Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 2000-07-27

MR WILLS: Yes, 24/7/2000.
... when another Dr S Naidoo, I think being one of the District Surgeons in Durban, took certain measurements and heights in relation to Sibongile Gugu Kubheka, Lyn Motoko Masetla, Themba Muzwaki Kubheka, Clifford Tamsanqa Kubheka and Peggy Tulisili Kubheka?

S R NAIDOO: Yes, I was.

MR WILLS: And is it not so that he took the weights and heights of each of these individuals?

S R NAIDOO: That is correct.

MR WILLS: And you were present when I recorded the weights and heights, is that correct?

S R NAIDOO: That's correct, yes.

MR WILLS: And that the weights and heights were as follows
Sibongile Gugu Kubheka ..."
...(intervention)

MR VISSER: Well Chairperson, what's the point of giving him the evidence?  Why is he recalled to ...  I thought he was coming to testify as to what he knows.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wills.

MR WILLS: Well possibly - Dr Naidoo was present when I was the scribe at that stage, possibly I can give him my notes and he can confirm that that note was taken at the time.

MR VISSER: Chairperson that's pointless, with great respect, I mean we may as well read it out.

CHAIRPERSON: What is your stance ... No, I hear what you're saying Mr Visser, but are you going to dispute the correctness of those heights and measurements or ...?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, we have a problem with this.  We've asked you, the Committee, whether we can take height measurements ourselves.  The witnesses have agreed to that.  Mr Wills doesn't want to allow us to do that.  We've got two different heights of Mrs Masetla on record now.  There's clearly a disparity of 10 centimetres.  But if that's the evidence which Mr Wills wishes to present, Chairperson, I'm not going to stop him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes alright Mr Wills, continue.

MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, shouldn't we do it now?

MR WILLS: Mr Chairperson, I just want to record that I'm offended by Mr Visser's suggestion that as an officer of the court I would be given notes by the District Surgeon and I record that incorrectly.  It's an affront to my stature as an officer of the court in this matter, and I'm in no way intending to try and mislead the Commission.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes no, I'm satisfied of that, Mr Wills.

MR WILLS: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: I wasn't imputing that, Chairperson.  The point is just that the witness is being called to give evidence as to the correctness of the contents of what Mr Wills heard and noted down and that's what it's about.  He may have heard it incorrectly, he may have written it down incorrectly.  I don't know, Chairperson, I wasn't there.

CHAIRPERSON: Well perhaps we can just find out on that point.
	Dr Naidoo, when these measurements were taken by the District Surgeon, you were present and Mr Wills was present?

S R NAIDOO: That's quite - I observed it and read out the heights and weights to Mr Wills, who recorded it.

CHAIRPERSON: And did you at any stage see what Mr Wills recorded?

S R NAIDOO: Well out of the corner ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: And I'm not imputing anything, Mr Wills, by asking that question, I assure you.

S R NAIDOO: ... out of the corner adjacent to me, Mr Wills was recording.  I didn't look specifically to make sure that he'd recorded the correct figures, but you know I know he was recording ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: From information spoken by yourself?

S R NAIDOO: Yes, verbally.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think you can continue, Mr Wills.

MR WILLS: Thank you.
	Possibly - we don't have a scale here but I believe that Mr Visser has a tape measure, possibly we could measure one of the, or the persons here in order to establish the heights.

CHAIRPERSON: I think if you can proceed with your evidence.

MR WILLS: Yes.

MR LAX: Sorry, I was going to say, if you want to do that I don't have any objection to it personally, but before we break to do that little exercise, because we'll obviously have to do it here against the wall or whatever, I just had one or two other questions that have arisen since we heard other evidence today, that I thought that I might want to ask the Doctor, but I'll do that when you've finished.

MR WILLS: Yes.  That isn't particularly the reason that I recall Dr Naidoo, it only became contested later.  I thought the height became contested after Dr Naidoo's evidence and hence I led this, but there is another issue which I will go onto.
	Dr Naidoo, I turn now to the issue that I recalled you for, and that is in relation to the height of Lyn Motoko Masetla.  She gave the height - she was measured at the District Surgeon at 1.48 metres.  She gave evidence today that Ntombi Kubheka, her deceased sister was one or two centimetres taller than her.  Now I want to refer you to your formula, Lundi's formula, and ask you outright whether or not if somebody was either 1.49 metres or 1.5 metres, would this be an exclusionary factor in regard to your findings as to the identity of the deceased?

S R NAIDOO: Yes, my answer would be, not really.  No, there wouldn't be an exclusion.  For that matter it would be not impossible, but inappropriate to exclude any specific height.  What happens is that as you go out of the range that I calculated, then the probability shrinks.  Whilst the possibility may be there at all stages, but the probability shrinks and shrinks till it becomes negligible.

CHAIRPERSON: So it's not progressive?

S R NAIDOO: That's right, yes.  I in fact - as the Commission would read that I actually made a note that
"Please note, the above formula provides not the precise estimation and the actual height calculated may be considered to be inaccurate.  However, the figures do point to a considerably short individual."
You know I think with due respect, you know very much like facial reconstruction and these parameters, what we're doing is giving some guidance and leaning towards a particular area of a person.  It would be certainly incorrect to state that we could calculate a very precise age, or even a reasonably precise age and a weight, a height.
	I would think that - you mentioned 1,49 or 1,5, that would be 8 centimetres.  Yes.  That would naturally be a closer, amount to a closer more probable you know, give you more probability than 1.6.  So I can't say very much more than that, apart from saying that it wouldn't amount to an exclusion.

MR WILLS: And obviously it would be less probable than 1.42?

S R NAIDOO: Yes, that's right.

MR WILLS: Just on the genetic makeup of siblings as opposed to children, is it likely that, is it more likely that Ntombi Kubheka would reflect the makeup of her siblings in a more dominant way than that of her children?  Are you able to comment on that?

S R NAIDOO: Yes.  Now if you look at it, that would be correct simply because there's a constant and repetitive phenotype that we call the phenotype, the outward expression of a genetic makeup in the family.  What would - biologically or mathematically speaking, both would represent, a child and a sibling could represent, possibly, similar deviations or shall we say, a similar amount of phenotypic outward expression of genetic makeup, simply because the child for example, would be a product of the mother and an external(?) father, whilst a sibling could, there's a possibility, could receive the gene that was not present in Ntombi Kubheka, but present in a sister.  However, simply because there seems to be some constancy in that most of the siblings, or for that matter all of them are shorter than normal.  So what it shows as a probability is that both the mother and father in the Kubheka family, of all the siblings, had shortness as their genetic genotype.  DNA makeup.

MR WILLS: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WILLS

CHAIRPERSON: Is it subject to this question of the heights?

MR WILLS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What's going to happen there?