And here it goes, the thread is hopelessly derailed. Didn't really want to spur discussion about it, it was merely an example of an orchestarted plot though probably based on actual events. Do not really want to participate either, but answering Kazs...
I'm pretty sure as a forensic expert it is outside of her competence to claim was it a massacre or not, define legal status or whatever, clearly remember it was specifically mentioned in EU FET summary report. She did likely thought that way though judging by her quotes in the media. She probably though it was ok to express her personal opinion, I personally think it was unprofessional, since regardless of what she says she will be quoted as 'independent forensic expert'. If Ranta was willing to give that bone to the media, so be it. But I'm feeling the hand of W.Walker behind all this, who did all in his power to create a story out of it for the media in specifically one-sided way, after all Ranta eventually admitted she was under pressure.
What is important here is not what she said to the media, but what she and her collegues wrote in that dossier, in other words her expert opinion, which unlike her personal one should be reasoned somehow. And this is where all the problems start. What we had immediately after the expertise is short EU FET summary report, that afair points on a single fact of disagreement between multilple groups of experts, namely the gunshot residue test, that was positive for almost all bodies, while she (wasn't mentioned who exactly in the report, but after her interviews it is clear it was Ranta) disregarded diphenylamine test as being unreliable (and not being a forensic expert from what I know it is indeed unreliable, but 37 out 40?), in the very same report it was claimed they did SEM-EDX that proofed to be negative.
After a two year silence, eventually her report was published in FSI journal, which creates more questions than it answers. First of all, it didn't mention SEM-EDX testing which makes me believe it is not a full dossier. Other things mentioned in the dossier absolutely doesn't add any basis to the multiple myths created in the media, like victims were tortured or multilated pre- or post-mortem, it absolutely excludes the chance it was an execution or that people were shot at close range etc., while some, making reference to the dossier it was a sustained fire with multiple non-lethal wounds, claim it draws a picture of firefight rather than anything else. But it still not rules out the possibility it was a mass murder of non-combatants. The final words mentions they have reached the consesus with other forensic experts (so what was that gunshot residue story is about?), which makes me even more puzzled about the whole story.
Afaik Ranta gave her testimony in the ICTY about the case, but the charges were eventually dropped, rendering the whole discussion irrelevant and likely impossible to make any final verdict, especially after yet another mysterious death of Milosevic.
