Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 2000-07-27

S R NAIDOO: What I'm simply saying is that you've got a lot of features, age, sex, race, stature, etcetera, ...(indistinct) dental age and cranifacial identification, that they support the speculative identification for the alleged person.  There is no feature that does not support it, there's no non-corresponding feature.  For want of a better word ...(intervention)

MR LAX: What do you mean "speculative identification"?

S R NAIDOO: Okay.  The putative identification of this woman is that of Ntombi Kubheka.

MR LAX: So all you mean is that it's a work in progress towards identification?

S R NAIDOO: That's right.

MR LAX: Have I understood that right?  Is that the sense that you mean speculative?

S R NAIDOO: Well the alleged person, the alleged person Ntombi Kubheka, that's what's given to us, and now my role was to determine if there's a match and all the features that I found do match that of the alleged deceased, Ntombi Kubheka.  And besides the medical aspects, age, race, sex, stature, there are the issue of clothing, which I don't want to go into, but then of course cranifacial identification.  All these aspects do match those of the deceased, alleged deceased.

MR LAX: Right.

S R NAIDOO: Nothing, there's nothing that I've found or nothing that was found by others whom I sent things to test for, that amounted to a non-match or a clear non-correspondence that would amount to a different person completely.

MR LAX: Right.  I'm asking you about one other factor which you can tell me whether it's scientifically valid or not, but as a lay person looking at the other family members, would that amount, in your experience as a scientist, to an additional factor that might further corroborate the identity here?

S R NAIDOO: Yes, yes, simply on the matter of height.  My findings, an independent finding was that this is a short individual.  And for that matter, it does - simply on the height alone there is a genetic tendency in this family to be short, at least this particular generation of siblings to be short and that does a match, that's match.

MR LAX: Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Bosman, do you have any questions?

ADV BOSMAN: I don't have any.

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any questions arising out of questions that have been put by the Panel?

MR VISSER: Unfortunately, Chairperson.
	Can you just tell us, Lundi's Formula, does that apply without discrimination to all race groups in the world?

S R NAIDOO: No, Lundi's got two formulas, one's for South African black males and the other one is for South African black females.  Similarly I think you mentioned Trott ...(indistinct) formula.

MR VISSER: Yes.

S R NAIDOO: These formulas are based on similar formulas applied to the American males, American females, American white males, American white females and American black males and American black females.  So I understand that Lundi devised in similar fashion, the mathematical formula for the South African blacks.

MR VISSER: Yes.  Lastly, I read to Prof Vanezis a paragraph from "An Introduction to Forensic Sciences", the paper and Iskan and Loth and in regard to the last question put by Mr Lax, I just want to read to you this at page 346 of Exhibit O.  The last paragraph says
"All skeletal assessments begin with what Kroggman referred to as the "Big Four", age, sex, race and stature."
Have you got it?

S R NAIDOO: Sorry, which page was that?

CHAIRPERSON: Page 346 of Exhibit O.  Whereabout on the page? Can you indicate the portion, top or bottom?  Towards the bottom.

MR VISSER: It's on the page opposite where you will see a drawing of a skeleton.  Have you got it?

S R NAIDOO: Yes, yes I have.

MR VISSER: I continue.
"Each characteristic narrows the pool of possible matches considerably, sex alone cuts it by half.  If a skeleton is complete and undamaged, these attributes can be assessed with great accuracy.  Using the latest techniques, sex can be determined with certainty.  Age estimated, to within about five years and stature approximated with a standard deviation of about 1,5 inches, 3,5 centimetres."
Would you agree with that?

S R NAIDOO: Are you asking me to agree with those figures?

MR VISSER: I'm asking whether you can agree with that, or do agree with that.

S R NAIDOO: I haven't looked at - what I would have to do is look at his references.

MR VISSER: Yes.

S R NAIDOO: You see, because if he found - if we find that this book deals with references or refers to work that was done very much more recent, more recent work that gives you more data, then that would be fine, then that would be an advance.  This is a scientific advance.

MR VISSER: Can I then ask you the question I asked you before, and this is going to be my last question.  Can you point at any factor, characteristic, ideosyncracy, call it what you like, in a body which, or the skeleton which you examined, that is such an individualistic factor that you could say this was the body of Ntombi Kubheka?

S R NAIDOO: Are you referring to my experience?

CHAIRPERSON: This particular post-mortem that you did on number 1155.

S R NAIDOO: No, there is no particular and unique criterion that I have identified, that would tell us that it's definitely her.  There was no positive.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Any further questions arising out of questions that have been put by the Panel?

MR SAMUEL: Doctor, you have seen the post-mortem report by Dr Chetty, that's PM580.

S R NAIDOO: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Alright.  And you received some remains where you were asked to do a post-mortem.

S R NAIDOO: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Alright.  Was there any doubt in your mind that you did not receive the correct remains, that the remains that you had after you did the post-mortem, was that it did not belong to PM580?

S R NAIDOO: No, it gave me no reason to doubt that whatsoever.

MR SAMUEL: I see.  For all intents and purposes then, in your mind, the post-mortem that was conducted by Dr Chetty, related to the remains that you conducted ...

S R NAIDOO: Yes, it was.

MR SAMUEL: Despite the height differences?

S R NAIDOO: At the time of my post-mortem examination I don't think I had sight, I don't believe I had sight of Dr Chetty's original report.

MR SAMUEL: But now that you've seen the report and you notice the height difference, is there any doubt in your mind?

S R NAIDOO: No, there still doesn't appear to be good reason to believe that it might have been a different body.

MR SAMUEL: Thank you.  Thank you, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR SAMUEL

MR LAX: Just one thing arising, Chair.
	It's been put to you that Dr Chetty performed a post-mortem, do you think he performed a post-mortem, as you would have performed a post-mortem?

S R NAIDOO: Yes you know, with due respect to a colleague, and I must express this because I have been asked, I don't believe that was post-mortem examination.  If that amounts to a post-mortem examination, then it's a post-mortem inspection, not a post-mortem examination.  If it can be at all an inspection.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  No further questions?  Doctor Naidoo, thank you, that concludes your testimony, subject to what we said yesterday.  And I'd also like to thank you for coming without any prior notice, so promptly.  Thank you.

S R NAIDOO: Thank you.
WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Is there anymore evidence to be led at this stage?  Oh yes, sorry, we have here I see placed before us, a statement by Insp Andrew Attie Moolan, what is the status of this?  Is this ...  Does everybody have a copy of this?

MS THABETHE: Yes, I did not wish to call him as a witness, but I wanted to place this on record.

MR LAX: Before we read it, is everyone in agreement that we should read it, that's going to be properly before us?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I'll go further than that, we have no objection to you accepting this as evidence.