Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-10-06

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard, continue.  But Mr Richard, we don't want to spend too much time on the contents of a book which we don't what authority can be attached to what is said there.  If you know there are certain things you want to put in the book that obviously derive from Mr McBride, you can do so, but we don't want to just take all sorts of quotations that may or may not come within ...(indistinct) and spend a lot of time getting nowhere.

MR RICHARD: I believe that the book probably rests in the same value as the newspaper clipping.  And by the by, I've only had sight of the outside of the book for an afternoon and I got photocopies at lunch time.
	Now you made a statement that you were probably the minority participant in the writing of this book ...(intervention)

MR MCBRIDE: I said the minority source, Sir.

MR RICHARD: Now, I'm going to confine myself to only one or two more quotes from the book.  The first one I believe falls into the category that we've already discussed, it's at page 200.

MR MCBRIDE: I don't have the book with me, Sir.

MR RICHARD: I will read the quote.  It starts
"Robert's evidence was that he was in such an emotional state that he allowed himself to be persuaded by Matthew Lecordier to strike at a more vulnerable object.  Matthew agreed in Court that he had told Robert 'I know of one hotel where people sit on the veranda'."
Now that was your version in general terms, at the trial.

MR MCBRIDE: That's correct, yes.

MR DEHAL: Sorry, Mr Chairperson, I object to the continued usage of this book.  The excerpt is not factually correct as well.  That is not strictly speaking stricto sensu what Lecordier claimed, nor was it strictly speaking McBride's version.  I think we'll fall into lots of difficulties if we use grey areas like this.

CHAIRPERSON: We all know, well we as a Panel aren't going to read the whole book before we make a decision here and while the book might be very good and might be accurate in certain points, we're not going to rely on it as authority.
	Do you agree entirely with that quotation that was read to you, Mr McBride?

MR MCBRIDE: No, I don't agree entirely, I say yes, some aspects of the quotation derive from the trial record and maybe we should go to the trial record so that we get it accurately, rather than have a report on the trial record.

MR DEHAL: You see, Mr Chairperson, my difficulty is whilst I accept that the Chair will not rely too much on the book, there can well be credibility addresses or addresses on credibility findings relative to Mr McBride and my concern is at that level.

MR RICHARD: Now when I read that quote ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think ...(intervention)

MR RICHARD: ... I prefaced what I've said by saying I think this quote falls into a category that we've already disposed of ...(intervention)

MR MCBRIDE: Is that one different from the first quote?

MR RICHARD: ... where in answer to my question you said "It was written at a time" etc.  Now my next point was there are probably other quotes that are factually correct, is there any way whereby an ordinary reader would be able to dissect which is fact and which is fiction?

MR DEHAL: I submit one can't answer that question, it's too broad, I mean what other aspects are we talking about, what difference are we talking about?  Let's read the whole book and then answer.  And one can't expect to answer such a question.

CHAIRPERSON: I agree with Mr Dehal.  How can you answer that question ...(indistinct) precisely which paragraphs are factual and which may not be?

MR RICHARD: Mr McBride participated in the writing of the book ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He was interviewed a number of times while on death row, he didn't - well I suppose ...(intervention)

MR MCBRIDE: They don't allow ...(indistinct) on death row.

CHAIRPERSON: ... got information from Mr McBride, he didn't write it.

ADV PRIOR: Mr Chairman, may I make a suggestion that this aspect of the book stands over.  I know that the Investigating Unit prepared some extracts and placed it on our table just before tea.  They haven't obviously been properly gone through and I would propose, in order to save time, that it stands over until we ...(intervention)

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Richard, maybe I can help you.  Is it very important, the points that you are going to make arising out of those quotes?  Is it going to help any of us at the end of the day?  You yourself equated it to the value of newspaper cuttings.

ADV PRIOR: Mr Chairman, to the extent that it's addressed to Mr Richard, as Evidence Leader I was given the book yesterday evening and I went through the book.  There are certain areas that I think in the interests of transparency and openness, are put to Mr McBride for his comment.  Unfortunately Mr Richard was handed extracts by the Investigating Unit, Ms Quinn(?) and obviously he's now referring to them.  In order to save time, and obviously Mr Richard has not gone through the entire extract, that I propose that we let it stand over.  I will also have copies made for the Panel.

CHAIRPERSON: But the basic problem is that it's a book, which is not going to persuade us one way or the other.  We're not going to read the book and make a finding based on the book.  Now there might be 20 books, are we going to have 20 books put, the various views of various authors?

ADV PRIOR: No.  There's one book, it's written by the author referred to and the quotations that I believe, I may be wrong, are quotations that are attributed to the applicant before you today.  And I would submit that, obviously one would have to see those particular quotations attributed to him in order to determine whether they are relevant or not.

ADV BOSMAN: How can we know about the accuracy of those quotations?  Do we now have to call the author to come and say that these quotations that he's got in the book are quite accurate?

ADV PRIOR: If the applicant says at this hearing he did not make that, then I submit well that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but that means we might have to go through the whole book for the applicant to say he didn't make a quotation or did make a quotation and then ...

ADV PRIOR: Mr Chairman with respect, you misunderstand my point.  There are certain quotations I submit, and they are not more than five or six, to that extent extracts were made of those few pages.  It's not a question of dredging through the entire ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I suppose if they are put in there as direct quotations from Mr McBride, out of his own mouth, it can be put to him whether he said that or not, but I don't know ...(intervention)

ADV PRIOR: It's certainly at that level only.  It's information that's in the public domain, it's been brought to our attention, we can't simply sweep it under the carpet, we have to produce ...

JUDGE PILLAY: But we're still, Mr Prior, on the domain of fishing.  Why don't we just leave it to the shores of Mauritius then?

MR DEHAL: Mr Chairperson, I agree with all the comments made by the Chair.  My difficulty is, it's not factually correct that there's only one book, there are other books and there are film transcripts floating around.  The difficulty I have is when begins with Brian Rostrin, one doesn't know where one would end, probably in the UK with his book.  My other difficulty is, much of what Mr Richard dealt with in regard to quotations from that book, are aspects obtained from the transcript.  I mean here is a transcript, deal with that if you wish.  We'll be wasting time in going on with this.

CHAIRPERSON: I intend to agree. If there's a quotation from the book that's put to him, purporting to come from Mr McBride and he denies that he made it, where is it going to take us?  Will we then have to get the author in and then have to make some finding as to whether or not it was in fact said?