Human Rights Violation Hearings — Bisho — 1996-09-11

UNKNOWN: There was another issue that arose, particularly from the evidence of the victims, and that concerned a helicopter that was present on the scene on that particular day.  There was evidence from more than one victim, up to now, of shooting from this helicopter, shooting from the air.
 Now if one looks at the trajectory of the shots that you have in this Annexure of yours at the end, wound tract analysis, that you refer to.  That seems to indicate that at least in four cases you were able to conclude that the direction in the body, the direction of the shot, the trajectory in the body was downwards.  In other words it came from the top.

KOBUS DU PLESSIS: Yes sir.

UNKNOWN: Now would that be compatible with a shot having been fired from a helicopter for example?

KOBUS DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, since I have, I became aware of the fact that people are saying that shots was fired from a helicopter, I had a look at this for instances, and three of the four, we have a downwards trajectory but it's horizontal downwards.  In one instance, in one instance we have a trajectory where a person was shot in the shoulder area and the bullet went straight down.
 Now with regard to this aspect, bearing in mind the fact that the investigation determine that a lot of people were lying down or bending, I really don't think we can arrive to a conclusion that this person was by any means shot from above, out of a chopper and not, under the circumstances, the other people were shot by.  I have not made an analysis of the wounded persons, so I think what I can say is that out of the deceased, my analysis of the deceased, there is only in one case where I would say yes, a person could have been shot from above, out of  ... end of Tape 2, side B ... 29 deceased but bearing in mind that a lot of persons were shot while they were lying down or perhaps running in a bent position and I, at this stage, feel that there is not enough evidence here to conclude that this person was shot from above.  He could have been shot under other circumstances too.

UNKNOWN: But for our purposes, do you agree that we can't exclude the possibility that some shots were fired from the air as it were?

KOBUS DU PLESSIS: I would say, Mr Chairman, that with regard to that aspect, my ballistics point of view, I would recommend that the Commission perhaps should lead more evidence with regard to that.  I don't think I can advise the Commission in saying that it can accept that evidence.
 There is other factors also involved which also, out of a Chopper and the movement of a Chopper, the blades breaking the sound barrier when a Chopper perhaps bank, I think a guy from the Air Force, a person from the Air Force will perhaps assist the Commission much more in that regard, can also give the impression, a sound impression, that shots was fired from above.  We must also keep in consideration the crowd, the people themselves, how they experienced it.
 Shots is being fired, they did not see the bullets, they heard sounds, and from where they directed the direction from the sound, I would say that, if I can put it in Afrikaans, one has to be careful to make a direct conclusion, to draw direct influence from that.

UNKNOWN: One must be cautious, I accept that.

KOBUS DU PLESSIS: Definitely very cautious.

UNKNOWN: But I don't want to debate the issues outside of ballistics because you are a ballistics expert.  I want to ask you simply that on the ballistics evidence, at this stage, do you agree that we can't exclude the possibility that shots were fired from the air.

KOBUS DU PLESSIS: I have got no evidence that it was not fired.  I've got actually, if it comes to that, I've got nothing to assist.  I hope you are with me.

UNKNOWN: Yes.

KOBUS DU PLESSIS: Yes it is, really it is a basic, you know it's a basic answer, specifically on the fact that like I have said, one person, one person, I can give his deceased number too, as deceased number DR580/92.  His trajectory I cannot say whether he was shot out of a helicopter or whether he was shot while he was lying on the ground and so forth.  That circumstances I cannot exclude it.

UNKNOWN: No I accept that.  The Chairperson reminds me that you sound like a lawyer.

KOBUS DU PLESSIS: Ja I am used to courts.

UNKNOWN: There is just one remaining issue that I want to refer to, Mr du Plessis.  This question of the grenades.  From the submission that we received, it was identified as rifle grenades.  Are you talking of the same thing?

KOBUS DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman, they are, if we look at a brochure, I am not very much familiar with the 40mm and hand-grenades.  It is more for your explosive experts but as a ballistician I have fired this grenade launcher.  Now what we are talking here about is, it is not a grenade that you throw by hand, so it is launched.
 Now grenades can be launched from a rifle, using a rifle or in this case, a grenade launcher which also, if you look at it, it's got the shape of a rifle but there is other kind of rifle shotgun ammunition that's got the similar shape but the grenade is identified by the fact that it's a 40mm.  That is actually what is identifying it with regard to military terms.

UNKNOWN: That's fine, thank you.  The, and it appears that there are four of those that were launched, that were used on this particular day.

KOBUS DU PLESSIS: With regard to my knowledge, on the examination of the expert that shrapnel found in the holes of four, on this positions, he did identify it as being fired from a 40mm grenade.

UNKNOWN: And that was concentrated in the area where there was this opening in the fence.

KOBUS DU PLESSIS: It was definitely fired in that direction.  The, two of them, I'll just indicate, the hole S1 and S4 is just short from that fence and S3 I can refer to, S3 photo 12 and 15 of Annexure H, I think Annexure H, no it will be Annexure G.  Yes.  Yes it's a photo, indicates that and then if it comes to the last one which is marked S2, this is more in the area of the southern side of the pavilion.

UNKNOWN: Okay.  The important thing about that is, what is the effective radius, the Afrikaans term doodsakker.  What is the effective radius of that kind of grenade, that 40mm?  In what radius can it kill people?

KOBUS DU PLESSIS: I've got no idea, it is not my field of expertise, the grenades.  No, I've got no idea, I think the military people will give us, the Commission, perhaps a more, an indication with regard to that.

UNKNOWN: Thank you, and just finally, to the west of this opening in the fence, from your inspection was there place for people to hide themselves, for soldiers, to be quite specific, to hide themselves?  We got a submission to the effect that to the west of that opening, there was shrubs and freshly cut tree branches at some spot, an amount of earth elsewhere that presented a place for people to hide themselves.  Can you recall that?

KOBUS DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I cannot recall specific newly made barriers.  Afrikaanse term - loopgrawe wat gegrou is nie.

UNKNOWN: Trenches.

KOBUS DU PLESSIS: Trenches which if I can refer to photo G on, ag photo 3 on Annexure G.  We can see there is natural humps and so on which could give protection or persons could sit behind it.  Another thing, specifically on that photo too is, which is also will have the effect of, with regard to the vision and the identifying of people, is the fact that we have a slope in the direction of Jongilanga Crescent.

UNKNOWN: Well thank you Mr du Plessis, that was very useful.  Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  I just have two small questions.  One is, are you able to indicate whether shots were fired from the direction of the crowd towards the deployed soldiers, as from the King William's Town side and from behind the stadium, in that ...[intervention]