Special Hearings — Helderberg Flight Special Hearing — 1998-06-01

CHAIRPERSON: There were two tapes, the one you gave DCA, which is why they returned it to say, look there's nothing on this tape, it was because it was not the tape in issue.  If you want to place that in contest, if you are contesting that, then maybe do so as you answer questions that are being put to you.  I think there are two propositions now, when you continue to say the tape was returned and it was returned by DCA on the basis that it contained nothing, he is in the in the clause of putting questions to you, saying it was the wrong tape which is why it was being returned to you, and that is why the tape that was in issue became an issue because people then began to say, look you have given us a wrong tape because it is not relevant to the day in question, give us the correct tape, and then was the occasion for you to say, by the way that tape has been run over.  That's where the controversies has lied all along, but then let's take it step by step, Dr Klatzow, I don't want to break your trend of trying to build up to whatever points you want to build up, but I just wanted to say to Mr Mitchell, maybe you should give yourself time to listen what he's asking, and not anticipate where he's trying to get to because once you begin to anticipate you'll find that you are answering questions that are anticipated and the you reply to questions that have not been put.  And I think what is troubling you is that you preceded in the whole enquiry by proposing a theory that says there was an open decision, because on the basis of what - of the experience that you are talking about.  Disabuse your mind for the moment of anything that you have ...(indistinct) of a type of theory and try and see if, you know, in the course of, you know, a controlled conversation of this nature, you are going to be able to concede or still take the views that put, but don't anticipate questions.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Thank you, Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Dr Klatzow?

DR KLATZOW: Back where we were.  Captain Mitchell, there was a hot debate in Margo's court about the disappearing tape.  You could provide that court with at least one step of the path of that tape.  You did not do so, is there a reason?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: No.

DR KLATZOW: Furthermore, will you concede that your version that the tape was accidentally overtaped is highly unlikely, because Cedric Puckrin is well-known to me.  Had he been provided with that evidence he would have said, bring me the tape, I'll show it to the Judge and that would have been put to the Judge that it had been overtaped.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: I'm not aware of what Mr Puckrin would have done.

DR KLATZOW: I am aware that he would have done that, because it is the obvious thing to have and only a fool wouldn't have done it, and Puckrin is no fool.  That is the thing to have done, and yet Margo was left with the impression that it was either overtaped or mysteriously disappeared.  Why did you never correct that?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Probably because what the Commissioner said, I had a preconception, that I know from my experience, that there was nothing ...(intervention)

DR KLATZOW: So are we to believe that you gave Margo evidence based on your preconceptions?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: On my experience.

DR KLATZOW: On your preconceptions are the words you used, you had a preconceived notion that there was nothing on that tape, having never listened to it.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: And also having read the log.

DR KLATZOW: Only read the log?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Yes, correct.

DR KLATZOW: Now, Captain Mitchell,

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Yes, sir?

DR KLATZOW: Were you ever phoned by me in my capacity as an investigator for the Sunday Star, in Mauritius?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: You mean in Mauritius?

DR KLATZOW: Yes.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Yes, we spoke ...(intervention)

DR KLATZOW: Have you had a conversation with me?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Yes.

DR KLATZOW: Did I raise the issue of a tape with you before?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Did you phone once or twice?

DR KLATZOW: I phoned you twice.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: One in Jo'burg here?

DR KLATZOW: No, in Mauritius.  Did you ever - do you remember that I raised the issue to you relating to the tape with you?  If you can't remember, I'll provide you the transcript of the conversation, because I tape-recorded it.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Really?

DR KLATZOW: Yes.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Okay.

DR KLATZOW: Do you remember ...(intervention)

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: ...(inaudible)

DR KLATZOW: Do you remember that I said to you, what did you tell the Margo Enquiry, and you said to me at the time, and I'm going to quote you closely, you said,
"What I say now is exactly what I told the Margo Commission."
What did you tell the Margo Commission about that tape?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Well, when you say the Margo Commission, I probably ...(intervention)

DR KLATZOW: The Margo Enquiry, under oath in court, what did you tell them?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: I don't think they asked me about that in court, Dr.

DR KLATZOW: You told them nothing, Mr Mitchell, absolutely nothing.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: That's just what I'm agreeing with you.

DR KLATZOW: Why did you then tell me in my previous conversation with you that you would say exactly the same before?  Did you mean to me that you would say nothing?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: I put Rene van Zyl and the enquiry in the same discussion as the whole process of looking into the accident.

DR KLATZOW: Yes.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: So I would have seen that as one.

DR KLATZOW: Yes.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Rene wasn't South African Airways, he was doing the duty of the State, and that's Judge Margo too, so those are together, that's not part of South African Airways.

DR KLATZOW: Now Jimmy Deal had something else very interesting to say,

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Yes, sir.

DR KLATZOW: He said to me that he handed the tape into your hand and that you were in the company of Gert van der Veer and Malherbe, their legal advisor.  Do you deny that?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: I don't - I very clearly - had they been standing - no, Dicky Rouxcastle was with me, no.  Rouxcastle was with me when ...(intervention)

DR KLATZOW: And you never gave it to Van der Veer?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: No, definitely not, categorically not.

DR KLATZOW: Let me canvass another point with you, does the name Jimmy Mouton mean anything in your life?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Yes, he went to school with me.

DR KLATZOW: What was his function at the Airways?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Flight Engineer.

DR KLATZOW: Did he fly with you?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Oh, lots.

DR KLATZOW: Did you know him well?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Very well.

DR KLATZOW: Was he a good man?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Yes, Jimmy's a good chap.

DR KLATZOW: Was he a fool?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Well, you know, I've known Jimmy a long time and he's a good man.

DR KLATZOW: He's a good man?  Did he have extensive cockpit experience?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Yes.

DR KLATZOW: Was he an irrational man?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Did you say irrational?

DR KLATZOW: Irrational.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: He's not irrational, he's ...(intervention)

DR KLATZOW: He's a man who ...(intervention)

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: He's excitable.

DR KLATZOW: I understand that.  Did you know a man called Judge Bredas?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Yes.

DR KLATZOW: Did you know Peter de Beer?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Yes, that's all the Union.

DR KLATZOW: Did you know Ray Scott?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: They all of the Union, yes.

DR KLATZOW: Correct.  Were they fools?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: No, the were normal Flight Engineers.

DR KLATZOW: They were good Flight Engineers, they were men with whom the safety of passengers was entrusted, almost to the same extent as a pilot on an aircraft.