Re: How much more could she have said on the impact of her work? Probably her first-hand account of what she saw on the ground is the best and closest account she can give. Forensic experts can't engage too much with survivors and witnesses -- apart from the immense personal impact it inevitably has on them (on which she actually does comment), it would taint their expert testimony in court, as it would give the defense grounds to attack their impartiality. -- Moreover, International Criminal Court / Tribunal proceedings are nothing if not epic, so a substantial number of the cases her work helped foster were not yet concluded by the time she published her book (in 2004). Just from the list of cases at the end of the book, though, I can tell that she contributed to a VAST amount of the really big and important ones -- and the testimony of Bill Haglund and Nizam Peerwani (pathologist) is actually cited in the Kibuye trial judgment (see excerpt in my first status update, to come).
As far as I can tell, she never testified. Also, at the halfway point I didn't see the list of legal cases at the end, but she never tied in what she did with how they caught the people responsible - admittedly not her job, but if you are writing a book you can do some research and write a few extra paragraphs. That list of legal cases just randomly sits there at the end of the book.
I'm also basing my assessment on the book. Not on the extra research I've done, or things I've read in the past or any extra knowledge I might have picked up in other places or what happened after she published the book. The book is advertised as a memoir so I suppose it's expecting a bit much to get a broader view of the atrocities and the legal matters that involve the criminal court and tribunal proceedings and more specifics about forensic anthropology.
To be honest, I found her whining over the lack of equipment, the accommodations, her co-workers, lack of running water, and the lack of food choices to overshadow the importance of her work. Seriously, was she expecting a 5 star hotel with 7 course meals in a war-zone, along with a 100% happy, cheerful and congenial co-workers that agree with her all the time and are easy to get along with, all while digging up mass graves of atrocities? If she was unhappy with how things were run or with a co-worker she should have said, rather than bitching about them behind their backs (i.e. in a book). I was really hoping for something along the lines of "this is what she did (field work)", "these are the results", "what the results mean", along with all the emotional stuff and personal insights that comes along with this type of job.
As for forensic anthropolgists/pathologists etc dealing with survivors and witnesses - I would have thought that was not allowed (or at least a really bad idea) and someone (preferably a psychologist) would be specifically assigned to deal with victims/witnesses.
From her memoir, I get the impression that the UN and Tribunal personnel, along with whoever organises these missions, are thoroughly disorganised and have no idea about ground work and equipment (I have no idea if this is true or not, but that's the impression I get). A bit of communication would have gone a long way.
I didn't hate the book. Some parts were compelling. I did learn a few things about fieldwork and her experiences. But I didn't love this book either. It just came across as incomplete (and whiney).
PS: I'm bitching about the book as much as Koff bitched about her co-workers! ;)
I'd love to know what she said about her co-workers. I knew a woman who was probably one of them. She was also a forensic anthropologist on the UN team in Bosnia in 1996, and Kosovo in 1999.
Mostly petty stuff. Also mostly about the people in managemet/leadership positions. Occassionally about how the "new" people didn't have the same working ethics as her team. Some interpersonal clashes. How the one guy drove too fast or was in a hurry (sounds like an ever-ready bunny. Some one should have slipped him some sleeping tablets). The Bosnia etc teams always had changing personnel, so everything didn't always run smoothly, or according to the routine Koff was used to from her Rwanda experiences.
I'm also basing my assessment on the book. Not on the extra research I've done, or things I've read in the past or any extra knowledge I might have picked up in other places or what happened after she published the book. The book is advertised as a memoir so I suppose it's expecting a bit much to get a broader view of the atrocities and the legal matters that involve the criminal court and tribunal proceedings and more specifics about forensic anthropology.
To be honest, I found her whining over the lack of equipment, the accommodations, her co-workers, lack of running water, and the lack of food choices to overshadow the importance of her work. Seriously, was she expecting a 5 star hotel with 7 course meals in a war-zone, along with a 100% happy, cheerful and congenial co-workers that agree with her all the time and are easy to get along with, all while digging up mass graves of atrocities? If she was unhappy with how things were run or with a co-worker she should have said, rather than bitching about them behind their backs (i.e. in a book). I was really hoping for something along the lines of "this is what she did (field work)", "these are the results", "what the results mean", along with all the emotional stuff and personal insights that comes along with this type of job.
As for forensic anthropolgists/pathologists etc dealing with survivors and witnesses - I would have thought that was not allowed (or at least a really bad idea) and someone (preferably a psychologist) would be specifically assigned to deal with victims/witnesses.
From her memoir, I get the impression that the UN and Tribunal personnel, along with whoever organises these missions, are thoroughly disorganised and have no idea about ground work and equipment (I have no idea if this is true or not, but that's the impression I get). A bit of communication would have gone a long way.
I didn't hate the book. Some parts were compelling. I did learn a few things about fieldwork and her experiences. But I didn't love this book either. It just came across as incomplete (and whiney).
PS: I'm bitching about the book as much as Koff bitched about her co-workers! ;)