Special Hearings — Helderberg Flight Special Hearing — 1998-06-02

DR KLATZOW: Let me tell you the problem that I have with your evidence Mr Nadel, is this.  A fire occurs on board that aircraft.  The available evidence strongly suggests that it occurred early in the flight.  During the period of your tenure at ZUR or just before you've conceded and agreed with me that it is something which they would likely have spoken to ZUR if it had occurred then.
 You've agreed with me that the correct thing for the pilot to do would have been to go down and have the aircraft checked.  We accept and it's common cause that that never happened.  You expect me to believe that the pilot would have  made the decision to continue flying despite all airline regulations and all flying regulations and all common sense on his own bat?

VERNON NADEL: I don't say that at all, no.

DR KLATZOW: You're saying he never, you're saying he never contacted you?  We know he went on flying.  There is only one inference and that is that he made the decision without referral to base to go on flying after that fire?

VERNON NADEL: I can state categorically, as I have done before, that the aircraft did not speak to ZUR and/or to anybody else to my knowledge.  And if it did and if there was something untoward I would believe Dick should have told me and if he didn't tell me, he was keeping something from me, and as I say, from my side I can categorically state that the aircraft never called.

DR KLATZOW: Mr Nadel, you're missing the question.  I want to put to you a series of improbabilities in your evidence.  And it is very easy to categorically deny something but I want to put it to you that your denial rings hollow.  And I want to tell you why it rings hollow.  It rings hollow for a number of reasons which I have given to you, all of which are based on fact, not on speculation.
 And I started to give you those.  And those include the fact that the likelihood with which you've agreed is that the fire occurred early in the flight, if the dinner is there.  You've agreed and you've read that Margo, official transcript has a record of the dinner on the flight.  You've agreed and the Margo enquiry has accepted that the flight recorder stopped because of fire.  
 You've agreed that that is most unlikely that that could have been outside Mauritius.  You've agreed that the most sensible thing to do and would have complied with the regulations was for Uys to have gone down and have the aircraft checked.  You've agreed that he didn't do that.  And if we are to believe your evidence we must believe that he did all of that off his own bat without checking with ZUR?

VERNON NADEL: It appears that could have happened.

DR KLATZOW: You have furthermore told us that everybody is lying but you.  Gavin Dick is lying and Mr Du Toit is lying and that you are the only person at ZUR that night who is telling the truth?

VERNON NADEL: The issues about the standing orders?

DR KLATZOW: No, the issue is about whether there was a tape recording that night.  And to cap it all, Mr Nadel, the vital tape recording that covers that specific period of time inexplicably finds its way out of ZUR, never to see the light of day again.  And you wonder why there is rumour and speculation.  You wonder why it is?

VERNON NADEL: No, I don't wonder why it is.  That is obviously the reason for it.

DR KLATZOW: That is absolutely.  And there is good reason for that speculation.  And there is good reason for the negative inference.  And yet you give us a version which is so inherently improbable that it is difficult to believe.  And in addition you've given us a version which not only I find improbable but Mr Southwood at the original Margo enquiry found improbable to the extent that he accused you of lying.
 You've given us a version relating to the conversation that you had with Mr Dick when you yourself have agreed that had he had that conversation with you, there would be no reason for him to ask you at the hearing what he needed to say.  It was there for him to tell the enquiry.  The truth, the truth is I was told by my superior officer not to bother about it.  
 I want to put it to you Mr Nadel that your versions are so inherently improbable that they should be rejected.  And I want to put it to you that your fencing over the years with people who genuinely wanted to find out.  The referral to Mr X, your demand that people not take down a statement when ostensibly your reason was to prevent yourself from being misquoted.  And you then did the very thing that would ensure that you were misquoted.  
 I want to put it to you that that is inherently improbable and I want to put it to you that everything that you've told me today is untrue.

VERNON NADEL: Well I'd like to refute that.  Absolutely.

DR KLATZOW: Well, I would like you to do better than to simply say that it is true.  I'd like you to give me a reason why the Commission should believe you.  Because I've given you cogent arguments why it is that what you've told us is a tissue of lies.

VERNON NADEL: Well, the only thing that I can say is I know in my mind, in my heart that what I've told you is true.  I know that.

DR KLATZOW: Mr Nadel the last person who said that, in this country at a commission were the people who later were found to be the perpetrators of the hit squad activities.  That statement is not dissimilar from the statements made by Eugene De Kock and his band of merry men.  I am asking you for a reason to believe you.  I'm not asking for a bald denial.  I'm asking for a reason in the teeth of cogent argument why it is that this commission should believe what you've told us.

VERNON NADEL: Firstly, I don't want to be associated with the previous people you spoke about, I don't think this is a political issue at all.  This is a very sensitive issue.  It's an issue where a lot of people got hurt, a lot of people are still hurting.  I for one have a lot of rumours thrown around that come back to me, a lot of speculation.
 I haven't enjoyed this, reading about these things in the newspaper when I know full well that a lot of it is or most of it is pure speculation.  The issues of the Gavin Dick and the Etienne Du Toit, I don't believe a copy of that so-called standing order that they are talking about has ever come to light.  If it was available at the time, it could have been subpoenaed.  
 This came up in the Margo Commission enquiry and I'll stick with that.  The document that I gave you is the only thing that was on file regarding making contact with aircraft.  At the end of the day I know that I was not aware of any conversation between the aircraft and/or any senior member.  There was no senior person in flight operations on the night.  I personally went through that list calling people as you can see.
 So, maybe the misquotes of the Margo then and the Southwoods and those issues are issues that have come up again and that's possibly why you're basing your accusation that you believe I'm not telling the truth.

DR KLATZOW: Now you've said to me that there was no standing order.  And you said that under oath today.  You know that you're under oath?

VERNON NADEL: Yes.

DR KLATZOW: Mr Southwood put a question to you and you were presumably under oath then?

VERNON NADEL: Yes.

DR KLATZOW: He said, you would just ignore the arrangement, you would ignore the standing order, why.  I wouldn't say ignore it.  I went by past experience as far as this route is concerned.  Why didn't you tell Southwood?  Why didn't you tell Margo that there was no standing order?  Why did you accept that there was a standing order at the Margo enquiry?

VERNON NADEL: I believe that I said no, that there was no.