Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1992-05-12

MR PRETORIUS: If the Chairman and Committee Members could just bear a moment with me, I just want to look at the ballistic reports?
	Mr Kruser, the person - there was only one person that was shot with an AK47 that was on the corner of King George and De Villiers Street.  He had three shots, these are the shots as described by the ballistic people - first one is an 8 cm. gaping penetrating wound - you understand what a penetrating wound is?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I do.

MR PRETORIUS: With abraded edges over the anterior aspect of the right thigh.  Do you understand what the anterior aspect is Mr Kruser?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: Maybe you should explain to me.

MR PRETORIUS: Then there is a second wound which is also in the right anterior auxiliary line and that wound is also in the leg and the third wound is a 2 cm. over penetrating wound with a rim of abrasion over the postural lateral aspect of the right thigh.
	Mr Chairman, I will then later refer to the specific medical evidence, the evidence actually was that what they reconstructed that that person was first shot in the thigh that then he fell and he then received a very specific wound through the body but the actual evidence was that he was actually shot from the back through the thigh first and thereafter he was shot as indicated.

MR TIPP: Mr Chairman, I'm sorry to intrude in my learned friend's examination but it may assist him to refer to pages 6744 and 6745 of the record which dealt with the deceased who may possibly have been shot from the front.

MR PRETORIUS: I'm indebted to my learned friend, I will later on then refer to that, I haven't got that particular bundle in front of me but be that as it may it's not particularly of concern.
	The fact is then, besides that one have you got any explanation why none of the deceased were shot from the front and by the people or the ANC guards on the corner of King George and Plein Street?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I accede that the medical evidence shows in all probability that we shot much longer than we should have shot.

MR PRETORIUS: It may also show Mr Kruser, the other inference one can draw from that is that the people were really shot only -  and the shots were only fired at the people after they started running away, that there was no real attack on Shell House?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I can't concur with that.

CHAIRPERSON: Because they were shot at the back there was no attack on Shell House?

MR PRETORIUS: Because none of the people were shot from the front Mr ....[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: You then said there was no attack on Shell House?   These events are fast moving events, people don't stand still isn't it?  They move in all kinds of directions and the fact that the man was shot from behind might that at that time he had turned away from the movement towards Shell House so I don't think that you can come to any scientific conclusion that there was no attack or no surge on Shell House at that time.  The suggestion made by this witness is that there is one possible explanation why people were shot at the back was because maybe the firing continued longer than it ought to have, in other words it was at a time when people had turned back, they were moving away in the opposite direction.  Now that's a possibility isn't it?

MR PRETORIUS: I accept that Mr Chairman, but I also suggested another possibility to him so all I....[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] stage, without detailed evidence we have to accept these are possibilities.

MR PRETORIUS: I accept it on that very basis but all the possibilities we will weigh out at a later stage, Mr Chairman, I just want to clarify that that is a further possibility as is the possibility as set out by the witness.
	Besides your impression that the crowd surged forward, what else was there in respect of this particular group of marchers that convinced you that they attacked Shell House?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I think I testified to that earlier and I will repeat again, I had information at my disposal that Inkatha was going to use this march as a decoy to attack Shell House and kill our leaders.  I had information from my surveillance units and from the radio what was happening in and about town, the mass destruction caused by these marchers throughout town and the killing of people in town.  The nature of the march was very different to the other marches, this march was not accompanied by policemen.  The fact that my distinct impression was that there was gunfire emanating from the crowd, the fact that they surged forward, there's other information I never mentioned earlier - the fact that they shot at my surveillance units just prior to that event, I forgot to mention that earlier.  They shot at Eddie Khumalo and Mondli Zuma which they testified to in the inquest.  So those are the combination of factors that I had at my disposal and I had to make a decision in a split second whether we were going to shoot or not shoot.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Kruser, just pertaining to the information, you testified that the person who you actually obtained that information from was Major General Leonard Radu, is that correct?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: That's correct, the late Commissioner Giddy, that's correct.

MR PRETORIUS: Now, before he died Commissioner Radu made an affidavit which was also filed at the inquest report.  Mr Chairman, I beg leave to hand up the particular affidavit and copies thereof to the Committee and I would beg leave that that will be included or added to the ANC's bundle of documents seeing that it is one of the ANC's members or their late members.

CHAIRPERSON: Form part of the papers - yes please.

GEORGE BIZOS: But there is a conversation between the late Mr Radu, Commissioner Radu and General ...[inaudible].

CHAIRPERSON: This is the affidavit submitted by him at the inquest?  Thank you.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, at the inquest it was submitted as Exhibit L37.

CHAIRPERSON: The exhibits - you want this to form part of the documents, the bundle prepared by the ANC?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, it would then appear it would be page 255 and onwards because the last page is at presently page 254.

MR LAX: Sorry, it will be 256 onwards, the two maps, the one plan and then the second map was 255, so it will be 256 onwards.

MR PRETORIUS: Thank you Mr Honourable Member.

CHAIRPERSON: A convenient stage to take a short adjournment?
We'll adjourn for fifteen minutes.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

GARY JOHN KRUSER: (s.u.o.)

MR PRETORIUS: (continues)
	Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Kruser have you got the affidavit of Mr Radu in front of you?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: (s.u.o.)
	I don't have one.

MR PRETORIUS: With the permission of the Committee, my learned friend Mr Van Wyk will hand it to the witness.
	Mr Kruser with reference to the affidavit of Mr Radu that's now been placed in front of you, nowhere in that affidavit does Mr Radu state that he had information that Shell House would come under attack and that he had conveyed that information to you.

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I cannot comment on Mr Radu.

MR PRETORIUS: The only mention Mr Radu made of what happened that morning is that he had a discussion with you or a meeting with you and thereafter came to the conclusion that Shell House could come under attack, do you agree with that or don't you?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: Mr Chairman, I distinctly recall Mr Radu telephoning me on a Sunday evening.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Kruser and Mr Chairman if I may refer you to the bundle of documents that is Bundle B that's the documents presented by the ANC.  If I may refer you to page 105 thereof, that is the transcription of the telephone conversation between Brigadier Gouws and the late Mr Radu.  It is typed at the top thereof as Leonard Rabie, it is actually Mr Leonard Radu.  105, Mr Chairman.
	Mr Kruser do you have a transcription of or do you have this particular document in front?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I do not have a document.