Amnesty Hearings — Pietersburg — 1997-06-30

ADV VISSER: It is a problem, Mr Chairman, but I want to be fair to the witness, and his legal representatives are here.  Perhaps we can go about it this way. I can - my learned friend can take this note, that we are suggesting that none of the first five victims could have survived the initial attack.  Only number 6 could possibly have survived and the reason why we say so, Mr Chairman, lies in what the doctor found at page 65, in regard to the sixth person.  And this is very important and I ask your indulgence to read this, Mr Chairman.
"There were three entry wounds on the back."
So the entrance wounds were in the back -
"Major gaping wound right side, from which intestines were gaping.  Large gaping wound on the left-hand side of the chest, just below the nipple."
Clearly an exit wound, Mr Chairman, because that is what makes it a gaping wound.  
"Large gaping wound left in the basis of the neck.  Seven bullet wounds left upper arm.  Multiple wounds in and around and below the left knee, and with a fracture of the tibia and the fibula."
The cause of death, Mr Chairman, is -
"Acute loss of blood, as a result of multiple bullet wounds in chest."
Mr Sehlwana, we are going to argue, and this I must put to you, that the only possible victim was victim number 6, which we have just read to you, and he had no entrance wound from the front of his chest.

MR BLACK: Mr Chairman, can I just interject here? Of course, I can't object to whatever my learned colleague is going to argue. The question is whether it will be evidence on an argument which can be accepted. I am not a medical expert. I won't be able to say whether any of these people, the first five referred to, will be able to have survived or not.  And I don't know if there is going to be another basis apart from argument, that my colleague is going to base this on. Is he going to call a medical expert and if so, would it then not become relevant as to when these post-mortems were done and the way in which the bodies were removed from the scene to wherever the post-mortem was done; is this not bringing a whole lot of questions into, that I for one certainly cannot answer.

CHAIRPERSON: I think all we can say is that you know, he cannot be barred from arguing, making certain submissions around those documents.  The only question is how much weight you attach to that, and we will attach such weight as a document under those circumstances can only deserve what it deserves.  It is just a question of how much weight you attach to it.  But I am sure he will be entitled to argue, but as I say, you know, it will be a question of how much weight do you attach to that document.

MR BLACK: Sorry, Mr Chairman, I am just concerned that, and I don't know if this is going to be further argued with the witness, with the applicant, but it might be misleading to put to him, he is not a medical expert.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's the point that I discussed with Mr Visser and I think that is why he decided now to deal with this thing the way he is doing now.

MR BLACK: As the Chairman pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: I would have thought, Mr Visser, that if, unless that didn't happen, but I would have thought that if somebody survived and was interviewed by the police, I would have thought that the police would know exactly who that person was, and even if that person subsequently died, I would have thought that the police would be able to know that, even if they did not know the true name of that person,  would be able to say that it was corpse number this and that. I would have thought so.  But apparently we don't have that information.  We are not able to tie, we are not able to - from the records, we are not able to know which deceased is the one who was interviewed by the police, because that would have solved the problem, if we had it.  I assume we don't.

ADV VISSER: Mr Chairman, I am not certain whether I have got a ready answer to your question.  And I am also not sure whether it will solve my problem for me, but perhaps I could quickly just ask Mr Erwee whether he gave - it will just take a second.  He is shaking his hand in a horizontal fashion, Sir, indicating the negative, it seems, Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: Let's ask the witness.  While you were standing there, did they ask this person lying on the ground, when they interrogated him, what's his name and who was the other people, what are their names and where they come from?  What in fact did Fuchs ask him or interpret to him, whatever the position may be.

MAROPENG MATTHEWS SEHLWANA: What I heard is that when he was asked where do they come from and that where they were going.  That is what I heard.

ADV VISSER: Mr Chairman, I can tell you that Mr Erwee's evidence on this score - I just found my note - was that he was very keen to find out where the person came from and where he was on his way to.  Perhaps by inference that means that he wasn't terribly interested in asking him his name.  So that is what he did ask him; where are you from and where were you going and the person kept losing consciousness.  An injection was given to him. We don't know what kind of injection, by one of the medics of the Defence Force.  He then slumped thereafter into a complete unconsciousness and he was then transported to Alldays, to the hospital, but he died on the way.

CHAIRPERSON: I was just wanting to know, on the point on which - specifically the point on which you were taking instructions, what are the instructions? They have not been able to tie up that person and any one of the particular corpses?

ADV VISSER: We know that three people were identified, three were not, but I cannot tie this person into either with one that hasn't been or has been identified, unfortunately, Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: Were they all conveyed in the same vehicle.  They weren't, this man still living and dying on the way to the hospital, wasn't he treated separately?

ADV VISSER: Mr Chairman, you will hear in the evidence, that because the combi was shot up, part of the transportation which the police were going to use back to Alldays, was now gone, and they only had two vehicles there.  And everybody, well, in fact, that's why they had to sleep over on the farm because they couldn't be transported.  There was a necessity to transport these people to Alldays and they all had to be transported in one vehicle, yes, Mr Chairman.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr Visser, are they not able to tie up with the photos which we have in the bundle, with the person concerned?

ADV VISSER: We saw the photographs. Unfortunately we don't have those photographs.  In fact, this witness refers to photograph number 9. I take it is in this bundle.  We don't know who has possession of this bundle. It may very well be that the Attorney-General has it, and it would be very helpful, we submit, if we could lay hands on that, because it may solve some of the problems of identification.  But unfortunately we cannot tell from photocopies.  We can make no identification, unfortunately.

MR BLACK: (Indistinct - not speaking into microphone).

ADV VISSER: Perhaps we should call them.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Black, we will talk to them in due course.

ADV VISSER: I think what is being conveyed from the audience, Mr Chairman, is that they would be able to identify a person on the photo album, but perhaps just by way of explanation, it is not going to help us with identifying who was the man that was wounded, unfortunately.

ADV DE JAGER: Well, maybe it can, Mr Visser, and perhaps you should consult and find out what they are talking about.

ADV VISSER: I am through with cross-examination, Mr Chairman. If you want me to we can try to discover whether we can get somebody, if you want to take a short adjournment we can perhaps see if we can get somebody.  I have got no further questions to this witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you say you are finished or virtually finished?