Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 2000-07-26

MR VISSER: Why not?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Simply because the nature of the deficit or the destruction of the right sleeve of both the polo-neck and the dress, suggests an irregularity that is not usually compatible with that of a transection wound of the arm by a knife or a bush knife, etc.  It actually suggests to  me as I mentioned earlier, post-mortem predation of an arm that is fully sleeved.
	If you look at, if you have ever seen a national geographic picture of how predators go for a limbs, they grab onto it, and shake it to get it loose, they grab and shake.  So, it suggests to me predation by dogs perhaps, or whatever.

MR VISSER: I see.  Do you rule out as a reasonable possibility the fact that this lady's arm was broken before she died?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: No, you cannot rule it out completely, but ...

MR VISSER: Well, in fact not broken, cut off?  Broken in the sense of, I just want to make myself quite clear, the bones being fractured, not the arm itself being cut off, but the bones being cut by fracture?

MR LAX: Do you mean severed?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Severed?

MR VISSER: Severed, severed is a better word, thank you.

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Well, you simply, it is unreasonable to rule it out, but its absence from the remains is also something that suggests predation and removal of that limb, of that severed limb.
	I am simply saying that to me it suggests more likely post-mortem predation.

MR VISSER: Yes.  I heard that evidence.  You see, I just want to take it one step further, doesn't the fact that you found no corresponding parts of that arm in what you examined from the bag, doesn't that suggest that the arm was in fact severed?
	If one assumes for a moment this happened ...

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes.  It was severed.

MR VISSER: Yes.

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: But what I am suggesting is that it was probably, more likely done post-mortem.

MR VISSER: Yes.  No, I understand that, thank you.  You thought that the dental abnormalities, if I may call it that, which you found, may be a specific identifying aspect.  Are you in agreement that this could never be followed up, because there were no dental records available?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Were those abnormalities the sort that would require a dentist to determine or could somebody see that from just knowing the person?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: You could.  I believe, I believe that someone with intimate knowledge of the deceased, of this body, this person here that we examined, could probably suggest that the lower teeth in the front, had malpositioning to some degree.

MR VISSER: And that malposition in your opinion, would that have been an identifying feature that would set this particular person apart from any other person in the world?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: I don't think I am qualified to say that.

MR VISSER: I am happy with the answer.  Then you refer to the dental identification by Dr Spears in regard to the age of this person?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes.

MR VISSER: And you stated he came to the conclusion, or his report says 35 years, with a nine year deviation?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes.

MR VISSER: Why so high?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Simply because the test he uses, or the procedure he uses, may not be very sensitive.

MR VISSER: Yes.  Yes, fair enough.  There are far more accurate procedures, rib end for example?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Well, not really.   ...(indistinct) method was about the only method in adults ...

MR VISSER: Are you saying in 1987 or up to now, today.

CHAIRPERSON: 1997 it was done, wasn't it?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Up to 1997.  As far as I know, I could be corrected on this, but recently there was another publication, I think this year, just an improvement called the Limendin technique which gives you a closer range, a little more precision.

MR VISSER: Four and a half years, I think it is?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: I have no idea.

MR VISSER: All right.  We know that Ms Kubheka was 41 years old?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes.

MR VISSER: Your conviction was that it was a young person, of less than 40 years?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes.

MR VISSER: Are you giving yourself also room for deviation?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Well, it all depends what we consider young, it depends on what your age, the observer, is.
	I felt that this was still a youngish person.  I would certainly put her into early middle-age, at about 40.  I wouldn't call her old, so I called her young, but under 40 years.

MR VISSER: Under 40 years?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes.

MR VISSER: What I want to ask you is, were there indications that led you to this conclusion, rather than concluding that she was around, just simply around 40 years?  In other words, giving you the scope of saying "well, she might have been older than 40 years"?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes.  What I would say is that my osteological observation that led me to that conclusion, is independent of the dental report and then the other thing is, I would rely more upon the dental age because that is a calculated age, rather than a general opinion.
	My observation of under 40 years, is a very general opinion, it is subject to a broad range.

MR VISSER: Yes.  But influenced also as you have just said, by Spears' finding that it was 35 years?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Well, it doesn't deviate very much, it is still compatible.

MR VISSER: Were you influenced by his finding?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Oh no, his report was made subsequent to my examination.

MR VISSER: Yes.  Did you know Dr Chetty personally?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: No.  I had met him just before he passed away, because he lived in the same area that I lived.

MR VISSER: How long, do you know how long he practised?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Not at all, except that he was quite old, probably about 69, 70 when he died.

CHAIRPERSON: When was that Dr Naidoo, that he passed away?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: I may be incorrect, but maybe seven or eight years ago.

MR VISSER: Do you know anything about the quality of Dr Chetty as a doctor?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: No, not at all.

MR VISSER: I am going to tell you why I am asking this question, because I find it rather surprising how glibly some of the witnesses have assumed that Dr Chetty didn't do his work properly.  I want to include you.

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes, I am simply, I will simply comment on this post-mortem report.    That was inadequate to a degree, a great degree.  I am not reflecting upon his capacity as a physician, he may well have been a very good family physician.

MR VISSER: Yes.  All right.  Doctor, Prof Vanezis said that he sent the skull and some photographs back to you, would that be correct?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: He sent me the skull and some photographs, yes.

MR VISSER: The skull in the position in which he sent it back to you, was that in the reconstructed condition?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: No.  Remember this is computerised reconstruction.  The reconstruction only is done on a computer programme.

MR VISSER: Yes, so there was no physical reconstruction done, because he explained to us that would have taken a long time, and it would need special skills, etc, etc?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: That is correct.

MR VISSER: So you got the skull back?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: I got the same skull back.

MR VISSER: How many photographs?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: How many?

MR VISSER: How many photographs?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: I am not too sure, I sent him four and I assume, because I didn't make a note that something was missing, that all four came back.

MR VISSER: Right.   Who provided these photographs to you?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Let me, I haven't made a note of exactly who.

MR VISSER: Well, would they have come from a family member?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes.  It came from the family, but it might have come through Ms Miller.