Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 2000-07-26

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Well, I don't have the detailed anthropological knowledge to be able to put, no, I could, I could do it if I had the time, to piece out individual bone and find out where it came from, but it was in that case, I think irrelevant at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Visser, these missing bones, the cervical vertebrae, pharisaic vertebrae, lumber vertebrae and phalanx, are they big or small bones?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: They are small bones.

MR LAX: Are vertebrae small bones?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Well, if I may say the biggest vertebrae would just fit in the palm of my hand, I considered this small as opposed to the long bone of the thigh.

ADV BOSMAN: In relation to a hand bone, doctor, it would be a fairly large bone?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: It would be a large bone, yes.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

MR VISSER: All right.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, so this clump at the bottom of figure 7 probably does not include vertebrae?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: No, but if one looks at the figure 8, I have put the vertebrae in between the legs.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, I  see that.

MR VISSER: Yes, but you have accounted for them in your report?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes.

MR VISSER: And you say there are some missing?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes.

MR VISSER: What the Chairman is asking you is, would those missing ones be included in the bones in figure 7 at the foot of the table?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: No.

MR VISSER: Yes, thank you.  And would any other long bones be included, from the arms or the legs for example in that clump of bones at the foot of the table, on figure 7?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: No, long bones will be easily identifiable, I would put them into the right positions, so those between the legs and at the foot of the table, will be vertebrae and those of the feet and hand mainly.

MR VISSER: All right, small bones?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes.

MR VISSER: All right.  Can we return to figure 8 of Exhibit R, look at the right arm?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes.

MR VISSER: What do you see there?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: It is deficient from the level of mid-shaft, so at the radius ...(indistinct)

MR VISSER: The arm is broken, both bones?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes.

MR VISSER: In line?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: That is right.

MR VISSER: And you say that you thought that was a post-mortem fracture?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes, they had, if you looked in the whole set of bones, and looked at the nature of the preservation, they were extremely porous, extremely porous and fragile.  I simply am saying that they do not suggest anti-mortem trauma.  If you look at the pelvic bones, that is fairly tough bones, and even that was eroded away and they crumbled, so I was of the opinion that this is likely post-mortem trauma although one could never say categorically.

MR VISSER: Yes, well, let's investigate that.  Did you find any of the matching bones from this broken arm?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: No.

MR VISSER: I wonder whether you could possibly look at Exhibits 1 and 2 of the clothing, if you don't mind, I want to please show you something.  Exhibits 1 and 2.

MR LAX: The dress and the jersey?

MR VISSER: The dress and the jersey, the polo-neck jersey.
	You don't have to get up, I think that the panel would also like to have a look at what I am trying to show you.   The photographs, the equivalent photographs of the exhibits are at Exhibit R5 and R6 Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the witness is being shown Exhibit 1, the dress, the burgundy dress or maroon dress.

MR VISSER: Yes, would you please look at the right hand sleeve?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes.

MR VISSER: That seems to be tarnished?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Tattered actually.

MR VISSER: Tattered?  Yes.  If you could possibly now look at Exhibit 2, the polo-neck jersey?  Ms Thabethe, I would appreciate it if you could hold the jersey so that the left and the right are properly placed when you show it to ...

CHAIRPERSON: I think that is right, because it would seem that the back of the neck has what would appear to be a place where there might have been, I might be mistaken, is it, a cutting, yes it has been cut.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairperson, we submit that on inspection it would appear that it is the right hand sleeve that is tattered.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you determine what is the front and what is the back of that?

MS THABETHE: (Microphone not on)

MR LAX: Is there a seam?  The seam is usually at the back?

MR VISSER: The seam is right at the top normally.  All right, we, I will put my questions to you on the supposition and we can establish that later.

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: I just wanted to make an entry that I made a note that ...

MS THABETHE: This is the back.

MR VISSER: That is right, that is how we've got it.  The way Ms Thabethe is holding it up now, with the portion that is pointing in your direction, we regard that as the front after we looked at this jersey, so it is the right hand sleeve that appears to be tattered Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you hold it up please Ms Thabethe.  Yes, she holds it up and ...

MS THABETHE: Judge, I am confused ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well, as it is being held up now, it would appear that the right hand sleeve is tattered.

MR VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Whether that is the right hand sleeve or the left hand sleeve, I don't know.  As it is being held up now,  the left hand sleeve is tattered.  One sleeve is a lot more tattered than the other sleeve.

MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson.  Dr Naidoo, what I want to ask you - I am sorry, do you want to add something?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes, I just want to say that I made a note in my report that the left arm of the jersey and the right sleeve was tattered.  I don't know why I made that finding.  I am assuming perhaps there was a label at that time, but I don't know how we can conclude that that is front and that is back.

MR VISSER: Let's just leave that for a legal argument.  I am putting to you my questions on an assumption.

MS THABETHE: ...(indistinct) that there was a label in?

CHAIRPERSON: I just want to ask one question, were any cuttings taken from any of the clothing, doctor?

MR VISSER: The Chairperson is asking you ...

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Sorry?

CHAIRPERSON: Were any cuttings taken from the clothing at all, any samples cut out from any of the clothing?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Not by myself, Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Have you now established that it is the right hand sleeve?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes.

MR VISSER: That is tattered?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes.

MR VISSER: Are you satisfied with that?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: I am satisfied.

MR VISSER: I didn't ask you specifically but while we are busy with the clothing, you mentioned that there might have been a small amount of blood from the gunshot wound.  Did you look at the clothing at all to try and find blood stains on the clothing?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes.  Yes, I did and I made a note that blood stains not ascertainable, not that it wasn't present, but not ascertainable due to discoloration and staining by post-mortem fluids.

MR VISSER: Yes.  Now coming back to the right sleeves of both Exhibit 1 and 2, I want to ask you does this not reasonably suggest to you some anti-mortem trauma?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Not necessarily.

MR VISSER: No, no, I am not asking about necessarily, just reasonably?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: No.

MR VISSER: If I put it to you as a possibility?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Well, it is always a possibility.

MS THABETHE: Mr Chair ...

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: The witness was trying to answer the question, and he was cut, I think he needs some protection.  If he can answer the question, if he can be allowed to answer the question.

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: The, well, let me answer this way, you cannot discount the possibility at all, but you used the word reasonably.  I think it doesn't reasonably assume anti-mortem trauma?