Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-05-14

MS THABETHA: : In paragraph 20, one of the things that were found was a ENS(?) bread knife(?) and was it ever discovered to whom this knife belonged to?
INSP. DE LA REY: Chairperson, all the property that I confiscated and that I also note in my statement was identified by Mrs May who lived with the deceased that it was in fact the property of the deceased. There was nothing that was not identified that I confiscated that wasn't the property of the deceased except for certain documents that belonged to accused No. 3.

MS THABETHA: : Thank you, no further questions.

JUDGE WILSON: : Any cross-examination?

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Inspector, I will take you paragraph by paragraph in according with you statement. I will start from paragraph 8.
	No at the time when you entered House No. 1663, D Section are you certain that there were no people in the yard as well as in the house?
INSP. DE LA REY: Yes, that is correct. There was no-one except for a young boy,  he was a scholar,  he was outside of the house and there was no-one within the house.
ADV. MTHEMBU: Or more a less, could you estimate how old was this scholar that you found in the yard?
INSP. DE LA REY: If I can remember correctly, it was in the region of 10 or 12 years.
ADV. MTHEMBU: And did you enquire from him if there were people in the house or not?
INSP. DE LA REY: The house was not locked, I went through the house and then I found myself that there was no-one there.
ADV. MTHEMBU: The question is, did you enquire from the scholar if there was any person in the house or not?
INSP. DE LA REY: That is correct, he said that there wasn't anyone in the house and then I just made sure for myself that there wasn't anyone.
ADV. MTHEMBU: Why did you say in your statement that "I enquired from the scholar if there was anyone in the house and he said no and then I proceeded to inspect the house myself"?
INSP. DE LA REY: Can you please repeat the question, I don't understand it.
ADV. MTHEMBU: I am saying why is it contained in your statement that "I enquired from a scholar that I found in the yard if there was anyone in the house or not"?
INSP. DE LA REY: At that stage I didn't mention it in my statement because I didn't think it was important because it was a child who was a minor.
ADV. MTHEMBU: Because accused No. 1's version is that when you arrived at House No. 1663 that he was in the yard in the company of two other persons, do you have any comment to make with that statement?
INSP. DE LA REY: That is correct. Accused No. 1 was not on the property of the concerned house, later during the investigation I established he was noticed some distance from the house where he was standing with some other persons.
ADV. MTHEMBU: In paragraph 11, you say that Sgt. Constable Yankee shouted that there were persons who were running away and you say that one of these people or persons that were running away was accused No. 1, Mr May. On what basis do you make that statement or assumption if you say accused No. 1 was standing with two other people at a distance from the house?
INSP. DE LA REY: Mr Chairperson, after Sgt. Jantjie had alarmed me, some of the people, the bystanders stopped accused No. 1 and arrested him, they handed him over to me and later Jantjie identified accused No. 1 as one of the persons who he had been seen to have run away.
ADV. MTHEMBU: Is it correct that when you arrived at this house that you drove inside the yard with your motor vehicle?
INSP. DE LA REY: At that point the vehicle which I was using was one loaned by a Constable Jantjie, my vehicle was definitely not inside the yard, but it is possible that some of the vehicles of other members could have been in the yard at the time.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Sorry, are you dealing with credibility or anything in particular other than credibility, should we understand that you are dealing with credibility?
ADV. MTHEMBU: That is correct.
	It was accused No. 1 says that when the other two people ran away, they did so from the yard, but he didn't do so and when you confront him he was inside the yard not as you have put it on your statement.
INSP. DE LA REY: Mr Chairperson, that is simply not true it is not so that accused No. 1 was in the yard. That is not true.
ADV. MTHEMBU: Accused No. 2, sorry, accused No. 1 further says that he had no injuries on his wrist but that the injuries were on his thighs and somewhere on his buttock.
INSP. DE LA REY: Mr Chairperson, accused No. 1 did have some old injuries apart from those on his wrists - I beg your pardon on both of his wrists.
ADV. MTHEMBU: Now, the articles mentioned in paragraph 13, are you certain that all these articles belonged to the deceased?
INSP. DE LA REY: Mr Chairperson, I am very sure about the brown wallet and the cash in the wallet, the dollar notes contained therein and the card with personal particulars of the deceased person as well as the gold men's watch which I removed from accused No. 1's arm and also the personal particulars of the deceased were noted there, the other Husky Denim wallet I cannot remember perhaps I can just refresh my memory and look at the identified property list. Mr Chairperson, it seems to me as though the blue denim wallet, the Husky wallet was not identified as being the property of the deceased.
ADV. MTHEMBU: And you will not deny the fact that the blue denim Husky purse belonged to accused No. 1. Is that correct?
INSP. DE LA REY: That is correct, I cannot deny that.
ADV. MTHEMBU: And you further confirm that the manner in which these articles are set out in paragraph 13 one gets the impression that all of these articles belonged to the deceased?
INSP. DE LA REY: What I am positively sure of is the brown wallet, that was identified positively, it is difficult for somebody to identify cash but because the cash was in the wallet and there was a card with the personal particulars of the deceased on it that was also in the wallet and therefore it was identified as being the property of the deceased. The watch very definitely, yes, because his initials and surname were also on the watch and that is why it was identified positively as being the property of the deceased. All that I can say is that the cash will be difficult to prove that it was the deceased.
ADV. MTHEMBU: Furthermore inspector, when you, when accused No. 1 was arrested, was he or was he not wearing a leather jacket? Can you still remember?
INSP. DE LA REY: Yes, I can remember, Mr Chairperson, at the stage when he was arrested by the bystanders and handed over to me he did not have on a leather jacket.
ADV. MTHEMBU: But accused No. 1 says that when you arrested him, you asked him, you personally asked him to remove the leather jacket because you had no money and could not afford one. Did you say that to him?
INSP. DE LA REY: That is not true at all. At no stage he didn't have a leather jacket on so I couldn't have searched it.
ADV. MTHEMBU: Accused No. 1, further says that the brown wallet that you are referring to, paragraph 13.1 and paragraph 13.3 that these items you found in the car and only the item listed in paragraph 13.2 was found on his person.
INSP. DE LA REY: That is not correct, Mr Chairperson.
ADV. MTHEMBU: Sgt. van der Watt, did he tell you where he had got hold of the articles mentioned in paragraph 14?
INSP. DE LA REY: He did tell me and after he had handed in his statement he confirmed where he had taken possession of these articles, namely the leather jacket, the hankie and the ammunition and the firearm.