Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 2000-07-25

STEPHANIE MILLER: Mr Chairman, may I add to that, I am sorry, I should have asked someone to bring this up earlier, apparently the documentation was looked for, and it was determined that after we had informal discussions with I believe, Mr Taylor and his Attorney who I believe is Mr Booysen, a Section 29 was commenced and an agreement was made between the Truth Commission and the Attorney that written questions would be given to Mr Taylor and he would reply in writing as a result of his ill health, and inability to perhaps sit through the process.
	So, whilst I had been there at the initial stages, which is what I recalled, I did not know that it had been adjourned.

CHAIRPERSON: I am informed that the transcript of that proceeding and the other written questions and answers is available, and will be distributed now, very shortly.

STEPHANIE MILLER: Correct.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, in that regard, I am sure I probably won't have, but if something appears from that, would I be allowed ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, no.  Mr van der Merwe, any questions?

MR VAN DER MERWE: I have no questions.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER MERWE

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wills, any questions?

MR WILLS: Yes, thank you Mr Chairperson.  Briefly, Ms Miller, do you, as I understand your modus operandi in attempting to trace the body, was that you relied on the applicant's application as to where they disposed of the body, dumped the body and you searched records from the mortuary, that had the jurisdiction over the area where the body was allegedly dumped, is that correct?

STEPHANIE MILLER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, may I ask Mr Wills not to refer to the body as having been dumped?  Nobody has given that evidence, and it is insensitive of him to do so and it is unnecessary.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wills ...

MR WILLS: If Mr Visser is concerned with my ...

CHAIRPERSON: We can use the word disposed or left?

MR WILLS: As you please, Mr Chairperson, I am appreciative of Mr Visser's concern.
	Well, if you could just substitute the word I used, for the word disposed and answer my question.

STEPHANIE MILLER: That is correct Mr Wills.

MR WILLS: So obviously if the applicants had said that they had disposed of the body in Durban, you might have checked the Gale Street mortuary?

STEPHANIE MILLER: As I initially explained that our job was to confirm the veracity of what was told to us, and by having found the body in the appropriate area, it indicated that that part was partially correct.

MR LAX: Can I just, I understood that you did actually check at Gale Street?

STEPHANIE MILLER: I did check at Gale Street, I was looking for other bodies at the time.  There was a series of people who had disappeared, whose bodies had not been found and it was incumbent upon us to look for them, and so whilst we were doing that, we would look for all of the cases under our jurisdiction, in the event that the body had not been disposed of in the area where it had been alleged.

MR LAX: Because in answering Mr Wills' question, you appear almost to be saying "well, this is justification why you didn't look at Gale Street", but in fact you did look at Gale Street?

STEPHANIE MILLER: Yes, I did look at Gale Street.

MR WILLS: My understanding of your evidence was to the effect that you paid particular attention to the records from Verulam, because this was the mortuary that had the records that, for that particular area?

STEPHANIE MILLER: That is right, I paid particular attention to those mortuary records.

MR WILLS: So in this specific case with the disappearance of Ms Kubheka, you thought that Verulam was an appropriate place to give attention, Verulam mortuary?

STEPHANIE MILLER: Verulam mortuary would have been the only place to pay particular attention, given the structure at the time of how bodies were dealt with.

MR WILLS: Yes.  Now just lastly, you have seen Exhibit 1 -Exhibit 3, the clothing.    You were at the exhumation, do you recognise any of those exhibits as being found at the exhumation?

STEPHANIE MILLER: I was at the exhumation, at the time when the clothing was found, it was in a bundle over the skeletal remains, so the dress that was exhibited here, is of the same colour and design, but I did not see it laid out as a dress at that time.  I did not know whether it was a skirt or a dress, you could see the fabric.

MR WILLS: So you would safely say that Exhibit 1 was in the, you saw that on the day of the exhumation?

STEPHANIE MILLER: I would say that is the one that I saw on the day of the exhumation.

MR WILLS: Thank you Mr Chairperson, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WILLS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Wills.  Mr Samuel, do you have any questions?

MR SAMUEL: Yes, I would just like to ask one question to clarify some doubts in my mind.  You spoke about some exhumation at Elandskop and you noticed there was a similarity between the bodies found at Elandskop and that of Ntombi Kubheka, do you recall that?

STEPHANIE MILLER: I do recall that.

MR SAMUEL: Ma'am, was Mr Wasserman and du Preez also involved in the Elandskop matter?

STEPHANIE MILLER: Mr Wasserman and du Preez were involved in that, Mr Wasserman and Mr Botha and some of the other applicants were there at the pointing out of where the grave sites were.

MR SAMUEL: And did they make application for amnesty for those matters?

STEPHANIE MILLER: They made amnesty applications in those matters.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Ms Thabethe, do you have any questions, re-examination as such?

MS THABETHE: Yes, Mr Chair.   Ms Miller, would you say in doing an investigation, do you need to have, to follow your hunch sometimes in doing an investigation?

STEPHANIE MILLER: Often it helps having prior knowledge and sometimes a hunch is based on information that you aren't aware is at your disposal.

MS THABETHE: So you would say in doing an investigation, you do follow hunches sometimes?

STEPHANIE MILLER: Well, you know, one would have to define what a hunch is, but my understanding is that often what you believe is a hunch, is in fact information that you have, you are aware of, or experiences that you have had in the past, which are similar or where there is common ground, so one recognises it as a hunch, but perhaps it is in fact a similarity of experience.

MS THABETHE: Okay.  Now, I want to refer you to the letter that was written by Mr Wagener to ourselves, dated the 26th of November 1999, where he requested a number of documents and photographs, do you remember that letter?

STEPHANIE MILLER: I have seen that letter, yes.

MS THABETHE: On paragraph 4.6 of that letter, he says he
"... requires urgently all registers of hospitals, mortuaries and cemeteries in the surrounding area, where the body referred to in Bundle 2, was found."
I just want to re-emphasise the phrase "where the body referred to in Bundle 2, was found", would you say we have done this?  We have furnished him with those mortuary reports?

STEPHANIE MILLER: Yes, I think that that has been done.

MS THABETHE: Just a last question as well, would it have been necessary for you to look at mortuary reports, let's say in Johannesburg?

STEPHANIE MILLER: Well, there would have been, I think the applicants would have had a distinct problem if I had found the body in Johannesburg.

MS THABETHE: In Lamontville?

STEPHANIE MILLER: Well, Lamontville is substantially further from, there is no resemblance between any of the statements  and a body in Lamontville.

MS THABETHE: And would I be correct to say if the applicants would argue that you had to look for the body anywhere else except where they said they disposed of the body, it would mean they have misled the Committee all along?

STEPHANIE MILLER: Well, it would have meant that the information contained in the amnesty applications, would have not been correct.