There were two of the three Indonesian victim witnesses and two expert witnesses ready to testify for this court session.

One of the prosecutors explained that court was delayed from beginning at the 10:00 A.M. because the prosecution was waiting on a letter from the doctor explaining Hardi Sugumol's (one of the defendants) health condition.

The judge asked the defendants if they were ready to hear testimony. Two defendants stated that they had not eaten in three days because of their concerns about Mr. Sugumol's health condition. One defendant said that he had a cough and his body was weak, another defendant said that a guard in prison was making him feel embarrassed, and that the other inmates were laughing at him. Another defendant said that they all feel hurt in their minds and that they were concerned about Mr. Sugumol's health. And then another defendant said that he had five children and that they had no money for tuition fees, he said that this was affecting him.

Mr. Johnson Panjaitan (the defense lawyer) questioned the prosecutors' letter about the doctor's report. There was a letter presented and the defense team said that a letter could only be from a doctor, not from the staff. The defense team questioned the prosecution for wanting Mr. Sugumol at trial.

The judge asked the defendants if they could attend trial. They responded that they were weak and their minds and were disturbed. Mr. Panjaitan said that he and his team would like to speak to the defendants and stated that the defense team was prepared for trial.

The judge asked the defendants to move to the defense table so that they could communicate better. At this time one of the defendants got up and walked into the audience. The police surrounded him and put him in handcuffs. Mr. Panjaitan said that he would like to speak to the defendants, and the one defendant was lead back into the court area and the handcuffs were taken off. The defendants spoke with the defense team and after a few minutes the defense team stated that they tried to convince the defendants to stay, but the defendants said that they could not attend the trial that day.

At 2:30 P.M., the defendants left the court room.

Mr. Panjaitan then stated that his clients' rights have not been met, speaking about physical and mental illness. He stated that his clients were embarrassed and this was causing them physical and mental illness. He went on to say that he had to decide whether to continue to represent the defend ants, because his clients' rights were not being met. The defense team left at 2:40.

The judge called the first Indonesian victim witness to the stand.

To save on space I will condense the victim witness testimony: Prosecution asked the victim witness about date, why he was in court today a nd asked what he was doing the day of the ambush. The victim witness stated that he was driving a dump truck from the direction of Timika to Tembagapura. When he reached Mile 63 he saw a foreigner standing beside a white LWB (To yota land cruiser) waving at him (as in warning). At that same time he heard an explosion from his vehicle, and he thought he had a flat tire. He said he stopped immediately and got out the right side and then felt his head, and he knew he was bleeding and got back into his vehicle and hid. He said he heard 5 or 6 shots. He said that they were single shots. He said he was bleed ing from his head to his belly. He was asked if his vehicle was shot at and he said yes, he said that his vehicle was shot at 16 times from the front and right side. He said he thinks it went on for 5 to 10 minutes. He said that when he was hiding in his vehicle and looked up, suddenly there were shots. He said the source of the shots came from about 6 meters away. The judge asked if he heard shooting before arriving at Mile 63, and he said no.

The victim witness went on to say that a foreigner came up and looked inside his vehicle and he got into the foreigner's vehicle and they went to Mile 60 (toward Timika) where they stopped and met another vehicle and the n went back to the ambush site. He said that when they arrived back at the site, they saw a lot of soldiers. He said he was taken to Tembagapura and was treated there one night. He said he was wounded in his thigh and eyes. The judge asked if he was recovered from his wounds and he said not yet. He said that his eyes don't function well and he has to have more surgery.

The prosecution asked about the small vehicle that passed him going down the mountain (this vehicle was traveling from Tembagapura to Timika and had just passed through the ambush site). The victim witness said that he knew the man driving and that there were two other passengers in the vehicle. He said that the man driving did not do anything to let him know that there was shooting ahead. The prosecutors asked if he said anything to this man after the shooting. The victim witness said that he did ask the man why he did not warn him and the man who drove the small vehicle responded that he too was shot at and that he was afraid.

The prosecution and judges asked the victim witness about his employment history and about the local people. They also asked about the vehicles driven people on that road. When asked if the Indonesian military and Indonesian police drove the same vehicles he that they did but that sometimes they were different colors.

At 3:30 P.M. the first Indonesian victim witness was dismissed.

At 3:31 P.M. the second Indonesian victim witness took the stand.

To save on space I will condense the victim witness testimony: The prosecution asked if he was questioned before, and he said that he was questioned three times. They asked him why he was there, and he said because of the shootings that happened on August 31, 2002. They asked him to tell them about that day.

He said that he was going in the direction toward Tembagapura and about 1:00 P.M., when he reached Mile 62-63, he said that he heard an explosion and he thought he had a flat tire. He pulled the left hand break and got out of the vehicle and fell down and began to tremble. He said that he couldn't speak but said that he prayed in his heart. He said that he touched his head and felt a hole, and that's when he knew he was shot. He said the shooting came from the right side. He was asked if he saw the shooters, and he said no. He was asked if he saw other vehicles in front of him when he was shot, and he said no. He said that there was a curve/bend in front of him so he didn't see them until he came back to the ambush site with the soldiers.

He said he saw a vehicle and got out of his vehicle and climbed through the window of that car. When he got in he saw his friend, he was bleeding also (first victim witness in the vehicle with the foreigner). He said he saw the driver of the vehicle talking on the radio and they traveled toward Timika. He was asked if he heard counter shooting, and he said he did not hear counter shooting, it was single shots.

He said that he heard shooting when he was going down the mountain to Mile 60 with the foreigner. When they reached Mile 60, he saw soldiers and they told the soldiers what had happened and they then turned around and went back to the ambush site. He said that when he came back to the ambush site he saw people holding a baby and he saw bullet holes in the side of the vehicles.

He was asked where he was taken for surgery. He stated that he was sent to Townsville, Australia, with the expatriates that were wounded. He said that when he was in the hospital the doctor showed him the x-ray and that's when he saw the bullet in his neck. He was asked about his health now. He said that he felt disturbed in his head and it has affected his life. He said that sometimes he is blind. He said that he could not work for 2 to 3 months after the ambush.

He was also asked about his work history and about the local people. He was asked about the type of vehicles that are driven on the road.

This second and last Indonesian victim witness was dismissed at 4:07 P.M.

The judges and the prosecutors discussed whether to have the two expert witnesses testify, or to wait for the next court date in hopes that the third Indonesian victim witness would attend court. They decided to call the expert witnesses and if the third victim witness did not attend court on Tuesday, Oct. 3rd, his statement would be read in court.

At 4:15 P.M. the doctor who did the autopsy on Rick was called to testify.

He was asked if he was ever questioned about the autopsy before, and he said that he was in January 2006. This witness was very quiet and did not speak into the microphone, so we did not hear most of his testimony. From what we did hear of his testimony he said that the police sent him the body describing the body as Rickey Lynn Spier.

This expert witness flipped through the records after each question to find the answer to each question asked.

They asked if the police told him why he was doing the autopsy on Rick, he s aid they sent a letter asking him to autopsy him. They asked if the wound on Rick's left cheek was from glass or a bullet, he could not answer that. They asked how many bullets he found in Rick's body, he said four. They asked if all the bullets were the same type of bullets, and he said that they were the same type of bulletsE280A6but then with more question ing he said he could not tell if the bullets were the same or different type s of bullets. He then stated that he was not an expert on bullets. He is then asked to go up to the judges bench to look at the bullets. He was dismissed at 4:43 P.M.

At 4:45 the Indonesian ballistic expert was called to testify (the FBI's ballistic expert that was prepared to testify on Sept. 12th and 15th, was not called to testify).

To save on space I will condense the ballistic expert's testimony: The expert witness gave his educational history and his work history with the Indonesian police. He was asked if he was questioned by police and he said yes. They asked if he knew why he was there and he said yes, because of the shooting at Mile 63. He said he examined the bullets and the casings. He said they found 77 bullets at the scene and four from the autopsy.

He said that the bullets he examined were from an M-16, SS-1 and a Mouser. The prosecutors asked from which vehicles they came from (don't know if she was talking about casings or bullets) and he said from the two dump trucks, two LWBs (Toyota land cruisers), and the one tanker. She asked where the holes were located in the vehicles, and he said from the right, from the front, and some in the back; but most entries were from the right side. She asked why there were holes on the left side of the vehicles, and he explained that when bullets came through the right side, the bullets went through to the left side and then out.

He was asked if from examining the holes if he could identify the caliber that was used. He said that he found two kinds; 7.7 mm and below 7.7mm, so he concluded that two types of calibers were used. She asked if this meant two types of weapons, and he responded that from the holes they can only determine the caliber, not the type of gun. From the scene he found 5.5 and 7.7 mm. He said that to find the weapon he would have to examine the casings and the weapons. He then said that there were three types, the SS-1 and M-16 having the 5.5mm, and the Mouser having the 7.7 mm.

The judge asked him how he knew the distance the shots were fired, and he answered that when they did the reconstruction, they set up in the same position as in the real incident and analyzed from the location where they found the casings to find the distance for the shootings. He was asked if the bulle ts he received came to him separated or whether they were in one packet as a whole. He said that the evidence came to him sealed and coded, identifying the location where they were found. The judge then asked how he could tell the height a shot was fired, and he said you could tell by the angle of the bullet hole.

The prosecutor asked about characteristics of the bullets used. The witness explained that each weapon has its own characteristics. Individual weapons have something like finger prints, like humans, and you can tell which weapons shot which bullets. He said that besides the evidence from the scene of crime he also tested evidence from the TNI and from the defendants. The prosecution asked if the forensics only analyzed without comparison. The witness said that during the investigation he took evidence to United States and he said he went with some military police to do comparison tests. The judge then thanked him and gave him his ID back. The ballistics expert was dismissed at 5:25 P.M.

The judge then stated that if the third Indonesian victim witness did not attend Tuesday's hearing they would read his statement. She then said that Anthonius Wamang (one of the defendants) would be called to testify.

The judge said that the hearing would begin on Tuesday, Oct. 3rd at 10:00 A.M. Court was adjourned at 5:28 P.M.

The Oct. 3rd, court session was called to order at 2:53 P.M.
The defendants were in court, sitting in the audience section, but the defense lawyers were not present. The Amungme translator was also present. The prosecution asked that the defendants move into the court area. At this time Anthonius Wamang responded by standing up from his seat in the audience. He said there were three things he wanted to speak about (he spoke in Amungme and the translator translated). First that last Friday they had asked about Hardi Sugumol's health; second that they were not going to speak about anything until their friend Mr. Sugumol was healthy, and that there is conflict with each other and when that is settled they will talk; and third, there is more information so he won't say anything else today. He then sat down.

The judge asked if there was any comment about the defendants from the prosecution, and the prosecution responded that they were hoping that tomorrow (Oct. 4th) they would get a doctor to confirm Mr. Sugumol's condition and find out if he can attend court. She said that according to the men who transported the defendants to court, Mr. Sugumol seemed well. But she said that there was no confirmation from a doctor about his condition.

Ishak Onawame (one of the defendants) then stood up from his seat in the audience and said in Bahasa Indonesia that Mr. Sugumol has had trouble for two years and went on to say that he appreciated the court but he would need to help Mr. Sugumol.

At 2:59 P.M., the defendants stood up and walked to the door of the court room. The judge said that they did not have to stay if they chose to leave, and the defendants left with the police.

The judge then said that they would proceed because they wanted no more delays.

One of the prosecutors read a short statement from the expatriate who came upon the ambush when he and his wife were traveling from Tembagapura to Timika. The statement was read rapidly so we had a hard time getting all the details. The statement read that about 1:00 P.M. on August 31, 2002, he saw a trailer in the road when he and his wife were traveling toward Timika. He said he was about 12 feet from the tanker, and that he was shot at from the left side, but didn't see from where. I did not hear my translator tell me that he went back to Mile 64 to get help, but the statement went on to say that he heard three shots and that the driver of the tanker asked for help. This expatiate said that he saw a foreigner dead in the driver's seat of one of the white vehicles and the person next to the driver was wounded. He said he saw a woman comforting a child behind a white vehicle.

Then another prosecutor read (again very fast) the statement from the Indonesian victim witness who did not attend court. This victim witness stated that he was in the tanker and that he was shot around 12:40. He also described what he did the morning of the ambush, up until he was shot. He was traveling in the direction from Timika toward Tembagapura. The statement said that he saw two white vehicles and foreigners asking for help. The statement said that the first shot hit the right side in his door and the second shot hit the mirror. The one shot that came in his door hit his back and he could not move until help came. He said he saw one shooter. He said the gun was 70 cm long. He said the shooter had black skin and black curly hair; he described what he was wearing, and he said he could probably recognize the shooter if he was put in a room with other people.

Then another prosecutor read Anthonius Wamang's statement, and it was what was in the indictment. Then the prosecutors read other statements but they were read so fast that my translator couldn't get all that was said, and she couldn't get who said what in which statement. But all the statements spoke of the verbal order, and then the written order, from Kelly Kwalik (the leader of the OPM; the separatist group) giving the orders to do damage to the Freeport road, not to harm civilians, but they could fire on the Indonesian military. These individual statements went into what each of their individual involvement was in carrying out the August 31, 2002 ambush. Some stating that they were at the ambush site, some saying they were in the camp, and some saying they gave supplies. But all the statements stated that they knew what was in the letter from Kelly Kwalik, or what the order was. Some spoke of what they did on Sept. 1st, and two spoke of the death of Elias Kwalik (Mr. X) and how one of them took Mr. Kwalik's gun when he was killed.

Then some of the statements went on to their interviews with the FBI. The statements continued to be read incredibly fast. One of the statement described meeting with the FBI and the FBI asking for the guns used in the ambush. Those statements said that Kelly Kwalik had the guns used in the ambush. One statement stated that after their second meeting with the FBI they got the casings from the fired guns in Kelly Kwalik's possession and brought the shot casings to the FBI. The prosecutor read the name of the person who gave the casings to the FBI. They also gave this person's name as the person who helped persuade the defendants to speak to the FBI.

(The transcript from the video that has been recording the witness phase will help in knowing what exactly was in all of these statements that were read)

The judge then said that the witness portion was complete and that the criminal charge portion would begin on Tuesday, Oct. 10th. Court was adjourned court at 3:35 P.M.