Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 2000-07-24

MR VISSER: So much the more if the jaw does not present a match, and perhaps the position of the mouth, then so much the more it would be ruled out as a non-fit?

UNKNOWN: Well, that is correct, the more areas that you find matches, the more doubt creeps into a situation, yes.

MR VISSER: Yes, and I have asked you this before, but just to make it absolutely clear, there is no individualising phenomenon in the skull compared to the photograph that you could identify to say "this belongs to this person and no one else in the world"?

UNKNOWN: That is perfectly correct.

MR VISSER: Lastly, I just want to refer to Forensic Sciences again, Loth and Iskan, they say at page 359 under "Skull to Photo Superimposition", they say this
"... this method can be attempted if photographs or X-rays are available of individuals that answer the description derived from a skeleton with the skull and mandible intact."
I then go on a sentence later -
"... if the bony landmarks of the skull align with the size, configuration and replacement of the features in the photograph, a match becomes possible, but cannot be considered conclusive.  If however, superimposition reveals an obvious disparity, such as the position of the orbits or the length of the nose or size of the chin, that individual can be eliminated as being the victim."
That is basically I think what we have come to an agreement on, already?

UNKNOWN: That is correct, yes.

MR VISSER: Yes, Professor, you might welcome the fact that I don't believe I have any further questions right now, the problem which we have is that we have not been able to discuss the evidence that you have given this morning or this afternoon, here in South Africa, with Dr Loth for her comments.  I don't believe that there seems to be any disparity between your evidence and hers as I've pointed out before, but if it does happen again, and I would apologise if it does, that we need to talk to you again, I might have to ask for that to be arranged, and you can blame me for taking up your time, but I hope that it won't be necessary.

UNKNOWN: It is quite all right, I am very happy to cooperate in any way.

MR VISSER: Yes, and thank you for that.  Could you just perhaps bear with me a moment to make absolutely sure that I didn't leave out something material?  Chairperson, that is as far as we can possibly take it at the moment.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser.  Do any of the other legal representatives for the applicants, wish to put any questions, Mr van der Merwe, Mr Hugo, Mr Nel?  None?  No further questions from the applicants.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER MERWE
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HUGO
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NEL

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wills, who appears for the victim's family, will now put questions, Professor.

MR WILLS: Thank you Mr Chairperson.  Professor, John Wills, I am appearing for the victim's family in this matter.
	Just, your wife, Maria, could you place on record her qualifications, Sir?

UNKNOWN: Yes certainly, she has a, she's a Radiographer by profession, she has ...(indistinct) started her career.  She does diagnostic radiography and therefore she was ...(indistinct) to using a laser scanner and the health and safety implications involved in that.  She then got a first-class degree in Health Studies, which included ...(indistinct) Anatomy, Physiology and so on.  She has been working with facial reconstruction work now since approximately four years.  She's actually carrying out a Doctorate in looking at the validity and the psychology behind recognising faces from facial reconstructions, where she's done a ...(indistinct) at Glasgow University.

MR WILLS: Yes thank you.   The software programme that you use, I understand it is largely your own creation?

UNKNOWN: The software programme was, the intellectual part - I am not a computer expert, don't get me wrong, I basically, I want a problem solved and what I do is I go along to my computer people and we put together what is an acceptable package.  They write the software to our specifications basically, and this was an improvement on the much earlier software that was available.  So it is really ...(indistinct) software.

MR WILLS: How current is the software that you used, when was it finalised?

UNKNOWN: This software was produced and started to be fully used about two years ago, and improvements are being made to it all the time.

MR WILLS: Thank you.  Now I see that one of the problems that you have in this field is to determine the correct angulation of the skull to the photograph.

UNKNOWN: Correct.

MR WILLS: The article that we have been provided earlier, indicates that in order to minimise this problem, it is helpful to have an anti-mortem photograph with the face looking directly at the lens, would you agree with that?

UNKNOWN: That is right, yes, yes.

MR WILLS: Now if I can just show you a photograph, and I believe this is one of the photographs that you used, it is a copy of one you have sent back to Dr Naidoo, did you use this photograph?

UNKNOWN: Yes, I believe I did, yes.  Or I think I did.

MR WILLS: As I understand this, this is a photograph of the deceased looking directly at the camera?

UNKNOWN: Yes, what you have to understand is that my definition of what I would regard as directly inside the camera, it may be slightly different to a lay person's understanding of it, because we have different terminologies, such as the Frankfurt plain, in other words kind of standardised the view of the photograph and so there may be slight variations from this.  I mean, even the frontal photographs, because of that, there still remains a slight problem in alignment.

MR WILLS: But the photographs you used, you are happy were good enough for the purposes of this?

UNKNOWN: Absolutely yes, indeed, yes.

MR WILLS: Just finally, there is obviously points of convergence in the superimposition that you performed, and my understanding is that you didn't come across any point of divergence, is that correct?

UNKNOWN: That is correct.

MR WILLS: Yes.  Thank you Professor, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WILLS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Mr Visser has asked if he can ask a question arising out of that, but you can go ahead and ask, Mr Visser.
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER
Professor, it is actually something I forgot and not arising from my learned friend, Mr Wills' questions.  May I ask you, can you give us some assistance as far as DNA testing is concerned, because I've only got one question in that regard.  Perhaps I should ask you the question, and you can tell us whether you can help us or not.

UNKNOWN: Sorry, could you just repeat that, you didn't come over very clearly there.

MR VISSER: I am sorry.  I am not entirely certain whether it is part of your field of expertise to express an opinion on DNA testing, but I have one question and if I could pose it to you and perhaps you could help us, and perhaps you cannot, if you'd just say so.

UNKNOWN: If you put it to me, I will yes.

MR VISSER: Would it be true or false to say that DNA testing where no previous record exists, can assist in making a positive, I am sorry, cannot assist in making a positive identification of a victim, in other words, no record, DNA testing can't give you a positive identification?

UNKNOWN: That is probably correct, what you need is, when you are doing a DNA, when you have a DNA profile that you, say got from bone, ...(indistinct) or DNA STR, that sort of thing, you need to compare it with something and if there is no comparative record, then that DNA profile just remains on file, with no positive identification made.

MR VISSER: And in fact it would be the same as far as comparison of abnormalities of teeth are concerned, you would also need a previous record?

UNKNOWN: Well, of course, yes.  You have to attach what was there before life to what is there after death.