Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-02-18

DR KLEPP: Yes.  I didn't see anything like that, and you can appreciate we do have a number of elastoplasts found on bodies, which we then have to remove.  They often don't leave any mark on the body once we've removed them, but I did not find anything suspicious.  It doesn't mean that there wasn't or hadn't been sticky-tape on the body.

CHAIRPERSON: I take it if he walked around for two hours after it had been removed, with his sweatshirt on, that would probably rub off anything which ...(intervention)

DR KLEPP: It could well have, yes.

MR RICHARD: If we go to paragraph 4, you describe: "injuries over the right zygomatic arch"
What are they consistent with?

DR KLEPP: These are consistent with either a fall to the ground once he'd been shot - I am unable however to exclude that there hadn't been a fall to the ground prior to him being shot, it's due to any hard object coming up against that part of the body.  It could even be a punch, but it's more likely to be a fall to the ground due to my description of punctate.  In other words if one falls onto gravel or a tarred road and the surface is slightly rough, one would get that appearance.
	I mention too that some of the abrasions have a graze-like appearance, meaning that there had been a slight dragging possibly of the body, you know of the face on the hard surface.

MR RICHARD: If the body had been dragged any distance, would you have seen any injuries?

DR KLEPP: Oh certainly.  I don't feel that this is consistent with dragging of the body, it's more likely that when the face fell onto the ground, that there was some movement in that area.  There were no extensive scrape abrasions on this body.

CHAIRPERSON: You've told us that death was not instantaneous.

DR KLEPP: No.

CHAIRPERSON: So if he was lying on the ground there may well have been slight movements that could have caused all of this?

DR KLEPP: Absolutely.  And simply the face coming onto the ground initially was sufficient to create what I've got here.

MR RICHARD: Are there any signs that the deceased was assaulted?

DR KLEPP: All the injuries that were on the body are described in paragraph 4.  There are the two scratches which I mentioned on the annexure of the report.  The scratch over the dorsa aspect of the right hand could mean that there had possibly been an altercation and the scratch ensued.  And the two abrasions over the right shoulder, superiorly again very small, 2,5cm x 2cm, the other one 1,5cm x 5cm, these could have been sustained when, again, he possibly fell to the ground, but anything hard up against it.  But this is not a typical assault, this man has not been beaten with sjamboks or kicked, we don't have large bruises.  The prominent finding really is the gunshot wound which appears to have gone through the head and then into the right arm.

MR RICHARD: Last point is paragraph 23 on the post-mortem report, 54 of the bundle and the last page, I think of the post-mortem report.

DR KLEPP: Yes.

MR RICHARD: There you describe the kidneys
"The right kidney, the medulla are congested, there is a streaking of the cortex"

DR KLEPP: Yes, this is another feature which one gets when a person is in a condition of shock or low blood pressure, like the sub-endocardial haemorrhage that I mentioned.  The kidney has an auto-regulatory mechanism whereby instead of sending blood to the periphery of the kidney, it has a short-circuit and sends it back to the medulla.  So congestion of the medulla and streaking of the cortex is yet another sign in the deceased that he did not die immediately, but was in a state of shock.

MR RICHARD: So overall to sum up what you've said, from the post-mortem report the person died at a consequence of the gunshot wound to the head over a period somewhere between 5 minutes and half an hour after the shot.

DR KLEPP: Or longer.

MR RICHARD: Or longer.

DR KLEPP: Yes.

MR RICHARD: And the contents of the stomach are not an indication of how long it was between the shooting and the last meal?

DR KLEPP: No.

MR RICHARD: Thank you, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RICHARD

CHAIRPERSON: Well again this is a difficult question to answer without having seen the scene, is it possible that after the shot he fell down and lay, apparently immobile, that people may have thought he was dead.

DR KLEPP: It is.  I mean he has sustained a very serious gunshot wound to the head which has gone through both halves of the brain and he would not have mobile or particularly active, he may have lay there very still.

CHAIRPERSON: And the fact they see there's blood in the head they think he's dead now and leave him.

DR KLEPP: Probably yes.  He certainly would have been very unconscious and if no breathing was seen, he could have been considered to be dead.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions?

MR KOOPEDI: No questions.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR KOOPEDI

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: No questions, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Doctor, we are extremely grateful to you to have come here this morning and to assist us in ...(indistinct)

DR KLEPP: It's a pleasure.

CHAIRPERSON: We know how busy you are and we say thank you to you.

DR KLEPP: Thank you very much, thank you.
WITNESS EXCUSED
RECALL OF MR MAKHUBU

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, may I recall to the stand the last witness, unless of course my learned friend isn't done with cross-examining him.

CHAIRPERSON: Well we have a ...(indistinct).  I think you have to recall him.  We hadn't concluded his evidence formally.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay.

MR RICHARD: Chairperson, I believe it may be appropriate to hand in the doctor's references about the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry yes, the medical report was not officially an exhibit as such, it is one of the documents before us and one which we have reference to.

MR RICHARD: The document I'm referring to is the writings on the stomach emptying as a measure of time since death.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: The doctor has very kindly brought two copies.  If anybody wants to look at it it is available, but I'm going to call this Exhibit B.

MR RICHARD: Thank you, Chair.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Richard, did we not have Exhibit B already yesterday?

MR RICHARD: I remember the statement Exhibit A.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, before you proceed.  Mr Makhubu, we just remind you that you are still under oath.

CLIVE MAHLAULI MAKHUBU: (s.u.o.)

MR RICHARD: Thank you, Chairperson.
	Now during 1987, if I recall correctly you said that from the beginning of the year till the middle of the year you were in detention, is that not correct?

CLIVE MAHLAULI MAKHUBU: I was arrested in 1986, November and I was released in June '87.  That is what I said.

MR RICHARD: Thank you.  Now during 1986 you already knew Mr Dube, is that not correct?

CLIVE MAHLAULI MAKHUBU: Yes, that is correct.

MR RICHARD: Now on your release during 1987, did you hear any rumours regarding his bona fides?

CLIVE MAHLAULI MAKHUBU: Rumours with regard to what?

MR RICHARD: As to whether he might or might not be an informer.

CLIVE MAHLAULI MAKHUBU: No, that I don't know.

MR RICHARD: Who did he say he was at that time?

CLIVE MAHLAULI MAKHUBU: Sorry, I've a technical problem with my headset.

MR RICHARD: Will the technician ... Can you hear what I'm saying and the translation clearly now?

CLIVE MAHLAULI MAKHUBU: I only hear English.

CHAIRPERSON: Will the interpreter please talk.

INTERPRETER: The applicant can hear.

MR RICHARD: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR RICHARD: When you met Pat, how did he describe himself, who did he say he was, what did he say he did?

CLIVE MAHLAULI MAKHUBU: I don't understand what you want me to say, what you want to know rather.

MR RICHARD: Did you know Mr Dube as either Ithumaleng, Mr Dube or Pat or Silver?

CLIVE MAHLAULI MAKHUBU: I knew him as Pat.

MR RICHARD: Did you ever hear him being referred to as Silver?