Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1998-03-30

ADV BOOYENS: Sorry, does that mean either hostile or not hostile?  If you say you've got no feelings for these people,  don't understand what that phrase actually means?

PETER JONES: It is about how one copes with the situation as terrible as the one that I went through, whether I choose to live in the past and constantly of course remember these things and these people and continue resenting them, or whether I am able to have the ability of growing beyond that and focusing on better things in the future.  In that context I have long ago, I've almost forgotten about these people.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jones, did you ever lay charges of assault with the applicant's colleagues?

PETER JONES: When I was released, after 17 and a half months, that is exactly the statement that you have in front of me, it was given to our legal team to investigate whether we can lay charges against the Policemen concerned, as well as the Minister of Justice at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: And what was the result?

PETER JONES: And the opinion came back from Adv Bizos and Adv Kentridge, that unless I had of course visible marks from all those many months before, it would be almost impossible because of the fact that there was this six months prescription on action against Police at the time.

ADV BOOYENS: Criminal charges Mr Jones?

PETER JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: You were not interested in those, because you never lay a criminal charge?

PETER JONES: Pardon?

ADV BOOYENS: You never lay a criminal charge, or did you?

PETER JONES: Well, we wanted to.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, but the six months period doesn't apply to that?

PETER JONES: It does apply.

ADV BOOYENS: No, it does not Mr Jones, but in any case.

CHAIRPERSON: In any case, you were under the impression it did?

PETER JONES: Well, I am not a lawyer, I accept that.

GEORGE BIZOS: May I be permitted a personal statement, because I was involved Mr Chairman?  If nobody has any objection, I am prepared to say why we did not advise that a criminal prosecution should be instituted?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, I don't think that is really important, the fact of the matter is that it was not.

PETER JONES: On the advice of the Attorneys, we did not lay charges.

ADV BOOYENS: I just want to make sure I fully understand Niewoudt's involvement in assaulting you.  Let's forget the incident at the police cells, I am not talking about that.
	On the 24th you have told me that Siebert alone assaulted you, is that right?

PETER JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: On the 25th, let's just deal with Niewoudt's activities.  Forget the notes Mr Jones, tell me what you remember please.
	Niewoudt's first involvement on the 25th, what was that?

PETER JONES: The first involvement was when Siebert engaged me and he clapped me in my face, I grabbed him by the hands and I pulled it down.  I am of course much bigger than him.  Niewoudt and Beneke rushed forward and attacked me and I released my grip on Siebert, that was the start of the big fight.

ADV BOOYENS: How did Niewoudt attack you?

PETER JONES: I can't remember specifically, but I was manhandled, I was hit by fists, who did what, I don't know.  I can't recall.

ADV BOOYENS: So you are not really in a position to say that Niewoudt hit you with a fist or didn't hit you with a fist on that occasion?

PETER JONES: No.

ADV BOOYENS: Right.  Now, after this, you have now grabbed Siebert, were you forced back on the chair, or what was the position?   Did you sit again?  Remember you told us how Siebert slapped you on that occasion, that is what I want to know.

PETER JONES: I was seated when he slapped me.

ADV BOOYENS: When that lengthy period of slapping ...

PETER JONES: When he started slapping me, and thereafter I got up and I stood and the fighting with the five happened, while I was standing.

ADV BOOYENS: I want to make sure I understand, did Siebert stop slapping you by the time you got up from the chair?

PETER JONES: When I grabbed him, he had to stop.

ADV BOOYENS: No, you grabbed him and then he started slapping you, that is when he removed his watch?

PETER JONES: Well, he first hit me.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay, when he removed his watch and he started slapping you with an open hand through the face, that was a lot of slaps if I understand you correctly?

PETER JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Were you on the chair?

PETER JONES: I think I started off on the chair.

ADV BOOYENS: You got up while he was still slapping you?

PETER JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And at the stage when he was slapping you, were the others assaulting you as well?

PETER JONES: Well, that was almost like a signal and everybody became involved.

ADV BOOYENS: All right.  You see, once again you have told me just now that you don't know whether Niewoudt hit you with a fist, your statement at page 587, right at the bottom, two fist blows followed delivered by Niewoudt and Beneke, that is what was said here, and here you say you can't remember.  Which is it Mr Jones?

PETER JONES: What are you referring to, to the evidence?

ADV BOOYENS: Page 587, this the bottom of 587.  Sorry, 387, my mistake.

PETER JONES: Yes, that is what the statement says.

ADV BOOYENS: Well, that is not what you say here.  I asked you ...

PETER JONES: Well, if I can refer to my notes, I will repeat the notes, these notes were written in 1979.

ADV BOOYENS: Are you really saying Mr Jones, if I understand you correctly, that wherever your evidence differs today from what was written in 1979, we must look at what you wrote in 1979?

PETER JONES: The statement was written at a time when I had fresh recollection of these events and that is why I recorded it.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Jones, you are not answering my question.  Where there is a difference between what you say today and what you said in 1979 when Exhibit E was produced, where there is a difference today and what is written in Exhibit E, which one is correct?

PETER JONES: This would be the one.

ADV BOOYENS: So your evidence today in this court, under oath, could be incorrect?

PETER JONES: I am not aware what you are talking about.

ADV BOOYENS: Well, you have admitted already that about the metal which you wrote here, which was metal, which ...

PETER JONES: I am sorry, I did not, I said metallic.

ADV BOOYENS: Metallic, let's not play with words, metallic in 1979, today you don't know what it was.

ADV SIGODI: Excuse me, in all fairness to the witness, the record says I was able to look right into the hole of the pipe and notice that the hole was filled, with what, I cannot say, but it was something metallic.  He stated that he could not say what it was.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, I am fully aware of that Mr Chairman, that is what the 1979 statement said, that is what I put to the witness earlier on.  But earlier today, he didn't know what it was filled with.

ADV SIGODI: Yes, but he also said that in the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: How is that destructive of his 1979 statement?

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, I will leave that.  You've also got a contradiction between go kicked you Siebert or Snyman, do you remember that one, it was put to you just after we came back?  Do you recall that?

PETER JONES: That is an honest mistake.

ADV BOOYENS: Honest mistake.  In fact my Attorney's note is that you said the hosepipe was filled with something solid, not like metal.  I don't know if it was metallic.

CHAIRPERSON: What he said was he didn't think it was metal because it was flexible.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Jones, in fact what you've told us your memory was fresh when you made the statement in Exhibit E, and therefore what you have said in Exhibit E would reflect what you remembered at that time while your memory was still fresh, and you would prefer that to what you have said today while your memory is not fresh?

PETER JONES: That is correct.