Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 2000-07-24

MR VISSER: Yes, thank you.  Just the last point here is, as far as DNA testing is concerned, if one did not have a record of the deceased, and you for example took a sample of a living close relative, I am informed that the only purpose that you could achieve would be an exclusion factor, in other words, to be able to say "this relative is not a relative of the deceased", but not vice versa to say "this relative is in fact a relative of the deceased"?  Would that be correct?

UNKNOWN: Now you are getting to the point where it becomes difficult for me.

MR VISSER: Okay.

UNKNOWN: ...(indistinct)

MR VISSER: All right, it is not that important, thank you very much, Professor.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Mr Samuel, do you have any questions you would like to put?

MR SAMUEL: No questions.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR SAMUEL

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe, do you have any questions you would like to put to the Professor?

MS THABETHE: Yes Mr Chair, thank you.
	Professor Vanezis, in this case of Ntombi Kubheka where a DNA test has been unsuccessful, we have failed to get a dental ...

UNKNOWN: I cannot hear you.  I am very sorry, I cannot hear a thing, you have to speak up, I'm afraid.

MS THABETHE: Okay, I will start again.  I am saying in this situation, or in this case of Ntombi Kubheka where we have failed or where we have failed to get a successful match in the DNA test, the same applies with dental and fingerprints experts, would you say it is reasonable for us to rely on your expert evidence on the facial reconstruction?

UNKNOWN: From the point of view that you have no other available evidence at this time, you can make some kind of judgement as to the likelihood of the identity but you cannot positively, a hundred percent, identify just from my technique alone.

MS THABETHE: Thank you.   You have also indicated in  your report that it is highly likely that this is Ntombi Kubheka, what I want to find out is what made you to reach a conclusion that it is highly likely as opposed to a positive identification?

UNKNOWN: I have done many cases of superimposition and from my experience of matching people and looking at exclusions and so on, it is my judgement, my opinion that there will be, because there was an excellent match of the superimposition to the skull of the photograph, it was my view that it would put it into the bracket of being "highly likely".  And looking at two views as well, not just one picture, but looking at two views of a same face, one slightly different, one at a different angle.

MS THABETHE: Just to further that question, what would it have taken you to reach a decision that it is a positive match?  What would you have required?

UNKNOWN: Yes, the only thing I would be - if I was to say it was a positive match, what I would have needed would have been some highly significant abnormalities, say on the teeth, a chip on the tooth or something like that, with the face smiling and one able to see the two images of the tooth on the skull and a tooth in the mouth.  Or a very, very close mouth formation, say even from an old fracture of the skull, which may have reflected itself in the photograph.  That's the kind of thing, but there wasn't anything individualising like that, to be positive.

MS THABETHE: Thank you.   What would you say to an argument that any African female person's photograph would have been taken and the likelihood would have been a match?  What would your response be to an argument like that?

UNKNOWN: Can you say that again, I want to get this right, I didn't quite hear the beginning.

MS THABETHE: Okay, what would be your response to an argument that you could have taken any photograph of a female African and it could have given you, the likelihood is that it could have given you the same match?  What is the possibility or the probabilities of that?

UNKNOWN: Well, I have looked at a lot of faces and a lot of skulls, we're all individuals, if we look at our contours on our skulls and our faces, there are slight differences which we can see.  In my view, if the person is of the same race, there is still a lot of variation between people of the same race, which one can pick up.  We are all individuals and all I would say to that is, that I would still say that this was highly probable it was of this person, based on what I have done and based on the contour matching that I have carried out.
	I have done, I also looked at skulls of other races as well, I look for example at South Americans from Chile and the same thing applies there.  And then other groups, I've looked at Sri Lankans and again the same thing applies there.  So everybody as individual within that racial group, the same standards apply.  Obviously if you have, say a European and comparing it with an African skull, there are things you will pick up on the skull anyway, regardless of the facial features, which will tell you they are different.  So I have no problem with looking at images from people from the same race, and drawing conclusions like the one that I have.

MS THABETHE: What about images from people who are related, would there still be distinct features between people who are related?

UNKNOWN: Sometimes there are some slight features which are similar, but there is enough information to show enough dissimilarity between them, so that you can pick up.

MS THABETHE: Professor Vanezis, my learned friend, Adv Visser has referred to Dr Loth, I just wanted to find out, in our own opinion, or if it is a fact you can say so that it is a fact, as an Anthropologist, would Dr Loth have an experience in giving expert evidence on facial reconstruction?

UNKNOWN: I am sorry, I didn't catch that very well at all, all I heard was facial reconstruction, I am sorry.

MS THABETHE: Would Dr Loth who is an Anthropologist, have experience in giving expert evidence on facial reconstruction?

UNKNOWN: Sorry who?  You said who was ...(indistinct) the person.  Sorry, I didn't catch that one.

MS THABETHE: Dr Loth, Dr Loth?

UNKNOWN: Mr who?  Loth?

MS THABETHE: Yes.

UNKNOWN: Dr Loth?

MS THABETHE: Yes.

UNKNOWN: Right, okay.  If she what, sorry, I haven't ...

MR LAX: The question that is being put to you - it's Lax here on the Panel, Professor, does Dr Loth have sufficient experience as a Forensic Anthropologist to be able to do these kinds of analyses, facial reconstructions and superimpositions, and to be an expert ...(intervention)

UNKNOWN: I am not sure, I cannot answer that question.

MR LAX: ... and to be an expert witness?

UNKNOWN: I cannot answer that question, I am not sure, all I know is she has published in the field, but I really don't know.

MR LAX: Thank you.

MS THABETHE: Maybe just to put you at the corner a bit, would you say in terms of experience, who is more experienced in this field between you and her?

UNKNOWN: I am probably the wrong person to answer that question, if you're saying what I mean, I think that is really for the Court to decide, not for me to say.

MS THABETHE: Okay, I won't push it any further.  Just the last question, we are going to argue that the skull that you made a facial reconstruction from, is the skull belonging to Ntombi Kubheka and on the basis of your finding, that it is highly likely that the skull is part of Ntombi Kubheka's remains, can one argue that it is highly probable that the skull is Ntombi Kubheka, based on your findings?

UNKNOWN: I would like to leave that with the phraseology that I have used, that it is highly likely, and it is for you and others to put other evidence together, to corroborate what I have said.

MS THABETHE: Thank you, Professor Vanezis.  Thank you Mr Chair.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS THABETHE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.   Mr Lax, do you have any questions you would like to put to the Professor?