Special Hearings — Helderberg Flight Special Hearing — 1998-06-02

DR KLATZOW: No.  Let me read it to you again.  Southwood puts the following proposition to you.  He says,
"You ignored the standing order, why?  Well I wouldn't say that I ignored it."
If there was no standing order Mr Nadel, you would have said to him, Judge, Lord, there is no standing order, there was nothing for me to ignore.  Why didn't you say that?  You said I didn't ignore it.  I went by past experience.

VERNON NADEL: I believe somewhere in the documentation I said there is no standing order.

DR KLATZOW: It's almost time for lunch.  May I invite you to read through your evidence at the Margo Commission and I will complete my questions to you after lunch.  And if you can point that out to me I would be very grateful.

VERNON NADEL: I'm trying to recall, eleven years later.

DR KLATZOW: I'm not asking you to recall.  There is a full transcript of the Margo enquiry here which I will make available to you during lunch.  Would you like to find the point at where you said there are no standing instructions?

VERNON NADEL: If you say it's not there.

DR KLATZOW: I'm not saying it's not there.  I'm inviting you.

VERNON NADEL: Then I would like to read it yes.

DR KLATZOW: I'm inviting you to read the Margo enquiry.

VERNON NADEL: Thank you.

DR KLATZOW: During the lunch period.  Would this be a convenient place to adjourn Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: It would.  We'll adjourn until 2 o'clock.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry ladies and gentlemen, I had a telephone call to take which couldn't wait.  Dr Klatzow?

DR KLATZOW: Mr Nadel you've had an opportunity over lunch to have a look at your evidence to the Margo Commission?

VERNON NADEL: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nadel you are reminded you are still under oath.

VERNON NADEL: Thank you.

DR KLATZOW: Would you like to comment about what you found?

VERNON NADEL: Regarding the issue of standing orders, there's no indication that I refuted that with the original board.  I do however want to reiterate that throughout the time I was referring to the note or notification, briefing notice which I've given yourselves a copy of this morning and that is what I was referring to throughout and that is why I still maintain that the other issues of what Mr Dick and what Mr Du Toit said are totally untrue and that I still haven't seen a copy of that document.

DR KLATZOW: But Mr Nadel.  Mr Dick and Mr Du Toit who have no reason to lie because it makes it worse for them to bring up this red herring, if it is a red herring.  Both of them, in your presence and you sat in on that hearing, I know you did, both of them said in your full hearing that there was standing instructions.  You were at no time, during that hearing inhibited from approaching South African Airways' lawyer and at the time South African Airways were represented by an extremely able man, by the name of Mr Puckrin.
 There was nothing stopping you going to Puckrin and saying to him, this is wrong because it was an important issue.  Standing orders had been disobeyed.  It had evoked the judge's wrath, there was a debate that had raged for some time in that court room about the standing orders.  At no time Mr Nadel did you go to any one of the legal representatives of SAA and say to him there were never any standing orders.
 And in fact during the hearing, I want to put it to you that when a question was posed to you by Mr Southwood relating to those standing orders your answer was a tacit acceptance of their existence.  Why did you not tell the enquiry at the time that there were no standing order and that Dick and Du Toit were lying?

VERNON NADEL: I will go back to what I can recall that day or that time.  I was always referring to the briefing notice which I've had a copy of since day 1 and I very briefly was able to read through Mr Puckrin's cross examination of myself and he does refer to the briefing notice and/or the guidelines.

DR KLATZOW: The briefing notice is quite distinct and you know that from what was meant at the time by the standing instructions which were on file at ZUR.  That statement was made in your hearing and yet you never crossed, the first time you've ever contradicted that is today when you've given evidence here under oath.

VERNON NADEL: I would still like to say that the standing orders that were on file in ZUR are the standing orders that you have a copy of.  If I failed to do it then I do not understand why.

DR KLATZOW: You see I want to bring, I want to bring this line of questioning to it's full circle.  We know that the aircraft fell in flames off the coast of Mauritius.  We know that aircraft don't normally do this.  We know that SAA was probably involved with assisting Armscor in the total onslaught.  We know that they didn't hesitate to ship military equipment aboard civilian aircraft.  There's ample evidence.
 We know that that was a dark and dismal period in this country's history.  We know that there is a strong likelihood on an overwhelming balance of probabilities that a fire occurred earlier.  We know that Uys didn't go down to see about that, in total disregard of all instructions.  We have a concession made willingly from you that it is a most unlikely thing for him to do on his bat.  
 And the overwhelming balance of probability is that he communicated that to ZUR and it would have been done during the tenure of your shift.  We then have on top of the evidence which I have given you, none of which, and please don't refer to it as speculation, these are facts, we know then that the tape goes missing under circumstances which neither you nor anybody else is willing to explain.  
 We know that there is a history of incriminating tapes going missing in this country.  The only inference that can be drawn from this is that there was something untoward on that tape, that there was a discussion with ZUR which was in some way highly incriminating towards either Armscor or the aircraft handlers, that is South African Airways, that you were aware of that information and that you are part of a massive conspiracy and SAA to cover that up.  
 The tape was impounded shortly after the accident, as it should have been.  Inexplicably it finds it's way back and inexplicably it gets lost.  We also have a series of events which have occurred which make your story incredibly improbable.  We have Judge Margo's enquiry deflecting the enquiry away from the talk of dinner, for reasons which are obvious now.  We have Judge Margo stopping the cross examination of you just when it was about to produce fruit.
 Shortly after Southwood accuses you of lying, that cross examination stopped and you remember that.  We have Margo failing to ask an important witness, Jimmy Deel why he took the tape out and who he gave it to.  And your evidence that you have led this morning is so inherently improbable that it's with regret Mr Nadel that I tell you that I have difficulty believing a word of it.
 I believe that there are elements in your evidence which are truthful.  But the fact that there was nothing on the tape, the fact that you don't know what happened to the tape and the fact that you were never suborn to give evidence to deny the existence of the tape, I simply cannot believe.  And you have not given me a probable version for any of the material facts which I have given to you today, other than a bare denial.  
 And I want to put it to you, that this enquiry is but the beginning.  You are going to be called upon again if this enquiry re-opens in a proper judicial hearing to repeat what Margo did, this time on a more formal basis.  You are going to have to give this evidence again.  And I want to tell you that the evidence that you've given here under oath today is not going to be helpful to you at a subsequent enquiry because it is inherently improbable.