Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — UNKNOWN

CHAIRPERSON: She said that, look at the end of the statement, each statement that she makes, where she affirms its contents as being the truth.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect, Mr Chairman, she says she was told what to say.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well all right, you can use that in argument.

MR PRINSLOO: And really what's the value of that statement?

CHAIRPERSON: You can use that as argument, it seems, because you can't cross-examine this witness on evidence that has been destroyed without us knowing.   How are you going to discuss ...(intervention).

GEORGE BIZOS: Can you give us the reference to what she said?

MR PRINSLOO: I'll have to find it, Mr Chairman.   What I've also got here, Mr Chairman, is what she said in A1, which was also handed in, a note she made as to what - for instance at page 6 of that Exhibit A1, which I can just find now, she wrote at paragraph 15 of A1
"He said I must re-write parts of my statement, that Clive had said that this and that, when I, for example told him I can't remember when he asked me when something had happened, if, as if something happened, then he would say, `Well, you'll sit here until you can remember' or `We'll detain you further'."
That's with reference to De Waal.

CHAIRPERSON: Well all that really boils down to the value that we attach to her evidence, isn't it?

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct, Mr Chairman ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: ...in conjunction of the captain's evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well now carry on then, I think what evidential value there is in her statement is a factor which we'll take into account.   I think my difficulty with your line of cross-examination is that it was based on the assumption that what the witness subsequently discarded was in fact the truth, my difficulty was that you base your cross-examination on the assumption or on the premise that what she had initially said, but subsequently changed, albeit at the instance of the police, was the truth, and I'm saying that you can't say that unless the witness herself had said to us, "What I initially said was the truth until the police came and caused me to change it".   She never, that was not her evidence.   In fact my impression was that she lied, that's what the general impression she conveyed, the impression she conveyed was that initially she lied, and then later when she was confronted with something else, then she changed, and you proceed on the premise which is based on the opposite.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect, Mr Chairman, the purpose of my question was directed at the captain to indicate that by destroying the document, we are now not in a position to see - to evaluate what was said, that's my whole purpose.

CHAIRPERSON: But what was the point, why should we miss something which was untrue, why must we be bothered to evaluate something which was in any case untrue, how are we prejudiced?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, we don't know what was said in that context, whether it was true or untrue, I don't know.

GEORGE BIZOS: Well what did she say about it, I don't care what you know, it's what did she say anywhere in her evidence, "I had the truth in my statement and I was compelled to change it to put in something untrue"?

MR PRINSLOO: Her evidence is, Mr Chairman, with respect, that she was told what to say.   She said in her evidence she never saw a weapon, and here it is stated she saw a weapon.   It was added to the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) attention was drawn to the fact that this is what her husband had said, and she says now, "Yes, I remember that this is what in fact happened, I did see the weapon".   Now can you take it very much further than that?

MR PRINSLOO: Well the point is, Mr Chairman, with respect, if she's told by the captain to write that, then it makes a big difference, because that's not her version then.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words, she was now compelled to write what was the truth, is that what you're saying?

MR PRINSLOO: Well I'm not saying that's the truth what's written in the statement, Mr Chairman, with respect, she said it's untrue, she never saw a weapon, which is written in the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.   Can we proceed to some other aspect of the case please?

MR PRINSLOO: Captain ...(intervention).

GEORGE BIZOS: Mr Chairman, if Judge Wilson is looking at the record, I have already reference of Mrs Derby-Lewis's evidence, it's set out on page 65 of our heads of argument, Mr Chairman, but it will just identify some of the references.

MR PRINSLOO: In your statement you refer to a murder list, is that correct?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: Yes, that's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: But nowhere in Mrs Derby-Lewis's statement is there mention made of a murder list?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So why do you mention a murder list?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: Well that is what was discussed at our conference.

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: We spoke about the murder list amongst our members.

MR PRINSLOO: So it became known as the murder list?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So your statement in that relation is not correct?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: I see it as murder list because various individuals were murdered.

MR PRINSLOO: What you are saying in your statement is what Mrs Derby-Lewis should have said?   What you are saying in your statement is that which Mrs Derby-Lewis had said to you, is that correct?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: In the statement she also mentioned the murder list.

MR PRINSLOO: In her statement?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: No, not in her statement, but that is what she said to me, it was regarded as a murder list.

MR PRINSLOO: Where did she record that in her statement?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: There was a section which was amended, she maintained a version that this list was compiled because she wanted to write an article about the names on the list, those persons, and after that I said that that was not the version of her spouse and she subsequently changed her opinion.

MR PRINSLOO: So therefore after it was told to her what her spouse had said?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: Yes, that was one of the issues that Colonel Van Niekerk told me to take up with her, whether or not it was true that she wanted to write an article about these persons or whether her husband's version was true, she changed her opinion, she said that her husband's version was in fact the truth.

MR PRINSLOO: The statement, the first statement which she wrote, was about background and then proceeded to cover aspects regarding the merits of the case?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Earlier I asked you where she had stopped after you told her to write and then you would discuss certain aspects with her after you had studied certain information?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: You addressed these aspects before, but I will answer again and that is that I cannot possibly remember that far back, that which is before me here is her complete statement and she is completely aware of everything contained in the statement, where she stopped and where she proceeded once more I would not be able to give you detailed information of.

MR PRINSLOO: In terms of her statement, this was on the 24th of April, and it, or the first statement finished on the 27th of April, and she had written the statement in the office, is that correct?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And the police, female police officer typed it?