Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 2000-07-24

MR VISSER: It's so short, perhaps we can just run through it and we can stop it at the appropriate ... That would be your wife, would it be, Professor?

UNKNOWN: That is correct, yes.

MR VISSER: Thank you.  Could we just go a few frames back?  Thank you Chairperson, yes, I just looked down for a moment, and I missed it.  That is the one.  Now, Professor, how would you describe the top of that skull as far as the fracture is concerned?

UNKNOWN: Okay, well, that doesn't actually show a fracture, what that actually shows is lots of captured data by the laser scanner, which it does this in virtually every image that we produce, the top of the head has an area where the ...(indistinct) on all our scans.  The reason for that is because the laser light basically glances off the top of the head and you don't get a proper image capture in this area, but because we are dealing with faces, this is an area which is of, basically of little importance to us and we're concentrating further down on the face.  This isn't in fact a fracture, this is in fact just an artefact really.

MR VISSER: Yes.  What happened to the skull after you had completed your examination, was that sent back to Dr Naidoo as well?

UNKNOWN: Yes, it was, yes, a courier picked it up and sent it back.

MR VISSER: Yes.  Now, I want to ask you and I am not sure whether you can see me, whether you used this photograph in order to run your tests?

UNKNOWN: Sorry which photograph is that, on the reconstruction?

MR VISSER: I am told we must just wait, he is going to zoom in on the photograph.  I don't know where the camera is.

MR LAX: Here it is, it is on you.  Come in a bit more.  That is it.

MR VISSER: Would that be a photograph which you used?

UNKNOWN: I am not sure I used that one, I would have to check the photographs that I was sent exactly, but I would have to see the video superimposition.

MR VISSER: Can I show you another one?

UNKNOWN: I certainly used one from the side.

MR VISSER: Can you possibly see this one?

UNKNOWN: I used that one, yes.

MR VISSER: Did you use this one?

UNKNOWN: Yes, I can see that.  That's more like it, yes.

MR VISSER: Yes, and are you saying that according to your opinion, the reconstruction which we saw on the video is similar to the photograph, to the extent that it is highly likely to be the same person, or are you basing that on the video superimposi-tion?

UNKNOWN: I never said it was the reconstruction, I am basing my views on the video superimposition, on the photographs I received of the skull, the reconstruction was just to show the shape of the face was similar, bearing in mind it conforms to the overall general structure of the skull, but that is as far as that went.

MR VISSER: Alright.  When you say in your "Results and Conclusions" that
"... the reconstructed facial image reflected within acceptable limits, the photographs of the deceased Ntombi Kubheka ..."
are you again referring to your video superimposition or are you now referring to the reconstructed skull?

UNKNOWN: Yes, what I am saying there is that the general shape, I am not talking about individual small features, I am talking about the general shape of the face, because from reconstruction it is very difficult to get things exactly, shapes of noses, ears and ...(indistinct), that sort of thing, but certainly the general shape was within acceptable limits, were similar.

MR VISSER: What are these acceptable limits ...?

UNKNOWN: General shape.

MR VISSER: What are the acceptable limits, Professor?

UNKNOWN: Well, we bear in mind that we cannot judge exactly what the eyes looked like, we cannot judge exactly what the nose looked like, you cannot judge exactly what the ears looked like, we cannot judge exactly what the lips looked like, but the contours, the shape of the jaw, the cheekbone structure, forehead structure, that sort of thing, the general shape of the face, there was nothing dissimilar about it.  In other words it looked as if it could have come from the same source as the photograph.  In other words the skull of the reconstruction, and the photographs, the skull ...(indistinct) the photograph was the same person or the same source.

MR VISSER: So the shorter answer, you considered it to be a possible?

UNKNOWN: Yes.

MR VISSER: Thank you.  If we could then perhaps look at the video again, thank you.
	I am sorry Sir, just while we are waiting, you told us about the laser beam, are you saying that we see on the video isn't in fact a hole in the head, to put it that way, is that what you are saying?

UNKNOWN: That is quite correct, it is not a real hole in the head, it is ...

MR VISSER: It is a shadow?

UNKNOWN: ... it's the fact that the laser cannot pick up that part of the head.

MR VISSER: Thank you.

UNKNOWN: It is not a hole in the head, no.

MR VISSER: Right, thank you.

MR LAX: Just stop there.

MR VISSER: Could you just stop there?

MR LAX: Sorry Professor, it is Lax on the record, I am one of the Panel Members.  Are those the sorts of marks that you were talking about, the landmarks, the little dots?

UNKNOWN: Yes, these are what we would call face marks or landmarks, yes, that are placed on the face, correct.

MR LAX: Thank you.

MR VISSER: Just leave it to run from now, thank you.  Would that be the revolving to get the angulation right, which you explained earlier to us, Professor?

UNKNOWN: No, not at all.  The angulation that I explained to you was superimposition work and really had nothing to do with this reconstructive face.  All I am doing here is, I am just demonstrating the reconstructed face in different positions.

MR VISSER: Alright.  That is a photograph which you had in your possession and sent back to Dr Naidoo, is it?

UNKNOWN: That is correct, yes.

MR VISSER: Thank you.  Professor, I am advised that one must now look, when the scanning goes on, from left to right, to the right socket of the skull.  The first one lined up.  Did you notice the second eye?

UNKNOWN: Yes.

MR VISSER: Just watch it again.  That is the eye already, now we come to the socket, that one lines up perfectly.  The right eye lines up, the left eye doesn't, don't you agree with that?

UNKNOWN: My view was, when I did this and was able to see it with obviously better quality images than I can see it now, I was happy that they lined up.

MR VISSER: Let's see how we go on.  Perhaps you can now also look at the right-hand jaw.  Do you say that that lines up?

UNKNOWN: Yes, in my view it does, yes.

MR VISSER: Professor, lastly, I didn't direct your attention to it, but there also seems some doubt that the mouth actually lines up with the skull on that last superimposition, but I take it you will say that when you considered the scan, you thought it did?

UNKNOWN: You're perfectly correct, yes.

MR VISSER: We are looking at the jaw particularly now, and that is what we find.  Again do you say that that is a perfect line-up, a perfect match?

UNKNOWN: I am saying is that it certainly is an excellent match, yes, and I am quite happy with the position we placed the skull in and the matching, yes.

MR VISSER: Yes.  There is a lot to look out for, but of course the eye, you will accept that as far as the eye is concerned, that remains a problem with us and I am not going to every time refer to it, but you can perhaps look at the eye again, apart from the jaw.
	That superimposition it would appear, you did on a different photograph, one of the person looking to its left, would that be correct, not a flush-on photograph?

UNKNOWN: That is correct, yes.

MR VISSER: Would that have been the one that I showed you just a moment or two ago?

UNKNOWN: Yes, I think it was the second one you showed me.

MR VISSER: Yes, thank you.  Perhaps to save time, may I ask you, Professor, on the hypothesis that the eyes did not line up, I believe you have already stated you would have ruled it out as a match?

UNKNOWN: Correct.