Special Hearings — Helderberg Flight Special Hearing — 1998-06-01

CHAIRPERSON: And that tape is the one that was returned on the basis that there was nothing on it.  And earlier on, I think we will agree, that it had nothing on it precisely because it related to a day other than the date in question.  And it is then that earlier on, it was your considered opinion that the tape in fact that had remained, is the tape that had been taped over.  And that is the tape that we're talking about, there are two tapes.  Certainly by way of earlier evidence it was clear that there are two tapes.  Now, as I understand it, you are seeking to say the tape that was taped over is in fact the tape that was given through to Van Zyl and he brought it back.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: That's my impression.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, then there's one tape and then I don't know what I do with your earlier evidence which you seemed to be emphatic in trying to ...(inaudible) between the tape that went away and then was returned, and the tape that ought to have remained, except that it had been taped over, which is why you were saying it actually never got lost.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: We never had a lost tape at all.

CHAIRPERSON: Dr Klatzow?

DR KLATZOW: Well, Mr Commissioner, the evidence gets more and more confusing as we go along, ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I agree with that.

DR KLATZOW: Because, no 1, Margo found, as a fact, that there had been a lost tape, or that it had been transcribed over, sorry, taped over.  He made that as a factual finding, and he made it because you, who was one of the people who could have shed light on it, never said a word about it at the Commission.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Then I stand corrected, because if you tell me, I should have, but, my assumption is - then again I come back to the mistake that I thought that DCA would have told the Judge or the problem, so I assumed that.

DR KLATZOW: And you were quite happy to sit in court and watch the Judge being mislead and going down a wrong alley without saying a word.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: You think the Judge was misled?

DR KLATZOW: Answer the question.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: I didn't see the Judge being misled.

DR KLATZOW: Right, now, you see the difficulty I have with your evidence is as follows, Mr Mitchell, I'm going to tell you from the word go.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Okay.

DR KLATZOW: There are a number of murky issues that arrived on our doorstep as a result of the loss of that aircraft, and your name is central to several of them.  There was a tape-recording, made of ZUR, which is placed in your hands, which goes missing.  You then give no proper explanation.  In fact, your explanation has been like treading on quicksand, during even this enquiry, you have shifted from one explanation to another, faster than my plodding thoughts can follow you.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Hardly plodding.

DR KLATZOW: That's the first thing.  The second, thank you, the second thing is this, that there is a series of statements which implicate you, Captain Mitchell, in something grossly improper in this enquiry, and all you can do is to deny that they occurred, and yet four people will propose under oath that you were somehow involved in suppressing that report ...(intervention)

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: I'm sorry, this is dying.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think there is a grave problem with the sound system and I don't know - we must get it right.  Do you need time ...(intervention)

DR KLATZOW: Sorry, my microphone was off.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you hear me?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: I can hear now, that's fine.

DR KLATZOW: Sorry, my microphone was off.  We have a conversation that Jimmy Mouton claims to have had with you, which has had to be wrung out of him, he didn't rush to me or to anybody else and volunteer this.  It had to be squeezed out of him, painfully and at great anguish to all concerned, which says that you met him and you accused him of the second fire, and you had a fit about the report, that you were upset out the report, and you've conveniently developed an amnesia for that.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: ...[inaudible]

DR KLATZOW: No, he said to you: "Here's the report" and you called him in and said: "Are you suggesting that the pilot flew on despite the fire", that's what you said to him and you've forgotten that?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Ja.

DR KLATZOW: So Mitchell is right, Mittens is a liar?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: No, Mitchell does not remember.

DR KLATZOW: So you can't gain say that?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: What does that mean?

DR KLATZOW: Well, it never ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: You can't say it never happened, it's just that you do not remember it happening.

DR KLATZOW: So in other words, if Jimmy Mittens says it happened, you can't deny that it happened?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: I would be wrong to because I'd be calling him a liar and I don't, I just don't remember.

DR KLATZOW: Well, so it could have happened?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: If he said so, it could have happened but I don't remember that.

DR KLATZOW: Well, give me a reason why Mittens would say it happened if it never happened?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: You know Doctor, I don't know.  If - probably if we sat down and talked about it through with Jerry Mittens and he told me all about it and so forth, I would understand that but ...[intervention]

DR KLATZOW: Yes, yes.  Well, let's go further Captain Mitchell, there was a report which the Margo Commission never heard, that's fact.  The Margo Commission was never in possession of the Flight Engineer's report.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Really?  Why didn't they give it to him?

DR KLATZOW: Because you and Margo suppressed it, I want to put it to you.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Oh nonsense.  They could go direct to ...[intervention]

DR KLATZOW: Well, let's just look at the logic of the whole thing ...[intervention]

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: No, no, no, it's nonsense.

DR KLATZOW: They did go directly to him.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: They could go anywhere, they could go to you.

DR KLATZOW: Captain Mitchell, they went directly to Margo and they were intimidated.  That will be will their evidence.  And you have come with a version that you don't remember it but they will say this, four different people will say this.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Well, I don't remember Judge Margo meeting with him, I don't, I know I went to his house.  I know I that but I, that's important ...[intervention]

DR KLATZOW: Captain Mitchell, you're getting deeper by the moment.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Yes.

DR KLATZOW: Because your evidence under oath, not half an hour ago, was that you went to Margo's house for reasons that you cannot remember, that at his house you remember Mittens and the flight engineers having been there.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: I think so.

DR KLATZOW: Yes.  Now which is true, what you said to me three minutes ago or what you said earlier?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Sorry Sir, I have not conflicted it.

DR KLATZOW: The record - Captain Mitchell, the record will be the judge of that.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Incorrect.

DR KLATZOW: And I am telling you that you contradicted yourself under oath, which is the true version Captain Mitchell?