that this
is the cell of an especially monitored prisoner in a
?heavily-monitored, high-security prison,? shouldn?t his light
going off be noticed with alarm? Especially given that a
short-circuit will cause *sparks*, causing a breaker to bust and
other lights to go off!
But suppose that the genius Dokmanovic was nevertheless so
stupid on this particular point that he decided to short the light.
If we assume that Dokmanovic did this *before* he miraculously
opened the door, then we only add to his miracles, for now we
have him unlocking the door *in darkness*. If we suppose
instead that Dokmanovic short-circuited the light *after*
opening the door we hardly make more sense: the sparks would
immediately attract attention to the open door-that is, the same
door that he must now open wide in order to pass his tie around
the hinge! And if we say that Dokmanovic shorted the light after
passing his tie over the hinge and closing the door again, then
we are saying that he tried his best to attract attention to
himself when he needed a few precious minutes by himself so he
could suffocate.
Why should Dokmanovic want to short-circuit the light?
As before, if the story is a hastily concocted lie, this can
explain the absurdities. Perhaps it was claimed that Dokmanovic
shorted the light in order to suggest that this is how he escaped
detection while committing suicide. The liars responsible, however,
did not pause long enough to realize that shorting the light is
precisely the sort of thing that would have brought guards rushing
to the cell of an especially monitored prisoner who is potentially
suicidal in a high-security prison.
Hasty lies often have problems of this sort.
Also consistent with the cover-up hypothesis is Christian
Chartier?s reversal on whether Dokmanovic had been put on
suicide watch. First he said yes, but now he says no. If this is
all a cover up, then the first claim was issued to make Dokmanovic
seem plausibly suicidal (only a suicidal person would be put on
suicide watch). But somebody then noticed that suicide watch
involves round-the-clock video surveillance, so Chartier came
up with a much improved story, as reported in the Post article:
Dokmanovic was not on suicide watch *this* time (so it is more
plausible that he succeeded), but he had been placed on suicide
watch-complete with video surveillance-on *other* occasions
(so he was, after all, suicidal).
Very convenient.
Despite this fix, there are problems with this point. The first is
that if we suppose Dokmanovic was not on suicide watch, but
that, as Chartier claims, he had a suicidal history, then why was
he not placed on suicide watch *this* time?
The second problem concerns the fact that we cannot accept
Chartier?s claim that this was not a suicide watch because of
the description: ?[Dokmanovic] had complained of
depression?and on a doctor's recommendation?had been put
under medication and subjected to stepped-up monitoring with
his cell lights permanently switched on.? A depressive prisoner
who gets medication and stepped up monitoring is on?what?
*Suicide watch*. So this again raises the question of how this
watch could be so incompetent (including leaving him his tie!) if
Dokmanovic indeed had a history of attempted suicides, as
Chartier claims.
Remember, the last points are all icing on my cake. I examine
them merely to offer further demonstrations that people are
lying. All we really need to make the case that a murder is being
covered up is the fact that Dokmanovic cannot pick a lock that
isn't there.
But this is what they claim he did!
Why didn?t the Western media notice any of this? If the Hague
Tribunal authorities had said that pigs flew, would they have
reported this with the same equanimity?
** The Tribunal?s Official Inquiry **
The Tribunal authorities supposedly conducted an inquiry into
Dokmanovic?s death. This ?inquiry? was entrusted to one Judge
Almiro Rodrigues, whose final report was presented on 21 July,
1998, and subsequently published on the Tribunal?s website.[9]
As we shall see, rather than resolve the absurdities, Rodrigues?
report introduces fresh ones. Not intended to be one, of course,
the report nevertheless reads like a guilty confession.
Here is the tribunal?s bulleted summary of their findings,
printed at the end of the report.
[Start Quote from Hague Tribunal Report]
Findings Of The Inquiry:
1. Dokmanovic was suffering from depression and, for
that reason, was under particular medical care;
2. From about 23 June 1998, Mr. Dokmanovic was
checked every half-hour, during low service hours;
[End Quote]
What are they telling us here? It?s confusing. The Tribunal
claims that Dokmanovic was depressed and was getting special
medical care for it. And starting a week before his death, we are
told, he was closely monitored. The two words apparently
missing from points 1 and 2 are ?suicide watch.? Why are they
omitted?
[Back to the Hague Tribunal?s Report]
3. Under the rules of the Detention Unit, a detainee
may keep in his possession all clothes and personal
items for his own use or consumption unless, in the
opinion of the Commanding Officer or the General
Director, such items constitute a threat to the security
or good order of the detention unit or the host prison,
or to the health or safety of any person therein;
4. This is the reason why items such as cutlery, ties,
shoe laces, electric and manual razors, electric cables,
are among those commonly found in a detainee?s cell
and were found in Mr. Dokmanovic?s as well;
[End Quote]
Now we can appreciate the fix the tribunal is in-they must try
their hardest to lay all of the blame on one person: Dokmanovic.
On the one hand, he must seem obviously suicidal, and must
have weapons handy, in order to preempt the argument that he
was murdered. But on the other hand-and here is the
difficulty-this ?obviously suicidal? Dokmanovic cannot have
been on ?suicide watch,? for otherwise it would be *criminally
negligent* -- wouldn't it? --
to leave any weapons in his cell.
Pity them: the tribunal authorities must walk a line so thin that
it vanishes!
The chosen story line is thus that Dokmanovic was getting
?particular medical care? because he was ?suffering from
depression,? and this whispers he supposedly had suicidal
tendencies without actually using the forbidden word. The word
must be avoided because if they actually write down ?suicidal?
then the reader immediately wants to know why he was not on
?suicide watch.?
Similarly, elsewhere in the report we are told that he got ?one of
the highest levels of supervision *other* than the 24-hour
watch by closed circuit TV.? In other words, *not* the highest
level of supervision because *that*, of course, would be a
?suicide watch.?
The ?conclusion? that the report would have us reach is
therefore that, since the ?Commanding Officer or the General
Director? had not made the relevant judgment call to put the
depressive Dokmanovic on the highest level of supervision (i.e. a
?suicide watch?), it is perfectly understandable (isn?t it?) that
an astonishing menu of weapons remained in Dokmanovic?s cell:
?cutlery, ties, shoe laces, electric and manual razors, electric
cables?? (the only thing missing was a loaded gun and some
hemlock!).
Nobody?s fault??
But the Tribunal's rhetorical strategy requires that would-be
skeptics read its report in a daze much closer to death than
distraction, and also that they not be reminded of earlier and
sloppier attempts by the Tribunal to walk this very same
vanishing line.
These earlier attempts relied on the allegation that Dokmanovic
had tried to commit suicide twice before but that they
nevertheless didn?t consider him to be suicidal! For example, on
June 29th, the Associated Press reported:[10]
[Start AP Quote]
?Although tribunal officials were familiar with
Dokmanovic's medical records, his depression and his
regular meetings with a psychiatrist, ?he was not
known to us as a suicide candidate,? Chartier said.
However, Chartier disclosed on Monday that there
had been a ?previous incident? last year in which
Dokmanovic was placed under tighter
supervision that included surveillance cameras in his
cell. He refused to elaborate.?
[End Quote]
What ?previous incident? that is *not* a suicide attempt could
cause prison officials to place Dokmanovic ?under tighter
supervision that included surveillance cameras in his cell?? That
is what a suicide watch is? They were obviously suggesting that
Dokmanovic was suicidal. However, at the same time, Chartier
explained that Dokmanovic ?was not known to us as a suicide
candidate?!
Is the press asleep? Why weren?t they hounding this Chartier as
if he were fresh-cooked meat?
In its official report about its supposed inquiry into itself, the
Tribunal has now made the official story less ridiculous, even if
it is still preposterous. Gone are any suggestions of past suicide
attempts. This is important because the Tribunal must avoid
convicting itself: if they say there were previous suicide
attempts, then Dokmanovic was suicidal and the Tribunal was
criminally negligent.
Despite this ?fix,? as we have seen, the line they must walk
vanishes.
[Back to the Hague Tribunal?s Report]
5. On the night from 28 to 29 June 1998, after 10.00
p.m, Mr. Dokmanovic twice attempted to commit
suicide by trying to cut his veins with a razor blade
and by attempting to hang himself using a tie;
6. These attempts were not visible to the guards
checking his cell. This check consists of opening the
little window on the cell door and looking through it
into the cell. If the guard notices something unusual
or abnormal, he must call at least one other guard to
be present before opening the cell door itself. On the
date in question, nothing unusual was detected until
midnight;
[End Quote]
In what universe does a detention facility institute 'checks' on a
prisoner that are so pathetically inadequate that they cannot
reveal to the guards doing the checking that Dokmanovic has
already attempted to commit suicide twice!
The tribunal is stating an absurdity. Merely on such grounds it
can be accused of criminal negligence. So why do they say this?
Because this item makes a very important point between the
lines: Dokmanovic was fanatically determined to commit
suicide. Look: he kept trying! With such determination, how
could the Hague tribunal authorities stop him?
So?nobody?s fault?
[Back to the Hague Tribunal?s Report]
7. Between 11.30 p.m. and 00.05 a.m., Mr.
Dokmanovic short-circuited the general power supply
of his cell by placing the two extreme prongs of a fork
(the middle prongs of which had been deliberately
bent) into one of the wall sockets. He did that in order
to avoid the regular half-hour guards checking his
cell;
[End Quote]
The story has changed. Before, they told us-and repeatedly-that
Dokmanovic did this with his electric razor. Now they say it was
with his fork.
Whatever?
However, since the Hague investigators cannot possibly have
asked the dead Dokmanovic what his motive was for
short-circuiting the light, one has to wonder how they know
what he *intended* by it. And notice what they want you to
believe: as I speculated above, they wish you to believe that
Dokmanovic shorted the light so that the guards would not
come to check on him.
*That* is why Dokmanovic succeeded?! Because, once in the
dark, the guards could not see what he was doing??!
However, we were told that Dokmanovic ?had been put under
medication and subjected to stepped-up monitoring with his cell
lights permanently switched on.?[11] And according to the
tribunal?s own report, Dokmanovic was under surveillance so
close that it was only one notch below their highest level of
monitoring. Well, if so, then for Dokmanovic to plunge his cell
into darkness would be the very thing to attract the attention of
his keepers-they would immediately check his cell, especially
given that shorting a light will produce sparks, bust a breaker,
and turn off other lights. It stretches credulity to the point of
rupture to think that Dokmanovic was so stupid he did not to
realize this. But even if he was, shorting the light should have
guaranteed discovery before he could commit suicide!
[Back to the Hague Tribunal?s Report]
8. Finally, he managed to hang himself by fastening
on to the top door hinge of his cell?s wardrobe the end
of a second tie that he had firmly attached around his
neck; Mr. Dokmanovic was found dead shortly after
midnight;
[End Quote]
This explanation at least removes the earlier absurdity where
the Washington Post has Dokmanovic unlocking his *cell* door
in order to commit suicide. But it is important to note that this
new explanation is a patch.
When the Washington Post alleged that Dokmanovic had used
the hinge to his *cell* door, it had lots of company. I was able to
find a total of 17 major newspaper stories that, immediately
after the story broke, reported that Dokmanovic had used the
hinge to his cell door, and also 20 wires that said the same
thing.[12]
On the other hand, I could not find a *single* newspaper article
that reported Dokmanovic hanging himself on the door to his
wardrobe. As for the wires, a couple of wires reported the
wardrobe version, but only *after* the tribunal had made this
report public on July 21st, 1998.[13]
Furthermore, the Washington Post didn?t merely report that
Dokmanovic had supposedly hung himself on the hinge to his
cell door, it went to the trouble of *explaining it*! In other
words, they told us that Dokmanovic unlocked his cell door by
way of explaining that he used the hinge to this door in order to
hang himself). Liars always talk too long?
The hanging-from-the-wardrobe version in the tribunal?s
report is obviously a patch to correct the preposterous lies that
were initially put out in haste.
The mind nevertheless boggles. Why did the tribunal?s
spin-doctors *not* hang Dokmanovic from the door to his
wardrobe from the very beginning? That would have sounded
immediately more plausible and would have never required a
patch for a preposterous lie.
I do not have an answer to everything, and I do not have access
to what goes on in the minds of The Hague spin doctors. But
one possibility is that perhaps Dokmanovic?s cell *had* no
wardrobe. I digress briefly to consider this.
Below is a diagram of Milosevic?s cell that appeared in Radio
Netherlands (do not take literally that the door opens to the
inside; Radio Netherlands is constrained to this because it must
fit everything in the rectangle):[14]
Milosevic?s cell features a closet (wardrobe), and the New York
Times says that ?every cell, measuring 10 feet by 17 feet [about
19 sq yards], has its own shower, toilet, closet and desk.? [15]
But this appears to be in error.
Radio Netherlands says that Milosevic?s cell is 18 sq. yards (3×5
m.), and so did Agence France Presse (15 sq. m.).[16] The New
York Times (above) says 19 sq. yards, as did the Times of
London,[17] and the Sunday Telegraph.[18] The slight
discrepancies suggest that Milosevic?s cell size is indeed in the
close neighborhood of 19 sq. yards. However, the Washington
Post says *Dokmanovic?s* cell was about 30% smaller, at only
13 sq. yards.[19] If this is true, then it is false that *every*
cell has the dimensions that the NYT gives, and Dokmanovic?s
smaller cell may not contain a wardrobe -- much less one with
a hinged door that requires space in which to swing open.
But is it possible for a paper to claim that all inmates have cells
of the same size when they don?t? Sure it is.
Martin Fletcher wrote this for the Times of London: ?Like all
other inmates, [Milosevic] is locked up from 8.30pm to 8.30am in
a 10ft by 17ft cell [19 sq. yards].?[20] And the *same* Martin
Fletcher wrote this in an article for the Ottawa Citizen: ?Each
man has a modern cell of about 12-square metres [about 14 sq.
yards].? [21] Clearly, two statements that say every prisoner has
a cell of size X cannot be simultaneously true if they each give a
different dimension. So Fletcher misspoke.
Why the mistake?
When Fletcher gave the larger cell area, he was reporting about
*Milosevic*; when he gave the lower cell area, he was reporting
about *other* inmates at The Hague. So it seems that Fletcher,
in each case, distractedly generalized to all other inmates the
cell size that was relevant to his current topic.
Fletcher gives a list of the things that one finds inside the
smaller cells: ?Each man has a modern cell of about 12-square
metres [about 14 sq. yards] with a window, basin, shower, toilet
and coffee machine.?[22] No wardrobe. Moreover, the 14 sq.
yards cell area that he gives is quite close to the size given by
the Washington Post for Dokmanovic?s cell: 13 sq. yards.
Thus, if Dokmanovic was murdered in a cell that did not have a
wardrobe, his murderers could not set him up as if he had hung
himself from the wardrobe. So they used the cell door. But
when it became clear that nobody was going to come look, and
that the only investigation would be in-house, they tossed out
the absurd story where Dokmanovic is a magical lock-pick and
simply changed it, 'explaining' that Dokmanovic had hung
himself from the (possibly nonexistent) wardrobe.
What changes if someone can prove that Dokmanovic's cell
really did sport a wardrobe?
Nothing. Because it never made any sense whatever for The
Hague officials to say that Dokmanovic hung himself on the
hinge to his cell door -- after unlocking it! -- if what he really
did was hang himself from the wardrobe. That anything so
preposterous was ever said, therefore, is strong evidence that
Dokmanovic did *not* hang himself -- not from the wardrobe
or anything else.
[Back to the Hague Tribunal?s Report]
9. All of the Rules of the Detention Unit concerning
Security were observed. No negligent behaviour was
identified;
[End Quote]
Right, nobody?s fault! By now you are fully entitled to reach a
different conclusion, and to observe how fortunate for the
tribunal that it investigates itself.
I now turn to the last bulleted point in the tribunal?s report,
which deserves some discussion.
** There Was No Post-Mortem! **
The last bulleted point in the Tribunal?s report says the
following:
[Back to the Hague Tribunal?s Report]
10. The investigation conducted did not evidence any
sign of violence either at the scene of the incident or
on the body of Mr. Dokmanovic that would suggest a
criminal act.
[End Quote]
This is where the Tribunal tells us that it is officially
exonerating itself.
But notice what the Tribunal?s acquittal of itself requires: not
much. There is no mention of a post-mortem, which is precisely
how one would establish that there was no evidence on the body
suggesting a criminal act.
If there *had* been a post-mortem, we would be hearing about
it (why should the Tribunal omit pointing out how professional
its investigation was?). The omission thus suggests that there
was no post-mortem.
It is not the only thing that does. The day Dokmanovic?s suicide
was announced, it was reported that ?Dokmanovic?s corpse was
taken to a nearby *hospital* morgue [my emphasis],?[23] and
also that ?Both the tribunal and local Dutch authorities have
launched investigations that *could include* an autopsy [my
emphasis].?[24] And the next day it was said that
?Dokmanovic's body is expected to be transferred to his family
after a *possible* post-mortem examination [my
emphasis].?[25]
Why all this talk about a *possible* post-mortem? As in most
other places, the law in the Netherlands makes a post-mortem
after an apparent suicide not optional but *obligatory*.
Professor Barend A.J. Cohen teaches Clinical Forensic Medicine
and Medical Jurisprudence at the Netherlands' School of Public
Health (NSPH) in Utrecht. Professor Cohen states:[26]
[Start Quote]
?According to the law of the Netherlands, it is the
responsibility of the Medical Examiner to investigate
all deaths from criminal violence, accident or suicide,
as well as those that occurred when the person was in
apparent good health, was not attended by a
physician, was imprisoned, or died in any suspicious
manner.?
[End Quote]
Dokmanovic?s death was alleged to be a suicide; it occurred
while he was imprisoned; he was not attended by a physician;
and there are all sorts of suspicious circumstances surrounding
it. In other words, Dokmanovic?s death satisfies four separate
conditions, only one of which is needed to force, by law, that the
Medical Examiner in the Netherlands investigate. Why then do
we hear that his body was taken to a *hospital*-not a
police-morgue, and that *maybe* there would be a
post-mortem? Why is there no report of a post-mortem in the
tribunal?s report of the inquiry?
When the death of Dokmanovic was announced at the end of
June, it was said that there would be a separate Dutch
investigation into his death.[27] On July 23rd, the Associated
Press was still saying that ?Dutch authorities are conducting a
separate probe and are expected to publish their findings within
a week.?[28] That wire was authored by Mike Corder and filed
at 07:58 Eastern Time. Only three hours later, at 11:05 Eastern
Time, Mike Corder filed a very similar wire but this time all
mention of a parallel Dutch investigation was dropped.[29]
There is something else that is funny about these two wires. The
first has the ironic title ?Yugoslav Tribunal Exonerates Staff,?
whereas the second has the title ?Tribunal staff, procedures not
to blame for suicide in custody.? Did somebody in the editorial
office ring up Mike Corder and explain to him that if the
tribunal exonerates itself this should be reported as *fact* rather
than as irony?
I looked for any mention of the report which the ?Dutch
authorities,? according to Corder, were going to publish in a
week?s time. But I found nothing. Nothing at all. What I did
find a week later, in a wire dated August 1st, is that another
Hague prisoner had died suspiciously.[30] And in a wire dated
August 12th, the Associated Press wrote the following:[31]
[Start AP Quote]
In recent months, two Bosnian Serb suspects have
died in their cells, prompting critics to contend that
inmates are getting inadequate medical treatment.
Suspect Slavko Dokmanovic committed suicide in his
cell in June, and on Aug. 1, detainee Milan Kovacevic
died of a heart attack. Both deaths have been followed
by tribunal investigations.
[End Quote]
A reference was made to a tribunal in-house investigation for
each of these cases. But absolutely nothing was said about an
investigation by the Dutch authorities. This is already *three*
weeks after the original Corder AP wire! In fact, no news item
ever said anything about any report of a Dutch investigation
getting published.
The internal investigation into the second death, that of Milan
Kovacevic, was again conducted by the same Judge Almiro
Rodrigues. The same Mike Corder, from the Associated Press,
wrote the following on Sept. 7, 1998:[32]
[Start AP Quote]
It took prison guards 35 minutes to contact a
physician after Kovacevic first complained of severe
pain, and a full hour before the doctor arrived,
according to the investigation led by tribunal Judge
Almiro Rodrigues of Portugal.
Although Rodrigues conceded that ?some criticism
may be leveled against the medical emergency
procedures,? he insisted the delay was not the cause of
death.
?The inquiry revealed no indication of negligence on
the part of the duty doctor ... or any other person,?
Rodrigues concluded.
?An internal inquiry also cleared the tribunal of
blame for the death in June, of Slavko Dokmanovic,
who hanged himself in his cell while awaiting the
verdict in his war crimes trial.?
[End AP Quote]
Once again Mike Corder said nothing about a Dutch
investigation. And he reported on the fact that the tribunal
cleared *itself* -- and twice -- quite matter-of-factly. Corder
had apparently learned his lesson.
If, as seems to be the case, there was no separate Dutch
investigation, and no post-mortem on Dokmanovic?s body, did
this not violate Dutch law? Apparently not, because ?The ICTY
detention centre?was built in 1994 inside a Dutch prison but is
not subject to Dutch law.?[33]
If the ICTY is indeed not subject to Dutch law, then the initial
reports of an impending Dutch investigation were in error. This
seems probable, because if this Dutch investigation had occurred
at all, and if its results concurred with those of the Tribunal?s
report, the latter would not have failed to loudly mention this. A
post-mortem may be obligatory under Dutch law, but the
Hague Tribunal obviously does whatever it wants when it
investigates itself.
Notice, when a prisoner on suicide watch dies in Philadelphia?s
18th district, this is very serious. ?To give you an idea of how
serious this would be,? Sergeant Walsh explained to me, ?any
time there is a cell block incident it is investigated by a
homicide unit.? Well, that?s Philadelphia. At the UN's
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY),
it is not so serious.
Why? Because the tribunal is a law unto itself; it answers to
nobody.
** A Convenient Suicide **
The convenient absence of a post-mortem by an independent
authority is added to another happy ?coincidence? for the
Tribunal. ?Dokmanovic?s death means the case is closed, and no
verdict will be released posthumously, tribunal spokesman
Christian Chartier said. ?You can't pass judgment on a dead
person.??[34] Poor Dokmanovic! Wherever else he went after
death, *under the law*, he is eternally in limbo.
But what a convenient twist of international law this is for the
tribunal! It avoids not merely the embarrassment of the expected
acquittal, and the spectacle of Dokmanovic giving press
conferences about how he was illegally kidnapped and
mistreated (this issue will be addressed in a forthcoming article).
That would have been bad enough. But try to imagine the
Tribunal having to explain that the man they illegally abducted,
and who subsequently died in custody, was innocent! That
would be a tremendous scandal. Better to keep people guessing
as to whether Dokmanovic was or not a war criminal, in which
case people will not be so sure that they should mourn him. It is
therefore very convenient that the expected ?not guilty? verdict
cannot be passed down posthumously.
About the inability to get a verdict at this point, Christian
Chartier said that ?It must be very frustrating for the family, for
the relatives of the victims, for the prosecution and the defense,
and maybe for historians.?[35] But why should this be
frustrating for the alleged relatives of the alleged victims? An
acquittal was expected! Is the tribunal?s spokesman suggesting
that we should consider this man guilty despite this expectation?
He sounds like one of the prosecutors...! Or is he suggesting that
the alleged families of these alleged victims would have found
catharsis in the acquittal of a man who was illegally kidnapped
and brought to the Hague, and who was nowhere near the
alleged massacres he was alleged to participate in?
As for historians, not to worry: they will have a field day when
they read this article.
Finally, since somebody could have raised questions later, it is
very convenient for the tribunal that some media outlets later
began untruthfully reporting that Dokmanovic had actually
been found guilty! For example, an Inter-Press Service wire, a
few months later, reported that ?[Dokmanovic] was found guilty
of involvement in the killing of more than 200 unarmed men
after their forcible evacuation from a Vukovar hospital in
November 1991. He died a week before he was due to
be sentenced.?[36]
This is perfectly false, as any reader can confirm by going to the
ICTY?s website and consulting their own posted documents
concerning the termination of trial proceedings against Slavko
Dokmanovic upon his death.[37]
** Conclusion **
The facts reviewed have already spoken for themselves, so a
short statement will suffice. The *best* we can say is that
Dokmanovic?s story argues for a ?tribunal? that is criminally
negligent with regard to the health and welfare of its prisoners,
and a mainstream Western media that is pathologically unable
to carry out the most elementary forms of reporting, let alone
questioning, analysis, and investigation.
But the above interpretation, terribly damning as it already is, in
fact is very difficult to swallow, for mere criminal negligence
does not explain why the Hague Tribunal?s report has neither
head nor tails, plus all the other sundry absurdities we have
reviewed. If we instead conclude this is a case of ?malice
aforethought? (?to kill either deliberately and intentionally or
recklessly with extreme disregard for human life?[38])-that is,
*premeditated murder*-we can explain the inconsistencies and
absurdities as resulting from an awkward cover-up.
Finally, if we add to all this that the press is not incompetent
but complicit, we can better explain its behavior. Because not only
was the mainstream Western media dishing out absurdities and
repeating what the Hague officials said with zero analysis, they
also failed to report crucial details. For example, no media
source mentioned that Dokmanovic was a leader for peace and
one of the signers of the Erdut peace agreement.[39] *Why*?
That turns out to be a crucially important omission.
Consider: is it plausible that Croatian leaders would have sat at
the table with Slavko Dokmanovic to talk peace if Dokmanovic
were really a notorious war criminal with blood fresh on his
hands, as the Hague Tribunal alleges?
Of course not.
So it is very important to both NATO and the Hague Tribunal
that ordinary people in the West not find out that Dokmanovic
was a leader for peace. The fact that the mainstream Western
media obliged NATO?s interests by giving us complete silence
on Dokmanovic?s background speaks volumes about the media?s
complicity. A forthcoming piece will examine the importance of
Dokmanovic?s role as a leader for peace in providing NATO
with a motive to kill him.
+
[Footnotes Follow The Appeal]
================================================
Please Consider Making a
Contribution to Emperor's Clothes
================================================
If you have been reading Emperor Clothes and find our articles
useful but haven't made a contribution in some time (or ever)
please consider doing so now. We're experiencing economic
difficulties and we can only produce this work if you help us.
Remember, the articles are *free*. We want everybody to read
them, and share them. But we also need money to survive.
Those of you who can afford to help us with your hard-earned
money are taking a stand against the lies that make war
possible. Those who cannot afford to help us should not feel bad;
we thank you for reading (it matters to us that you do), and help
us when you can!
Here's how you can help:
You can make a credit card donation by going to our
secure server at
https://emperor.securesites.com/transactions/index.php
You can use PayPal at
https://www.paypal.com/xclick/
business=emperors1000@...&no_shipping=1
You can mail a check to Emperor's Clothes, P.O. Box
610-321, Newton, MA 02461-0321. (USA)
Or donate by phone by calling us in the U.S. at
1 617 916-1705
Note: If you donate by mail, please let us know at
emperors1000@...
Thanks!
***
Send the link to this text to a friend. If you're reading this in
email, email your friend this link:
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/calif2.htm
To Subscribe to the Emperor's Clothes email list go to
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/f.htm
You'll receive texts posted at Emperor's Clothes
www.tenc.net * [Emperor's Clothes]
This Website is mirrored at http://emperor.vwh.net/ and at
http://globalresistance.com
*************
FOOTNOTES
*************
[1] Ottawa Citizen, November 2, 2002 Saturday Final Edition,
News; Pg. A18, 180 words, Milosevic's illness delays war crimes
trial, LONDON
[&] Court transcript July 25th, 2002 (p. 8642);
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/020725ME.htm
[2] BBC Worldwide Monitoring, June 30, 1998
[3] AP Worldstream, June 29, 1998; Monday, International news,
670 words, AP Photo AMS101, JENIFER CHAO, THE HAGUE, Netherlands
[4] Inter Press Service, September 22, 1998, Tuesday, 844 words,
RIGHTS-YUGOSLAVIA: DEATHS IN THE HAGUE "JUSTIFY"
BELGRADE STANCE, By Vesna Peric-Zimonjic, BELGRADE, Sep. 22
[5] Deutsche Presse-Agentur, June 29, 1998, Monday, International
News, 497 words, Serb war-crimes suspect found hanged in cell
days before verdict due, The Hague
[6] The Scotsman, June 30, 1998, Tuesday, Pg. 9, 601 words,
SERB WAR CRIMES SUSPECT FOUND HANGED IN CELL, Alex Blair
Foreign Affairs Reporter
[7] The Washington Post, June 30, 1998, Tuesday, Final Edition, A
SECTION; Pg. A11, 551 words, Serb Found Hanged in U.N. Prison;
War-Crime Suspect's Death Called Suicide, Charles Trueheart,
Washington Post Foreign Service, PARIS, June 29
[8] ?Hague officials also said that an investigation would be
launched into questions of how the suicide had gone undetected in the
heavily monitored high-security prison, which was located in the
nearby town of Scheveningen.? Facts on File World News Digest, July
2, 1998, EUROPE; Croatia, Pg. 458 G3, 163 words, War Crimes
Suspect Commits Suicide;
?Red brick walls stretch around the high-security compound here,
the largest prison in the Netherlands, with close to 750 inmates.
Within this compound, invisible from the road, lies the modern,
independent cell block, built by the Dutch government and leased to
the tribunal. Last year, its budget was $3.3 million, paid for by the
United Nations.? The New York Times, July 15, 2001, Sunday, Late
Edition - Final, Section 1; Page 8; Column 1; Foreign Desk, 1502
words, Milosevic's Abode: 10 by 17 Feet but No Dungeon, By MARLISE
SIMONS, SCHEVENINGEN, the Netherlands
[9] http://www.un.org/icty/bulletin21-e/dokman.htm
[10] AP Worldstream, June 29, 1998; Monday 09:44 Eastern Time;
SECTION: International news; LENGTH: 663 words; HEADLINE: AP
Photos AMS101-102; BYLINE: JENIFER CHAO; DATELINE: THE
HAGUE, Netherlands
[11] The Washington Post, June 30, 1998, Tuesday, Final Edition,
A SECTION; Pg. A11, 551 words, Serb Found Hanged in U.N. Prison;
War-Crime Suspect's Death Called Suicide, Charles Trueheart,
Washington Post Foreign Service, PARIS, June 29
[12] Major Newspapers that reported Dokmanovic hanged himself from
the hinge of his cell door. (No other newspapers made reference to
any specific door.)
1. The Baltimore Sun, June 30, 1998, Tuesday, FINAL
EDITION, Pg. 7A, 416 words, Serbian war crimes suspect hangs
himself; U.N. court was close to a verdict on his guilt
2. The New York Times, June 30, 1998, Tuesday, Late
Edition - Final, Section A; Page 6; Column 4; Foreign Desk, 918
words, Serb Charged in Massacre Commits Suicide, By MARLISE SIMONS,
THE HAGUE, June 29
3. The Times, June 30, 1998, Tuesday, Overseas news, 450
words, Serb war crime suspect found hanged in cell, Tom Walker
4. The Toronto Star, June 30, 1998, Tuesday, METRO
EDITION, NEWS; Pg. A12, 376 words, Accused war criminal found
hanged, (Reuters), AMSTERDAM
5. The Washington Post, June 30, 1998, Tuesday, Final
Edition, A SECTION; Pg. A11, 551 words, Serb Found Hanged in U.N.
Prison; War-Crime Suspect's Death Called Suicide, Charles Trueheart,
Washington Post Foreign Service, PARIS, June 29
6. The Seattle Times, June 29, 1998, Monday, Final
Edition, NEWS;, Pg. A9;, 702 words, AROUND THE WORLD
7. THE AUSTRALIAN, June 30, 1998, Tuesday, WORLD; Pg.10,
60 words, War crime suicide
8. Chicago Sun-Times, June 30, 1998, TUESDAY, Late Sports
Final Edition, NEWS; NATION/WORLD BRIEFS; Pg. 17, 593
words, World War II flying ace slain in home robbery.
9. COURIER-MAIL, June 30, 1998, Tuesday, NEWS; Pg. 18,
479 words, Suicide Serb beats war crimes verdict, CHAO J
10. The Gazette (Montreal), June 30, 19<br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)