Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-05-14

JUDGE WILSON: : But he didn't know when he took the articles. He couldn't identify them. He took what he thought may have been. You were not in a position to identify were you. You didn't know what belonged to the deceased. You took what you thought had belonged to him, is that no so?
INSP. DE LA REY: That is quite correct, Your Honour. You will note that the arrests were just less than two days after the murder of the deceased and at that stage one didn't have any idea of what had been stolen, so it was impossible for me and the same applies to any other case, it is impossible to identify the property. All that I can say is that all the possible articles relating to this case, these articles were confiscated and once they had been identified then you can deal with it further. It is correct as you have explained.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Were you with Mrs - I assume you were not with Mrs May?
INSP. DE LA REY: Not on the day that the arrests were made. At a later stage after we had sorted out all the evidence and the articles, she came to my office to identify the items which concerned her. At the stage of the arrests, as you will know it is impossible to take a witness with you when you are busy arresting somebody because it can be a very dangerous situation.
ADV. MTHEMBU: . . . (inaudible) groceries was not in the boot as the accused say and if the groceries was in the house in the kitchen as you say, how could you possibly identify grocery as belonging to the deceased and not to the household concerned?
INSP. DE LA REY: Mr Chairperson, at all the different houses and it is not only one particular house where groceries were found and confiscated, it is coincidental that the deceased had gone to do shopping on the same day which he was murdered and it had been at one specific supermarket where he had done his shopping and all those which I found had the same labels the same boutiques of the shopping centre and that immediately confirmed to me that these were the groceries of the deceased and that is why I didn't confiscate those ones. The deceased and the lady who stayed with the deceased also identified this as property which articles which they had bought the same day, so it wasn't just one house where there were groceries it was at the house of accused No. 3's common-law wife's mother and also 337 K as well as accused 1's brother's house, so the kind of articles which I found and confiscated were the same as those which the deceased had bought that day that he was murdered and it is on that basis that the articles were identified as being the deceased property.
ADV. MTHEMBU: So, you had fore knowledge that the deceased had bought some groceries from a well known supermarket?
INSP. DE LA REY: Yes, that is correct. During the investigation one does a lot of inquiries and we found out from the people that had gone to buy groceries that specific day and Mrs May also told me at a later stage that they had gone to get groceries in Bloemfontein. That is the whole reason why they wanted to come to Bloemfontein on that particular day of the murder, to buy groceries, so I did know more or less what I was looking for but I could see that firearms were missing from the safe after going through the identify document of the deceased. I knew there had to be groceries because they had gone to buy groceries.
ADV. MTHEMBU: And before of that fore knowledge when you got into the various houses, and you found some groceries with the label from that well known supermarket, you suspected that that could have well have been groceries that had been bought by the deceased?
INSP. DE LA REY: Very definitely, yes.

JUDGE WILSON: : As I understand your affidavit, what in fact happened was at House 1766 you were given a blue carry bag by Alice Tlakane(?) in which the groceries were and that she then later gave you a plastic bag also containing groceries. Is that so?
INSP. DE LA REY: That is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: : You set this out in paragraph 20.
INSP. DE LA REY: That is quite correct, Mr Chairperson. Their groceries in the black bag were hidden in the room and the other.
ADV. DE JAGER: And in the same case where their groceries were, in the same bag there were two men's watches, one with the deceased's name on and the other with Mrs May's name on?
INSP. DE LA REY: That is correct. Mr May's particular's, her husband's particulars, I can't remember exactly but there were those particulars on them. It is unfortunate so that in the bags of groceries there were other things which could be identified positively as belonging to the deceased or Mrs May.
ADV. MTHEMBU: . . . (inaudible) take the point raised by Judge Ngoepe further for example the white pillow. On what basis would you have said that this white pillow belonged to the deceased?
INSP. DE LA REY: Are you referring to the white pillow which was confiscated at 337 K?
ADV. MTHEMBU: Paragraph 32 . . . it doesn't say, it just says at 1 o'clock, oh yes, I assumed it was House 337. Did that pillow have any distinguishing marks for you to say that it belonged to the deceased?
INSP. DE LA REY: The reason why I confiscated this particular pillow was because accused No. 2 handed it to me along with the shoes and he said it was part of the property which had been taken from the deceased's home and that is why I also took the pillow because he gave it to me with the shoes and later it was identified positively as being the deceased's property.
ADV. MTHEMBU: But Inspector, Mr Nkgwedi says that the pair of brown shoes were his. He said that in modus operandi, in that bedroom, at house No. 337, was that anything that you saw as being new or as being of quality, you just said it could not belong to them. It could only be the late Mr Fourie's property.
INSP. DE LA REY: That is not correct Mr Chairperson. The accused at No. 337 K and all the other cases voluntarily, I asked them what they had taken and it was just part of investigation, you ask people what else they took from the deceased's home and then the accused gets it out and as he took out the pillow and the shoes, accused No. 3 again took out the knife from the bag and it was after what I had asked them that they handed these articles to me. It is not so that I said yes because it is an expensive article it can't belong to them, that is not correct.
ADV. MTHEMBU: The applicants say that after the arrest of accused No. 4, Mr Magoda, that you actually didn't go back to House 337, but that instead you went to K Section at Leon Bottle Store where you went to go and buy liquor and from there you went to Bloemfontein. I am sorry.
INSP. DE LA REY: Mr Chairperson, that is not at all true, as I have in my statement, you will notice that the course of time which expired was brief and to move between sections takes a lot of time and if you look at the time which expired there wasn't time to do other things, it was a matter of moving front one point to another and then back to that point. That kept us busy, there wasn't time for other things.
ADV. MTHEMBU: The articles mentioned in paragraph 21, Mr May says that he didn't provide you with any information but that these articles were found by the police in the vehicle.
INSP. DE LA REY: Could you please repeat your question. You have spoken about Mr May and the place where I found the items mentioned in paragraph 21 was at the home of accused No. 4, Mr Magoda and that's not where Mr May lives.
ADV. MTHEMBU: My paragraph 24 you say that as . . .

JUDGE WILSON: : Paragraph 21 you were asking him about.
ADV. MTHEMBU: No Mr Chair, I said specifically, I mentioned paragraph 24.

JUDGE WILSON: : You may have meant to, I don't think you did and the witness didn't think you did either.