Skip to content or view screen version

Evidence of fraud by Nato at Srebrenica exhumation site

Tom Young | 09.12.2003 23:02 | Anti-militarism | Social Struggles | World

The Kamencia exhumation supposedly uncovered more than 500 victims of the Srebrenica massacre. However, publicity in the SFOR publication seem to suggest that this mass grave was little more than a public relations hoax. This has not stopped it being used in War Crimes proceedings.

In the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Srebrenica enclave, American officials claimed they had satellite evidence of mass executions of Bosnia civilians at a soccer field nearby. When two photos were released it showed some white patches alledged to be disturbed earth, but no footage of executions. Subsequently no exhumations have been done at that site, nor have forensic investigations been performed to ascertain if bodies had been present and since been removed, as SFOR is fully empowered under the Dayton agreement.

Since then it has become accepted that Bosnia Serbs have dug up graves from a Srebrenica massacre and moved them to other locations. Hence the distinction is made between primary graves, ones that have been undisturbed, and secondary graves, containing bodies that have been moved from another location. One problem with a secondary grave is that it becomes difficult to ascertain exactly the origin of the remains, and so it is easily open to fraud should any organisation be so inclined. Especially in a country that has had 200 000 war dead.

This article from the forces magazine, the SFOR Informer 2002, discusses the discovery and exhumation of one such secondary grave from Srebrenica located at Kamenica.
 http://www.nato.int/sfor/indexinf/147/p12a/t02p12a.htm
This grave was finally determined to hold over 500 remains making it the biggest grave to date.

Nevertheless, even a cursory examination of the accompaning photos raises questions. By clicking on the top photo, captioned "Bulldozer tracks are visible at the exhumation site.", an enlarged version is obtained that completely undermines the accompanying claims.

Firstly, it becomes very clear where the bulldozer tracks come from, not from Serb earth moving equipment moving bodies 8 years ago, but from the backhoe situated in the background of the photo. Backhoes, for obvious reasons, are never used in forensic exhumations.

Secondly, the tracks lead into the pile of remains, suggesting that whatever made the tracks also was responsible for depositing the bodies. Given I think it unlikely that this type of exhumation is going to uncover bulldozer tracks from beneath compacted earth after a period of 8 years, we can assume that the remains have been recently added to the site.

Thirdly, even in the remote possibility the remains had been buried and recently uncovered in a forensic exhumation, it would look nothing like as pictured. A forensic exhumation would slowly remove thin layer after thin layer of dirt from the top of the grave. As remains were exposed they would examined in situ and then removed piece by piece. If we are to believe this picture then excavators came in from one side and miraculously managed to remove all dirt from over and even from BETWEEN the remains - and just happen to have revealed a pile of human remains that looked like it had been dumped recently.

Fourthly, the obvious explanation is that the backhoe dug out the hole in the picture and then the remains were dumped into a pile inside. And that this event occured in the last few days.

What is amazing is not that this is a fraud, but that it is such a clumsy one. Even more worrying is that fact that this very "forensic" exhumation is and has been used as evidence before the Internatiton Tribunal of War Crimes in Yugoslavia. It raises the questions if NATO is prepared to fake one mass grave, how many of the others have been tampered with or are unreliable.

I contacted the ICTY over this issue and requeasting the procedure of obtaining access to photographic evidence and forensic reports used at the Tribunal. The response has been a deafening silence.

Tom Young
- e-mail: tombo_combo@lycos.com

Comments

Hide the following 9 comments

really?

10.12.2003 10:21

Mr Young must obviously be a highly competent archaeologist to make such firm deductions from a jpeged image which is 450 x 310 pixels in size.

He alleges 'fraud'. Is he saying that SFOR are moving bodies from one mass grave to another? He himself admits there are 200,000 missing war dead, so it hardly seems necessary. In addition, there were observers from the local cantonal court at Tuzla, and from the International Commission for Missing Persons (ICMP) [link;  http://www.ic-mp.org/icmp/home.php]. Is he alleging that they too are part of the 'fraud'? Or is this just another example of looking for any dubious stick with which to beat NATO?

sceptic


Really!

11.12.2003 14:44

If you click on the picture as requested in my article you get a much larger and clearer version of the picture, in which what I say is frankly beyond doubt.

I cant say where or how or why NATO got those bodies, nor do I care what observers were at the site (if anything it only makes the situation more scandalous). It is an undeniable fact that these bodies are consistent ONLY with being dumped recently, they are NOT in the slightest consistent with any forensic exhumation.

Sceptic, for reasons of his/her own, is knowingly trying to muddy the waters. That the bodies were dumped there recently is beyond doubt, how they arrived there is something beyond my means to uncover.

Tom Young


Really!

11.12.2003 17:12

Sceptics comment seem to be skirting the issue. You can get a perfectly clear and large version of the photo in question if you click on it (as suggested in the article).

It really doesnt matter who was there verifying, or where or how or why the bodies got there (something which I could only speculate). The photo speaks for itself, its clearly NOT the result of any kind of forensic investigation. It is equally clear that the bodies were deposited there recently en masse.

Anyone can see that immediately from examining the photograph. Sceptic is being wilfully blind and attempting to muddy the waters with irrelevant suppositions about what 200 000 war dead would make necessary or not - a remark that simply lack coherence.

Tom Young


Really!!!

11.12.2003 17:44

Sceptic had you clicked on the photo in the link as suggested in the article you would have got a larger and perfectly adequate image.

The beauty of this story is that the evidence is all in front of you, and one can visit and make up their own mind without the need for any extraneous information.

I contend that this is clearly NOT a forensic exhumation, and equally obviously that these bodies were dumped there very recently. The How or Why or Wherefore I cant answer because I dont know. But nor can Sceptic answer the central arguments - that this is not a genuine mass grave.

And that is because the evidence is incontrovertible and in front of everyone's eyes.

Tom Young


Really!!!?

11.12.2003 23:03

If you'd read my post more carefully, you'd see I had looked at the 'larger' picture. As I said, it's a jpg 450 x 310 pixels. This does not give very high quality.

Other than the bulldozer tracks, have you any evidence for them 'being dumped there recently'?

Do you have any archaelogical or forensic expertise? Have you consulted anyone who has?

Assertion is not proof.

sceptic


Forensic and archaelogical expertise

12.12.2003 00:12

sorry about the multiple posts, it was done over a period of about 5 hours not all at once!

Yes, some forensic and archaelogical ability and experience.

In anycase the image is more than adequate to draw conclusions. I find your complaints it is to small bizarre.

My assertions do not simply rest on the fact their are bulldozer tracks, with the track making backhoe in the background (Whoops!)
Mainly it rests on the fact that forensic exhumations do not reveal pile of bodies. Layers are excavated, remains are examined in situ and then removed to expose the next layer. The concept of somehow digging right around the remains to reveal a big pile, not to mention extracting earth from within the pile is absurd. You are not seriously suggesting, you are simply using argument to try and create doubt in the mind of the reader rather than genuinely doubt what I have stated.

Equally absurd is the fact the excavation appears to have gone in from one side, just like the hole had been rapidly excavated with a backhoe. Did I mention there was a backhoe in the background. A backhoe in a forensic or archaelogical examination? Give me a break.

Tom Young


When is a 'sceptic' not a sceptic?

12.12.2003 11:59

Yes, Tom. You've also discovered the hard way that you should never trust anyone on IMC calling themselves "sceptic".

There's about three of them, of differing levels of intelligence (but no IQs over 120), but they are all notable for a total lack of scepticism regarding the activities of the Powers That Be or anyone with authority.

What they are good at is throwing up a load of squid ink whenever anyone challenges their cosy little assumptions about the "free West."

Why such credulous gits should call themselves "sceptics" is quite beyond me.

Mad Monk


An official response

02.01.2004 14:26

I have received a communication from one of the international experts involved in the Kamenica exhumation. Worth posting here as an the closest I am likely to get to an official rebuttal
"Dear Mr Young

I was extremely interested to read your article
(Evidence that SFOR committed fraud in exhumation at
Kamenica, Dec 9th, 2003).

I hope you would be so kind as to answer me the
following - Where on earth are you coming from? What
planet are you on? Do you really imagine you were
being clever? Or indeed serious? What kind of person
are you? Was this intended as a joke?

As one of teh international experts present at this
exhumation I happen to feel quite happy to say to you
that you are a complete arsehole. I can think of
worse words but arsehole kind of covers it. I'm not
even going to justify the exhumation to you or explain
where you have gone so very very sadly wrong with your
accusation.

Perhaps SFOR might have the decency to sue you.

As for thinking you would get information from ICTY
then you really are stupid, arent you. "

Tom Young


SFOR EXAMINATION

15.11.2004 16:06

Considering that you obviously have NO background in forensics or archaeology, what right do you have on saying whether things are real or not? For a start YES backhoes are frequently used in forensic investigations, especially when you know the depth at which burials are through probing the soil or making a test trench. ANy reference to a forensic textbook would state this.
Secondly, I can state categorically that the site was NOT FAKE and the bodies were uncovered over a long hot summer period. This was done first through a back hoe, until the level was reached, then by hand using trowels and brushes. How do I know this? Because I was there and saw it. And YES tyremarks CAN be found that long after being made; any search of the literature would reveal this to you!
I have no hidden agenda. I am not for or against any side. I speak the truth only.

Me