Amnesty Hearings — Vanderbijlpark — 1999-05-19

MR STRYDOM: The question was
"Did you see any white men at any time during the attack?"
So I put to you that the question was clear enough to also include another person if you saw that person, why didn't you mention that person?

CHAIRPERSON: But as I understand her explanation, she says she was asked about a person, which is why she didn't tell us about persons.  Is that right, Ms Molete?

FLORENCE MOLETE: Yes, that's correct, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: And that is why you only mentioned one person.

FLORENCE MOLETE: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: I'll leave that for argument because the record speaks for itself.
	Now you were just asked about the clothing of the people outside, of the white man outside, and you said he had camouflage clothing on and you mentioned that the person inside had a coat on.  So can I gather from that that the person standing outside, the white person, did not have a coat on?

FLORENCE MOLETE: Mr Strydom, I said the person who was outside wore a camouflage and this second person a had camouflage and a coat over that camouflage.

MR STRYDOM: You see the statement you made to Mr Kekana, you said the following, on page 11: - just to put it in perspective I'll read from the fifth line from the bottom ...

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MR STRYDOM: Page 11, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MR STRYDOM: Ja, but just the last five sentences of paragraph 4.
"One of the attackers tried to stab me with a spear and shifted and he missed and I managed to get out of the shack.  When I got outside it was full-moon (there seems to be a letter there which I can't read, but then) a bright, and I saw a white male person wearing a (camouflage) and an overcoat which was unbuttoned and it made it possible for me to see the clothing.  He was having a rifle which was pointed towards the shack.  Even though he was wearing a balaclava his face was fully visible and I could clearly see that he is a white person.  I then ran back into the shack and called Phule."
Now firstly, do you remember stating this to Mr Kekana?

FLORENCE MOLETE: There is a mistake there, the portion that refers to Phuleng.

MR STRYDOM: To Phuleng?  I didn't read a portion relating to Phuleng.

CHAIRPERSON: She's referring obviously to the part relating to Phule.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, she may have heard Phuleng,  who is her sister.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'm just you know telling Mr Strydom that she probably would be referring to the part relating to Phule.

MR STRYDOM: But it's unclear now, I didn't read about him.  Did she read the paragraph herself?

MR BERGER: You did read, you read to the end of paragraph 4, and the last word is Phule.

MR STRYDOM: Sorry, I'm wrong, I missed that, that's right.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's just clarify this.  You say in the portion that has just been read to you, the only aspect that's incorrect is the one that refers to Phule?

FLORENCE MOLETE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.  What's incorrect about that?

FLORENCE MOLETE: I thought that he was referring to Phuleng.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, no but - oh yes, I see.  What he read to you, what he should have read to you is the following
"I then ran back into the shack and called Phuleng"
Is that correct?

FLORENCE MOLETE: Yes, that portion is correct, that is when we were still fighting.

MR STRYDOM: And you said you're happy with the rest of the paragraph.

FLORENCE MOLETE: Yes, I'm satisfied.

MR STRYDOM: So then you're also satisfied with the portion that the person standing outside had an overcoat, which you even could say that was unbuttoned and that made it possible for you to see the clothing?

FLORENCE MOLETE: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: But I asked you a while ago if the person outside was wearing an overcoat and you said "no", why are you happy now with this what is stated here?

FLORENCE MOLETE: Sir, you have asked me so many questions.  The way it is written here this person wore a camouflage.

MR LAX: The simple issue is that you were asked about whether the person outside was wearing an overcoat. In fact to put the whole question to you fairly, you were firstly asked about the person inside and you were clear that person had an overcoat, you were then asked about the person outside and you differentiated between the two of them, on the basis that only the one inside had an overcoat.  Now the question Mr Strydom is putting to you is, why are you happy with this statement if it says that the person outside had an overcoat, when in your evidence you told us he didn't.  Do you understand the question?  Do you understand the question?

FLORENCE MOLETE: I understand the question.

MR LAX: What is your comment or answer?

FLORENCE MOLETE: The man who was standing outside wore a camouflage, he had an overcoat and a balaclava on.

MR STRYDOM: I'm going to leave it at that, but I'm going to put to you that you are changing your version as you carry on.

CHAIRPERSON: The man who was standing outside wore a camouflage and an overcoat, is that what you said?

FLORENCE MOLETE: Yes, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: And a balaclava?

FLORENCE MOLETE: Yes, on his face.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.  Now the one inside?

FLORENCE MOLETE: He had an overcoat, he wore a camouflage overall, he had a balaclava over his face.

CHAIRPERSON: So these two white men then appear to have been wearing the same clothing, that is camouflage, overcoat and balaclava?

FLORENCE MOLETE: That is how I saw them.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, ja.

MR STRYDOM: I also want to put to you that in your statement to Kekana you do not mention a second white person that was on the scene on the night.  Can you give an explanation?

FLORENCE MOLETE: Mr Strydom, I explained that Mr Kekana was in a hurry when he was writing this statement.

MR STRYDOM: But apart from Mr Kekana being in a hurry, did you mention it to him?

FLORENCE MOLETE: He said to me I should be quick because he has to go to Pretoria and then come back again.

MR LAX: Sorry, the question was, did you tell him about the second person or not?  It's really quite simple, either you did or you didn't.  Just give us a simple answer.

FLORENCE MOLETE: Everything that I told Mr Kekana is what is written on that statement.

MR LAX: Does that mean you didn't tell him.

FLORENCE MOLETE: I don't remember well because this happened many years ago.

MR STRYDOM: Just before the attack, your sister and her husband and the child went to the one room and you stayed in the kitchen and obviously you must have seen them going into that room.  But from that time, when was the first time for you to see your sister again and Mita?

CHAIRPERSON: My recollection may not be accurate, but did she say that just immediately before the attack they went there or did she merely say they were already in the bedroom?

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, I can put it differently because nothing revolves around that.  I just want to find out, from the last time she saw them, when they went to go and sleep on that specific night, when was the next occasion when she saw them, that's now Mita and hers sister.

FLORENCE MOLETE: While I was going to seek help from Mr Sampson, she jumped over the fence to my brother-in-law's place.  She had her baby in her hands.

MR STRYDOM: So whilst the attack was going on you did not go to her and try to assist her or try to assist Mita, or anything of the kind?

FLORENCE MOLETE: I went there trying to protect the baby.  She had the baby in her arms and they were fighting.

MR STRYDOM: But Ms Molete, I just asked you when did you see them again, from the time they went to bed, and you said
"Afterwards when she stepped over the fence with the baby."
Now why do you say now that you saw her during the course of the attack?

FLORENCE MOLETE: When the attack was still on I was trying to protect myself and I was also trying to protect the baby because the shack was already down on the other side.