Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 2000-07-24

UNKNOWN: I am reasonably familiar with Iskan and Helmer's book, because I reviewed it for one of the journals a few years ago, there are a number of different articles which state a number of different opinions in that book, as you would appreciate once you peruse it, and there is quite a lot of repetition as well, which sometimes is a good thing in a book like that.  But I have to say at the end of the day, the technique that we use, we're quite happy with and we're fairly rigorous in what we carry out, and because - we don't use radiography, because radiography, I believe is not relevant to these particular images, but if you use radiography, then there are different issues involved.
	On would need to have a much fuller discussion on that area if that is what you point to, but I would need to have the book in front of me as well to refer to it.

MR VISSER: Yes, I was suggesting that we go to Glasgow, but that suggestion fell on deaf ears, so we will have to make do with what we've got, Professor.

UNKNOWN: Okay, no problem.

MR VISSER: In any event, at 180 the authors also say this, they say
"... if all visible targets are completely superimposed, using our system of standards, it can be considered a positive identification."
That is the 58, they say if they are completely superimposed, then it is positive. 
"... on the other hand, a match is ruled out if two or more targets cannot be superimposed."
and then it says ...
"... finally, when only one target does not fit, the possibility of identification exists."
So coming back to the categories, he says if there is one that does not fit, it is still a possible, when two don't fit, it is out.
Would you go along with that in principle?

UNKNOWN: This is entirely arbitrary, this is work that's been carried out by some Chinese workers in Tailing city, Lan and others, and it is based on Chinese standards and looking at radiography in Chinese subjects in all the Chinese over a period of time, and basing it on their work.  We in fact tried to repeat their works and we found that we couldn't.  Personally I think quite frankly, what they are suggesting is perhaps too rigorous and your word "over-kill", I think is quite appropriate in its use.  I think one has to use one's judgement with these sort of cases, and that is precisely what we did.  We are obviously aware of all the different methods involved, but at the end of the day, we use a method which we happy with and we stick by it.  And that is how we do it.

MR VISSER: Well, it is my job to ...(intervention)

UNKNOWN: ...(indistinct) different. I'm just saying, if an expert sometimes uses slightly different methods for, you know - if you talk to, if you actually talk to the Chinese researchers, they will tell you that they get positive identification every time, in most cases.  ...(indistinct) which cannot be the case.  I certainly have some doubts.

MR VISSER: Yes, well, thankfully you didn't come to a positive identification, otherwise we would have been here for a few days.  But what you are saying, we already have enough trouble with each other because you said it is highly likely.

UNKNOWN: That is right.

MR VISSER: What I am going to suggest to you now is what follows from Iskan and Loth which I started reading to you, is the following.  It says
"... even if there appears (and I am talking about superimposition all the time) even if there appears to be a strong probability, classification must be in this category."
I am sorry, I am told I have left out a sentence, may I start over again.  It says -
"... even if there appears to be a strong probability of a match, without a unique feature to set that individual apart, the final classification must be in this category, that being of indeterminate or inconclusive."

UNKNOWN: Well I mean, that is their view, my view is ...(indistinct) positive identification, but I don't agree with them with the concept of indeterminate.  Indeterminate means you just don't know, and I don't think we are in that situation here.

MR VISSER: Yes.  But it is something stronger than possible?

UNKNOWN: Well again, if we define the word possible, I mean you propose the four different categories and you said possible and I questioned you about the flexibility of possible, I would say from my point of view, if we're looking at the degree, or should we say of a probability of it being the same person, then to my mind it is pretty high, but not positive.

MR VISSER: Not positive.  Yes.  Would you allow me a moment to see whether there is anything else that I have to take up with you now.
	How many photographs did you receive of Ntombi Kubheka?

UNKNOWN: I know I used two, I think I received, I sent them all back actually, it was four I think, I recall four, they may be repeats of the same view, but not as clear, but certainly I know I used two, two ...(indistinct) were used.

MR VISSER: And would they have been sent back to Dr Naidoo?

UNKNOWN: That is correct, yes, sent back to him, yes.

MR VISSER: On the photograph which you used on the video, would it be correct to say that the outlines on that photograph were rather fuzzy?

UNKNOWN: Let's put it this way, they weren't crisp as you would expect, you know the best photograph photographic quality images, but they were adequate.

MR VISSER: Yes.

UNKNOWN: If you say they were fuzzy, the degree of fuzziness, I mean obviously they could be improved.

MR VISSER: Yes, I am going to argue, Professor, and I am putting this to you so that you can make comment on it if you wish, I am going to argue that the eyes on the superimposition of the photograph on the skull of vice versa, is not a match.

UNKNOWN: Well, I disagree.  If I examine the superimposition and notice that the eyes were not a match, then I would have said straight away that in my view, this is not the same person.  So ...

MR VISSER: Yes.  So only on the eyes not lining up, you would have been prepared to say "this is a rule-out"?

UNKNOWN: Well, one of the difficulties as you appreciate with all of this, is getting the orientation correct and getting everything aligned in the proper position, and if my view I didn't think that the eyes matched, then I would have said it couldn't have been the same person.

MR VISSER: Yes.  We looked very carefully at this, and I tell you what we did, we marked on the video screen, on the TV screen, we marked the horizontal and the vertical lines and to me as a layman, I must tell you, on the left to right scan, there is no way that eye fits into the socket.  You don't agree with that?

UNKNOWN: Well, no, I don't, no.

MR VISSER: Alright.  And when one looks at the right-hand jaw, the picture that we have has a position of the person looking to her left, and on the scan, both ways, I would suggest to you that where one expects the jaw bone to be, it just isn't when you run the scan both ways.

UNKNOWN: Well, all I can tell you merely is that I did very carefully look at this and it was my view that it was, you have to take into account of course the degree of skin thickness in an area, the distance from the edge of the skin to the actual bone itself, so these are all factors that we took into account.

MR VISSER: You know, we might be compelled to take up the offer of looking at the video.  I'm just wondering how much time is that going to take, is that going to be difficult?

MR LAX: You can stop it and talk to him.

MR VISSER: Perhaps, if you don't mind, could we do that, Professor, thank you.

UNKNOWN: No problem.

MR VISSER: If you could set it up.

MR LAX: It is done, it is all ready to roll.

MR VISSER: Well, let's roll it.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know which part to get to.

MR VISSER: I am just interested in the scans.

TECHNICIAN: Professor, can you see the video?

UNKNOWN: Yes, I can, thank you, yes.