Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1992-05-12

MR DORFLING: A number of witnesses have given evidence at the inquest proceedings and I can refer to the specific portions of the record but on the version of all the following witnesses, it is quite clear that the burst fire, the outbreak of fire emanated from the side where the security guards were positioned and not from the crowd.  I can mention but the following names:  Sergeant Goliath, Sergeant Potgieter, Sergeant van Reenen, Sergeant van Greunen, Mr Diaz, Mr Stevens, Mr Von Eggerdy and I can refer you to the portions in the record.  They are all of the view at the inquest proceedings that when the burst of fire that occurred broke out it was coming from the side where you and the security guards were positioned on the south western corner of King George and Plein Street?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: Firstly, Mr Chairman, I am prepared to concede that that's a possibility, I don't know the facts, I don't know the credibility of those witnesses, I can't comment on those witnesses versions, but I can only say is what I recall happened on that day and that's what I'm going to continue to say.

MR DORFLING: Are you prepared to accept that that is the evidence or should I read it to you?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I'm saying I don't know the credibility of those witnesses and what was found on theirs - I have not been in court, I was just in court when I gave evidence.  All I'm saying the possibility is there, I'm prepared to accede to the possibility that the shot might have come from there but my own recollection of events is very different and that's the only thing I can testify to.

MR DORFLING: Mr Kruser, I don't want you to unnecessarily make a concession, are you conceding that the ANC guards started firing first?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I don't know that, that's what I'm saying to you, I don't know.  I can only tell you what I recollect on that day.  I don't know that they fired first.

MR DORFLING: If all these witnesses are of that opinion is it your evidence that your recollection of what transpired is different from theirs?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: If that's the case, that's so, I recollect different to them.

MR DORFLING: Now your own legal team placed strong reliance on the evidence of Mr Von Eggerdy at the time of the Shell House inquest.  In actual fact at the time of the argument relied quite heavily on it for purposes of showing that there was an attack forthcoming from the marchers.  I want to put it to you that on Mr Von Eggerdy's evidence his impression was that the burst of gunfire that ran out came from the - as he called it - "defensive position" the position where you and your colleagues were positioned.

GARY JOHN KRUSER: Mr Chairman, I've got my recollection, Mr Von Eggerdy's got his recollection, I'm acceding to the fact there's a possibility that we might have fired first.  I don't recall it happening in that manner that's all I can say.

MR DORFLING: If for purposes of argument it was to be accepted that the security guards fired at the crowd first would you agree with me that there would have been no justification for that?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: Just put the question - I'm not a lawyer, put it?

MR DORFLING: If we accept it that the security guards fired at the marchers first, if that is given as an accepted fact, if that's our staring point - would you agree those were the facts that there would have been no justification for the security guards to fire at the crowd?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: No I cannot confer with you.

MR DORFLING: Why don't you agree?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I think people, they were as I was saying, there were many security guards - there were people on the parapet  I mean every individual at that stage made a decision based on what he saw that day.  There are people who say that didn't hear the order to fire - they shot because they felt they were threatened and they would draw their conclusions from their own set of facts or why they do that - I don't think we can make a simplification of the fact that because we fired first -I think people fire for a reason, there's nothing wrong with firing first if you think you are under attack.  You have to take into account at any given time and I think every different security officer and commander that day had different positions would come to a different conclusion at a different time, so I don't think you can just concede that one fact could change the whole difference.

MR DORFLING: So if this one fact is different, let's say the whole scenario was the same, you had the background information of what transpired earlier that morning, you had a different crowd that looked different, that surged forward, all the facts you've mentioned, but for one - that was not there being the fact that this crowd was firing at you first.  That is taken out of the permutation.  Do you say that under those circumstances you would think that it would still be justified to shoot at the crowd?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: As I was saying earlier and I think I said in the inquest, the same line of questioning, it's very difficult to draw a conclusion if the facts differ because if one fact is not there all the facts change in terms of how you make a decision.  You can't have the one without the other - I made a decision based on all those facts, I'm not prepared to go into theories where one fact was not there.  That is my evidence - sorry all that facts that were there.

MR DORFLING: But Mr Kruser, I'm asking you to do exactly that - to tell us what the decision would have been if there was no shots aimed at the security guards coming from the crowd?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: Mr Chairman, a combat situation is not something you can reconstruct under these things, when you're under that sort of pressure, yes you have to make decisions on all those facts.  I don't want to speculate on what would have happened if there was no shots or was shots, I can only say I came to that decision based on all those facts.  If there was another fact, different scenario if I was put there I think I might come to another decision, I don't want to speculate on any of those things now.  I can only tell you why I took that decision and they were based on all those facts I mentioned on more than one occasion here.

MR DORFLING: Mr Kruser, can we deal with the ways of gaining access to Shell House - would you agree with me you've described basically three modes of access being the front door, the two roller doors at the garage at the back and then possibly I think you said two or three shops from which access...[intervention]

GARY JOHN KRUSER: Three or four I said, I'm not sure exactly.

MR DORFLING: Do you agree with me that the marchers at no stage tried to gain entrance to Shell House via any one of the shops?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: They did not.

MR DORFLING: Do you agree with me that the marchers at no stage tried to gain access through the garage doors, the roller doors?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: That is correct.

MR DORFLING: That leaves us with only one possible access route for the marchers being the one in Plein Street, is that correct?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I don't think that's entirely correct.

MR DORFLING: No but was there any indication that they were going to enter at any other place?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I think they were in a position to.

MR DORFLING: So was there anything that you observed that made you come to the impression that they were going to perhaps enter at the garage doors or enter through some of the shops?