Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1992-05-12

GARY JOHN KRUSER: Mr Chairman, I want to say again that we had information, I'm just reading through the judgement itself here now.  The Judge also says it's likely that they would be rumours.  Now there can be a big debate of what rumour is and what information is and what intelligence is because I see in his judgement, I haven't read it but, looking at it he says it's quite likely there were rumours of varying reliability.  Now as a person trained in intelligence, a rumour for one person could be information for someone else and intelligence for the next person depends from which source you are getting it and what avenue the information comes to you.  I mean even based on his own findings, if I just read it my own interpretation of it - he says it's quite likely they would be rumours.  Now as an intelligence person as I say a rumour could be information, for the next intelligence officer it could be intelligence because intelligence is confirmed information.  If it's from more than two sources it could be intelligence.  I know I was informed by Commissioner Radu and later in the morning by other intelligence officers in the ANC that there was information to that effect.  Now whether you want to call it a rumour or not it depends who's receiving the information.  I mean even if I read the findings now myself there's a contradiction in terms of this whole thing myself how I interpret it and I don't think I'm a lawyer but that's how I see it as a lay person.
	To go further, I'm just reading, he says, he talks about the state of mind and I don't know whether it matters or whether information or not and whether my apprehension was because of the information or because the activities of the marchers during the day - I don't see - I'm just reading, I haven't read it before but now I had time while you asked the question.  I can't see the difference in apprehension although I know for myself that I got that information from some of my colleagues here sitting behind and from the Commissioner the late Mr Radu and I stand by the fact that I received that information but I find the judgement a bit contradictory itself as a lay person but I'm not a lawyer but I'm sure my lawyers will argue those things if they agree with me.

MR DORFLING: Mr Kruser the point I make is that your allegation that you had this, call it information, call it rumours, the so called factual basis for your background to react on that day was rejected as non-existent and as a make weight by Mr Justice Nugent.

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I'm saying to you I received the information from the late Commissioner Radu and from other intelligence operatives, that is my evidence here today.

MR DORFLING: Could we move on to page 288 of the application page 134 of the actual judgement?  At the bottom of page, last paragraph.

GARY JOHN KRUSER: Sorry, could you give me the page of the typed version, I don't have that.

MR LAX: It's 134.

MR DORFLING: At the bottom of the page, the last paragraph, Mr Justice Nugent at that point in time deals with three prominent features in the ANC's version of how things transpired on the day and he here deals with the first prominent feature.  He says "What is perhaps the most significant feature of the evidence of all of them is that they alleged that they were being fired at from amongst the crowd as it was advancing towards them in King George Street.  In our view the weight of the evidence is wholly against this.  The evidence of both Mr Von Eggerdy and Mr Diaz was that the first sound of gunfire the crowd immediately disintegrated and fled.  We have no reason to doubt this evidence and it is quite inconsistent with the version that the firing was coming from the crowd before the security guards fired.  Mr Von Eggerdy had heard about three shots being fired earlier but that was before the group had yet even converged in the intersection.  He also identified the main gunfire which he heard as having come from what he described as 'defensive positions' by which he meant the armed people he had seen south of King George Street.  The evidence of the other witnesses is all consistent with the evidence of those two witnesses on this issue and inconsistent with the evidence of the ANC guards."  Do you understand that dictum?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I understand, I think I also said here Mr Chairman that I'm prepared to - said if there's objective evidence which doesn't tally with my version of events, I'm prepared to accept that.  I however maintain that's how I saw it on the day, there's objective evidence to say it happened differently - I accept that it might have happened differently.

MR DORFLING: Can I move on to page 290, that's 136 of the actual judgement at the last paragraph on that page in which Mr Justice Nugent makes the following finding:  "The evidence of the security guards that they were being shot at from the crowd as it advanced up King George Street stands quite alone. Apart from this, the versions of these witnesses in relation to the gunfire which was alleged to have come from the crowd were in various respects improbable and irreconcilable in to say or with other acceptable evidence.  Prima facie, the evidence on this issue was not truthful which inevitably casts doubt upon the remainder of the evidence as to how and why the shooting took place.  The overall weight of the evidence point prima facie to the conclusion that the shooting was initiated by heavy firing by the ANC guards at the south western corner of Shell House."
	  You've already agreed that the objective ballistic evidence supports that conclusion, is that correct?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I don't think that's what I said.

MR DORFLING: Let me rephrase it - the ballistic evidence shows no proof or shows no support for the version put forward by the ANC at the time of the inquest proceedings?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: It shows no support for the fact that gunfire was directed in my direction.

MR DORFLING: It furthermore appears from the evidence of the witnesses which are mentioned here and which I've mentioned to you - some police officials, some army officials as well as outstanders or objective witnesses - Diaz, Von Eggerdy and Mr Da Silva - that the finding by Mr Justice Nugent is supported by those witnesses.

MR TIPP: Mr Chairman, evidence is being placed before the Committee now in respect implicitly of the credibility of a number of witnesses who are being enumerated by Mr Dorfling.  Other than Mr Von Eggerdy who was accepted by all parties as having been a credible witness and whose evidence could strongly be relied upon, the other witnesses were all challenged and Mr Chairman, I can assure you that substantial submissions were made in respect of their credibility and their contractions.  We would be most loath, Mr Chairman, to be drawn into a situation in the course of these proceedings to cross-examination of this sort of having to debate all that unnecessarily and unproductively before this Committee.

MR DORFLING: Mr Chairman, if I may just try and explain why I'm putting - I want the witness to have the opportunity to either disagree or agree with these findings.  His version was found to be untruthful, his version was rejected by Mr Justice Nugent and this is now an opportunity for the witness to say those findings are not correct, I do not agree with that and the evidence will then at the end of these proceedings show whether the findings were indeed correct or not.  I'm putting to the Committee that at the conclusion of these proceedings those will be my submissions I make and I would like the witness to have a fair opportunity to respond to these submissions I want to make.