Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — UNKNOWN

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: No, I questioned her and I told her that Van Niekerk had said, "These portions of your statements do not agree with your husband's".

MR PRINSLOO: Did you tell her what her husband had said?  you did not tell her?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: Yes, yes, I told her what her husband had said.

MR PRINSLOO: What did you tell her exactly?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: What was contained in his statement.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you ask her to write down what her husband had said?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: No, I told her that orally.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you keep any notes regarding what you've just told the committee?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: It happened five years ago, but it could have been in the interrogation file.

MR PRINSLOO: Where is this file kept?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: That interrogation file or the files are filed at Murder and Robbery, and the investigative officer was Mike Holmes.

JUDGE WILSON: Can I come in here again please?   As I understood your evidence when you were questioned by Mr Bizos, you said you would go back to her and tell her what Colonel Van Niekerk had told you, and in some cases she would say yes, now she remembered it, and would correct it herself.   Now is this statement we have before us a corrected statement, because I don't see any corrections on it?

GEORGE BIZOS: Mr Chairman, with respect, the answer did not mean that, well perhaps I shouldn't say anything, but before putting that question, with respect, Mr Chairman, he should be asked how the final statement came into being?

JUDGE WILSON: Precisely.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

JUDGE WILSON: Is this statement the corrected statement, not the statement she (indistinct).

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, somebody could perhaps repair the mike.  The statement, it's not the statement that she made on the date that appears at the end of the statement, is that the position?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: The wrong statement was corrected, this is the correct statement you have in front of you.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, now when was, when was this statement made, the corrected statement?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: If I obtained a statement from her on the 24th and I saw her again on the 26th of April, I told her that the colonel did not agree with certain parts of her statement, and then she corrected that.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, well now that's what I want to know about, because it is a long handwritten document that runs over the pages, how did she correct it?   Did she carefully re-write three lines so she didn't have to re-write the whole statement?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: Mr Chairman, the parts which were not correct, she re-wrote the correct part, and she tore up the wrong part.

JUDGE WILSON: Did she re-write it in such a way that in each case of an alteration, it was only one page and the other pages could remain as they are, or did she have to re-write the whole document?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: No, Mr Chairman, there was very little where there was a difference, where there was a dispute, it was only small parts of the statement on which we differed.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll take the short adjournment at this stage and resume in 15 minutes.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

MR PRINSLOO: Captain, these sections which you say that Mrs Derby-Lewis had written and then were subsequently destroyed, is that correct?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: What is the question?

MR PRINSLOO: Upon a question by His Honour Judge Wilson you said that there were certain changes that had been made and they were no longer available, they had been destroyed, is that correct?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So therefore it could never be shown to anyone ever again after that in order to determine its value?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So it could have been to her advantage or to her disadvantage, do you agree?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: Yes I do.

MR PRINSLOO: And you are aware that when someone writes a statement or when a magistrate takes a confession, it may not be destroyed?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: Well if the person wishes to correct their statement, I do not see a problem with it.

MR PRINSLOO: But you do know what she wrote?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: Well it was five years ago, I cannot remember anymore.

MR PRINSLOO: At the time that she was writing it, you knew what she was writing?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: But you could have put those pieces together?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: I wanted a correct version of the events, there were certain aspects where she said she wanted to protect and she wanted to correct that, and I wanted the correct version of the incident.

MR PRINSLOO: Captain, at the end of the day, the Court would have been the arbitrator, not you, the Court would have had to decide what the value of it was, not you, what the truth was, not you?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: As I've said, I wanted the truth before me.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you agree that if that part of the evidence was not before the Court, there was something missing, do you agree?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: According to me, the statement which she made was the truth.   The versions which she gave and the clauses where she said she wanted to protect someone and she wanted to correct it, especially in terms of the weapon, were brought into my statement regarding those aspects which were changed.

MR PRINSLOO: How did you know that that was the correct version?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: Well, Colonel Van Niekerk told me that Mr Derby-Lewis had made a statement such as that in his statement, I went back and questioned her regarding this and she told me that she had told a lie, that she had made a mistake and that she wanted to rectify it.

MR PRINSLOO: So the other sections ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo please, no, Mr Prinsloo, please I don't think you should, I think you should ask this type of question within the context of your client's own version.   As far as I can recall, she never said, "I did tell the truth, I was caused to discard the truth in favour of the untruth".   So you are proceeding on the premise as if your client had said that what she had initially written was true and then later she was caused to throw it away and then accept something which was true.   That was not her evidence, and you go on therefore to argue on the premise, you go on to argue that well, what she had, what was discarded could have been to her advantage, and that argument is based on the premise that she had told the truth initially, but that's not what she said.   All she said was that she said certain things and then later she was confronted with other things, and as a result her statement was change.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect, the way I understand it is that she was told what to say with regard to certain aspects and that the version which the captain presents here is that certain things were changed and they were destroyed and we don't what that was, that is what I'm aiming at, that that section of the evidence which had been destroyed can no longer be considered in terms of the evidence which appears in the statement, there is, there's some kind of empty space and that is what I'm aiming at.

CHAIRPERSON: But I mean don't you understand the point my brother is making, you see, if she maintained that the documents which you had thrown away were in fact the truth and her present statement is what she was told to say, now that is not what her version was, you understand?

MR PRINSLOO: With respect, Mr Chairman, her version is that she was told what to say, where it didn't agree, she had to re-write it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but she maintains it was the truth.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, she said, she indicated to the portions of the statement that was not true, she did indicate that in her evidence.