Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 2000-07-21

STEPHANIE MILLER: From the information that we had available to us and the statements that were on file at that time, my understanding was that subsequent to Ms Kubheka's death, the family were contacted to find out if there was any suspicion, the mother was ...(indistinct), and some effort was made by Mr Mbane, I'm not sure with or without any of the other Vlakplaas operatives, to encourage the family to believe that she was elsewhere.  I can't recall exactly where, in which statement I saw it, but there was a statement, or there was an allegation that they tried to indicate that she had gone elsewhere.

MR VISSER: And that made you to conclude that it appeared that the applicants, Botha, Wasserman, Taylor and du Preez ...(intervention)

STEPHANIE MILLER: Mbane.

MR VISSER: He's not an applicant.  ... went to some pains to hide her death and to discourage the family from looking for her body.  You base that on those facts that you just told us.

STEPHANIE MILLER: I base it on the fact that junior officers, or junior members of the Police Force and askaris specifically, tend to act under instruction from their superiors and I understand that is, they were trying to mislead the family.

MR VISSER: Yes.  Now did you hear Jimmy Mbane's evidence here?

STEPHANIE MILLER: Yes, I did.

MR VISSER: Yes, right.  Can we go on.  Then you discard the possibility that Wasserman and du Preez might be speaking the truth about where they placed the body and you come up with an argument that if they had done that, the probabilities are, so I understand your statement in paragraph 10, that guards of the SDUs and SPUs would probably have seen them, have I got this right?

STEPHANIE MILLER: I think it's possible that two white policemen even in plain clothes, would probably be visible in a black township in a time of violence, I think it's very possible, yes.

MR VISSER: Possible, not probable?

STEPHANIE MILLER: I think it's probable.

MR VISSER: Now it's probable.

STEPHANIE MILLER: I think it's probable.

MR VISSER: Alright.  So if they did not as you say, dump Kubheka in that vicinity, and if that is the point that you're making, then it cannot possibly be body 580, because that was found in that vicinity.

STEPHANIE MILLER: It wasn't found in that vicinity, it was found some kilometres away.  But if you would like me to construct a thesis I can give you an opinion about what I think happened that night, but an opinion isn't what we're about.

MR VISSER: I'm not asking you for an opinion, I'm asking you on the facts of your speculation here that they would have been seen by guards, which means that they are lying when they say the dumped the body, which means that the body couldn't have been found that you thought is Kubheka in the present case.

STEPHANIE MILLER: That is not what I'm saying, Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: That's what I'm saying to you.

STEPHANIE MILLER: But I'm not agreeing with you, Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Alright.  Do you want to add something?

STEPHANIE MILLER: I would like to disagree with you.

MR VISSER: Alright.  Now in paragraph 11 you then speak of the applications for amnesty being "sufficiently vague", what did you intend to convey by that?

STEPHANIE MILLER: I didn't intend to convey anything, I was stating what I believed.

MR VISSER: Have you read Botha's amnesty application?

STEPHANIE MILLER: Yes, I have.

MR VISSER: And you ...(intervention)

STEPHANIE MILLER: No, his is quite specific in many instances.

MR VISSER: But you include him here, you say - well, let's look what you say
"The amnesty applications were sufficiently vague in their initial applications that the body could have been disposed anywhere within a fairly large area."

CHAIRPERSON: I think it's quite clear from that first sentence that the third word should be applicants rather than applications.

MR VISSER: Yes, in fact I already ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think it's
"The amnesty applicants were sufficiently vague in their initial applications"
otherwise it doesn't make sense.

MR VISSER: Yes.  I'm trying to be fair to you, Mrs Miller, are you restricting that vagueness only to the question of where the body was left, or are you saying they were sufficiently vague in general respects?

STEPHANIE MILLER: Mr Botha was not present when the body was disposed of, to the best of my intentions. - to the best of my understanding, I'm sorry.

MR VISSER: How's that an answer to my question?

STEPHANIE MILLER: Well, he did not specify, he would - all of them were saying in the general area, it was only ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think in the applications they said the body was taken to Bambai, not next to a brickyard or next to a house or next to the river or behind the bush, but just to Bambai, which I presume Mrs Miller, Bambai is that ...(intervention)

STEPHANIE MILLER: It's a whole area, it's a very extensive area.

MR VISSER: So you're restricting your comment about the sufficiently vagueness to the issue of where the body was left, or are you saying that that is in general as far as the applications are concerned?

STEPHANIE MILLER: I'm saying we had difficulty with it because they weren't specific about where the body was.

MR VISSER: Where the body was ...(indistinct).  Are you restricting it to that issue?

CHAIRPERSON: What other interpretation could be give to that sentence, Mr Visser?  It says
"The applicants applications were sufficiently vague in their initial applications that the body could have been disposed anywhere within a fairly large area."
I mean surely that doesn't include what they did in the room before she was dead or what they did at Battery Beach?

MR VISSER: I'm giving her an opportunity that if she means that it meant other things as well, that she can say now.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well does that sentence mean anything else?

STEPHANIE MILLER: I think it's very specific.

MR VISSER: Alright.

MR WILLS: It's clear to me, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: I'm sorry?

MR WILLS: I just put on record that it's clear to me.

MR VISSER: Well Mr Chairman, is Mr Wills acting for Mrs Miller here?  We've heard an objection from him and now we  have a comment from him.  In any event, I take note that it's clear to Mr Wills.

MR WILLS: I appreciate it, thank you Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: The last issue which I want to ask you about is, did you actually examine the skull at any stage, of this body 580?

STEPHANIE MILLER: I have seen the skull, what do you mean "examine"?

MR VISSER: Well, look at it.

STEPHANIE MILLER: I looked at the skull, yes.

MR VISSER: Did you have it in front of you and look at the bullet hole?

STEPHANIE MILLER: Not like that, no.

MR VISSER: Like what did you look at it?

STEPHANIE MILLER: It was shown to me at an angle, it was - we had a meeting and it was explained to me how the bullet hole, the entry wound where the bullet had gone in, it was shown how the bullet came out of the skull cavity and I was shown the skull.  I can't say that I have a skill to examine the skull.

MR VISSER: Well this is the point I'm coming to.  How many skulls have you seen with bullet holes?

STEPHANIE MILLER: More than I'm happy about, but certainly in the last few years, a few.

MR VISSER: Yes.  And you see then you make, in paragraph 20, the remark that
"The bullet hole in this skull was remarkably similar to the ones of three other bodies exhumed at Elandskop."
and you repeated that here today.

STEPHANIE MILLER: I have a specific recollection about another woman who we exhumed and I seem to believe and I can't be absolutely certain, that she was also shot in the head with a 30 ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: Ndwandwe.