Special Hearings — Trojan Horse Hearings — 1997-05-21

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA: So when you jumped out of the car you directly shot at Shaun Magmoed because he was throwing a stone?

DOUW VERMEULEN: Shaun Magmoed was one of many who I can recall were present on that open space between the pavement and the house.  I tried to explain to you on a previous occasion why I remembered Shaun Magmoed, I don't actually know, all I can recall is that I saw him throwing stones and how I connect that person with the name Shaun Magmoed is that I saw a person wearing a greenish shirt.
Afterwards I saw a person being carried out of one of the homes and I learnt later that that person was Shaun Magmoed.  I also said that I think it was the same person.  Yes, I shot in his direction.  I don't know whether I ever hit him. I can't recall whether or after any of the seven shots that I fired he showed any indication that one of those shots had hit him.  I have enough guts to say that I shot in his direction but I don't know whether I hit him.  But I do recall that a person wearing a green shirt was carried out of one of the homes and that he died.  I don't know why I remember him, he was one of many but for some reason he stood out from the crowd.  Maybe that answers your question.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA: Your description of where Shaun Magmoed was contradicts the one that you had given yesterday.  I am not saying that you are wrong, but I am just making the point that when we were told yesterday by  some of the people who came to give testimony they informed us differently, that Shaun was coming out of the house, he wasn't in the crowd and he ran back because he was hit by the bullets.  Now I am not suggesting that yours is incorrect, I am merely putting it to you.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA: My last question from you, the statement you gave in court would you stand by it?

DOUW VERMEULEN: Which court, I testified at the inquest as well as at the criminal case, the Surja case.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA: This is the one that is marked Annexure 9.  It is dated the 19th of October 1985, it must be the statement that you made, I am sorry, it must be the statement you made after the incident.  I just want to know if this is the statement you stand by what you said in this statement?  19 October 1985.

DOUW VERMEULEN: Please just give me a moment, I would have to look at it.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA: It's the statements that you gave recounting the events and your role in them after the incident.  I guess what I want to know is, did you write this statement?

DOUW VERMEULEN: You are referring to this typed version?

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA: The date at the bottom is the 19th of October 1985.

DOUW VERMEULEN: Yes it is a statement which I signed.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA: Is that your statement, did you write that statement?   It has your signature but I want to know did you write it?

DOUW VERMEULEN: That is correct, yes, I stand to be corrected but the person who drafted this statement is a Sgt Steyn who was attached to the Investigation Unit.  He had a couple of unique characteristics.  For instance he had an old Olivetti typewriter on which he typed his statements and he typed as we spoke.  I am not sure whether we first wrote it down and he then retyped it or what happened, I don't know whether he perhaps re-interpreted it as he typed it, but if the question is whether I wrote it myself, no, I didn't type it myself but it is the statement which I believe I made and which I signed.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA: You are saying very many interesting things.  One is that the person who wrote the statement had peculiar qualities, or unique qualities and secondly that in fact you may not be responsible for some of the things that appear on these statements, I mean you imply that.  I mean if you say he may have re-interpreted some of the things you said, but your signature is on the statement, at least this what the interpretation ...(intervention)

ADV VAN ZYL: Chairperson I think the witness was trying to answer and he was interrupted, if he can just be allowed to complete his reply.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA: Mr van Zyl yes I will but really what I think is sometimes when I rephrase the question it makes it easier rather than allow him to answer and spend time on answering when in fact he didn't understand the question.  I felt that he didn't understand the question so I had to repeat it.  So can I just repeat the question.
The point is you say that the person, the Steyn person who typed the statements might have re-interpreted it but your signature is on it, so what you are suggesting is that you may not be responsible for some of the things that appear on this statement, is that right, of what you are implying?

DOUW VERMEULEN: No. Let me qualify my answer.  Yes it is my signature at the bottom.  Two, I can't remember whether we wrote it down for the Sergeant and he then typed it over in exactly the same words and he then signed it, or whether we spoke to him and he then, on the basis of what we said, typed up the statement.  That is why on previous occasions when I was asked about some of these paragraphs that is how I tried to explain the intention behind the statement.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA: I don't have any questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Do any other members of the panel have questions they want to ask?  Ms Wildschut.

GLENDA WILDSCHUT: Mr Vermeulen can we just try and round up the questions around the signature of the statement, what does putting your signature to this document mean for you, the fact that you signed it, what were you signing?

DOUW VERMEULEN: Normally when you sign any document then you are thereby saying that that is how it happened.

GLENDA WILDSCHUT: So your signature on this document means that you agree that the contents of this document, that you are satisfied with the contents of this document, that you are not going to disagree with any aspect of the content of this document?

DOUW VERMEULEN: Yes.

GLENDA WILDSCHUT: So every aspect of the document, as far as your knowledge goes, is true and correct and that is why you signed the document?

DOUW VERMEULEN: Yes, that is what I wanted to say and that is what I signed.

GLENDA WILDSCHUT: I am asking the question because there seemed to have been a bit of a misunderstanding, in my mind certainly, that you were trying to clarify that there might have been a lapse of the veracity of the content between yourself and the person who typed it, is that so?
Is that why you were trying to explain that this particular person Mr Steyn had this Olivetti and he typed it and you were not sure and so on, I am just trying to understand why you gave us that explanation?

DOUW VERMEULEN: Because I have already been asked previously about certain phrases or sentences in my statement.  I was asked what I meant by a particular sentence, so when I signed the statement on the 19th of October in 1985 my intention was to say the following and the following was actually typed and I signed it.  I was asked what did you mean in paragraph whatever, that is why I qualified what I said by saying that there could be a possibility that what I said in words were slightly re-arranged in the typing process.  I want to try and really cut short the procedure and that is why I am trying to assist the Commission, that's why I mentioned it right at the outset.

GLENDA WILDSCHUT: So can we restate that you - the signature on the document implies that you agree with the contents of this document, can we restate that?

DOUW VERMEULEN: Correct.

GLENDA WILDSCHUT: Thank you.

DOUW VERMEULEN: Mr Ntsebeza.

MR NTSEBEZA: Just a few questions Mr Vermeulen.  Now do you know how many times you shot at the person you think was Shaun Magmoed?

DOUW VERMEULEN: I've already said that I fired seven shots and the seven shots were fired in the direction of Shaun Magmoed.  I am not saying it was fired at him, I am saying in the direction of where he was.