Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 2000-07-25

SAGRAM NOMICAN AIYER: Basically Dr Chetty had a body to measure and Dr Naidoo had bones to measure.  He used a formula that was an average which Lundi obtained by measuring a number of other people's bones and then making a calculation.
	There is a difference, there will be a difference.

MR SAMUEL: There will be a difference?  So one can expect that difference in all, on all occasions, the difference between a body being measured in situ as such and the calculation from the bones, you will always get a variation?

SAGRAM NOMICAN AIYER: There will be a variation, yes.

MR SAMUEL: Thank you.

ADV BOSMAN: May I just ask, would you regard that as a significant difference taking into account the circumstances?

SAGRAM NOMICAN AIYER: The text in Forensic Medicine say that the actual height if a person, when measured alive, may vary by a few centimetres, when measured dead, that is because of rigor mortis and things like that, so if we extrapolate from that, there might be a significant difference, yes.

MR LAX: And just to follow that up, you are talking about alive and dead, is the difference between the 1,6 m recorded in Dr Chetty's PM on this body and assuming it is the same body that Dr Naidoo performed his post-mortem on, is the difference between his finding using Lundi's formula and this noted here, is that significant in your estimation?

SAGRAM NOMICAN AIYER: Well, if we take the upper limit, 1,42 and we take Dr Chetty's 1,6, there is about a 20 cm difference, and that is a significant difference, however, as I mentioned earlier, Dr Chetty may have measured the body with its tissue still in situ, which might have given that extra bit of padding and given you the length.  Dr Naidoo did not measure the body laid out, he measured the diameter of the bones, the length of the bones, and incorporated that into a formula and made an estimate or calculated height.  There will be a difference, and there is a difference.

MR LAX: Yes, you didn't understand how I meant to use the word significant.  I understand 20 cm is a significant difference, the point is though, is it significant enough to rule out the possibility that these are the same body, put it differently, is it significant enough to indicate that we are dealing with two different bodies here? Do you understand what I am getting  to?

SAGRAM NOMICAN AIYER: Yes.

MR LAX: In other words, would the difference be such as to exclude the possibility that we are dealing with the same body?

SAGRAM NOMICAN AIYER: I have not considered that problem before, and I probably, if I do give an opinion here now, I probably will mislead the Committee.  I think Dr Naidoo will be better able to answer that question, because he is more experienced in this field, than I am.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr SAMUEL?

MR SAMUEL: Just one last question.  Sir, would I be correct in saying that the discoloration of white or beige garments would be more noticeable than the discoloration on darker garments, am I right?  If there was discoloration on the dress which is significantly darker, it would not be so noticeable as such, am I right, with the naked eye?

SAGRAM NOMICAN AIYER: Yes, you would be.

MR SAMUEL: Thank you.  No further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR SAMUEL

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Do you have any re-examination, Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: No Mr Chair, thank you.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lax, do you have any questions you would like to ask?

MR LAX: It looks like Mr Visser wants to ask a question.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Visser, do you wish to ask a question?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I don't have this love which you might think, to work, but may I just ask one question, with your leave?
	Doctor, you just said a moment ago on a question that was asked of you that Chetty had a body to measure and Naidoo had bones to measure, and he worked according to a formula.  If you had the two, a choice of the two, which one would you accept on the probabilities, as being more accurate?

SAGRAM NOMICAN AIYER: The physical body.  That is my personal choice.

MR VISSER: Yes, the 1,6 as opposed to the 1,3 to 1,42?

SAGRAM NOMICAN AIYER: Yes.

MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.   Mr Lax?

MR LAX: Chair, please just bear with me, there is one aspect that I want to check.

CHAIRPERSON: Adv Bosman?

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.  Just one question, Dr Aiyer.  Taking into consideration the degree of decomposition which you expect the body to be in at the time when it was found, how would this decomposition, this degree of decomposition have affected the hair on the skull?

SAGRAM NOMICAN AIYER: Well, with decomposition, I mentioned as part of the decomposition process, you get skin slipping and you might have the  scalp actually coming away from the skull itself and other times, you might have the skull adhering more, adherent, so to speak to the skull itself.  So it will vary, depending on the nature of the environmental conditions at the time, and any other intervening factors like maybe animal bites, for instance.

ADV BOSMAN: I realise it is very difficult for you to give us an opinion here, but what I am getting at is, would the hair possibly, I mean I have read sort of lay articles that hair grows after death, it is not true, is it?

SAGRAM NOMICAN AIYER: No.

ADV BOSMAN: In any event, could the hair or the decomposition of the hair have prevented a person from seeing the bullet entry wound at all?

SAGRAM NOMICAN AIYER: Yes.   If the scalp hair was in situ and if the person had a thick mob of hair, it is not unknown for a person to miss a gunshot wound unless you tease the hair apart and look at the injury.  Quite often this is why, in fact it is mandatory for us to shave the scalp when we suspect a gunshot wound, we shave the scalp to get a clear vision.
	However, on opening the skull itself, the calvarium and if you examine the calvarium, you would notice if there was a bullet wound, the bone would have been fractured, one would note that fracture.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.  That answers my question.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lax, anything?

MR LAX: Chair, I am now covered ...

CHAIRPERSON: Dr Aiyer, just two quick points.  I know you only had a cursory glance at the remains, at the exhumation, but could you determine whether the remains were wearing the clothes, or whether the clothes had been just put in, obviously taken off the remains and then put in as a separate bundle?

SAGRAM NOMICAN AIYER: I am afraid I cannot answer that, I didn't note it at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't know that?  And then secondly, you have said that the remains were in a body bag, black body bag and that you saw the evidence of a disintegrated wooden coffin.  Was that black body bag complete, or was it torn and broken?
	Why I am asking is, just about the hands, you said that you didn't look for the hands, but if they were in a body bag, could those little bones have escaped from the body bag, or can't you say, or maybe is it difficult to find these little bones and reconstruct the whole skeleton, even when you've got them in a bag?

SAGRAM NOMICAN AIYER: Well, I would think the body bag we are referring to, may have actually been the lining of a coffin and not the thick body bags that we use.  The coffins are quite often lined with plastic bags to retain the contents.
	So with the coffin being disintegrated, I would gather that some of the bones would have lost, because the shape of the coffin was altered, and therefore we, that may account for some of the bones being below the level of my exhumation.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and a small bone, can that completely disappear,  you know with insects and the soil, etc, can it be lost forever?

SAGRAM NOMICAN AIYER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I mean not found ever, just disappear, biodegraded to nothing?