Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 2000-07-26

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because we would like to use the time that we have, rather than try to arrange a longer session next time, that might be more difficult, and I don't know what the witnesses would say, who you are calling, but if it is not technical medical, then I cannot see any reason why they shouldn't be called, just because there is going to be, there may be some technical medical evidence after them.

MR WILLS: Well, Mr Chairman, if I could consult, there are certain comments that I would like to place on record.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR WILLS: The family are anxious to finalise these proceedings.

CHAIRPERSON: Sure.

MR WILLS: There is also the issue of the remains of the deceased and the ceremonies and the emotional aspects attached to that, and that whole process has to be finalised.  There is also the fact that the report of Dr Vanezis which was provided well in time, before this hearing, I think in November last year, indicated that, what his findings were, that it was highly likely and I am quoting from the report, "that the skull is part of the remains of Ntombi Kubheka", so that couldn't with respect, have taken my learned friend, by surprise.
	And also, whilst there are certain aspects of Dr Naidoo's evidence which could be considered novel, in the main his report has been before us since the beginning of these proceedings.  Our position on an adjournment, if I could also just consult on that, we don't want to unnecessarily be obstructive in the matter, but we are anxious and my instructions are, we are anxious to finalise these proceedings.
	Also bearing in mind the costs involved and the emotional costs, particularly.

CHAIRPERSON: And I can assure you Mr Wills, we are also anxious that it finishes as soon as possible.  As you know, we are getting close to the end of our process and deadlines are looming, etc.  We would for obvious reasons also like to terminate matters as expeditiously as possible.  But let us at this stage continue with the questioning of Dr Naidoo.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser?

MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, sorry there is one aspect of evidence that I overlooked, and I would like to be given an opportunity to cover that before Adv Visser proceeds with his cross-examination.   May I do so Mr Chair>

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  From Dr Naidoo?

MS THABETHE: Yes, from Dr Naidoo.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, all right, certainly Ms Thabethe.

MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair.
	Mr Naidoo, earlier on in your evidence you spoke about the fact that you have been involved in other, in examining other bodies that were exhumed by the TRC, is that correct?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes, that is right.

MS THABETHE: Are there any similarities or, in those cases, was there any similar, were there any similarities with regard to this case?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: There was one case, it was one of three that we exhumed, one of several that we exhumed at Pilanskop.  The only other female that I recall, was only short and in a similar
fashion in which a bullet had entered the vertex and passed down into the base of the skull.
	If I am correct, if I recall correctly, the deceased in that case, may I mention a name?  It was Phila Portia Ndwandwe, I think, identical, or almost identical manner of gunshot.

MS THABETHE: Was that the only thing identical, the manner of gunshot?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Well, the other pattern that we did see in all the exhumations that I conducted, and I conducted most of them in the province here, for the Truth Commission, they were all shot in the head, some from the back, these two from the top, and one or two from side to side.

MS THABETHE: And what was the calibre used?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: There is only one other case in which we found a bullet if I recall, and that was the same calibre, 7.65 calibre.  The other gunshots, the other cases, we didn't find the bullets, so I am unable to state that.

MS THABETHE: Which case are you referring to, the one you found the bullet of the 7.65 calibre, can you remember off hand?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: No, I cannot remember off hand.

MS THABETHE: And would you say those types of bullets were used by everybody or they were used by certain types of people?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: I am not in a position to comment.

MS THABETHE: You are not in a position, okay.  Thank you Mr Chair.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS THABETHE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Thabethe.  Mr Visser, do you have any questions?

MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson.   Doctor, when you explained your qualifications, I did not hear you stating that you had any qualifications in forensic anthropology, did I hear you correctly?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes.

MR VISSER: Alright, and we heard from Dr Vanezis, that forensic anthropology keeps itself busy with the identification of people from skeletal remains?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Did you hear, you were present when Dr Vanezis gave his evidence over the video link or the TV link in America, is that correct?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes, I was present.

MR VISSER: Did you agree with his evidence?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes, I did.

MR VISSER: Alright.  I am going to follow as far as I can, the order in which you gave evidence, and attempt to keep it in that order, but at some stage I would deviate.
	The first thing that I want to ask you, possibly it was just forgotten to ask you, do you in fact confirm the correctness of your report at Bundle 2, page 24 to 30 and the annexures as far as you have personal knowledge of them?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes, as far as I have gone through in preparation for this case, I didn't find anything that I need to correct.

MR VISSER: So you confirm it?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes, I do confirm it.

MR VISSER: Fine.  You say that you received the body and I am going to refer to it as PM1155, as opposed to PM580, being the body on which Dr Chetty did the post-mortem examination?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: That is correct.

MR VISSER: You received PM1155 on the 9th of May from Sgt Swart?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And you added that he identified the body?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes.

MR VISSER: Would you please tell us as what or as who did he identify the body?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Oh, yes.  What he does, he identifies it by number, not by name, largely because the deceased is either unknown at the time when he identifies the body to me, or in fact, if the deceased has a name, it is often not the correct name.
	He identifies it by number, simply in this fashion, he hands me the docket, the first page, which is the SAP180 that we have heard of earlier, police report accompanying the body, and he says, he hands it to you in the presence of the remains.
	What we do is look at the 180 and we confirm and verify that that is in fact the body that relates to that piece of paper.  That is the extent of the identification.

MR VISSER: Surely he must identify the body as something?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Well, in this case he identified it as, well, I don't know what he called it at that time, or what they called it on the SAP180, but what he pointed out in a manner of speaking, was the bag with human skeletal remains.

MR VISSER: Yes, all right.  Is that as you can remember what the identification by him was about?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: That is right.

MR VISSER: That is all?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: That is right.

MR LAX: Can I just check something Mr Visser?  Was the bag marked, did it have a tag on it or a number or a koki pen or a something?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes, it is usually either in the form of a plastic band, that usually goes around the hand of the deceased, but in this case, it would be attached to the bag.  It would bear the number, the post-mortem number 1155/97, attached to the bag.
	In addition to that, I also saw in the bag, another label Groutville post-mortem number 109/97.

MR VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry in the bag was a tag?