Human Rights Violation Hearings — Pollsmoor — 1997-02-18

MR KNIPE: Yes but as I say within an ambit ma'am I must try to  emphasise that,
it -  you don't just take statements from everyone, you establish whether that person is going to make a statement which is of evidential value.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA: And you would - you would feel somewhat responsible about the process of the case as the unfolding of the case of the case that you investigating, you would somehow feel responsible you want to know what happens at every stage of the case since you are the investigator - of a case - of a criminal ordinary case that you doing - you would feel connected to the case to make sure that all your investigation - the material that you bring to the court is in order, is there and you somewhat feel connected to the case because of the investigator.

MR KNIPE: That is the task of  the investigator is to place all the material evidence before a court.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA: What sense of responsibility do you feel about the investigation of this case, [indistinct] you had a part in the investigation - what sense of responsibility do you feel about the outcome of the findings, the process of the investigation as it relates to the matter of the Guguletu 7.

MR KNIPE: I believe that when the investigation was entrusted to Lottering and Segal, that a proper investigation was conducted.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA: When you were involved - you are happy and you feel that as part of the team whatever it is that you are involved in you feel that as far as you are concerned, everything was done properly.

MR KNIPE: Again when Segal and Lottering  were assigned to the investigation.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA: Now you were part of this investigation I know that you were a part - only a part so obviously you are a part of the total picture when findings are made.  When statements are given, or are made - are taken - whatever within a particular defined parameter some police officers, some people at the scene whoever else was involved but you were also in a way aware that certain policeman made statements and you are part of that as well in the sense that you knew that there were certain police officers who made statements.

MR KNIPE: I - my involvement with this investigation seized the day I left the scene of crime until I subsequently had discussions with Segal.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA: I am not sure if [intervention]

MR KNIPE: And I think I might have affidavited one or two statements - the normal course of things one is at the office, and you affidavit a statement.  And that is probably the sum total, I never saw the docket, I never read the docket it was entrusted to my senior.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA: But you were part of the investigation in a way it is something, I really just want to know if - if an outcome is made about a crime in which - which you were investigating or which you were part of - for which you were part of an investigation, surely you would want to know what the outcome is, wouldn't you?

MR KNIPE: Not - I don't know if I understand you fully.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA: I thought you was speaking English.

MR KNIPE: No - no I am not trying to be rude, I just - I can't get to the - to the crux of your question.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA: Well just that when you see I am - one of the things I am wondering about you were part of this investigation, it was folded and finished and completed whatever, whenever it was.  And you were there and you knew about the outcome and last year in November when we heard -  we had a hearing at the Commission, Mr Lazaro gave public evidence - I mean gave his testimony in public and contradicted your colleagues - [indistinct] that he made a statement to him - and I am wondering as a person who was involved in that investigation, what - how did you feel how this was part of your - of your brief, you were involved in it, it was part of your investigation - what did you do, you heard it - you were sitting there and a man comes in, in public in and an official - in front of an official body and you were part of the investigation team.
 What - what - how did you feel about that?

MR KNIPE: I don't necessary think that I was shocked by that, I have a problem with certain and this opinion and perhaps it's unfair to raise it, but I have a problem with the witness who claims that he saw photographs and he identified these people as people that he had consorted with in a shebeen.
 Now as I can remember it those people were so  badly shot up, I don't know how anyone could have made any identification from those photographs and I have a problem when he comes along with such a story and I would have difficulty in believing that, because that just doesn't ring true to me - it's - I have difficulty - I have difficulty - it's almost as if he has already making an alibi for himself with an identification.
 Why identify two people that you were drinking with - I don't know I have a personal problem with that and I would have liked to have interrogated and questioned him closer on that.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA: I think [intervention]

MR KNIPE: I think - I think to me if I might just say to me the - the most damming remark in this entire inquisition that has taken place was the admission by Liebenberg that when the Security Police could not deal with the problem in Cape Town, they called in other people.
 Now that, that was news to me really that took me completely and utterly by surprise, that phased me.  I had difficulty with that remark.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA: I just want to state also just for the record that in a conversation, well during the questioning of Mr Lazaro it appeared that he knew personally I don't know whether it was as a result of him getting the names of the people who were shot or whether he burnt, because the part where he talks about knowing these men, from the shebeens, is hand written so it obviously seems that it something that was added after he knew their names.
 He associated them with having met them in a shebeen - that part is hand written and that is how it is, my question really was about your  role in the investigation and how you felt if a part of your investigation seemed to have been in question in that way.

MR KNIPE: If it is true that his  hand writing has been - signature has been falsified then of course I am shocked.  But I don't believe that I have sufficient evidence to make such a finding.  Also I do believe that he possibly hasn't been subjected to cross-examination.  I do believe that maybe a different interpretation could come out - I believe - I believe that the truth can only be surely determined in a two way street that he should be subjected to cross-examination too and that is why that is at the back of my mind but I don't accept that at this point of time as necessary being the truth.
 But if it is the truth, it's disgusting.  Because then it - then it is almost as if my colleagues tried to set up these people in involvement in criminality to justify the subsequent action.  And if that is so - I  am [indistinct] but I can't express an opinion  because really I believe that the facts as are known to me - I can't express an opinion on that.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA: My question really was more in relation to your response in November when you first heard that Lazaro - when you first heard Lazaro's claims - I was wondering what [intervention]

MR KNIPE: It would be the same ma'am again I have a difficulty in that the man was not subjected to cross-examination. It's the basic tenancy surely of our law, I have had many a witness that has made statements and after cross-examination you cannot believe that it's the same story that's being told.  And I am just applying that caution before I judge people.