Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 2000-07-26

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes.  We do know that the best bone that reflects or parallels the height of a deceased, would be the long bones, and especially those of the lower ...(indistinct), and in fact, I've got seven measurements taken, and they are in order of preference.  For example I would prefer the femur length, rather than the head of the radius or the length of the humerus.   What we do is we know that because there is definitely a, shall we say a mathematical relationship between the length of the long bones to the person's height, for average people, what we do is, we use a formula created by a chap called J. Lundi.  He measured and he calculated for both South African black males and females, he calculated ...(indistinct) formulae mathematically.  We use the formula, we insert the measurements into the formula and come to a height, this is a calculated height, living height.
	In this case, my calculations showed that the deceased would have been between 1.35 and 1.42 metres in height.  I think this is, I am not a statistician, but this would represent a 95 percent confidence in the law.

CHAIRPERSON: If one takes a look at Lundi's formula, that +32, is that part of the formula, or is that ...

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: That is part of the formula.

CHAIRPERSON: And age, does that play any role?  I mean if you were doing this in the case of an infant's remains and that of an adult, would it be the same formula?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: No Mr Chairman, no.  This is for the South African black adult and there is a provision, should you find degenerative changes in the skeleton because when you have a very old person, you do get shorter, because the vertebra, the spinal bones shrink.  Then you put in a correction, but once you have determined your age, and you have decided that it is not an elderly and not infantile person, then you can use the formula fairly happily.

MS THABETHE: So do you confirm in short that the above formula as written in your report, provides not for precise estimation, and the actual height calculated may be considered to be inaccurate?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes.

MS THABETHE: However, the figures do point to a considerably short individual?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes, the figures can reliably say that, although it cannot point to the precise height of the deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I haven't worked it out.   If I look at the formula, you are getting a figure times another figure, plus another figure and then you've got plus minus?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes,  3.39.

CHAIRPERSON: What is that plus minus?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: That simply, once you have come to 32, you add and then you subtract, so in other words you add and get your 1.42.

CHAIRPERSON: And then 1.35 for the subtraction?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: That is right.

CHAIRPERSON: That gives you your range?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Your range, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you.

MS THABETHE: Now, Dr Naidoo, I want us to proceed to other endeavours you took in trying to establish the identity of the skeleton remains.
	I will start with the dental records, or rather the dental expert you tried to seek.

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes.

MS THABETHE: Can you inform us as to what you did, what steps you took to try and get dental identification?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: The, Dr Spears, Dr K.D. Spears used to work at Addington Hospital until recently  before he emigrated and he regularly did the dental examination of our skeletal remains for a few reasons, mainly to determine the age, but also to look for some specific identifying feature in the dentition, such as fillings and bridges and caps.

MS THABETHE: In terms of determining the age, is it correct...

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes, in this case, I asked him only to assess for, to measure dental age.  In this case, using a system devised by ...(indistinct), he came to a conclusion that the deceased was approximately 35 years of age, with a nine year standard deviation.

MS THABETHE: I am just looking for the relevant page in the Bundle - 39.

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Nine year standard deviation with an age of 35, which if I may just interpret for the Court, would be 35 minus 9 and 35 plus 9, giving you the age, that would be 26 to 44 years as a range.

CHAIRPERSON: That is quite a large range?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes, Mr Chairman, that is quite large.  Sometimes dental age can be more precise, more closer, but in this case, just a large range.

MS THABETHE: Did you manage to get any identifying features from the teeth?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Apart from what I had already mentioned about the irregularity of the lower front teeth, he did not find any specific identifying feature.  What he did find, for example, the extract number 3/5, which is the fifth tooth on the left lower side, we unfortunately did not have any dental records during the life of the deceased, that we could compare with.

MS THABETHE: For the record, Dr Naidoo, you know that we tried to ascertain dental records from the husband of Ntombi Kubheka, but we couldn't because apparently the doctor or the dentist she had consulted, she paid cash and there were no records or X-rays.  That is just for the record.

CHAIRPERSON: Doctor, just before you move on to something else, if you look at page 39 one can see that some teeth were missing, is that right?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes, that is.

CHAIRPERSON: Was there anything significant about that fact to you, yourself?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Not at all.  Mr Chairman, the teeth are likely to fall off when they are loose, in a decomposed body, in a skeletalised skull.  They easily come off and in handling, in the grave, during the exhumation, they just fall out.

MS THABETHE: Were there any other tests that you tried to do?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes, I then considered specific identification.  By that time, generally I would stop there, and only take it further unless asked.  By that time, an interim report to the Truth Commission was presented and they asked me to consider further specific identification of this person.  I called Cape Town, the laboratory in Cape Town, they gave me the instructions on how they would like the specimens to be taken, and I took bone and teeth samples from the skull.

MS THABETHE: There was a question that came up earlier on during these proceedings, as to the hair.  Did you take any hair, hair sample?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: No, hair was not taken for DNA.

MS THABETHE: Will you maybe advance a reason as to why?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes, the best samples, well, I am told the best samples would be those tissue samples that were ...(indistinct) and hidden, so right inside bone and right inside teeth, would be less susceptible to the effects of weather and weather changes and the elements.
	Hair would be less advisable.  I should have, one would consider that it would be nice to take it, but I thought that the teeth and the bone would have been sufficient and be the best sample to take.

CHAIRPERSON: For DNA testing?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: For DNA testing, yes.

MS THABETHE: What were the findings of the DNA?