Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-05-14

JUDGE WILSON: : As I understand your evidence, it was the car you found, not Mr May. Mr May then appeared on the scene when he started running away and that is when you got him. It was the car that you found at that address which you then identified as a stolen vehicle?
INSP. DE LA REY: That is correct Mr Chairperson. The car that actually led us to arresting accused No. 1 and the other persons. After I found the car there and identified it as being the accused missing vehicle that is where the whole thing originated, from there the arrests of 1, 2, 3 and 4 followed.
ADV. MTHEMBU: On paragraph 17, Inspector, Mr Nkgwedi and Mr Leeuw, they deny that they gave you information to go to House No. 3269 but that the information relating to accused No. 4 was given to you by Mr May?
INSP. DE LA REY: Mr Chairperson, accused 1, 2 and 3 gave me information and the address 1684 K. Accused 4 was not found there and there we were given a report that he was at another house visiting and another person then led us to address 3269. In that house accused 1, 2 and 3 then took me to the home of the accused No. 4 although at that stage he wasn't there somebody else we found at the house took us to this other address where we then found accused No. 4.
ADV. MTHEMBU: At that stage, Inspector, where you aware if money had also being taken during the robbery or not?
INSP. DE LA REY: That is correct, Mr Chairperson. There was a sum of money and if I remember it was about R500.00 in cash that was taken during the robbery.
ADV. MTHEMBU: And when accused No. 4 was arrested you found the sum of R102.85c in his person. Is that correct?
INSP. DE LA REY: That is correct, Mr Chair.
ADV. MTHEMBU: And did you ask him whose money it was?
INSP. DE LA REY: I did ask him and that is how I also took possession of it because it was mentioned to me that it was money coming from the deceased house and on the grounds of that I seized this money.
ADV. MTHEMBU: Accused No. 4 says that it was his personal money and it had nothing to do with the money taken from the house during the robbery.
INSP. DE LA REY: That is not right. Accused No. 4 told me that it was money which they had found in the deceased house and that is why I then confiscated the money. He did not tell me that it was his personal property.
ADV. MTHEMBU: When Elizabeth Nglani handed over to you the blue plastic bag were the accused present or not?
INSP. DE LA REY: At that stage it was just accused No. 3's wife who was in the house because the space was very limited and it wasn't possible to have everybody in the house. She went in and made a report and the goods were handed over to us.
ADV. MTHEMBU: All the four applicants say that they do not know where you found this blue plastic bag and avail that this plastic bag was also in the car?
INSP. DE LA REY: Mr Chairperson, that is not so, the bag was with accused No. 3's common-law wife that was at home 469 E and we came out with the bag and the accused must have seen the bag at that point because the evidence had been identified and marked already and placed in the vehicle and accused No. 3 was in the vehicle at the time so he must have seen this bag with us.
ADV. DE JAGER: How far was this house where the bag was found at 1684 K. Accused 4's home is that correct. I beg your pardon, 1766 C. the bag was handed to you from the house where the motor vehicle had been parked.

JUDGE WILSON: : It was handed over at 496 wasn't it, this plastic bag?
INSP. DE LA REY: That is correct, in the E Section.

JUDGE WILSON: : And at 1766 it was a "blou drasak".
INSP. DE LA REY: That is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: : We are talking about the plastic bag now at 496. You are talking about the plastic bag aren't you?
ADV. MTHEMBU: With due respect, it is my mistake, Mr Chairperson.

JUDGE WILSON: : Did you not mean to talk about the plastic bag found at 496?
ADV. MTHEMBU: No, I meant to talk about the blue bag

JUDGE WILSON: : Drasak?
ADV. MTHEMBU: Blue drasak.
ADV. DE JAGER: Can you give us an indication of how far these two houses were. The one where the car was parked and the other one where the blue carry-bag with the goods mentioned in paragraph 20 was found. How far are these two houses from each other.
INSP. DE LA REY: Mr Chairperson, it is difficult to estimate the distance, they are in two different sections, Montebello(?) has numerous sections, D and E are basically next to each other, but if I have to guess it could be between 5 and 10 kilometres.
ADV. MTHEMBU: Inspector, Mr Leeuw says that the items mentioned in paragraph 20 were actually found at House No. 337 in the kitchen in a sink and that the grocery items mentioned in there were actually found in the boot of the car.
INSP. DE LA REY: Mr Chairperson, that is not correct. You will notice later on in my statement that I mention evidence which was found at 337 K and these items were found at House, the house of the grandmother and the common-law wife's mother. As I have made a note in my statement this is how the items were found. It was not at 337 K.
ADV. MTHEMBU: Amongst the items mentioned in paragraph 21, items No. 4 and 5. Were these also part of the articles that were removed from the deceased farm or not?
INSP. DE LA REY: No, Mr Chairperson, these were not part of it, it was the property of accused No. 4 according to his own version.
ADV. MTHEMBU: Inspector, did you not deem it or at the time deem it necessary to mention if an article belonged to the deceased or not that in the manner in which this letter has been compiled it is misleading. For instance, articles 21 (4) and (5) on reading your statement, one gets the impression that these also formed part of items removed from the deceased's farm.
INSP. DE LA REY: No, I cannot agree. A full list has been compiled. It was filed and it has been attached to the charge sheet because these persons appeared in court. There was property which was missing and there was property which was recovered, so I cannot agree that it is misleading because in the file and in the possession of the court and the documents which were handed in there, this list of property which was missing and recovered was given and all the evidence relevant to that matter was submitted in court and it was tabled there so in my opinion it is not misleading.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: But I think the Advocate is, his question is, looking at the statement itself without consulting the docket without consulting any other document if you simply look at your statement itself, without going outside your statement, an impression is created of the kind that he is explaining. I mean, on the face of your statement.
INSP. DE LA REY: I will agree with you that if somebody were to read my statement perhaps to them it would be misleading, but to me it is not misleading.
ADV. MTHEMBU: But you agree, Inspector, it would have been expedient for you to separate articles that belonged to the deceased and articles that belonged to the applicants or the accused?
INSP. DE LA REY: Mr Chairperson. Yes, as I have already mentioned, one could have done this in the statement but unfortunately it wasn't done in this way and I felt that the lists which I compiled additional were quite adequate.

JUDGE WILSON: : It would have been expedient perhaps to have later in the statement said on investigation it was found that the following articles did not belong to the deceased, which you would have complained even more bitterly I have no doubt, if he had taken goods away belonging to your clients and had not listed them as have being taken, would you? The failure is not at the end of it, after the identification to have prepared a short list and said the following items were not identified as belonging to the deceased?
ADV. MTHEMBU: Or further, Mr Chair, to have made an addendum to the very statement that articles listed in certain paragraphs were not of the deceased but of the applicants.