Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1992-05-12

CHAIRPERSON: On the understanding that the conclusions reached by the Judge are being put before you, you are being asked that on the basis of the way he has analysed the evidence, the conclusions he has reached are those that had been read to you and you are asked whether you agree with the Judge's conclusions in that regard.

GARY JOHN KRUSER: Mr Chairman, I think in my affidavit, what do you call it, the last affidavit to the Truth Commission, I think I say that I respectfully disagree with many findings of the inquest court.  I respectfully disagree with many findings of the inquest court - I think I say it in my application to the Truth Commission.

CHAIRPERSON: Page 290 and 291 - is that one of those that you agree or disagree with?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: The judge is saying that?

CHAIRPERSON: From the ANC guards at the south western corner of Shell House.

GARY JOHN KRUSER: When I gave my evidence in the inquest my recollection of events at that time and based on which this judgement is made, I was under the impression that gunfire emanated from the crowd.  I don't if this - I looked at the ballistic evidence, that doesn't show me where gunfire - we don't doubt that heavy gunfire emanated from our side - we agree to that.  Whether that was the first shooting or not, I don't know if that is true, there's nothing to stand on besides witnesses I'm told now through my lawyers that we're not even sure these witnesses are credible.  So I'm saying what other evidence besides the findings of the Judge which I don't agree with all his findings is that the first shooting came from our side - we agree we shot, I don't think that's in dispute, we agree that gunfire was not directed at our - I don't see anything and maybe the Committee must correct me because I'm not a lawyer, that shows me there's factual evidence the first gunfire came from our side.  I don't - based on what I read and what I hear in front of this Committee, I can't see any factual evidence that the first gunfire emanated from, besides other witnesses.  I can only say what I recollect on that day.  I mean I'm not, I don't dispute that as a possibility that the first fire could have come, that maybe my recollection wasn't correct.  So I'm not saying it's not possible.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Mr Kruser, what has been put to you is a finding by the Judge in the inquest.  What you're being asked is to indicate whether you agree with that finding or whether you don't agree with that finding.  Do you understand the question?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I understand the question.

CHAIRPERSON: In fairness I think it should be also told to him that this a record of an inquest, it was not the record of a trial, you understand?  The record of a trial in which witnesses give evidence, they are cross-examined in detail, that's the evidence of a trial.  This is the record of an inquest which the Judge himself says is not a trial.  However, the Judge comes to certain conclusions on the information before him and you're being asked whether you disagree with those conclusions.  You've told us, you've already said that there are some conclusions you disagree with?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And we've taken a lot of time to find out now because you've been asked whether this particular passage that has been read to you - whether you disagree with that.  You either disagree or you agree with it, that's all?

GEORGE BIZOS: May I just indicate that when he is asked to agree or disagree the full passage must be put and I submit that if one has regard to page 136 from the judgement, the typed, it is clear that shots were fired from amongst the crowd in the course of the shooting but there is nothing other that the evidence of the ANC guards to indicate that this occurred before the pandemonium broke out so that if he's asked to comment upon the judge's findings in relation to the shooting, he should be given the full text of the finding by my learned friend for - that is doing the cross-examination.
	Further down, there were also four shots which struck the parapet at the north western corner.  These were fired from De Villiers Street and might well have been interspersed with the shots which were fired from the balcony but there is nothing other than the evidence of the security guards to indicate that they were fired before the shooting which came from the south western corner.  So that is the - we submit that you can't put what the finding was by leaving out the favourable part of the finding in relation to the witness's version.  I'm sorry, this does not relate to the question of the learned Judge, I am merely saying that the full passage was not put by the cross-examiner and I did not intend to interrupt the learned Judge's question.

MR DORFLING: Mr Chairman, the question relates specifically to the bottom of page 136, the last paragraph.  What is being put to this witness is that Mr Justice Nugent found that at the time when the crowd was alleged to have surged forward in the alleged attack, at that time there was no shooting emanating from the crowd and he finds support for his view from the evidence of the witnesses.  It might be that at other occasions there were shooting emanating from the crowd, that's not what's being put to this witness.  It's been put to this witness that at the time when he ordered the shooting no firing was done by the marchers in the direction of the security guards.

CHAIRPERSON: Where the Judge says it is clear that shots were fired from amongst the crowd, all this must have happened in a very short span of time, you understand and I think that we must not take an academic view of this evidence, isn't it?
These are fast moving events and to take one little bit out of context, focus on it, we might get a distorted picture.

MR DORFLING: I perfectly agree, I think what Mr Justice Nugent is trying to convey here is at the time when the pandemonium started, the commencement of the firing at that time there was no other shooting being done by the marchers and that's what Mr Justice Nugent found and I believe that there's support for that view in the evidence which I'll submit to this Committee and that is the response I would like from this witness, he must say whether that is indeed correct - that there was no other shooting immediately preceding the order to fire by him to his guards.

CHAIRPERSON: Immediately preceding - do you mean one minute or 10 minutes?

MR DORFLING: Well there was no specific time frames given in the evidence, one can't put it to a specific time frame but as Mr Justice Nugent put it at the time when the pandemonium broke loose, at that time there was no shooting emanating from the crowd.
	May I proceed to the so called second salient principle feature in the evidence of the ANC guards dealt with at page 137, the second paragraph?  It specifically deals with the question as to whether the crowd was charging forward brandishing their spears and other weapons as if they were going to attack the guards.  That was the ANC's version as put forward, is that correct Mr Kruser?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I think that's still the ANC's version. What I also find very disturbing - the Judge relies Von Eggerdy on his other points are - whether we shot first or not but on this point he doesn't find his evidence credible, because he supports the version that these people were attacking.  I just find the judgement a bit...[intervention]

MR DORFLING: The whole judgement carries on and I don't want to be blamed for putting it out of context, it continues at the whole of page 137 - the full of page....[intervention]