Special Hearings — Helderberg Flight Special Hearing — 1998-06-01

DR KLATZOW: When we started this discussion over an hour ago, you attempted to convince the Commission that the tape had been taped over, you put it as a fact, and remember, you are under oath, that the tape had been taped over, not that it had been lost.  You went out of your way to correct me in my statement to you.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: I don't think we'll ...(indistinct) I'll say again ...(intervention)

DR KLATZOW: So you think it was taped over?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: I think so.

DR KLATZOW: Then please tell the Commissioner why it is that you didn't show the remains of the tape, and I'm going to give you a very logical reason why you didn't.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: ...(indistinct)

DR KLATZOW: You answer my question firs, I'm asking the questions, Captain Mitchell.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: You asked two now.

DR KLATZOW: Why is it that you did not give the empty tape to the Commissioner at the time, Margo, if that is what you said?  Tell me why you didn't give that tape to him, and if the tape was lost, why did you try to convince this Commission that it had been taped over?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Can I just come back to your first question.

DR KLATZOW: Yes.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Your first question is, why didn't I give the tape to the Commission.  Now, when Rene van Zyl came back and said there's nothing on the tape, I can't remember that we accepted the tape back into SAA.  In fact, I'm pretty sure that tape is locked up in Pretoria.

CHAIRPERSON: But that wouldn't be the reason for you not producing the tape, whether it was in Pretoria or anywhere else.  And in any event, we've dealt with the question of the tape that was brought back by the DCA people.  That tape was brought back on the basis that it was the tape relevant to a date other than the one in question.
 I think the question is relevant to the tape which you, under oath, have sought to say to us was taped over, why was that tape not produced by you at the Enquiry?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: But sir ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: As proof of the fact that it was taped over, it was an inadvertence, but there it was, end of the story.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Yes, Commissioner, the point I make is that came back, Rene van Zyl said there's nothing on this tape, about the Helderberg ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: But you are not answering the question, Mr Mitchell,

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: I'm missing the point, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's deal with one question first.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: On the basis of your own evidence today, namely that that tape, the crucial tape, the ZU tape, whatever it is called, had been taped over.  Now that tape about which all of us are in agreement, I'm talking about the tape that was claimed to have been lost when in fact it had not been lost, but had been taped over, the question is, why did you not make that tape available to the Commission as evidence of the fact that there should be no issue as to what happened to the tape, it was not lost, it's here, it's physically here, except that it won't contain anything, even if the anything is nothing.  It is here, we taped over it, here is that tape, why didn't you do that, that's the question?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Commissioner, I do not think that tape is in the hands of SAA at all, it remains in the hands of the investigator who is Mr Rene van Zyl.

CHAIRPERSON: That still doesn't answer the question, why didn't you when you gave evidence say, look the tape is available,

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: It was taped over.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't you?

DR KLATZOW: Captain Mitchell, I'm going to advance a suggestion to you,

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Yes?

DR KLATZOW: If the tape had been taped over and you'd given it to the Commissioner, you may remember that there was a small unpleasantness called Watergate, which resulted in the impeachment of President Nixon, and part of the reason that Nixon was impeached, was that they were able to uncover information from tapes that had been re-taped over.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Yes.

DR KLATZOW: Now, if the tape had been taped over, which I find inexplicable,

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: It can happen.

DR KLATZOW: Of course it can.  Why didn't you give it to Margo?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: But I didn't have it.

DR KLATZOW: Neither did DCA.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: But DCA did.

DR KLATZOW: Let me ask you this question, because let's deal with that point, what did Rene van Zyl say to you when he came back with the tapes?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: In round words, the tape there had nothing on it to do with the Helderberg.

DR KLATZOW: Well let me tell you what Rene van Zyl said.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Okay.

DR KLATZOW: And this is out of the horse's mouth.  He came back and you were told that it was not the correct tape.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Yes.

DR KLATZOW: "We were then told that the tape was taped over" and his comment is, "I find this really weird".  Now which is true, Captain Mitchell, you're under oath and you've not got a ...(indistinct) of versions.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: No, no, that isn't the same thing, that's exactly what we're saying.

DR KLATZOW: No, it's not.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: I see it as the same thing, I'm very sorry.

DR KLATZOW: Well then why did you never produce the taped-over taped?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Because he kept.

DR KLATZOW: He didn't, it was never given to him.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: No, no, no, we're talking at cross-purposes here.

DR KLATZOW: No, we're not talking cross-purposes.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: No, no, I see what - the tape that went to Rene van Zyl was thought to be the one that was the Helderberg.

DR KLATZOW: Yes.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: And it went there, but it had been taped over.

DR KLATZOW: But it was the wrong tape.

DR KLATZOW: But it had been taped over and another day was on this tape.

DR KLATZOW: Yes?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: So when it came over that the information on that tape pertained to another day,

DR KLATZOW: Yes?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: So when he brought the tape back and said, this is the wrong tape,

DR KLATZOW: Yes?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: But we said it's not the wrong tape, we gave that to you, that's the one we got.

DR KLATZOW: It was the wrong tape.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: That's right.

DR KLATZOW: And the explanation as the where the right tape was proffered was, is the explanation that you've given us today, that it was taped over.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: And that's the one that he took with him.

DR KLATZOW: No it is not the one.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: No, sorry, sir.

DR KLATZOW: There are two tapes.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Sorry, sir.

DR KLATZOW: There is a tape which was the tape of the following day, which was given to Rene van Zyl.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Sorry, sir, I don't see it like that.

CHAIRPERSON: We canvassed this point earlier on, and I think you were, in fact, I'm sure you were in agreement that we're talking about two tapes,

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: The one tape that was given to the Flight Engineers, I think, is that what Mr van Zyl is?  That tape was the one which was returned to you, it had nothing on it, precisely because it was a tape relevant to a day other than the day in question.  That tape was then returned ...(intervention)

MS TERREBLANCHE: Sorry to intervene, but I think there is a confusion.  There are a number of things, there is the Mauritius conversation, no, there's the CVR ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: There's no confusion in the way the evidence was led.  The evidence I understood to be that was when we come to the issue of the tapes that were taken away, there is a tape that was given to Flight Engineers ...(intervention)

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: DCA.

CHAIRPERSON: I mean DCA, that's - DCA was given a tape,

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Yes.