Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 2000-07-21

MR VISSER: So how did that incident, having learnt about their application, leave you feeling about them?

STEPHANIE MILLER: I didn't change my feeling about them, if that's what you're inferring.

MR VISSER: And what was the feeling that you had about them?

STEPHANIE MILLER: How did I feel about them at the time?

MR VISSER: Yes.

STEPHANIE MILLER: I was somewhat horrified by their actions.

MR VISSER: You don't like them much, do you?

STEPHANIE MILLER: I don't like them, I don't like some of them, some of them I don't mind very much at all.

MR VISSER: Alright.  You see, you use words in yours statement and I want to draw your attention to them, and I'm going to suggest to you that you use those words purposely to create an impression with the reader of your statement.  You use words like in paragraph 4
"There was an amazing similarity in their applications"
Now what do you mean by that?

STEPHANIE MILLER: I found it amazing that they'd all got together and discussed it and drawn up amnesty applications that were almost identical.

MR VISSER: If you and - if Ms Wannenberg had to come to this Committee to testify about what you and she did together in a particular case, would you expect her to give the same evidence as you and you the same evidence as her?

STEPHANIE MILLER: If we had been present at the same incident and seen the same things ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: That's what I'm talking about.

STEPHANIE MILLER: ... it's possible we would give the same evidence, but we're unlikely to give it in the same words and using the same terminology.

MR VISSER: But you know, Mrs Miller, if one applicant says "These are the facts, this is what happened", and another one says "I refer to that application, I agree with it and I have nothing to add", is that what you call an amazing similarity?

STEPHANIE MILLER: In some instances it appeared that, to me, it appeared to me that that is exactly what happened, the one read the others' and said "I agree with that exactly and that's how it happened", but there were other people who made statements that were in conflict with that, who said "Well that wasn't exactly what happened", and that is why I comment that there was a similarity, an amazing similarity between those people.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, by "amazing similarity", what ...(intervention)

STEPHANIE MILLER: They were almost identical.

CHAIRPERSON: Almost identical.

MR VISSER: And you find that strange for witnesses who witnessed the same events, that that should happen, that's amazing to you?

STEPHANIE MILLER: No, it's not amazing if they witness the same event.

MR VISSER: And if they put it down on paper, does it then become amazing?

STEPHANIE MILLER: No, it doesn't become amazing at all if they put it down on paper, it appeared to me that, for example, Sam du Preez and Lawrie Wasserman were not there all of the time, they were there part of the time, other people were there all of the time.  Some of the evidence would not be known to some of them, they would not know how somebody died, they would have said "They told me that's how she died."  If I were making a statement I would presume that's how I would say it.

MR VISSER: Yes.  And you say this is not what they did?

STEPHANIE MILLER: Well I'm saying what they did stuck out in my mind as being remarkably similar at the time.

MR VISSER: And I'm suggesting to you that you're seeing ghosts in the shadows, because I'm suggesting to you that if you study, just as I pointed out to you just now on Taylor's statement, if you study their statements you'll find that that is not such an amazing similarity.  But let's go on.  You say that according to du Preez, the deceased's body was "dumped", and you place that in inverted commas, Mrs Miller ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Which paragraph are you looking at now?

MR VISSER: I'll refer you to it in a moment, Chairperson, it's paragraph 8.
"Sam du Preez indicated that the body of the deceased was 'dumped' in the Bambai area of Inanda, as it would be found and identified."
What did you intent to convey by your paragraph 8, the first sentence, by placing "dumped" in inverted commas?

STEPHANIE MILLER: I think it stands for itself.

MR VISSER: Yes, what is that?

CHAIRPERSON: Normally, what I understand - before you answer and tell me if I'm wrong, if I were writing it like this, I would put the inverted commas in to indicate that is the exact word that the person who told me said.  In other words, Sam du Preez indicated that the body was "dumped", by putting it in inverted commas, if I was writing this, I would be indicating that that was the exact word that Sam du Preez used when he indicated that.

STEPHANIE MILLER: I put it in those sort of, in that sort of context because that's how I remember as having been told to me.

CHAIRPERSON: So you were quoting a word used by him?

STEPHANIE MILLER: As far as my memory serves me, that's why I did that.

MR VISSER: Well will refer to page 34 of bundle 1.

CHAIRPERSON: Which page?

MR VISSER: 34, Chairperson.
	Loosely translated:
"Col Taylor asked Sgt Wasserman and myself to take the body of Kubheka to the KwaMashu vicinity and to leave it there where it can be found."
and the next paragraph:
"We complied with the order (and I'm going to read to you) and dropped her off in the grass next to the Inanda road near Bambai."
Where do you read dumped?

STEPHANIE MILLER: I never said anything about read?

MR VISSER: But you see du Preez was the one that didn't want to talk to you.

STEPHANIE MILLER: No, no, he wouldn't talk to me until after his amnesty application ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: And then he told you he dumped the body?

STEPHANIE MILLER: No, no, no, I didn't say that at all.  What happened with Mr du Preez was that in the early stages when I was trying to solicit information from him prior to his amnesty application being received, he would not communicate with me.  Subsequently, on several occasions we spoke on a fairly informal basis.  Not necessarily an informative basis, but on an informal basis.

MR VISSER: I want to suggest to you already that why you use these phrases and words was to create a feeling against the applicants, because "dumped" to my mind, with respect, indicates treating the body with some disrespect in throwing it in the veld, and that's not at all what du Preez said or testified in this hearing.

STEPHANIE MILLER: By the time that Mr du Preez and Mr Wasserman removed the body, the person was already deceased I understand.  I am not sure how much respect was shown to Ms Kubheka when she was alive, so I cannot speak with any authority to how much disrespect she was treated when she was dead.

MR VISSER: Yes you see there you go again, assuming disrespect, but it doesn't matter, let's go on ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Mr Visser with the greatest of respect, Mr du Preez testified the other day, he was asked precisely those questions here, when the garments were lying on the floor, about how the body was placed and it was clear he had no disrespect or respect but he certainly was not even conscious of treating the body with respect.

MR VISSER: As far as loading her into the car and exposing the body was concerned, you're absolutely correct.

MR LAX: Yes, exactly, and that was a general attitude to the body in essence.

MR VISSER: Well Chairperson, let's go on.
	At paragraph 8 at page 2 of Exhibit K, the last sentence, you say:
"It appeared that the applicants went to some pains to hide her death and to discourage the family from looking for her body."
How did they go to some pains to hid her death and to discourage the family from looking - well, let's just take the last part of that sentence, how did they discourage the family from looking for her body?