Amnesty Hearings — Vanderbijlpark — 1999-05-17

MR STRYDOM: But at the end of your statement you were happy enough with the statement to sign the statement is that correct?

MIRIAM MOLETE: Can you please repeat the question Sir?

MR STRYDOM: You've signed the statement and - let me put it the other way around, were you prepared to sign a statement you're not happy with?

MIRIAM MOLETE: I have already explain the conditions at that time when we were making these statements.

MR STRYDOM: The question is still, would you sign a statement you're not happy with?

MIRIAM MOLETE: If they had read the statement to me I would have told them that I'm not satisfied about this statement because after they have asked me questions they told me just to sign, that is why I signed the statement.

MR STRYDOM: I'm going to continue reading the statement and want your comments?
"I then tried to intervene.  He chopped my left thumb"
and it goes on:
"he stabbed me with a self made"
I think it should read:
"sharp instrument"
which is mentioned here to be a "Injumnetjo" is that correct?

MIRIAM MOLETE: I never tried to intervene, I was just holding the baby, this was a small baby.

MR STRYDOM: But this portion of the statement is this correct?

MIRIAM MOLETE: It's not correct where you say I tried to intervene.

MR STRYDOM: But didn't you try to protect the child?

MIRIAM MOLETE: I tried to use my hand to protect my child, I was not fighting back.  This person was not fighting me, he was just hacking randomly.

MR STRYDOM: It goes on
"When I looked deeply at him I could see that" ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: There's a portion here which says "he chopped my left thumb".

MIRIAM MOLETE: That is correct.

MR STRYDOM: I then I've read you that portion
"When I looked deeply at him I could see that his eyes are blue and his nose was pink.  I could not see his hands because he was wearing a polo neck and black hand gloves."
Is that portion correct?

MIRIAM MOLETE: It is correct.

MR STRYDOM: I'll ask you today if you can give any description of your attackers clothing and you said no you can't.  In your statement you said that he was wearing a polo neck.  Why did you state it like that?

MIRIAM MOLETE: You asked me what he had in his hands and he said he had hand gloves and you asked me about the gloves.  Then I said he wore a Balaclava and that's all.  You didn't ask me about the colour.

MR STRYDOM: No I asked you about any description of any other part of his clothing and you said no you can't give me any further description but in your statement you made mention of a polo neck.  Can you give any explanation?

MIRIAM MOLETE: Can you please repeat that question again?

MR STRYDOM: What's been put to you is that when you're been asked what clothing the person who attacked you was wearing your answer was you can't say.

MR LAX: Chair, just if I may?  The question was can you remember what the colour of the rest of his clothing was and your answer to that was no, I cannot, but that's how the question was framed, it's wasn't framed on what other clothes he was wearing.

CHAIRPERSON: A description of other clothes.

MR LAX: It was the colour of the other clothes that was asked, or description.  Fair enough.

CHAIRPERSON: You were asked whether could you give a description of any other clothing that he was wearing and the answer was no, you are unable to do so.  Do you understand that?

MIRIAM MOLETE: Yes I do.

CHAIRPERSON: In your statement to the police you told them that this person was wearing a polo neck and black hand gloves.  I think all that counsel wants to find out from you is when he asked you about what is the description of the other clothing that this person was wearing, why didn't you tell him that this person wore a polo neck?

MIRIAM MOLETE: I heard him asking me about the gloves and the Balaclava so when he referred to other clothes and then I said I cannot say.

MR STRYDOM: But the question is, do you remember now that he wore a polo neck or not?

MIRIAM MOLETE: I don't remember, it's a long time ago and I already said that when I made the statement I was sick.  It's now seven years since this took place.

CHAIRPERSON: Is the position that as you're sitting there you cannot remember whether this man was wearing a polo neck?

MIRIAM MOLETE: It can be true because I could only see his nose and the eyes.

CHAIRPERSON: But do you remember now that this man was wearing a polo neck?

MIRIAM MOLETE: Yes I remember now.

MR STRYDOM: Do you know what the colour of the polo neck was?

MIRIAM MOLETE: All his clothes were dark.

MR STRYDOM: At a certain stage, someone, one of the attackers said "take out your firearms" or words to that effect.  When was that, before the attack on you or after the attack on you?

MIRIAM MOLETE: That is before the attack.

MR STRYDOM: If you can just bear with me for a moment, I'm just getting the original here to make it easier? Unfortunately, the original is not forthcoming.
I want to continue.  The statement:
"I realised that he is a White person although he had a Balaclava"
is that correct?

MIRIAM MOLETE: I don't understand now?

MR STRYDOM: I'm reading your statement, I just want to confirm if it's correct or not.  I assume the first word is "I"
"I realised that he is a White person"

MR BERGER: Perhaps if you could just put it in read before, put it in context again.

MR STRYDOM: Ja, well I've read that portion wearing a polo neck and black hand gloves.
"I realised that he is a White person even though he had a Balaclava."
Is that portion correct?

MIRIAM MOLETE: That is correct.

MR STRYDOM: During this whole pandemonium I saw other members of the group at the window saying "Kepani isimbamo zeno" - take out your firearm.  Is that correct?

MIRIAM MOLETE: That is correct.

MR STRYDOM: According to this statement, if one looks at the sequence this was said after the attack on yourself, is the sequence correct?

CHAIRPERSON: I'm not sure whether that apparent because one gets the impression as I read the sentence, it would appear that - well I can't see what the word is there but it would appear that during this whole pandemonium, "I saw other members of the group at the window."

MR STRYDOM: Yes I think I'm going to leave that because maybe that's a bit too much splitting hairs.  I going to leave that, I withdraw that question.

CHAIRPERSON: But also here, is there a paragraph 3 here?  I can't see the paragraph 3?

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, I've got a copy now that's not cut off.  I'll make copies during the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Is there a paragraph 3?

MR STRYDOM: No, it's not paragraph 3, just goes from paragraph 2 unless it's at the bottom here cut off here but there's no indication of paragraph 3, it just carries on.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright.

MR STRYDOM: Paragraph 4 starts ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: According to my watch it's approximately 2 minutes to now, I'm sure whether my watch is ...(intervention)

MR STRYDOM: Ja, it's 14.41 so it's basically quarter past.  Will this be convenient because I'm getting onto the next point now, the next paragraph.

CHAIRPERSON: And you're going to be fairly long on the last part?

MR STRYDOM: Well I'm carrying on with the statement so the whole statement will take some time but not too long hopefully.

CHAIRPERSON: I mean the aspect that you want?

MR STRYDOM: No, I'm going to leave the previous aspect, I'm going on to the new one now.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.  We will take the lunch adjournment now, we'll come back at 2 o'clock.

MR LOWIES: Mr Chairman, before we do so could I request indication from you as to until what time we're going to sit, I want to arrange a consultation later this evening.  If you could just give us an indication regarding that please?

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, okay.  If we come back at 2 o'clock, we should be able to take a break round about 3 o'clock with about 15 minutes break and then perhaps go on until about you know, 5?  Yes.