Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-10-06

ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Good morning everybody, we're proceeding with the evidence of Mr McBride.  When we finished yesterday, Mr Dehal had just finished leading Mr McBride's evidence-in-chief.  I'll now ask Mr Berger whether he has any questions, or if Mr Dehal has in fact finished.

MR DEHAL: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, perhaps just a few questions if you would allow me.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes certainly, Mr Dehal.

MR DEHAL: (cont)
	Mr McBride, at some stage during these proceedings, Mr Richard had shown to Mr Ismail these photographs, number 72 and 73 and the reverse thereof, and I think photograph number 76.  I'd show you these.  Can you explain what this photograph represents, how it was constructed, how it came to be and whether in fact those explosive devices, or what appears to be explosive devices thereon, are in fact real or fictitious?

MR MCBRIDE: Yes, 72, 73 and 74 were a situation where the police had asked me to reconstruct the way in which the Pine Parkade device was made up and they used a replica, or empty rather, demolition charges, SZ3 and SZ6s.  So they were actually empty.  Although 75 appears to be a genuine handgrenade detonator, the rest of the stuff were all replicas or empty.  I don't think they would have allowed me to come too close to live explosives.

MR DEHAL: So you actually assisted in reconstructing for their purpose and for the purpose of making photographs as exhibits in the trial, what appeared to resemble the constructive device you had at the Pine Parkade?

MR MCBRIDE: That's correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr McBride, those photos, 72 through to 74, are they a reasonable reflection of the device that was used at the Pine Park Parkade?

MR MCBRIDE: Yes, Sir, except that the electrical wire, cling wrap and epoxy glue and the aerosol spray is not well sort of exhibited here.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DEHAL: Thank you.  May I now take you to the photographs that deal with the Why Not issue.  Yesterday we dealt with relative distances between the vehicle, the Ford Cortina, in which was contained the bomb and the Why Not bar.  Now we've had the benefit of looking at photographs which were taken shortly after the explosion and which show somewhat the distances.  Sorry I cannot ...

CHAIRPERSON: I think they were 94 as far as I can recall, somewhere around there, Mr Dehal.

MR DEHAL: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.  Unfortunately those photographs are not here, I don't know if they were removed.  Oh there they are.  Thank you.  Mr McBride, here I show you photographs 91, 92, 93, 94 and perhaps you if you look at 95, more importantly.  Now that you've refreshed your memory with the photographs, would you say that the distance you referred to yesterday between here and the interpreter's room, which was estimated at being between 10 to 15 metres, is correct and if that's not correct, what is the distance you would now pitch it at?  And the distance I'm talking about is that part of the vehicle closest to Why Not and the building of Why Not closest to the vehicle, between those two spots?

MR MCBRIDE: Thank you, Sir.  From these photographs it looks much closer than it is now, so on these photographs it looks more like between about 5 or 7 rather than 10 to 15.

CHAIRPERSON: That would be the distance from where you're sitting to where about the television camera is, on the stage here.

MR MCBRIDE: It certainly appears to be that.  From outside on the road in the actual place it looks slightly a bit more.  I don't want to underplay my role in any way whatever.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MCBRIDE: It looks a bit more if you're outside.

JUDGE PILLAY: Did you go to the scene recently?

MR MCBRIDE: Yes, yes, I've been there and it's been changed, they've increased the size of the curbs.

JUDGE PILLAY: Well I think I would appreciate rather what you can remember, instead of looking at the photos because it can be deceptive.

MR MCBRIDE: Well I remember it at about five metres.

MR DEHAL: Thank you.  Mr McBride, the Why Not docket, police docket, was something that you were worried about during the trial, the earlier trial, the authenticity of details etc.  In those days of course further particulars were not supplied to your attorneys, copies of dockets were not supplied as is now your constitutional right.  Now you've asked for that docket, it's not available yet, correct?

MR MCBRIDE: That's correct, yes.

MR DEHAL: Apparently that docket's gone missing.

MR MCBRIDE: Yes, it's gone missing.

MR DEHAL: You express some concern about the number of injured and deceased persons.  In bundle A1, there are 74 persons, if I recall correctly, whereas in the trial there were a different number.  Can you deal with that concern of yours briefly.

MR MCBRIDE: Well since the incident there's been constantly a change in number of injured persons there.  It was initially 89, then it was 69, now I see it's 74 and at one stage it was 104, on one of the documents given to us by the State, so I'm not sure of the number of people who were injured.

MR DEHAL: And is your concern in regard to the increasing numbers the same as with Mr Baker's sudden appearance in the - sorry, relative to the Chamberlain issue?

MR MCBRIDE: Yes, that's correct.

MR DEHAL: Thank you.  Now yesterday the Chairperson asked you questions about Why Not, Magoo's and whether there was a band contained within the Why Not premises.  Do you recall?

MR MCBRIDE: Yes, I recall.

MR DEHAL: Now I showed to you pages 801 and 802 from the transcript in your criminal trial.  Before you deal with that will you allow me to just hand over copies.  I think that would be O, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  We'll mark this document, being pages 801 and 802 of the trial record, as Exhibit O.

MR DEHAL: Thank you.  Mr McBride, I take you to page 801 from line 20 onwards.  I will read it and will you confirm that if that's correct.  This is Mr Davidson who testified in your trial as a State witness and you alleged that he was the proprietor of Why Not premises.  This is the Mr Davidson you talked about yesterday, whose telephone call you had overheard between me and him, him being a client of mine.

MR MCBRIDE: That's correct, yes.