Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 2000-07-25

MR VISSER: 60.  Well, forget about the weight.  We are talking about length.
	I suggest to you that anyone that wishes to maintain that these two skeletons are the same, has a serious problem in this regard.

STEPHANIE MILLER: Considering that there is a paper trail showing distinctly that this person who was given a post-mortem on that day, presuming a post-mortem was done, was buried, handed over to the hearsers, and buried in that site.

MR VISSER: In grave 343?

STEPHANIE MILLER: In 343.

MR VISSER: Yes, that is what the paper trail shows.

STEPHANIE MILLER: Which was clearly indicated when it was exhumed, as were the other graves nearby, with their numbers, and that that specific, those specific skeletal remains were then taken to the forensic laboratory and a new post-mortem done, I have no doubt it is the same person.

MR VISSER: Yes, fair enough.  And just before I forget, in that grave according to Dr Aiyer, if that is the correct pronunciation, this body was found at 1,050 m from the surface?

STEPHANIE MILLER: I did not measure it, so I cannot speak for that.

MR VISSER: You cannot,  okay.

CHAIRPERSON: It would seem that the weight, I cannot see a weight in Dr Naidoo's report, but the question of weight might not be too important, because don't know exactly how far the body had decomposed when it was buried during 1987.
	One would expect it to have been heavier than 10 years later, when decomposition was complete.

MR VISSER: For that reason I haven't put any questions on weight at all, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I am just saying that that 60 kg doesn't really assist in any way.

MR VISSER: Yes, thank you Chairperson.

MR LAX: Mr Visser, just while we are on these figures, you would expect that if a person had been measured accurately, you would have 1,60 m as would be normal, this is just 1,6, similarly with the weight, you would expect, it is highly unlikely it would have been exactly 40 or 60 kg, it would have been a few bits left over?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, with respect, the weight couldn't possibly have been measured, because it was completely decomposed.
	He could have measured the skeleton, but I have never heard of that being done and I wouldn't be certain for what purpose that would be done.  Certainly as far as the height is concerned, he finds that she is 1,6 m.

MR LAX: The point you made though, to the witness, was that this person did their job properly, but it is clear from this that they couldn't have done more than merely estimate, because these figures are not exactly accurate?

MR VISSER: But Chairperson, with great respect, I am in respectful disagreement.  The man says the skeleton was exactly 1.6 m, what is wrong with that?

MR LAX: Because normally they put additional figures to represent the centimetres and so on.

MR VISSER: Even if it does not exist?

MR LAX: Well, normally you would, you would say 1,60.

CHAIRPERSON: That is basically a question of argument now.

MR LAX: Any way, I am just putting it to you that it looks to me like an estimate, but if you are going to insist that it is accurate, then it is fine, you are entitled to that.

MR VISSER: Well, Chairperson, I am just going on what I have in front of me.  I am not assuming anything, I am just going on what I have.
	Ms Miller ...

MR LAX: Well, you see with the greatest of respect, Mr Visser, you are assuming that it wasn't measured, the weight.  The weight, it wasn't weighed.

MR VISSER: A skeleton?

MR LAX: How do you know it was a skeleton?

MR VISSER: Well, he says so, he says it is completely decomposed.

MR LAX: But there may have been other tissue available, there might have been hair, there may have been some other body tissue left?

MR VISSER: Chairperson ...

MR LAX: We are all guessing, that is why I am saying to you, it is all speculation?

MR VISSER: Yes, thank you, I hear what Commissioner Lax says, Chairperson, we will attempt to deal with that in argument when the time comes.
	Can I refer you to ... (tape ends) ... it says here as far as the chest is concerned, this is according to the report in Bundle 2, of Dr Chetty, "fractured ribs on both sides".
	You did not mention that when you spoke of your criteria, the age, the sex, the size, the level of decomposition, the dress and the fact that she was such a short person, which we have now dealt with.  Did that play any role?

STEPHANIE MILLER: I have no idea whether the fractured ribs were as a result of anti or post-mortem damage to the remains of Ms Kubheka, I cannot speak to this at all.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, sorry, this gets back to the problem that I mentioned on Friday, that I had with these two reports, page 67 to 70 and then what seems to be a typed version of the same report, because that fractured rib does not appear in the typed version.

MR VISSER: We will deal ...

CHAIRPERSON: If we look at the typed version and the written one, they are not the same in all respects.

MR VISSER: I take your point Chairperson, and we will certainly ...

MR LAX: There is one other very fundamental difference, look at the number on the top of page 69.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I am aware of all of this, I am aware of all of this.  With great respect, I will deal with this when I deal with the evidence of Dr Naidoo.  I will tell you why I am asking this question now, if you refer to Dr Aiyer's report at page 82(a), he says in the middle of the page
"... numerous fractured ribs were also noted."

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: That is the reason why I am dealing with this now.  But I will deal with Dr Aiyer and Dr Naidoo and I will certainly speak to page 69, you can be quite sure of that.

CHAIRPERSON: When the body was exhumed, Ms Miller, did you notice any broken bones?

STEPHANIE MILLER: I was not in a position to see the body at that, the remains that closely, and I wouldn't have been in a position to judge if that was anti or post-mortem.

MR VISSER: Yes.  Ms Miller, just lastly, I said to you on Friday that there are two other post-mortem instances which we want to place before you.  The one is 502 in the records which you have provided, which are now serving before the Committee.  We have made photocopies, perhaps it might assist you if we could just hand the photocopies.
	My Attorney makes a point Chairperson, and that is again the question of cluttering up the record.  Perhaps we can place this before you without handing it in as an exhibit at the moment.

CHAIRPERSON: If we could have ...

MR VISSER: The copies?

CHAIRPERSON: It is probably better to have the copies.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, while we are about this, we were also and you were also given photocopies of extracts from the mortuary records.  That has not received an exhibit number, and one wonders whether that could perhaps be called K2, pages 1 to so many?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes ...

MR VISSER: K1, you will recall was the extracts from ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the one that is in the ...

MR VISSER: Yes, and then K2 were these photocopies which we have received for the convenience of not having to refer to the record itself.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think that would probably be a convenient way of doing it, K2, these are the copies taken from mortuary registers that were handed out earlier on at the hearing.
	There is quite a large number of pages here.  I won't at this stage number them K2(1), K2(3), but they will be K2.

MR VISSER: And perhaps Chairperson, we may be allowed to add the four extra pages which we have now ...

CHAIRPERSON: As K3?

MR VISSER: No, as K2, just as ...

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, as K2, as part of K2 at the end of it?

MR VISSER: Yes.  We can even refer to them by the mortuary or the post-mortem registration number, it will be equally convenient, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So you are dealing with 502?

MR VISSER: 502 Chairperson, it is the middle of one of the pages.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I see that.