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

DOUW VERMEULEN: Yes, the answer is no.  This statement was made by myself on the basis of what I accepted.  The other two people on the left side of the vehicle, they experienced and observed other things, things which I was not aware of.  My statement reads,
"We only fired at people who were engaging in stone-throwing".
I only fired at people throwing stones at the vehicle and therefore the people who were killed were definitely people who had taken part in stone-throwing.  On the right side of the vehicle I know that it was only Shaun Magmoed who was killed on that side and I did mention earlier that I had seen him throwing stones.  If you want to include those other two people then I must qualify that paragraph and say that I can't testify about Miranda and Claasen, I did not see them throwing stones and if the word "persons" is then the wrong word in the context of that paragraph then I would like to qualify that.  I can only say what I saw happening on the right side of the vehicle.

GLENDA WILDSCHUT: Please Mr Vermeulen we really need to understand this.  How are we to understand sections of this document that are not what you said or what you said and other sections are what you stand by.  Just help us now.  Are we to accept that the entire document, you stand by it, and that is what we have to accept in this thing?  Because you see the wounds that the person that died, Shaun Magmoed had, are wounds that are on his back, suggesting to anyone who was in the audience that the person must have been running away.  And it is consistent with this paragraph.  You are saying here that he was running away and the wounds are on his back.
Do you agree that the person, the question is, do you agree that the person who was shot at was running away?

DOUW VERMEULEN: I did not shoot at a person who was running away.  If this paragraph is interpreted in that way that is not what I meant and I have already said so.  I have already told you what I meant to say, that is the statement I made but that is not what I meant to say on that day and I've told you how it should read.  Could you please accept that.

GLENDA WILDSCHUT: So we must waive this statement?

DOUW VERMEULEN: I didn't ask you to waive this statement.  I said that that was my statement or is my statement and that was my mindset when I made the statement and please don't interpret it as sarcasm on my part, I can help you today and try and be honest today but I am not saying that this statement means absolutely nothing, that we should just abandon it.

GLENDA WILDSCHUT: Madam Chair I really don't want to belabour this point, but I'm really struggling with myself.  Here is somebody who has wounds in his back, here is somebody who has died as a result of shooting, here is a police officer a professional person who gives a statement and he says that the person was running away, how do I put these two together?
How is the Commission expected to make reasonable findings and interpretations when we have such bizarre connections and such bizarre facts before us, how are we meant to understand this.  
Please Mr Vermeulen let's be straight with each other.  Here is somebody who has got wounds in the back and you heard from the inquest records that the person had wounds in his back and now you are telling us here that we must not refer to this document because you have some other interpretation on this document.

DOUW VERMEULEN: Miss Wildschut and Chairperson perhaps the next example which I could give you might show you how honest I am trying to be.  May I refer you to paragraph 2 and would you please allow me to then ask a question.  If this statement of mine was so flawless that we could just accept it in total, why would I have admitted that a ninth person should be added to the list?
Why would I then have said that Frank van Niekerk's name should be inserted because he was also present on the truck?   I noticed that there was a mistake, I noticed Frank van Niekerk's name was missing and I think that if I was able to add Frank van Niekerk's name then I also have the right to say Madam Chair what I meant in paragraph 5 or 6 was this or that.  If Frank van Niekerk can be accepted as another occupant of the vehicle then surely you can accept my explanation to try and give this Commission as much information as possible.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Vermeulen.  Miss Gobodo-Madikizela.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA: I am sorry Madam Chair, just one question.  Mr Vermeulen can you honestly say under oath that the only motivation for adding van Niekerk's name is that you noticed that it's not there, can you really say under oath that this is why you are adding his name, that you noticed his name does not appear there?  Is this out of your own volition that you are mentioning van Niekerk's name?  Can you say that under oath please.

DOUW VERMEULEN: Yes, Frank's name should appear there because Frank was present on the truck that day, and it is important that his name appears there.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Vermeulen thank you, we can now release you from a long afternoon of testimony.  Clearly we have to simply accept that we have the sworn statement and that there are qualifications that you wish to make to it.  That must now just be in the record as you have stated it.
We thank you and Advocate van Zyl and Mr Brand.  
I would like to put to you that we really would like to proceed a little further this afternoon.  I know it's very late but we don't want to have to bring everybody back again.  Some of you I am afraid we will probably have to agree on.  
We would like to ask Mr Pienaar to testify to us now and if we possibly can we would like also to hear testimony from Mr Frank van Niekerk, but it will depend on how the time goes this afternoon.
I would also like to suggest that as you leave the table other people may have a chance to stand up for a moment or two and stretch and allow our poor Interpreters to catch their breath for a moment. 
Thank you for your testimony.