DATE: 11TH JULY 2000


DAY: 5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Good morning everybody. Today we are continuing with the application of Mr Jerry Richardson. The Panel is as before. If there are any new entrants into the hearing in respect of legal representatives could they place their names on record, those who are coming in today, in any?

It doesn't look like it.

Mr Richard, you had something before we start with Mr Richardson?

MR RICHARD: Chairperson, the report is that we now have with us Dr Stevenson from Sterkfontein Hospital which specialises in forensic psychiatry and Mr Paul Garwood, a Clinical Psychologist who was a co-author to the 1990 report which is before the Committee as an exhibit. Regrettably I don't have a record of the exhibit number.

There has been discussions this morning between Mr Garwood and Dr Stevenson and it is hoped that their evidence will be short. Subject to the Committee's discretion and direction, what is proposed between Mr Mapoma and myself is that we commence this morning by calling Dr Stevenson and thereafter Mr Garwood to speak on their respective reports.

CHAIRPERSON: What about the attitude of Advocate Semenya and Ms Mbuyiswa because we have just spoken of Mr Mapoma. What is their attitude in what you are saying? I thought everybody was involved in the agreement.

MR SEMENYA: Chairperson, on our side there is no objection.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Semenya.

MS MBUYISWA: Chairperson, on our side there's no objection either.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you confirm, Mr Mapoma, what Mr Richard has told us?

MR MAPOMA: I confirm the arrangement, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed Mr Richard.

MR RICHARD: I believe it would be for Mr Mapoma to proceed to lead Dr Stevenson.

MR MAPOMA: As the Chairperson pleases. Chairperson, I'm calling Dr D A Stevenson.


EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson.

Dr Stevenson, you are a psychiatrist by profession, is that correct?

DR STEVENSON: That is correct.

MR MAPOMA: Would you tell the Committee what your qualifications are?

DR STEVENSON: I have a degree MBDCH from the University of Witwatersrand, 1985, and I'm Master in Medicine in Psychiatry from the same university in 1994.

MR MAPOMA: What area of your profession do you specialise in?

DR STEVENSON: I have been involved in forensic psychiatry since April 1995 at the Forensic Unit at Sterkfontein Hospital where I'm currently a Senior Psychiatrist in that unit.

MR MAPOMA: So do I confirm that even to date you are still at Sterkfontein Hospital?

DR STEVENSON: That is correct.

MR MAPOMA: Is it correct that at some point, during December 1999, you were approached by the TRC and requested to conduct a psychiatric assessment on Mr Jerry Richardson?


MR MAPOMA: And pursuant to that request what happened? Would you tell the Committee?

DR STEVENSON: Mr Richardson was admitted to the hospital section at Krugersdorp Prison.


DR STEVENSON: The dates I have here, he was admitted on the 21st January 2000. While in the hospital section he underwent psychiatric interviews being seen there by myself on three occasions. He also underwent psychological evaluation by our psychologist from the unit and as he was being kept in the hospital section at Krugersdorp Prison, he was under observation, constant observation of the psychiatric - of the nursing staff who are psychiatrically trained in Krugersdorp Prison.

He was admitted on the 21st January 2000 and the report was drawn up in the beginning of March and he was there for a period of probably six or seven weeks.

MR MAPOMA: And your brief was to assess, examine as to whether he is fit to follow the proceedings of the Amnesty Committee?

DR STEVENSON: That is correct, that was my understanding of the brief was to assess whether he is able to proceed with his application before the Commission.

MR MAPOMA: And out of the assessment that you have just outlined, did you prepare a report?

DR STEVENSON: A report was prepared. It was a very ...(intervention)

MR MAPOMA: The report is dated the 2nd March 2000. Do you confirm this is the report that you handed in to the TRC?

DR STEVENSON: I confirm that is the report.

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, may I beg leave to hand in the report? Chairperson, at this stage I may confirm that all the parties involved in this matter did have access to the report and in fact they do have copies of the report in question. I'm handing in the report as a matter of formality and I request, Chairperson, that the report be marked Exhibit B.

CHAIRPERSON: Have we had sight of the report, Mr Richard?

MR RICHARD: I have a copy of the report in my possession. It was faxed to me on the 6th March.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Semenya?

MR SEMENYA: We have the report, Chairperson, thank you.

MS MBUYISWA: We have the report, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed, Mr Mapoma.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson. In summary, Dr Stevenson, what was the outcome of your report vis-a-vis your brief?

DR STEVENSON: In summary we found no evidence of a mental illness or a mental defect and following the clinical interviews and the psychological testing, the conclusion was that he was able to proceed with the hearings.

MR MAPOMA: Did you get anything regarding his IQ level?

DR STEVENSON: An intelligence assessment was carried out.


DR STEVENSON: And his IQ was found to be in the low, normal range.

JUDGE DE JAGER: What was his IQ?

DR STEVENSON: The test that was applied was the Ravens test which is a more culturally fair test. It doesn't convert exactly to a figure, it gives one a range. It fell within the low, normal range. So clinically I would estimate his IQ to be in the vicinity of 90. Possibly late 80's, early 90's.

MR MAPOMA: And what does that mean regarding his mental capacity, is he retarded or what?

DR STEVENSON: It's not at all retarded, as I said before that places him in the low, normal range. The retarded range of IQ begins below 70. 70 and 85 is considered as borderline intellectual functioning.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Dr Stevenson. Thank you Chairperson, that is the evidence-in-chief.


JUDGE DE JAGER: Sorry Doctor, did you see the previous report about IQ tests?

DR STEVENSON: Yes I did have insight into that report. JUDGE DE JAGER: There they stated the ...(indistinct) adult intelligence test, full scale IQ : 66, verbal scale IQ : 61, practical : 63. That's his qualifications. What was found to be his IQ in that test?

DR STEVENSON: You mean in the previous tests?


DR STEVENSON: Well the previous test showed his IQ to fall within the mildly mentally retarded range and that was not in keeping with our findings at all, both on the psychological testing as well as the clinical impressions.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did you carry out these tests?

DR STEVENSON: No, the testing was carried out by one of the psychologists in our unit.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Were you present?

DR STEVENSON: I was not present at the time of the testing, no.


MR RICHARD: Thank you Chairperson.

Now as I hear your evidence, the question ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Just may I interpose Mr Richard? Our sound technician tells me that there's a problem with our sound system. Would we allow him five minutes. So we'll adjourn just for five minutes.





My question that I was about to put was, have I formulated it correctly, when you examined Mr Richardson, you were answering the question as to whether he was fit and able to stand legal proceedings?

DR STEVENSON: That is correct.

MR RICHARD: Now is it also correct to ask that beyond that question you did not feel it was within your mandate to enquire further?

DR STEVENSON: That is correct. I understood the mandate as to assess his ability to continue with the proceedings.

MR RICHARD: Now on what basis would you believe a person would be unfit to continue with proceedings?

DR STEVENSON: Well clearly, such an assessment takes place within my field of expertise which is psychiatry, so the aim is then to identify any psychiatric disorder or organic defect which might impact on his ability to follow and assist with proceedings.

MR RICHARD: So when I take Exhibit B, that is your report, and read the words:

"No mental illness or defect observed"

that statement only goes to answer that there is nothing that impairs him from what you've just said, participating and assisting in proceedings?


MR RICHARD: And should be read in that respective sense?


MR RICHARD: Now it flows from that, that there might be other - and I'm going to use the word conditions rather that illnesses or defects, that there may be many other mental conditions that would impact on his participation in legal proceedings but would not be considered such as to disqualify him from participating?

DR STEVENSON: I would need further clarification on which conditions are being considered before I can answer that question.

DR STEVENSON: The - I'll not put specific leading questions but a person who has a highly volatile temperament, to avoid medical terms, that temperament would impact on his participation, would it not?

DR STEVENSON: I suppose a person's temperament may impact on how they deal with the proceeding but that certainly does not fall within the bounds of a mental illness or a defect. It might just be an extreme, one of extremes of human behaviour and I don't see how that would impact on one's fitness.

MR RICHARD: So then I am correct that the word fitness is to be heard in an even more specific and defined sense, in the sense that you give evidence?

DR STEVENSON: One's fitness is determined on one's ability to assist in your own defence and to follow court proceedings.

MR RICHARD: Now preparatory to conducting your process to answer those questions that you've articulated, is it not correct that you've had Exhibit A, that is the report prepared by Ms Dupple and Mr Garwood and a report by a Dr Levy?

DR STEVENSON: I had insights into those reports, yes.

MR RICHARD: Now do you believe that those reports addressed the same question as you were addressing?

DR STEVENSON: It is my understanding that the reports that you're referring to was prepared as a report in litigation and not a report in terms of his ability to proceed with the hearing at that stage.

MR RICHARD: Because nowhere in those reports do they say he was unfit to stand trial?

DR STEVENSON: That is correct, the reports were drawn up in two different contexts.

MR RICHARD: So before we go into the specifics, the issues addressed in Exhibit A were different to the issue addressed by you?

DR STEVENSON: It would appear so, yes.

MR RICHARD: It's quite correct that the report Exhibit A was prepared at a point when the death sentence was still part of the South African Law and when the issue of sentence post-conviction for murder was being considered?


MR RICHARD: Now wouldn't it be natural in a report such as that, being Exhibit A, that why the issues of the psychology of the particular person would be addressed?

DR STEVENSON: Certainly.

MR RICHARD: And the fact that far more was said in Exhibit A than what you said in your line report is in the nature of the exercise?


MR RICHARD: And that in the circumstances what you say does not exclude observations and descriptions provided in Exhibit A?

DR STEVENSON: Correct, the fundamental difference between the two reports is the finding of the IQ level.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Could I just ask something? The Exhibit A is dated - I don't know but somewhere, could you perhaps help me? Oh, in 19th July 1990. It's now ten years later. would the position still be the same with the patient or with the person being examined?

DR STEVENSON: I think at that stage the circumstances were very different to the circumstances now. I think he was under a lot more stress at the time, it was just prior to his hearing and I think the circumstances in which the testing were done were very different.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Whatever IQ test would have been applied at that stage, is there something with the time span if the same test is applied today, would it still be the same or could it differ?

DR STEVENSON: Fundamentally there shouldn't be a change in one's IQ over time but if one has a look at the circumstances at that stage, he was under an enormous amount of stress and he was really anxious so that certainly may have impacted on his performance in the IQ test which might have reflected in a lower score. The other problem was that the IQ test that was used at that time is not really standardised for the Black population so it may not have reflected a fair score in that stage even.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So the fact, for instance, that he's been isolated from the outside world, that wouldn't have an impact or his surroundings wouldn't have an impact on his IQ?

DR STEVENSON: One's surroundings shouldn't have an impact on one's IQ but one's own emotional state at the time of performing the test may impact on one's performance during the testing which then might reflect negatively on the IQ score.

ADV BOSMAN: May I just ask one or two questions here?

Dr Stevenson, would you say that your clinical observations were compatible with a 60 - 66 score under that test?

DR STEVENSON: Not at all, I think that is a very important point, is one should never take testing in isolation, one needs to have a look at the complete picture and one's clinical impressions are also very important and certainly, my clinical impression during my contact with him was not compatible with somebody of an IQ score of that which would - what that IQ score is saying is that he is mildly mentally retarded and those are certainly not compatible with the clinical findings.

ADV BOSMAN: And just one more question. From your clinical observations how would you sort of put his stress level at the time of your assessment of his test?

DR STEVENSON: At the time of his assessment I found him to be relaxed, communicated well and openly with me, I didn't find him to be very stressed at the time.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you Mr Richard, you may continue.

MR RICHARD: Thank you. No, naturally it's important to have it squarely on the record that Exhibit A was prepared in anticipation of the sentence after conviction for murder?


MR RICHARD: And I'm sure the possibility of a death sentence weighed heavily on Mr Richardson's mind at the time he was undergoing the testing?


MR RICHARD: Now nonetheless, what is described in annexure A cannot be equated to a condition like a common ...(inaudible) which gets better ...(inaudible) of a person's intrinsic state and it will be the same ten years later or twenty years later if the person is still alive?

DR STEVENSON: Correct, if one assumes that the tools applied at that time were accurate.

MR RICHARD: Now annexure A describes more than one test for the very reasons that you outline, efforts were made to find a test which was non-cultural specific, non-race specific. Would you have any comment on the fact that the second test confirmed the first test at the time in 1990?

DR STEVENSON: I think I stated earlier on that one also needs to have a look at the context in which he was tested in and I think that his anxiety levels and stress levels at that time may well have impacted on his performance because that was not our experience when he was tested at this point in time.

MR RICHARD: I accept your answer but the point that I'm making is that we now have three tests, two which corroborate each other and one certainly in a different context and a different suppressed level which stands where it does?

MR SEMENYA: Chairperson, might I indicate a difficulty I have with this line of approach? Clearly this makes for very interesting story but it does not seek to challenge the fundamental ...(indistinct) finding that Jerry Richardson can follow the proceedings? The earlier report of 1990 is not a contradictory report insofar as it does not relate to assess the capacity of the individual to follow the proceedings. All of this makes for great interest in reading but we have time constraints. I think Mr Richard at a certain point must know that it's not going to take us anywhere. We're not going to come with a conclusion that the man is not able to follow the proceedings. There's only one medical report pointing to that outcome.

CHAIRPERSON: And bearing in mind, as you said Mr Richard, before you respond to Mr Semenya, is that at the early outset of the report is to find extenuating circumstances for the sentencing. So not his capabilities whether he would follow the proceedings or not and secondly, is that we have a psychiatrist and we are dwelling on what a psychologist said in the report. We should bear that in mind.

MR RICHARD: Thank you. May I proceed?

In reply, I go back to the Act which constitutes this Commission, this Committee. The questions that the Committee must make finding on are whether the applicant, Mr Richardson, committed an act which constitutes a crime with the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, what we've got to find is that the crimes he committed, because that's what he said, not whether he had committed a crime. That would not be our finding.

MR RICHARD: The state of mind and perception with which he committed the crime is the very essence of whether it was committed with a political motive, to use the word. The perception, the context, but that's argument for much later.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) the question that this witness would answer.

MR RICHARD: Now, I'm sorry, I'm not sure whether the sound equipment is working. Mine is hissing and crackling and intermittent. I believe the sound technicians might - is it working?

CHAIRPERSON: I see Advocate Semenya is pointing his thumbs up that it is correct. I would appear it's yours. If they can change yours otherwise nobody is complaining.

MR RICHARD: Now ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Perhaps you should activate it Mr Richard?

MR RICHARD: I can hear, it's more important from the records point of view.

Now if one turns to paragraph 11 at page 23 of Exhibit A, there at 11.1 a specific description is given. Mixed personality disorder, I'm given to understand that that definition has now been dropped and the one that's being put in more recently it's described as an anti-social personality disorder. Now would you say that Mr Richardson suffered from any such condition?

DR STEVENSON: Based on my interaction with Mr Richardson as well as his past history, there are certain indications of strong anti-social traits. I don't think I have enough information at my disposal to make a diagnosis of anti-social personality disorder, but I would say there were strong anti-social traits.

MR RICHARD: Now such a finding, would that impact on his fitness to stand trial or participate in proceedings?

DR STEVENSON: Certainly not.

MR RICHARD: Would it impact on his performance during those proceedings?

DR STEVENSON: One's personality may interact with how one performs in certain settings but it would certainly not make him unfit to proceed with any legal proceedings.

CHAIRPERSON: If I may find out from your line of questioning are you suggesting that Mr Richardson as he sits there is not able to follow and react accordingly to these proceedings?

MR RICHARD: What I am suggesting and the reference in annexure A that I'm busy looking for, is that from both the records that surround me and Exhibit A and I only refer to paragraph 9.1.

"Various tribunals ...(indistinct) contradictory and to use the words of the report lay ...(indistinct) explosive, ...(indistinct) superficial, impulsive, bad irrationalised"

Would that behaviour be consistent with your observations as well?

DR STEVENSON: Those were not consistent with my clinical experiences of Mr Richardson, no.

MR RICHARD: Did you sit and discuss the acts for which he is applying for amnesty with him?


MR RICHARD: Did he ...(intervention)

DR STEVENSON: It was certainly not brief to do it, if I had discussed the acts it would have been an assessment into his criminal responsibility which my understanding was not the brief.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Richard, may I just interpose for a moment?

Dr Stevenson, can you indicate to us what the duration of the sessions you had with Mr Richardson was?

DR STEVENSON: I saw him on the 25th January, I didn't write down the time duration but no notes are fairly extensive so I would imagine it would have been at least an hour and I saw him again on the 1st February and I would have seen him for at least half an hour at that time and then I saw him on the 8th February and I would imagine for at least half an hour as well and in fact I see my note here, I've actually seen him four times. Excuse me, I made a mistake there. I saw him as well on the 22nd of February and the length of my notes would indicate about a half an hour to three quarter of an hour interview.

MR RICHARD: However, ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Richard, we heard what Mr Semenya also told us. Isn't the position that you're not disputing that his fit to stand trial? You're not disputing that he hasn't got a mental illness, you're saying that his intellectual capacity impacts on his evidence?

MR RICHARD: Correct.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Is that really what ...(inaudible)

MR RICHARD: That is correct but for the purposes of this specific question what I'm going to ask next is Doctor, if you take 9.2.6 at page 17 ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Before you proceed to that, if we look at page 59:

"Effect and Impulse Expressions", 9.1 Discussions on personality factors and functioning which emerge in assessment and from which it becomes possible to make hypothesis about the state of mind of the accused at the time of the crime."

Are you really hammering on that? At the time, because it would be at the time of this hearing as well whether he does or he does not?

MR RICHARD: Chairperson, I don't believe that this witness from the exercises that he conducted and the tests that he applied and really, this is where I would lead the witness is in a position to comment on either that paragraph or the paragraph I was going to use for the example on page 17 and that is really for Mr Garwood to speak to because he conducted those tests and the apparent conflict between the two reports is only apparent?

CHAIRPERSON: No, what we want to satisfy ourselves with is that from the report given by Dr Stevenson and this report of 1990 is that is he able, that is Mr Richardson, to follow these proceedings and if we come to the conclusion that he is not able to, what is the best possible route to take if that is the question?

MR RICHARD: This witness has answered that question. He is able. The next question is what is the status and value, more importantly of Exhibit A.

CHAIRPERSON: How would that assist us?

MR RICHARD: At paragraph 9.2.6 the comment is made:

"This renders Jerry vulnerable in that he needs continual external confirmation and affirmation and could thus be extremely open to the influence of others."

This Committee will have to make a decision in due course as to whether the contradictory and at times irrational evidence that Mr Richardson has given should be dismissed in its totality or be dealt with on the basis of compassion and understanding as substantially in line with somebody who did as this paragraph describes, something consistent with the influences and compulsions and outside factors prevailing at the time he lived in Mrs Mandela's house.

CHAIRPERSON: We should look at this report in two senses, that at the time he was probably under the influences of many people. He comes before us independently, makes an application, would we say what inferences would play on him when he comes to us and say hey, because we are now reconciling in South Africa we should admit the wrongs of the past and the conflicts of the past and build a better society and then coming forward in that vane, would still say he is influenced in his explanations of how those crimes occurred because that would impact on full disclosure?

MR RICHARD: However, if we have a man who is variously described as to use Dr Stevenson's words "a low normal IQ" or below normal, to use the other two tests, who is contradictory, who is confused but nonetheless committed the acts but who applies for amnesty for. How should he be dealt with?

CHAIRPERSON: Because we are dependent on the applicant would there then place us in a better position whether we had gleaned the truth of the offences he had committed.

MR RICHARD: I would argue that we know what the offences were, within his limited capability, he's done his best to describe his role in them. However, in the context of the man described in Exhibit A?

MR SEMENYA: Chairperson, may I register my objection? We are already into a debate about whether Jerry Richardson was having any intellectual difficulties, whether his behavioural pattern is consistent with normal social behaviour. All of that makes for interesting listening. It is completely irrelevant if in support of his application he wants to call Dr Garwood to give you a background about him as an applicant, we can hear that later. But Mr Richard at this point does not have any basis whatsoever to contest the medical opinion of about Richardson's ability to follow the proceedings and that's the entire issue here.

MR RICHARD: It would seem that the objection is in essence to me putting on record that a man who we would might describe as stupid and gave bad evidence is in fact a person who can nonetheless describe what he did in such a way to get amnesty. Now the medical evidence that I'm leading and laying the basis for, is self-evident. A man who as this report describes is liable to be easily influenced, react in an explosive irrational manner, give contradictory evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: But would that be questions put to this witness? That's what I asked you before because I would say would he be in a position to conduct those tests being conducted by a psychologist when he said he had an evaluation or assessment of Mr Richardson as a psychiatrist and thereafter referred him to a colleague who is a psychologist because he is not in a position. If he was in a position he wouldn't have referred him to a colleague who is a psychologist.

MR RICHARD: Chairperson, I believe that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You should rather submit not believe at this juncture because this is crucial.

MR RICHARD: What I submit regarding what I have established in my questioning is that Dr Stevenson does not project the whole of Mr Garwood's report.

CHAIRPERSON: But his evidence in essence, he says according to his evaluation, he can understand proceedings.

MR RICHARD: And it does not impact on Mr Garwood's report in any material way.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But he says it wasn't within his mandate to evaluate that. He had to evaluate whether Mr Richardson is fit to stand trial or stand the hearing, that was his mandate and I think you yourself concluded well, he is fit to stand the hearing. We're all ad idem about that. Now the other factor may come into play and that is in evaluating his evidence, should it be a factor that we should consider that he is of low intelligence?

MR RICHARD: My answer is that - my argument is that the mental make up of Mr Richardson is a very relevant matter to this particular application. The purpose of my questions to Dr Stevenson are to test whether what he says affects the report annexure A. So far I've established that subject to the debate about the IQ, it doesn't and my argument and my argument, there are not many more questions I have of Dr Stevenson.

CHAIRPERSON: Proceed bearing what has been said in mind.

MR RICHARD: Dr Stevenson, you've heard the argument that's been addressed to the Committee. My question obviously is, does or does not annexure A give an accurate description of the personality and make up of Mr Richardson?

DR STEVENSON: That's a difficult question for me to answer in totality because as the Committee has mentioned the focus was on his fitness to proceed with the hearings and we certainly did not do an in depth personality assessment at the time. My referral earlier on to the anti-social traits which we found were clinical impressions that were based on the history which I had obtained. I mean that is as far as my comments can go, you know, we didn't do the detailed psychological profile as has been done in this report.

MR RICHARD: So then to ask another short question? Exhibit A still stands uncontradicted?

DR STEVENSON: I don't think it's my role to contradict the report because we certainly didn't use this report as a basis for our investigation, our investigations were simply based on his fitness to stand trial. The contradiction between our findings and this report, is in this report found him to be mildly, mentally retarded. We found him to be of low normal intelligence.

MR RICHARD: But that finding does not contradict Exhibit A, it doesn't invalidate?

DR STEVENSON: It doesn't invalidate the whole document, no. It probably just invalidates the part of the assessment of the IQ.

MR RICHARD: And your finding goes to the question of fitness?


MR RICHARD: Not to the content of Exhibit A?


MR RICHARD: No further questions.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Richard. Mr Semenya?

MR SEMENYA: I have no questions for the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Semenya. Ms Mbuyiswa?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MBUYISWA: Thank you Chairperson, I have only one question.

Dr Stevenson, in your opinion you have also testified either factors like stress and nervousness would contribute greatly to a test at a particular time, correct?

DR STEVENSON: That is correct, yes.

MS MBUYISWA: Now could you tell the Committee again, how was Mr Richardson the time when you interviewed him, when you conducted the test with him, what state of mind, was he relaxed, was he nervous?

DR STEVENSON: During my contact with him during the psychiatric interviews I found him to be relaxed, I was able to communicate freely with him and I didn't find him to be stressed during my four clinical interviews.

MS MBUYISWA: Would you then say in your opinion that it is more likely, a psychiatrist or psychologist is more likely to get more accurate or positive results with a person who is relaxed than with a person who is stressed?

DR STEVENSON: It's a difficult question to answer but I would imagine if one is more stressed one might have some performance difficulties, I don't think it would make any difference in the quality of the information you get from the person but maybe if there are tasks that a person must carry out which are of a performance based task, anxiety levels may impact on their performance abilities.

MS MBUYISWA: Thank you. I have nothing further.


CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, any re-examination?

MR MAPOMA: None Chairperson, thank you.

MR MAPOMA: Advocate Bosman?

ADV BOSMAN: Just one question, thank you Chairperson.

Dr Stevenson, does the low normal intelligence impact on a person's ability to give a chronological account of a chain of events would you say? It's just an opinion I'm asking, it does not relate to Mr Richardson in particular.

DR STEVENSON: It shouldn't, it shouldn't impact on that at all, no.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Judge de Jager?


CHAIRPERSON: Obviously nothing emanating from what the bench asked, Mr Richard?

MR RICHARD: I think at this point Dr Stevenson may be excused.

CHAIRPERSON: He is not your witness, we'll get that from Mr Mapoma. Mr Mapoma, can I excuse your witness?

MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson, I have nothing which arises from the questions from the bench.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much Dr Stevenson, you are excused.


CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, because you started, are you calling anybody else?

MR MAPOMA: No Chairperson, that is the witness.


MR RICHARD: As outlined when we commenced this morning I now call Mr Garwood.

MR SEMENYA: Chairperson, in the light of the evidence now heard I think it needs to be established whether the next witness is going to contradict the finding that Jerry Richardson is able to follow the proceedings. If not, then his evidence cannot be tendered now for the purposes of cross-examination which was interrupted. He can probably come and testify later and help the Committee in understanding the social and character profile of the applicant and it can happen later.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any response, Mr Richard?

MR RICHARD: The response is, Mr Garwood is not going to contradict Dr Stevenson but in the sense that this report is germane to what we assess when we hear Mr Richardson's evidence and Mr Garwood is present next to me right now, it would be a convenient and an appropriate time.

CHAIRPERSON: What purpose would it serve that we are told up front, for instance, that the man you are going to listen to is intellectually incapacitated and we proceed to hear such a man? Is that not in a way influencing us rather than after we have heard the evidence and he comes in like it happened in this instance?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Would Mr Garwood be available to give evidence later or have you got a problem with his availability and the financial implications of keeping him here while Mr Richardson is giving evidence?

MR RICHARD: Mr Garwood is a consulting psychologist in private practice and to have him here this morning involved a considerable effort in clearing his diary and he would have to do that on an open ended basis until we hear his evidence. From his personal point of view, it would be more than convenient to be excused from the hearing as soon as possible, that would disrupt his practice the least.

CHAIRPERSON: We do not want to disrupt his practice. If we would say we appoint a day, all of us, that we proceed with Mr Richardson and not necessarily tomorrow, even on Thursday to come and give his evidence. Would that inconvenience his practice or disrupt his practice?

MR RICHARD: It would, was the answer given to me when I turned.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Could I say that I think it would be of greater assistance to us if he could for instance listen to Mr Richardson at least for an hour while being cross-examined and then arrangements could be made whenever convenient for him within the next two, three days to come and give evidence and try and assist us because we're all sort of acting in theory now, even me. We haven't seen Mr Richardson performing so it's all sort of in the air. Let's get down to the practicalities.

MR RICHARD: The practicality dictates but I believe that I should request a very brief adjournment while we look at the practicalities of the diary because I know that in the nature of my practice I allocate such time as the hearing will take and I request the adjournment so that I can really evaluate the practicalities and speak to Mr Garwood to see what can be arranged.

CHAIRPERSON: In any event I see it's time for tea. We'll take the tea adjournment and during the tea adjournment you would look at the practicalities. We adjourn for 15 minutes for tea.



CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard. I believe it's now appropriate to re-swear Mr Richardson in and allow Mr Semenya to commence with cross-examination.


Mr Richardson, you remember the last time you gave evidence you thereafter were cross-examined by Ms Mbuyiswa, in other words asking you questions. After Ms Mbuyiswa, Mr Alie asked you questions. Do you still remember that?


CHAIRPERSON: And when you testified last year you testified under oath?

MR RICHARDSON: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Should I remind you that you are still under that previous oath. Do you confirm that you are still under oath?


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr Richardson. Mr Semenya?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR SEMENYA: Chairperson, thank you. Might I at the commencement indicate to the Committee that I'm going to be using several documents which have varied sources. I'm not quite sure that the Committee necessarily has all the documents that I have. The difficulty I have about photocopying those that I have is that they are just littered with high lighters and notes and comments and to the extent that the Committee does not have those documents, I think in one of the adjournments I will approach Mr Mapoma, the Evidence Leader, and try and reconstruct documents that would assist in the following of the questions that I've put to the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: I suppose you could do that but we've got bundles here, I don't know whether those documents you're referring to are related to some of the documentation we have in the bundles but we'll hear from you.

MR SEMENYA: Mr Richardson, we have now been told that you are able to understand what you are doing here, is that right?

MR RICHARDSON: That is correct.

MR SEMENYA: And to your mild surprise I have instructions from my client that if today you decide to tell the whole truth and make a full disclosure that she would support your application for amnesty. For that matter I will argue in support of your application if you tell the whole truth and make the full disclosure, do you follow that?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes I do understand that.

MR SEMENYA: Now let us start with simple matters, not complicated matters. I want you to have a copy of your amnesty application in front of you.

CHAIRPERSON: Could it be convenient, Mr Semenya, that the gentleman next to Mr Richard sits that he would have access to the documentation?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Semenya, you're referring to bundle 1, page 1, I suppose?

MR SEMENYA: That is correct, Judge de Jager.

MR SEMENYA: Mr Richardson, you'll see at the bottom of that document, page 1, that is the name Jerry Richardson at the bottom, is that right?

MR RICHARD: Chairperson, my bundle, page 1, has somehow become detached. May I have another copy of page 1?

MR SEMENYA: No, for the purposes of my question you can look at page 2, that's alright.

Do you see Jerry Richardson at the bottom of that page?


MR SEMENYA: And that's your handwriting, is it not?


MR SEMENYA: And in fact at the bottom of each of those pages it's your name, Jerry Richardson, which is your signature?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes that is correct.

MR SEMENYA: Now the handwriting of Jerry Richardson and the handwriting of the information in the application shows that you did not complete the inside body with your own handwriting, is that correct?

MR RICHARDSON: No, it's not correct.

MR SEMENYA: No, what I mean is there is one person who obviously listening to you completed the form and you later signed each and every page, isn't that right?

MR RICHARDSON: No, it's not so.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words, Mr Richardson, is that if you have regard to page 1 where you said the first question, surname Richardson, the second, first names in full, Jerry Vusimusi, did you write that as well?


CHAIRPERSON: In other words you completed not only the signing but the questions answered, you filled in the answers in your own handwriting? Listen to me. Let's look at page 1. You see where it says surname?

MR RICHARD: Chairperson, my bundle doesn't have a page 1, it has page 2 and onwards.

CHAIRPERSON: You'll see if you look at page 1 there is 1 up to 8 numbers and there are writings for instance where it says: Address, Leeukop Maximum Prison and at the bottom of the page there is a signature. What Advocate Semenya is asking you is that at the bottom where you see Jerry Richardson, you wrote that?

MR RICHARDSON: I'm the one who has written everything here and I'm also the one who signed.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may proceed Mr Semenya.

MR SEMENYA: Mr Richardson, we're not even making for a promising start. If you look at that document on page 7 you will see that the Commissioner of Oaths is a Wessels Janse van Rensburg of Sanlam Building, cnr Jeppe and Von Willigh Street in Johannesburg. That is the handwriting that has been used to complete the body of the amnesty application, am I right or did you also write the names of Wessels there?

MR RICHARDSON: No, I can't remember but the signature is mine.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose there, Mr Semenya?

When you completed this document were you alone or were you in the company of somebody else?

MR RICHARDSON: When I filled my application form there were TRC people there who were helping me and I filled in front of them and I gave it back to them.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You may proceed Mr Semenya.

MR SEMENYA: And it was in the Sanlam Building where the TRC is stationed in cnr Jeppe and Von Willigh Streets. Was it not there where this amnesty application was completed?

MR RICHARDSON: I was in Leeukop Maximum Prison.

MR SEMENYA: Now to answer the Chairperson's question, are you saying that TRC people came to you in Leeukop Prison to complete the application forms, Mr Richardson?

MR RICHARDSON: No, I am not saying so, I am saying that I filled in the form myself and I gave it to them.

MR SEMENYA: At Leeukop Prison? They came to collect it at Leeukop Prison from you?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes, that's where I am.

MR SEMENYA: I know you're there but I'm not interested where you are. I'm asking did you complete it and give the form to them in it's completed form at Leeukop Prison, this amnesty application?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes that is correct.

MR SEMENYA: Okay. Now Mr Richardson, I want us to start where all of this started and to do that I want to refer you to a particular document. Before that though, do you remember that you were arrested on the 9th November 1988 immediately after the shooting of the cadres in your house? Do you remember that?

MR RICHARDSON: Would you please repeat your question?

MR SEMENYA: Do you recall you were arrested on the 9th November 1988 at your house immediately subsequent to the killing of the cadres that were in your house?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes that is correct, I do remember that.

MR SEMENYA: And do you remember that you were released on the 25th November 1988?


MR SEMENYA: And you told us that you managed to speak your way out from prison that time. What do you mean by that? How did you manage to secure your release on the 25th November 1988?

MR RICHARDSON: I don't know how I should answer this question because everything it's in the document. The documents themselves they do explain this.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, which documents are you referring to, Mr Richardson? I'll tell you why I'm asking, it's because you are here, what we have before us is your application, the documentation relating to the hearing of the Human Rights Violation Committee, that we have. Now if you speak of documentation that would tell - answer the question of Mr Semenya, how you managed to secure your release? We don't have such documentation.

Let's put the question the other way around. How did it come that you should be released on the 25th November 1988? What are the events that led to your release?

MR RICHARDSON: On the 9th November 1988 I was arrested and I was released on the 25th November. The police came to me and they told me that they were releasing me and they told me that they had all the information that they needed from me. That's how I was released.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed, Mr Semenya.

MR SEMENYA: What information did the police have from you prior to your release?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Richard, if you don't need my bundle any more could you kindly return it? Thanks. Sorry, Mr Semenya.

MR SEMENYA: The question, Mr Richardson, was what information did the police have prior to your release? You say they had information and they decided to release it. What information?

MR RICHARDSON: They said there was no other Richardson but myself, then I was the coach of Mandela Football Club and they said their eyes will be on me all the time.

MR SEMENYA: Is that the information? That secured your release?


MR SEMENYA: Is that the information which according to you secured your release from prison?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes, that's the information.

MR SEMENYA: Now Mr Richardson, maybe you'd want to reflect on your answer and give us a proper answer. Is that your answer?

MR RICHARDSON: That is all the information I know and I believe that that is why I was released.

MR SEMENYA: And that is the only information that you gave to the police?

MR RICHARDSON: I didn't give the information to the police. The police told me the information. What information that I gave the police? Which information are you referring to?

MR SEMENYA: Did you give the police any information at all prior to your release?


MR SEMENYA: At all? At all?

MR RICHARDSON: I'm telling the honest truth, there wasn't.

MR SEMENYA: I want to give you a copy of the statement which you made to the police to a - which is commissioned by Lt. Bester which you made on the 24th November 1988 immediately the day before your release. I want you to have a look at this document. Well Mr Richardson, you're not going to be able to identify the document itself, I'm just showing it to you. Maybe your legal representative has had the document before. If you can identify it fine, if you cannot identify it, fine, but I don't think reading it is going to help you.

MR RICHARDSON: I do see this document but there's nothing that I agree with this document and this is not evidence to me. If it was an evidence it would have my photograph. This is something that a policeman just wrote.

MR SEMENYA: Chairperson, might I ask the document be circulated to the Committee to see whether or not it is any part of your package and to the Evidence Leader as well as to my learned colleague, that if you do not the document I will proceed with my cross-examination on that document and make copies available at an appropriate stage?

CHAIRPERSON: Probably Mr Semenya, Mr Mapoma may assist because such documentation would be contained in bundle 1 and I don't see something of that nature in my document.

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, we certainly do not have that statement.

CHAIRPERSON: And just to keep up with the sequence with our exhibits could we provisionally mark it Exhibit C?

MR SEMENYA: Thank you Chairperson. Okay, Mr Richardson, I will tell you what this document says. We'll make copies at an appropriate stage. At the end of the document, it is dated the 24th November 1988 15h27. You can't dispute that, can you?


MR SEMENYA: And it is a statement, at the heading of page 1: Jerry Vusimusi Richardson, that's your name, is it not?

MR RICHARDSON: That's my name.

MR SEMENYA: And it is written something like alias an "a" over Njesa, is that your nickname or something?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes, that's my nickname.

MR SEMENYA: And there is an I.D. which is blocked out because this document was received from the Human Rights Violation Committee Hearing and they were trying to make sure that the individuals had not necessarily identified through I.D. numbers. We'll cover that later.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed. Thank you Mr Semenya.

MR SEMENYA: Let me tell you what this document tells. One, it illustrates everything that happened during the raid in your house on the 9th November 1988. But most importantly, in this document you admit to have harboured what was called terrorists at that time, to have harboured cadres in your house at the request of Mrs Madikizela-Mandela. Would you have said that to the police?

MR RICHARDSON: I don't remember.

MR SEMENYA: It also says that when the attack on your house was done the police came and found you next to the car, they pressed you down onto the ground so that they protect you and they went inside the house and there was shooting. Do you remember that?

MR RICHARDSON: No, I do not recall.

MR SEMENYA: And I'm putting it to you, Sir, that at the time the attack was carried in your house the police knew that they were acting on information supplied by you to them? What comment do you make?

MR RICHARDSON: I do not agree with you.

MR SEMENYA: I'll demonstrate it, it's very easy Mr Richardson. In 1988 you admit in a statement to the police to have harboured terrorists at the request of Mrs Mandela. Instead of being prosecuted for harbouring of terrorists you are released the following day. That must be remarkable, even to you, isn't that right?

MR RICHARDSON: I don't know how I should respond to these papers. These papers are being put to me, you're not questioning me, you're putting this thing.

MR SEMENYA: Now the question I'm putting to you is that we knew what was happening in this country in 1988. You, on your own admission, have harboured terrorists. Those terrorists are killed by the police in your house. You are protected during the attack. You are taken into custody and you are released the following day without any prosecution whatsoever. Don't you find that remarkable, is my question?

MR RICHARDSON: No, it is not surprising to me. Police were doing their job the way they knew how and if they were careless, it was them, not me.

CHAIRPERSON: May I just interpose, Mr Semenya?

Do you understand the import of the question posed to you? Bear in mind when you respond to it that he says those were bad times and for a person to be found to have harboured terrorists, as they were called, that those people would be prosecuted but it's remarkable, with you, that you supply some information, that's what he is saying and upon that information you are just released without being prosecuted. Do you follow it the way I'm putting it to you?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes I do understand.

CHAIRPERSON: And you stand by the answer you gave? Or do you want to reconsider your answer?

MR RICHARDSON: ...(No interpretation)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may proceed, Mr Semenya.

MR SEMENYA: Mr Richardson, the word I used was that it's remarkable, not surprising and I'll tell you why it is not surprising, it's because at that time the police knew you were an informer and handled by Pretorius who was killed in your house during that raid. What is your comment?

MR RICHARDSON: I don't know how I can dispute this, maybe I should cry but whatever is written in those papers, it's not true. If I were an informant at that time, I knew very well that informants were being killed. If I was one I wouldn't be sitting here.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Now why did the police act in such a friendly way towards you? Could you give us a possible reason for that?

MR RICHARDSON: No, I don't have any explanation why because I'm still in prison.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, cast back to 1988. You went to prison subsequent to that but cast your mind back to 1988. When the police took you into custody were you assaulted or interrogation and assault? What happened?

MR RICHARDSON: No, I was not assaulted but when I was released on the 25th May I was surprised because I knew at the time that it's one way to be found with guerrillas or cadres, it was an enemy of the State or of the police.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you interrogated?


CHAIRPERSON: And my brother's question is that after such an incident where even a policeman of the Security Branch, I don't know, but they would treat you friendly, just ask you a few questions? That's what my brother is asking you, is that what happened? They were friendly to you and just asked you a few questions and you responded thereto?

MR RICHARDSON: I don't know how to answer these questions. It's difficult. It's difficult for me to explain, yes there was a police who was killed.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me ask you this way. When they interrogated you, what was the manner of the interrogation?

MR RICHARDSON: They did ask me if that was my house and I told them, yes, it was my house and they said they wanted to know if I was the owner. I confirmed that and they also asked me if I had children. I said yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Semenya, let me not take the thunder out of your stand.

MR SEMENYA: Thank you Chairperson.

I'll demonstrate it very easily, Mr Richardson, you don't have to worry. I'll show why you and the police were friendly. I have another document here which is a document of the special investigation report by various police officials including Hesslinga and Lt Coode, Detective Sgt Surridge, etc. But I'll take it step by step. This document is also a document emanating from the Human Rights Violations Committee Hearings. I think we'll make appropriate copies at a relevant stage, but there is an entry in this document dated the 9th May 1995 at 12.30 when Lt Coode speaks to you in consultation at prison there and this is what is recorded to have been said by you to Lt Coode. It is in Afrikaans, I will read it in Afrikaans. You'll find the translation by the able interpreters:

(No English Interpretation):

"Volgens Mnr Richardson was hy 'n informant vir die eertydse Veiligheid. Op 'n stadium het hy inligting aan Veiligheids verskaf dat twee opgeleide MK soldate by sy huis skuil. 'n Belofde van R10 000 is aan hom gemaak indien sy inligting positief was."

Has that been translated to you?

CHAIRPERSON: If I may, is there anyone here au fait with Afrikaans?

INTERPRETER: Chairperson, the Sotho interpreter has interpreted from Afrikaans into Sesotho and the Zulu interpreter had to interpret from Sesotho into Zulu.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. That suffices. Did you follow what was said, Mr Richardson?

MR RICHARDSON: I do not understand Afrikaans at all.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I'm told that it was interpreted to you in Zulu?


CHAIRPERSON: Have you heard the Zulu translation?


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You may proceed, Mr Semenya.

MR SEMENYA: So I'm saying according to these notes you are recorded to be confirming the following things. Firstly, that you are an informer, you dispute that?

MR RICHARDSON: I dispute that.

MR SEMENYA: That at a certain stage you gave information about the trained MK soldiers that were hiding at your house, you dispute you gave information about MK cadres that were hiding in your house?

MR RICHARDSON: I dispute the fact that I gave this information to the police. Yes there were MKs in my house but I didn't give the information to the police.

MR SEMENYA: And a promise of R10 000 was made to you in the event that the information was positive, you dispute that too?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes I dispute that.

MR SEMENYA: But what you cannot dispute, Mr Richardson, that the information was indeed true, that in your house were trained MK cadres, is that right? So the information was positive in that sense?

MR RICHARDSON: They told us that there were MK soldiers in my house.

MR SEMENYA: I will go to page 16.

ADV BOSMAN: I think this will be Exhibit D, I don't think we've marked it. Is that correct? Thank you.

MR SEMENYA: I'll go to page 16 of Exhibit D. This is a further consultation which is held with you by the police. This time it is by Col. Hesslinga. It is on the 10th May 1995. No sorry, sorry, correction. This is an entry by Col. Hesslinga in the investigation notes of 1995, May 10th. This is what Col. Hesslinga writes and I'm going to read it in Afrikaans again. They will give you the translation:

"Spreek Lt. Col. Muller, M.I.D. Soweto (011) 9869444" (that's a telephone number)

"hy deel my mee dat Richardson wel 'n berigewer was en dat hy bewus is van betrokke eis. Registers en dokumente is na hoofkantoor versend afdeling K, Brig. Stein."

Has that been translated to you?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Semenya, whilst consulting with client put your mike on. Thank you.

Has it been translated to you Mr Richardson? What Advocate Semenya has just read out in Afrikaans?


MR SEMENYA: Now Mr Richardson, this is what I'm putting to you. According to the notes of Col. Hesslinga, a Lt. Col. Muller of the M.I.D. Soweto, confirms the fact that you are an informer. You say even Lt. Col. Muller would have been wrong to say that to Major Hesslinga?

MR RICHARDSON: He was telling blue lies.

MR SEMENYA: Two, he says he is aware about the claim that you have made in respect of the information you supplied. You say that also is a lie?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes it is lies.

MR SEMENYA: And it also says here the registration and documents relating to that have been sent to headquarters division K, under Brig. Stein. You're saying all of these are lies?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes I still stand there, it is lies.

MR SEMENYA: Now clearly, according to you, the police are trying to lie to one another about a Jerry Richardson who is an informer?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes I'm telling the truth and I would also like to highlight something there. Paul Erasmus, I don't know him and he doesn't know me but I was surprised when I read on the newspaper that he claimed that myself and Stompie are working with him. It is lies.

MR SEMENYA: Now we're going to get to that part, don't worry.


MR SEMENYA: So you're saying the police are lying to one another about you being an informer?

MR RICHARDSON: As I've already explained and I have also given you an example about Paul Erasmus, I still stand there that the police are lying, they are failing to do their job.

MR SEMENYA: Is there any reason why the police would lie to one another about a certain Mr Richardson who they confirmed to be an informer?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes there can be one.

MR SEMENYA: Can you assist me or the Committee rather, what plausible reason can there be?

MR RICHARDSON: I don't know how to put the reason clearly but police, they are not telling the truth.

MR SEMENYA: On page 18 of Exhibit D, are entries which are made by Col. Hesslinga dated the 12th May 1995. I will read to you again, it's in Afrikaans and I will wait that that gets translated to you. The entry reads:

(No English Interpretation):

"Spreek Jerry Richardson by die gevangenis te Leeukop en oorhandig aan hom R10 000. Ontvang kwitansie ten opsigte van die geld."

MR RICHARDSON: In prison everything goes accordingly. If I were to receive anything, even if it's R20, it is documented. If ever I've received R10 000 it will be recorded in the prison records. If you were to prove this I will say yes but if you can't then I don't know what you're talking about because it's not in my account. I don't have any money in prison. I still dispute the fact that I've received R10 000.

MR SEMENYA: Well, the shot I'm interested is you're denying that on that day, the 12th May 1995, Col. Hesslinga spoke to you in Leeukop Prison and gave you R10 000?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes I dispute that.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose? Mr Richardson, with the Human Rights Violation Committee this amount came into being, you were asked about that. Do you recall that? I would say, with the assistance of Mr Richard, to refer you to page 105 of bundle 1, I think? Yes, of bundle 1.

MR SEMENYA: Chairperson, we also can hear you?

CHAIRPERSON: My apologies to everybody, that was not an intention.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Semenya, I wasn't sure about the date but it seems to be correct now that this money was paid almost seven years after the people have been killed? After the arrest in 1994?

MR SEMENYA: Yes, that's correct and there's an explanation for that.

JUDGE DE JAGER: I just wanted to make sure but it was that they only gained the information in 1995 but that the money was paid over previously?

MR SEMENYA: No, they gained the information in '88 about the MK cadres.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, the payment was not made in 1988 already and they only became aware of it in 1995? Even the payment was made in 1995?

MR SEMENYA: Correct. Chairperson, I think we are at the point where Jerry Richardson has been shown the relevant section of the Human Rights Violation Committee Hearings?

CHAIRPERSON: That is correct and that would be in 1997 when you appeared before the Human Rights Violations Committee and I'm not certain but it would appear the 3rd December?

JUDGE DE JAGER: That's bundle 1 and you're referring to page?

CHAIRPERSON: 1 of 5. And in all fairness to you, Mr Richardson, is that some portions did not have translations but the money is there and I can - I don't know what line is it:

"MR SEMENYA: Mr Richardson, the Security Police owe you R10 000?"


"MR RICHARDSON: ...(no translation).

"MR SEMENYA: Did you say the Security Police, you will not cooperate unless they pay you R10 000?"

Do you see that? And it proceeds, then it says:

"Was Sgt Pretorius your handler?"

Your response thereto is:


MR RICHARDSON: Yes I do see that.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You may proceed Mr Semenya.

MR SEMENYA: Can I take that a little bit further? In that hearing you confirm that Sgt Pretorius was your handler. There's no doubt about that, is there?

MR RICHARDSON: I do remember. Simple, because it's written down.

MR SEMENYA: And this is Sgt Pretorius who was killed in your house, your handler?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes, he is.

MR SEMENYA: So this Sgt Pretorius, you handler, when he got killed on the 9th November 1988 in your house he had already handled you as an informer before his death obviously?

MR RICHARDSON: I do not remember.

MR SEMENYA: No, it's not a matter of memory. You as an informer, Pretorius as a handler, that happened whilst he was still alive, is that right?

MR RICHARDSON: I do not remember.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, Mr Richardson, the answer is simple. If he was your handler after the 9th November 1988, he couldn't have been your handler because he was dead, so it obviously happened before he died? That is in other words being your handler? It is not a question of remembering, he's asking a simple question that if he was your handler it was up to let's say his death on the 9th November 1988?

MR RICHARDSON: I do not remember.

MR SEMENYA: It's okay, he will argue that it's not that you don't remember, it's just that you don't want to answer. Now next question. Mr Richardson, you see, what could be the explanation for the coincidence that there are trained MK cadres in your house on the 9th November 1988, your handler is a certain Sgt Pretorius who comes to your house to raid those cadres, eventually dying there. Is this just a coincidence or is a function that through information you relate to your handler they went there and culminated in his death and that of the cadres?

MR RICHARDSON: No, it wasn't a coincident. What we figured out later we came with the conclusion that there were too many people coming to visit my home and we suspected that anyone of them would have informed the police.

MR SEMENYA: Would have informed your handler?

MR RICHARDSON: To the police.

MR SEMENYA: No, I'm not interested in the police, I'm interested in your handler that gets killed in your own house. Are you saying these people who frequented your home would have gone in particular to go and send this information to your own handler?

MR RICHARDSON: I still maintain that they informed the police. Whether Pretorius or not Pretorius, I don't have that information but all I know is that police in general.

MR SEMENYA: Okay. Mr Richardson, I want us to move to the next subject now and please, for the purpose of the next question I want you to apply your mind and give as correct an answer, as accurate an answer as you can possibly muster. In your entire life, the very first time that Mrs Madikizela-Mandela gives you an instruction to go and commit a violent crime it would be in respect of which crime?

MR RICHARDSON: Stompie Sepei, Kuki Zwane and Lerothodi.

MR SEMENYA: No Mr Richardson, I'm serious now. I don't want the litany of names because those people were not killed at the same time or according to you the instructions were not given at the same time. I want the very, very first one. Now this must be a shock for you because it is according to you the very first instruction by Mrs Madikizela-Mandela to you to go out there and to commit a violent crime. Now that you must remember? It was in respect of which crime, that instruction?

MR RICHARDSON: All these crimes that I've just mentioned. The first one was Stompie's case.

MR SEMENYA: Okay. I want you to reconsider your answer Mr Richardson. You stand by the fact that the very first violent crime you commit at the instruction of Mrs Madikizela-Mandela is that of Stompie Sepei?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes, Stompie's case was the first one.

MR SEMENYA: I'm going to show you why you are completely wrong with your story and your theories.

Chairperson, I'm making a reference now to Exhibit D, page 20 of it. This is a recording by Lt Coode and the recording goes as follows. Now maybe let me start at page 19:

(No English Interpretation):

"Jerry Richardson was gespreek by Leeukop Gevangenis waar hy die beweering maak van 'n swart vrou, Kuki, watt teen die ended van 1988, deur die lede van die sokker klub vermoor was omdat sy na bewering 'n polisie informant was."

Has that been translated to you?


MR SEMENYA: Now according to this information, Mr Richardson, Kuki died at the end of 1988, is that right?

MR RICHARDSON: I would agree and also disagree with that.

MR SEMENYA: I'm not such a genius, help me understand that answer?

MR RICHARDSON: I'm certain that Mr Semenya has the documents and he sees the dates written on those documents so he'll be the one in good position to give us the dates.

MR SEMENYA: Yes, I'll do that. I'm reading at page 20 now:

(No English Interpretation):

"Die lykhuis op Diepkloof was besoek en Konstabel Raath is gespreek. Daar is volgens die lykhuis register op 1988-12-18, 'n liggaam van 'n onbekende swart vrou ingehandig watt 'n steek wond met 'n skerp voorwerp in die nek gehad het."

Has that been translated to you, Sir?


MR SEMENYA: Now let me tell you. According to this the register at the morgue shows that Kuki Zwane was picked up and died the 18th December 1988. They already had Kuki Zwane's body? You can't dispute that, can you?

MR RICHARDSON: I may be making a mistake but according to my recollection the first person who was killed was Stompie and Kuki was killed after Stompie's murder. Now if you're shaking your head, Mr Semenya, it means you disagree with what I'm saying. Thank you.

MR SEMENYA: Now Mr Jerry Richardson, there is one thing that is objective. You can't deny that, that the morgue had a deceased body of Kuki 18 December 1988 already so we know Stompie is alive this time. You can't dispute that, can you?

MR RICHARDSON: It might happen that the person who has written the dates made a mistake but I personally do recall that the first person I put my hands on was Stompie and the next one was Kuki.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Mr Semenya?

Mr Richardson, have regard to your own application which you say you filled in?

MR SEMENYA: Before we deal with your own application, I'll deal with that. I'm saying to you there can't be a mistake about a register which is entered in the Government morgue about receiving an unidentified body of a female who is killed by a wound in the neck exactly the way you have described your own killing of Kuki?

MR RICHARDSON: I cannot dispute that, I will agree with you.

MR SEMENYA: Now you must agree with me that at the time Stompie was at the manse where Reverend Paul Verryn was. They only left that house on the 29th December so already by this time, already by this time, you had already killed Kuki?

MR RICHARDSON: I have a problem with that. I do not agree with that statement, that part of the statement, because as far as I can recall the first person we killed was Stompie.

MR SEMENYA: And I will also show later during the course of this cross-examination that there have been DNA reconciliation of Kuki Zwane with her family in the Transkei to show that this is a true Kuki Zwane who was killed and received under the registration by the morgue? I'm just alerting you to it, that we're not talking about a different person. Do you follow what I'm saying to you?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes I do agree and I do not dispute that that body was Kuki's. What I'm disputing is that Kuki was not killed before Stompie.

MR SEMENYA: Now Stompie was only killed in 1989, there's no way the morgue could have the body of Kuki in 1988. Is that fair to conclude?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes I do understand and I do not have any response to that.

MR SEMENYA: I'm sure.

JUDGE DE JAGER: When would you say Stompie was killed? What was the date of you kidnapping Stompie and when did you kill him?

MR RICHARDSON: 1989, somewhere between January and February.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But then you're confirming that Kuki died before Stompie died?

MR RICHARDSON: No, I do not remember.

MR SEMENYA: Now you remember, it's just that you can't be consistent with your lies and I will tell you why. At the hearing of the Amnesty Committee, the most confusing element about your evidence was that you did not want to kill Lolo and Siboniso Tshabalala because you were guilty of some previous killings. Now we couldn't understand why there are previous killings. You see, at that time the previous killings you're talking about is Kuki Zwane, amongst others. Isn't that right, Sir?

MR RICHARDSON: No, I do not remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Even before, I ask you Sir, you wouldn't torture Sono and Tshabalala because you had killed before? You said it before us. Do you recall that?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes I do remember that.


MR SEMENYA: Who would be the others that you would have killed before that? Because now we're talking '88. Stompie is '89. Who are the other murders were you talking about?

MR RICHARDSON: I was referring to Kuki and Stompie's murder. There aren't any other people.

MR SEMENYA: Mr Richardson, I don't want to spend a lot of time with you, I want to cover these various areas purely to show you that you're not making a full disclosure before the Amnesty Committee hearings and this, unfortunately, was your last opportunity to get out of prison if you made a full disclosure.

I want us to now go to Stompie. I'm going to refer you to the record of your evidence before this very Committee the last time. Mr Chairperson, I'm referring to page 108 to 109.

CHAIRPERSON: For sake of completeness and clarity could we refer to this bundle which are the proceedings of the last time, bundle 4.

MR SEMENYA: Thank you Chairperson.

At the bottom of that record, Mr Richardson, you say the following. The same ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: May I interrupt you, Mr Semenya? The page again? I'm sorry about that.

MR SEMENYA: Page 108 to 109. At the bottom of that page you are saying:

"The same people from the Crisis Committee came in the night as we were preparing to go with Stompie. We did not go out and we just said "here are those people" and we hid ourselves. Myself and Sledge, we hid ourselves and the people told them that we were not there and the people from the Crisis Committee left. The following day, Sonobo told us that we were actually taking a long time with this person and he told us that we were going to bring Mummy in trouble if we take more time. Then we took him on that particular day."

Do you recall that evidence?


MR SEMENYA: So you are giving now as a reason the killing of Stompie as the enquiry which is now being made by the Crisis Committee and you are hiding with Stompie at those times, is that right? That's the picture you're painting there, isn't that right?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes that is correct.

MR SEMENYA: But that can't be correct, Mr Richardson. Do you want to reconsider that answer?


MR SEMENYA: You stand by that answer?


MR SEMENYA: Well I'm going to show you that you cannot be correct and I'm going to refer to the notes which were taken down by Bishop Storey about the activities of the Mandela Crisis Committee. Chairperson, maybe this may be provisionally marked Exhibit F? I will make appropriate copies.

Mr Richardson, we're now even looking at your application for amnesty and your repeated evidence on the matter. You killed Stompie on the 3rd January 1989, is that right?

MR RICHARDSON: That is correct.

MR SEMENYA: And when you say that the people from the Crisis Committee were there enquiring, you are talking about people including Sydney Mufamadi, Sister Bennet Ncube and those people. They are the ones who made you edgy, that look, now we must do this thing otherwise "we'll put", in your words, "Mummy in trouble". Is that right?

MR RICHARDSON: No, that's not right.

MR SEMENYA: What's not right?

MR RICHARDSON: The fact that the Crisis Committee was pushing to go kill these children, no it's not so. Crisis Committee was not involved in the killing.

MR SEMENYA: No, sorry. Maybe there was some translation difficulty. I didn't say that at all. I'm merely saying the arrival of the Crisis Committee at Mrs Madikizela-Mandela's house was the one that made the situation imminent, that you now must do something with this Stompie and that you have confirmed, is that right?

MR RICHARDSON: No, the entire statement is not correct. The Crisis Committee never pushed us to kill these children.

MR SEMENYA: I'm not saying that. Well let me put it easier for you. When the Crisis Committee comes to the house of Mrs Mandela, you're saying that - and we are talking now about Sister Bennet Ncube and others, you're saying Stompie is still alive, right?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes that is correct.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And they wanted Stompie to be handed over, with the other children?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes that is correct.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Now weren't you afraid that if they see Stompie they would realise that he's been assaulted?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes that is correct. We were scared that they would realise that he has been assaulted.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So you had to do something about Stompie, you should hide him somewhere or you should go and kill him?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes, we wanted to hide him until the Crisis Committee had left and then we would kill him thereafter.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Right, thank you.

MR SEMENYA: Now according to the record of Bishop Storey, which is a chronological sequence of when the investigation is done around the children. The very first time that members of the Crisis Committee, Aubrey Mokoena, Sister Bennet Ncube, Sydney Mufamadi visited Mrs Mandela was on Wednesday the 11th January 1989. Now this is long after Stompie has died when they come there. Do you have an explanation, Sir?

MR RICHARDSON: No, I don't have any explanation but the Crisis Committee did come.

MR SEMENYA: No, no, no, no, Sir. I'm not interested in whether or not the Crisis Committee members did or did not come. The point I'm raising with you is that you are lying when you say that the arrival of Sister Bennet Ncube and others made you jittery about Stompie who was hurt that time and you had to do something about him. At that time you had already killed Stompie. Do you deny that?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes I do deny that. We were supposed to be scared because these were the Crisis Committee members and we ought to respect them.

MR SEMENYA: No, I'm not interested in respect, I'm interested in dates. The first time Sister Bennet Ncube comes to Mandela's residence is on the 11th January 1989 and Stompie died on the 3rd January, that is more than a week before. So I'm saying your story cannot be correct, Sir. Have you got an explanation?

MR RICHARDSON: No, I have nothing to say.

MR SEMENYA: And I will show you why your difficulty is of your own creation by telling this web of lies and I refer you to page 107. Maybe might I start, Chairperson, with page 106? At page 106, Mr Richardson, you say at the bottom of the page there:

"It took us two days because even the Crisis Committee knew about what was happening."

And Mr Richard is asking you: "Now why did ..."

and Advocate Bosman says:

"Why do you say this, why do you say they knew what was happening?"

And your answer is the most interesting part of this web, Mr Richardson. It is on page 107 at the top:

"I say that because they would come to me and they could see me in the eyes that I was guilty because it is so easy to see a guilty person in the eyes."

"Guilty of what?" the Chairperson asks.

"A person who has killed someone."

JUDGE DE JAGER: I think we've got a problem with, the page is slightly ...(inaudible).

CHAIRPERSON: Because what we have just read is in our documents page 108. In our document.

MR SEMENYA: Maybe our documents are not paged similarly but I think we have found the phrase?


MR SEMENYA: In this instance you are saying Sydney Mufamadi could see in your eyes that you're guilty because you had killed somebody. So you do confirm that when the Crisis Committee comes to you, you had already killed Stompie. They could see in your eyes that you're guilty. Isn't that what you're saying here, Sir?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes I did say so.

MR SEMENYA: I know you said so but how can that be correct if on your own version the Crisis Committee arrives after Stompie is killed and you say they can see in your eyes that you're a guilty person. How can that be reconciled with saying:

"We killed Stompie because they were already beginning to make enquiries about Stompie and we needed now to get rid of him."?

MR RICHARDSON: I do understand you.

MR SEMENYA: I know you understand me, I want to understand you. How do you reconcile the two?

MR RICHARDSON: There's nothing further that I can explain, the documents themselves they do explain.

MR SEMENYA: May this, Chairperson, be an appropriate stage to take the lunch adjournment?

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly, I was going to suggest that, Mr Semenya. Thank you for reminding me. We adjourn for lunch for 45 minutes. Is that okay with everybody? Thank you.



CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Richardson, may I remind you that you are still under oath?


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may proceed Mr Semenya.


Thank you Chairperson. Mr Richardson, do you know Aubrey Mokoena?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes I do know him.

MR SEMENYA: I didn't get the translation.

Do you say you know Aubrey Mokoena?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes I said I know him.

MR SEMENYA: You see, according to Exhibit D it is the - Bishop Storey's minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it not F, Bishop Storey?

MR SEMENYA: Yes. According to Exhibit F, the very first time that Mr Mokoena goes to Mrs Madikizela-Mandela's home was on the 4th January, that is after the killing of Stompie. You can't dispute the time when he went there, right?

MR RICHARDSON: No, I wouldn't be able to dispute this. There's a noise at the background and it's really disturbing us.

MR SEMENYA: Mr Richardson, I want to refer you to page 65 of the Human Rights Violation record. That is bundle 1. In the middle of the page just where it says Mr Richardson, stands the following:

"Yes that is correct, the following morning I went to Mummy to give her a report back. I told her that Stompie was worse off than the other kids. He had been badly injured and I wanted to take him back to his place but I could see that Stompie was in a very bad shape."

And I emphasise the last sentence:

"I realised that he was going to die anyway and my opinion was that he should just be finished off."

Do you remember this was your evidence, Mr Richardson?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes I do remember.

MR SEMENYA: And you confirm that's correct, you are the one who realised that he was going to die and you were of the opinion that he should be finished off. You?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes I did say so.

MR SEMENYA: Now can we go to the sequence of events. The first thing about the young man and the child that were at the manse, the first person who was collected was Cebekhulu, is that right who came with Xoliswa Falati and her daughter?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes it is so.

MR SEMENYA: And a report was made to Mrs Madikizela-Mandela that here is a young man who complains bitterly about her being sexually abused, is that right?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes it is so.

MR SEMENYA: And her immediate response was well, maybe we should take him to a doctor and he was taken to Dr Asvat, right?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes I will say it happened that way or it might happen. It was like that.

MR SEMENYA: The other group at the manse were collected after Cebekhulu had already been taken to a doctor, isn't that correct?

MR RICHARDSON: No, it is not so.

MR SEMENYA: Was Cebekhulu taken to the doctor after the others were collected from the manse?

MR RICHARDSON: I don't have that information whether Cebekhulu was taken to hospital or not.

MR SEMENYA: Now you know, Mr Richardson, you have testified about it. Isn't that correct?

MR RICHARDSON: When I say I don't have that kind of information it is because I'm not certain but it is apparent that you want me to say yes on things that I'm not sure of. I cannot remember whether Cebekhulu was taken to hospital or not.

MR SEMENYA: Now importantly, it's not even a hospital, it's Dr Asvat and I'm going to get us to how that comes into the picture. I'm not talking hospital. You know Dr Asvat's surgery, don't you?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes I do know it very well.

MR SEMENYA: He was taken to Dr Asvat's surgery, wasn't he?

MR RICHARDSON: I do not remember.

MR SEMENYA: Okay. Now the young man, Philo Megwe and the others who were assaulted according to you because they were sexually abused?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes it is so.

MR SEMENYA: But they were also assaulted by Cebekhulu, were they not?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes it is so.

MR SEMENYA: And Cebekhulu who was also sexually abused according to his version was not assaulted, is that right?

MR RICHARDSON: No he wasn't assaulted on that particular day.

MR SEMENYA: But there is a contradiction here, right? The others are being assaulted for being sexually abused, Cebekhulu is the one who makes that complaint for the first time. He is not assaulted but you allow him to assault the others? Isn't that right?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes it was like that.

MR SEMENYA: I'll tell you why it was like that. You see, you and Cebekhulu, police informers, you know exactly why you are collecting these children from the manse on instructions from your own superiors?

MR RICHARDSON: I don't know where I should start, Mr Semenya, but the truth is that you are really trying to put me on a spot even though you are failing in so doing. But what I can tell you is that if you really want to put me on the spot you wouldn't be succeeding because there was nothing that we planned in order for Cebekhulu not to be assaulted. It was never planned by either me nor Mrs Mandela.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you follow the question, Mr Richardson, put to you by Mr Semenya? Did you follow the question put to you by Mr Semenya? If you haven't - you may repeat it just for clarity, Mr Semenya.

MR RICHARDSON: I think I understood his question very well.

CHAIRPERSON: So that we do not have this kind of responses. Just respond to the questions, I think it's very simple.

MR SEMENYA: The reason that Cebekhulu is not assaulted and the reason that despite complaining of being sexually abused, he is allowed by you to assault the others is because you and him were informers and you were acting on some instructions of your superiors who amongst others at the time have been a Eugene de Kock for that matter?

MR RICHARDSON: I don't have any response to that because you're putting words in my mouth.

CHAIRPERSON: He is asking a question, do you agree with him or don't you agree with him?

MR RICHARDSON: No, I do not agree with him. That is why I'm saying he is putting words in my mouth.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you do it in such a way that you don't put any words in his mouth?

MR SEMENYA: Thank you Chairperson. Let's move on. I think we're not meant to spend our lives here.

Do you know Dlamini? He was convicted for the killing of Dr Asvat.

MR RICHARDSON: Yes I do know him.

MR SEMENYA: And did you know him before the murder of Dr Asvat, is that not right?

MR RICHARDSON: No I didn't. I didn't know him prior to that murder, I only knew him after the murder.

MR SEMENYA: And do you know Mbatha who was also convicted of the killing of Dr Asvat?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes I do know him.

MR SEMENYA: You did know him, did you not, prior to the murder of Dr Asvat?

MR RICHARDSON: No. I didn't know him prior to the murder. I only knew him after the murder had been committed.

MR SEMENYA: Chairperson, may you just bear with me? I'm looking for the record of the investigator's notes.


JUDGE DE JAGER: May I also enquire about the exhibits, were you able to have copies made or could somebody assist you in having copies made. Mr Semenya, have you got copies of the exhibits perhaps?

MR SEMENYA: Not yet Chairperson.

MR MAPOMA: Not yet Chairperson, the arrangement is that we were going to make them after we adjourn because I was afraid that they may be necessary when they're not in, to have copies made.

MR SEMENYA: Thank you Chairperson.

I'm referring to Exhibit B, it is the notes - Exhibit C, the notes of the police. Major Moodley...(intervention)

MR MAPOMA: Sorry no, it must be Exhibit E, because Exhibit C is the statement by him to the police and then Exhibit D is the report of the special IU and then E must be the entry or the notes by Col. Hesslinga, so it must be E.

MR SEMENYA: Major Moodley makes some entries. Do you know him?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes I do know him.

MR SEMENYA: He is the one that you say will be accused number 3 when you become accused number 4?


MR SEMENYA: Who will be accused number 1 and 2?

MR RICHARDSON: 1 will be Mrs Mandela, number 2 will be Paul Erasmus. Number 3 will be Moodley and number 4 will be myself.

MR SEMENYA: To which charge?

MR RICHARDSON: The one that I will open when I'm released.

MR SEMENYA: So you'll be - you'll open a charge in which you are an accused, number 4?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes it is like that.

MR SEMENYA: Okay, in any case I was referring to pages 6 of Exhibit E. It is written there in Afrikaans and I will - no, it's written in English:

"Met with prisoner number 3585, Thulani Shekle Nicolaas Dlamini at Westville Prison, Maximum Cells, Durban ...(indistinct) and the interview was recorded. He, now mentions the name of Katiza Cebekhulu as well as Jerry Richardson, who he, Dlamini, says was in the surgery at the time of the murder."

MR SEMENYA: Has that been translated to you?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes it has been.

MR SEMENYA: You see, this is on the 29th April 1995. This man has already been convicted and sentenced to death and in his interview with Major Moodley, he mentions that you were present at the surgery when Dr Asvat was killed, you and Cebekhulu. What is your reaction?

MR RICHARDSON: I dispute that because when there was a hearing I do not remember a Richardson and Katiza's name mentioned there. This is new to me and that is all I have to say.

MR SEMENYA: Can you say it in simpler language? The accusation here is that you were present in Dr Asvat's surgery when he was killed, you and Cebekhulu?

MR RICHARDSON: No, I wasn't present.

MR SEMENYA: On the same page, entry against date, 1st May 1995, Major Moodley goes to Leeukop Prison to see prisoner number 53/0308 Zakela Cyril Mbatha. He was interviewed but did not want to be recorded on tape. He says that he is afraid of Mummy as well as Jerry. So you see that already these people, according to him, they knew you even before the murder of Dr Asvat?

MR RICHARDSON: No, they didn't know me before the murder. Even myself, I didn't know them.

MR SEMENYA: I'll show you you're wrong later. On page 9 of those notes entry against a date, 3rd May 1995, 16h00, Lt Coode, C-O-O-D-E, makes the following inscriptions:

(No English Interpretation):

"Mnr van der Merwe stel dit duidelik dat daar geen feitlike getuienis is vir sy uitspraake nie and dat he slegs op persoonlike gevoelings reageer. Hy praat van die feit dat daar nie veel geld geloof is nie en dat Dr Asvat vir Stompie Sepei gesien het voor sy dood."

Has that been translated to you?


MR SEMENYA: Now Mr van der Merwe was the State Advocate prosecuting in the Asvat murder. What comes out from there is that he gained a clear impression that Dr Asvat was killed because he had seen Stompie Sepei. What's your reaction?

MR RICHARDSON: I wouldn't dispute that.

MR SEMENYA: But that's very funny, Mr Richardson, is it not funny that according to your evidence from the time you took Stompie and them from the manse, until the time that you killed him, he was never out of your sight?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes it is true, he was never out of my sight.

MR SEMENYA: Now why do you say it's possible that Dr Asvat would have seen him?

MR RICHARDSON: It might happen because I was staying in my room, I wasn't staying in the main house. It might happen that Stompie had ran to see Dr Asvat without me knowing that.

MR SEMENYA: No, but you've just said now, two lines ago, it's very true that Stompie was never out of your sight during that period?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes but sometimes even if you are looking at something you might not see everything.

MR SEMENYA: You are incredible. I want to refer us to page 14 of the notes. Lt Coode makes entries against the date 9 May 1995, 12h30. It is inscribed there:

"Spreek vir Jerry Richardson by Maximum Security te Leeukop Gevangenis. Volgens Mnr Richardson, ..."

can I just go back a little? I want to read the last paragraph of that notation. This is now Lt Coode talking to you in Leeukop Maximum Prison and it is inscribed there:

(No English Interpretation):

"Daar was toe algemeen aanvaar dat Stompie die inligting aan veiligheids verstrek het en dit is die hoof rede waarom Stompie doodgemaak is."

And the information which is referred to here which is the information about the cadres who were killed in your house on the 9th November 1988. Is that inscription correct?

MR RICHARDSON: Would you please repeat your question?

MR SEMENYA: I'll break it down:

"Later dieselfde dag het Stompie Sepei hom aan huis kom kuier en hy het ook die twee MK lede gesien."

According to this you're telling Lt Coode at your Leeukop Prison that Stompie Sepei came on that day to your house and he did see the two MK cadres at your house?

MR RICHARDSON: I do not know anything like that.

MR SEMENYA: No, but was Stompie at your house on that day?

MR RICHARDSON: No Stompie didn't know my house. He died before knowing where I was staying.

MR SEMENYA: It continues:

(No English Interpretation):

"'n Rukkie nadat Stompie vertrek het, het lede van die polisie daarop gedaag en 'n skiet geveg het ontstaan waarna die twee MK lede gedood is."

Do you still dispute that?

MR RICHARDSON: I dispute that.

MR SEMENYA: "Daar was toe algemeen aanvaar dat Stompie die inligting aan Veiligheids verstrek het en dit is die hoof rede waarom Stompie doodgemaak is."

MR RICHARDSON: I do not know anything about what is written on the papers.

MR SEMENYA: On page 15 of Exhibit A the inscription is made by Lt Coode when he was having the consultation with you, you say it is inscribed:

(No English Interpretation):

"Volgens hom..."

that is now you,

"...was die Tshabalala seun watt langs Sono gewoon het, ook Lusaka geneem."

MR SEMENYA: You deny telling this to Lt Coode?

MR RICHARDSON: No, I do not have such information.

MR SEMENYA: But where does Lt Coode have this information, where does he take it from? I mean he is recording this with you in your ...(indistinct), you're having this consultation, he is writing notes?

MR RICHARDSON: I truly dispute this because I don't know. I can't say yes to something I don't know. I don't know anything he wrote about.

MR SEMENYA: And you see the most interesting thing, Mr Richardson, all throughout you have never claimed that Siboniso Tshabalala and Lolo Sono were killed at the same time. You persistently continued suggesting that Lolo was the one who was killed and dug into a mine dump. Isn't that correct, Sir?

MR RICHARDSON: Would you please repeat your question?

MR SEMENYA: The first time that you make the suggestion that Lolo Sono and Siboniso Tshabalala were killed jointly was when you were making your amnesty application in 1997. Before that time you were holding a view that Siboniso Tshabalala has left for Lusaka and it is only Lolo who was killed and buried in some place?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes I did put that in my amnesty application. I just don't know whether I made a mistake but I was supposed to put that like it happened?

MR SEMENYA: I'll say it again. I'm saying to you the first time that you suggest the two were killed at the same spot at the same time was when you made an amnesty application. Before then, according to you, the one was in Lusaka and the other one was killed and you were prepared to show the grave of Lolo Sono?

MR RICHARDSON: I dispute what Mr Semenya has just put to me. I've never mentioned that one is in Lusaka and the other one has been killed. This is the first time that I'm hearing this.

MR SEMENYA: Well I'll take it with you. On Exhibit E on the same paragraph that I referred to earlier it is described here at the last paragraph:

(No English Interpretation):

"Mnr Richardson beweer verder dat Lolo Sono ook in opdragte van Mev Mandela vermoor is. Volgens hom is hy selfbereid om Sono se graf te gaan uitwys sodra hy sy beloning vanaf Veligheids ontvang het."

You see, you're not making reference to the graves of Lolo and Tshabalala, do you see that?

MR RICHARDSON: I wouldn't be able to dispute that.

MR SEMENYA: I'm sure you won't be. And on page 16 of those notes, Exhibit E, now you're speaking to Col. Hesslinga on the 9th May 1995 and this is what you say, Mr Richardson.

(No English Interpretation):

"Richardson is bereid om die plek uit te wys waar Lolo begrawe is."

You see, you're not even making the accession to Hesslinga that Lolo would be buried together with Siboniso Tshabalala? Is that a correct inscription of what you told Hesslinga, is that right?

MR RICHARDSON: I wouldn't be able to dispute that as well.

MR SEMENYA: I want to take us back to the same paragraph but about another event. You say there:

(No English Interpretation):

"Hy is volgens hom of dieselfde wyse as Stompie Sepei vermoor. Cebekhulu was ook teenwoordig."

MR RICHARDSON: It is no longer Sledge, it's now Cebekhulu. Now I don't know how I should respond to that. Which one is which? I don't agree with this statement.

MR SEMENYA: On page 17 of the notes it is Det.Sgt Surridge S-U-R-R-I-D-G-E, who makes the inscription.

"It has been established that Mbatha knows Katiza Cebekhulu well and from his letter to John Chaope it is common knowledge that he, Mbatha, is trying to derail the investigation into the death of Dr Asvat by informing other persons mentioned in his letter."

MR RICHARDSON: I don't have any information on that.

MR SEMENYA: You see this answer of yours has acquired some craft about it. Any time I mention you and Cebekhulu you have the answer well, I have no knowledge of this thing?

MR RICHARDSON: It is the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that about the craft which you have acquired which is the truth?

MR RICHARDSON: I'm referring to any information about Cebekhulu, he didn't know me, he only knew me when he came to report his case. When you say you want to remove yourself from Cebekhulu's matter, what I'm saying is that I never said to Cebekhulu he must assault the kids. He was the one who started doing that. I didn't know Cebekhulu then, I started on that day knowing him or seeing him on that day.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may proceed, Mr Semenya.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But when you saw him assaulting the kids, why didn't you stop him? He was a stranger there, now he's starting to assault the kids? Why didn't you stop him?

MR RICHARDSON: The problem was that all of us were assaulting the children including Mrs Mandela herself and myself. We were all assaulting the kids.

CHAIRPERSON: My brother says that he was a stranger to you, why did you allow him to participate, that is Cebekhulu, in the assault?

MR RICHARDSON: It just happened, there was no other way we could have done it, it just happened that way.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed Mr Semenya.

MR SEMENYA: Okay, let continue. Here on page 18 you're saying to Col. Hesslinga:

(No English Interpretation):

"Gedurende November/Desember 1988, 'n swart vrou, Kuki, wie saam met die Winnie Mandela Sokkerspan gewoon het, vermoor om rede dit vermoe was dat sy 'n polisieberigewer is."

Now can we stop here for a while? Who did Kuki inform on?

MR RICHARDSON: In my knowledge I've never seen Kuki informing on anyone but she was labelled as an informant.

MR SEMENYA: To have informed on who?

MR RICHARDSON: As I have already mentioned that I have personally never seen her informing on anyone but it was labelled that she was an informer.

MR SEMENYA: According to the label, she would have informed on who? According to the label now, she would have informed on who?

MR RICHARDSON: I don't have the information on who she had informed on but surely she was labelled as an informer.

MR SEMENYA: You see, this informer thing of yours unsettles me. You were an informer and you knew it at the time. At least about yourself. Maybe you didn't know about others, isn't that right?

MR RICHARDSON: Mr Semenya, I am embarrassed to tell you that maybe you need to go to school and start all over again and I'm embarrassed to tell you that maybe you need to resign as an attorney because before you there's full evidence and also you know me from childhood and unfortunately it's difficult for me to say yes to what you are relating here about me.

MR SEMENYA: When you were a child I wasn't born.

MR RICHARDSON: No, you were.

MR SEMENYA: So I don't know you from childhood, surely?


MR SEMENYA: But on a serious note now, police informers are supposed to tell the police about the commission of a crime to be committed so that the police can stop it or tell the police about a commission of a crime already committed so that they can arrest the people. That's what a police informer does, isn't that right?

MR RICHARDSON: I don't know that job description of that job because I don't have experience in that job but I'm glad you just explained to me.

MR SEMENYA: It's very simple, it's exactly what you and Pretorius were doing. That's the job description of an informer. Are you familiar with what subject I'm discussing?

MR RICHARDSON: You say if Pretorius was here, if he was with us I'll be very happy because he was going to tell the truth and also if I was killed or if I was given a death sentence I'll be happy because I wouldn't be able to relate these things and for the first time I heard about De Kock is from you, Mr Semenya, and thank you for that.

CHAIRPERSON: If I may interpose. Did you not tell the Human Rights Violations Committee that you were handled by Sgt Pretorius? It did not come from you?

MR RICHARDSON: If I may answer there, in 1997 when the commission had evidence it was a different setting. I probably had said so or probably not because it is apparent that it is on the documents and if I am following Mr Semenya very well it's like he is trying to put me on the spot and I'm doing my best not to get there and thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you say it or did you not say it, Mr Richardson, that under cross-examination you were handled by Sgt Pretorius?

MR RICHARDSON: I do not remember but I think it appears on the documents.

CHAIRPERSON: I saw it in the documents. I was not in that hearing but I saw it in the documents that you agreed that you were handled by Pretorius for a favour of R10 000. You may continue.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Richardson, I want to give you my personal opinion. There's a lot of contradictions in your evidence. This morning you were offered the opportunity of support for your amnesty application if you would come out with the truth. It's becoming late in the day because in the end we'll have to decide whether we could believe you or not but you've got this opportunity now and it's been stated it's your last opportunity. Can you explain why we've got all these contradictions in your evidence? What is the truth? If you could tell us the truth it may be that it would count in your favour even at this late stage but if we continue to have all the contradictions, you're making it very difficult for yourself. So think about it and if you can clear up all these contradictions it may be to your advantage and it may be that we'll be in a position to help you. But without clearing up these contradictions you make it very difficult for us to assist you in any way. So it's coming now from me, I'm only one of three here, but we're wasting time, we want to have the truth. If we've got the truth then we may be able to assist you, otherwise we can't.

MR RICHARDSON: I do understand that and I believe I'm under oath and I've sworn to tell the truth and I do believe that I am telling the truth and I do not dispute the fact that I had killed these children but I am disputing the fact that I've worked with De Kock and others and if the Committee were to ask me if I want to go back to prison I will tell the Committee that it's better to go back to prison because the truth that I'm relating here doesn't appear like the truth and there is no other way I can put this. I will agree with what I remember and what I know and I'll dispute what I don't remember.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Okay, let's leave De Kock out of the picture. You've stated before that you with Pretorius, that he was your handler. What is the truth now? Was he your handler or wasn't he your handler?

MR RICHARDSON: I was never his informer but he recruited me and I denied. I don't even have a card or a number as an informer.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Thank you. Sorry for interrupting you Mr Semenya.

MR SEMENYA: I'm just going to run this through with you, Mr Richardson, it seems to me that you are irredeemable. On the paragraph which I was reading, you continue to say the following about Kuki:

(No English Interpretation):

"Sy was met 'n skerp voorwerp in die nek gesteek en in 'n oop veld in Orlando Oos langs 'n spoorlyn verlaat. Sy is onder klippe begrawe."

Did you bury her under the stones?

MR RICHARDSON: Her body was put on the grass next to stones.

MR SEMENYA: And you say there that:

(No English Interpretation):

"'n Swart man Killer en Sledge het die moord opdrag van Winnie Mandela gekeur en hulle het aan haar terug rapporteer."

That is now relating to the murder of Kuki.

MR RICHARDSON: Would you please repeat your question?

MR SEMENYA: Was killer there when Kuki was killed?

MR RICHARDSON: It was myself and killer.

MR SEMENYA: Was Sledge there when Kuki was killed?

MR RICHARDSON: No he wasn't.

MR SEMENYA: You don't know why he would have said that to Col. Hesslinga in your consultation?

MR RICHARDSON: Sledge was present when Stompie was killed.

MR SEMENYA: On a different day the 16th May 1995 you say in your further interview with Col. Hesslinga, now you were taken for a pointing out:

(No English Interpretation):

"Jerry Richardson was uitgeboek op ondersoek by Leeukop Gevangenis na Soweto. Hy neem ons na 'n oop stuk grond in Orlando Oos oorkant 'n treinspoor en naby 'n Swart skool."

Do you remember going with Hesslinga to a pointing out at Orlando?


MR SEMENYA: (No English Interpretation):

"Hy wys in die veld 'n klomp rotse uit as die plek waar die lyk van 'n swart vrou, genaamd Kuki, gelaat was nadat sy deur Killer en Sledge vermoor was op opdrag van Mevrou Mandela."

Did you say that?


MR SEMENYA: On 19th May 1995 around 3 o'clock in your interview with Lt Coode you say that - it's recorded here:

(No English Interpretation):

"Jerry deel ook mee dat Shakes, watt Mevrou Mandela se motorbestuurder was, ook teenwoordig as met die moord op Kuki."

MR RICHARDSON: No, Shakes wasn't present.

MR SEMENYA: Do you remember in your earlier evidence you said Shakes remained in the car when Lolo and when Sono and Tshabalala were killed?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes I do remember.

MR SEMENYA: Why in your amnesty application do you say he is the one who did the killing?

MR RICHARDSON: Not Shakes, Ninja and Jaibooi. Shakes was the driver.

MR SEMENYA: Why do you say in your amnesty application the following:

"Sono/Tshabalala - they were abducted by myself and a person called Shakes and Jabulani Kubheka (Jabooi). They were assaulted at Mrs Mandela's home for about a week. They were taken to the veld and Kubheka and Shakes slits their throats while I watched."

Now this is you making your own statement in your own writing according to you? You see? Why do you complete that then?

MR RICHARDSON: I don't remember why I said so but Shakes wasn't there.

MR SEMENYA: Now I want to point to you things which suggest you don't know about the murder of Lolo or Tshabalala. Just want to point certain things which contradict your amnesty application. At page 16 of Exhibit E you're saying to Col. Hesslinga:

"Richardson is bereid om die plek uit te wys waar Lolo begrawe is."

There's no Tshabalala there, do you agree? Do you agree?

MR RICHARDSON: No, I do not agree.

MR SEMENYA: On another day which is the 12th May you say to him that:

(No English Interpretation):

"Richardson is ook bereid om die graaf van Lolo Sono to gaan wys. Lolo is verhoor in the Landros van Sithole."

You see, you still make no mention of Siboniso Tshabalala. What's your comment?

MR RICHARDSON: I do not agree with that.

MR SEMENYA: On page 21 on a different date which is the 16th May when you go for the pointing out:

(No English Interpretation):

"Jerry Richardson neem ons ook na 'n mynhoop oorkant Gebied 1 in Meadowlands. Hier wys hy vir ons 'n plek aan die voet van die mynhoop uit waar die liggaam van Lolo na bewering begrawe is."

No mention is made of Tshabalala. What is your comment?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes I did go with them to show them.

JUDGE DE JAGER: To show them where Tshabalala was buried?

MR RICHARDSON: ...(no interpretation)

JUDGE DE JAGER: And they don't mention it anywhere in their statements that you've shown them that grave too?

MR RICHARDSON: I showed them both graves where Lolo's body was buried and also where Tshabalala's body was buried.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But there were no bodies at that stage. You couldn't find the bodies?

MR RICHARDSON: No, there were no bodies.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did they start digging while you were there or weren't you present at any attempt to find the bodies?

MR RICHARDSON: No, they didn't when I was present. They took me back to prison and then they went back to dig.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And what did they report later to you?

MR RICHARDSON: No, they came back and they told me they couldn't find any bodies there and I was to go and point another place and I told them there wasn't any place and I told them there wasn't any other place except for that one.

MR SEMENYA: Now it's common cause that various places were dug at your instance and no bodies were found. Do you deny that?

MR RICHARDSON: No, I only pointed one place to them.

MR SEMENYA: On page 19 you say to Col. Hesslinga, on the 12th of May now, that:

(No English Interpretation):

"Swartman David het die liggaam gaan begrawe daarna en 'n kaart van die graaf geteken en Winnie Mandela oorhandig."

Did a certain David draw the map where the body was buried?

MR RICHARDSON: No, I only know of one person. His name is Themba, not David.

MR SEMENYA: Themba knew the map where the bodies were buried?

MR RICHARDSON: Themba was with me after Mrs Mandela issued an instruction that I should go and point to Themba where we've hidden the bodies and I went with Themba to show him the place.

MR SEMENYA: And you found the bodies with Themba?

MR RICHARDSON: No, he was there to look if there was no traces of blood on that area. We were not there to dig, he was there to see the place.

MR SEMENYA: But if you are correct, why don't you say to Mrs Mandela there's no point in us taking Themba there, we buried these people so deep and we've covered the entire area, there won't even be any traces so Themba won't be able to see whether it is true or not?

MR RICHARDSON: I think according to Mrs Mandela there was a need for Themba to go and inspect the area. The reason Themba accompanied me was to make sure the job was done perfectly.

MR SEMENYA: Now I'm saying it on your theory, even on that theory, why don't you say to Mrs Mandela there's no point in us going there, we've buried these people so deep, we've covered the entire area with soil, Themba won't be able to see that they're dead unless if you say we must go dig them up, show him the bodies and then cover them?

MR RICHARDSON: I am certain that it was not my place to dispute that. She wanted to make sure.

MR SEMENYA: So did Themba come back satisfied that you have killed the two people?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes he did see a footprint and we went back and he reported to Mrs Mandela that the job was done perfectly.

MR SEMENYA: Oh, so Themba knows footprints of Lolo Sono and Siboniso Tshabalala and could tell that these footprints belonged to them and they also mean that they're dead?

MR RICHARDSON: No but one could tell that there was a fight in that grass or ground.

MR SEMENYA: Let's continue. It is recorded in an interview by Major Moodley on page 20 of Exhibit E talking to Dlamini who is convicted of the murder of Asvat the following:

"Dlamini further stated that he was taken to the surgery by Mbatha who was instructed by Jerry to go and kill the Dr Asvat. He did not know where the surgery was but was taken there by Jerry a few hours and shown the place."

MR RICHARDSON: I dispute that. I only know Mbatha when the case was on.

MR SEMENYA: "Jerry was not present when the doctor was killed. According to him the reason for his death was that he knew too much about the death of Stompie."

MR RICHARDSON: I dispute that statement as well.

MR SEMENYA: Mr Richardson can I ask you to look at your statement you made on the 20th February 1989? I don't know if we all have the statement? It is the statement you make the day after your arrest in February. May this, Chairperson, be provisionally marked Exhibit G?

In this statement you say you're only prepared to answer questions and question 2 which is asked on page 3 is:

(No English Interpretation):

"Ken jy vir Lolo Sono? Foto word getoon"

They show you the photo of Lolo Sono and your answer is:

"Nee, ek ken hom nie."

Do you remember you made that statement?

MR RICHARDSON: Are you talking about something which happened in 1989 then I do not remember.

MR SEMENYA: Yes. Yes, this is your statement in 1989 the day after your arrest. You made the statement to the police, now. You were arrested in February 1989, you say you don't know Lolo Sono despite being shown a photo of him. Do you have an explanation for that?

MR RICHARDSON: I do not remember.

MR SEMENYA: The next question:

"Ken jy vir Siboniso Tshabalala? Foto getoon."



MR RICHARDSON: No I do not remember that as well.

MR SEMENYA: The next question 4:

"Ken jy vir James Sepei alias Stompie?"

"Ja, ek ken hom."


"Wanneer laaste het jy hom gesien?"


"Ek het hom laaste op 1989, 3 January gesien by Winnie se huis te Diepkloof Uitbreiding."

Do you remember when the issues were still fresh in your mind you could still with precision tell that Stompie was killed on the 3rd January 1989?

MR RICHARDSON: I do not remember what I've said to the police when I was arrested.

MR SEMENYA: Now you are being asked at question 9:

(No English Interpretation):

"Het jy vir Thabiso Mono, Pele Makwe en Kenneth Gasi asook James Sepei alias Stompie gedurende die tydperk Desember 1988, January 1989 aangerand by swart vrou Winnie Mandela se woning te Diepkloof Uitbreiding?"

Your answer:

"Luitenant, ek het hulle geklap met my oop hand omdat hulle nie die vensters by Winnie se huis wil skoonmaak nie."

MR RICHARDSON: ...(no interpretation)

MR SEMENYA: So the very first thing you say to the police upon arrest to why are you assaulting these boys, you say because they were refusing to wash windows?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes I did say so.

MR SEMENYA: When did you take Stompie to Protea Police Station before you killed him?

MR RICHARDSON: I've never taken Stompie to Protea Police Station. I only took Stompie to kill him.

MR SEMENYA: Mr Richardson, I am convinced that we will take a long time to try and find some coherence in your story. I had obviously offered you the option to say that it seems to me if you acted for the Security Police and you did the things you say you did. In my mind those would be within the definition of the Promotion of Reconciliation and - just now the full title escapes me - of the amnesty Act and if you made a full disclosure you are entitled to amnesty, I don't know why you're trying to protect the police like some Nofomela who only disclosed the De Kock's issue on the eve of his execution. It only became apparent to him at that time that these police were not going to help him, he is going to hang. It is only at that time that he disclosed the third force and I don't understand why you're taking the same position? Why are you protecting the police?

MR RICHARDSON: I will never protect the police and I don't see any reason why I should protect the police but you can tell that police have destroyed this evidence.

MR SEMENYA: I put it to you that your killing started very long ago with Kuki Zwane, very long before the children were even brought to Mandela's home and this theory about being killed as informers it's a fabrication and that we have received instructions from Mrs Mandela it's a complete fabrication. What is your comment?

MR RICHARDSON: I didn't fabricate anything so far.

MR SEMENYA: They don't make sense the things you say. Chairperson, I've no further questions.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Semenya. Mr Mapoma, any questions?

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, I have no questions to ask, thank you.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mapoma. Any re-examination, Mr Richard?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: A few questions, Chairperson.

Mr Richardson, you heard the propositions put to you by Mr Semenya. Did you ever take any instructions or orders to do anything at all from the police?


MR RICHARD: Now, it is however correct that at some time earlier before the whole Stompie and Kuki Zwane story happened you met with Mr Pretorius, a policeman, it is true, that we've told the Commission before, often?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes it is true.

MR RICHARD: Did you ever tell the police before the new year of 1989 about any of the killings or any of the other happenings at the Mandela house?


MR RICHARD: Now the next question is, would you have killed any of the people that you admit to killing if Mrs Mandela had not given the instructions?

MR RICHARDSON: No, I wouldn't have.

MR RICHARD: No further questions.


CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Bosman, any questions?

ADV BOSMAN: I have no questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate - sorry, my brother here, Judge de Jager. Any questions?

JUDGE DE JAGER: ...(inaudible)

CHAIRPERSON: Just on clarity on your application, Mr Richardson, you say on page 5, that is 11(a), it would be the actual application, the question is:

"Were the acts, omissions, offences committed in the execution of an order or on behalf of or with the approval of the organisation, institution, body, liberation movement, State department or Security Force concerned?"

Your response thereto was:

"All of these killings were done under instruction of Mrs Mandela and Sonabwo, an AK member who stayed in Orlando East."

Do you see that? Now we know about Lolo Sono, Siboniso Tshabalala, Kuki Zwane, Stompie. They were killed. Between the two people, who gave you which instructions to kill who?

MR RICHARDSON: Mrs Mandela issued an instruction for me to kill Stompie. Sonabwo who was the one who was making sure that we were following the instruction. The second instruction which also came from Mrs Mandela was that I should kill Kuki because Kuki was an informer. That one Mrs Mandela asked me to kill, Rototi, it was an attempted murder because I had also issued the instruction to Kenny and Twabiso, the kids whom I fetched from the church to do that. Sonabwo was the one who was making sure that we were following the instructions, in other words Mrs Mandela's instructions because he was trained and we were afraid of him. I want nothing from Mrs Mandela but these allegations are just true.

CHAIRPERSON: "These acts were committed on behalf and with the approval of her football club and MK. At no stage were we discouraged by members of the liberation."

Do you see that? How does the football club now feature?

MR RICHARDSON: The duties of the football club was not just to play soccer but it was also to play as a bodyguard for Mrs Mandela and also to accompany her to the rallies and sometimes they will be involved in other duties on instructions of Mrs Mandela. For instance a family can be in a conflict and they will come and report to Mrs Mandela and Mrs Mandela will send the football club members to go and resolve such matters.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you mean when you say "at no stage were we discouraged by members of the liberation movement", what do you say by that? Did you have contact with the liberation movement, ANC in this instance?

MR RICHARDSON: No, there was no contact until the Crisis Committee came but we never used to take instructions from the Crisis Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: What I understand is that at this juncture the ANC was in exile, would that not be correct?

MR RICHARDSON: It is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you have any contact with the liberation movement, the ANC?


CHAIRPERSON: In your evidence you said you were an ANC member. When did you join the ANC?



MR RICHARDSON: In Mrs Mandela's house or to her.

CHAIRPERSON: You did not go there as a coach of the football club which you had a passion for at first?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes I started as a coach but then as time went on I changed, I was no longer the Richardson who was more involved in soccer, I began to be more involved in political issues like attending rallies, funerals.

CHAIRPERSON: And the ANC was banned then when you joined in 1986?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: When you joined at or from Mrs Madikizela-Mandela were you given a card that you are now a member of the ANC?

MR RICHARDSON: No, I was never given a card. In fact there was never a form which I filled.

CHAIRPERSON: How did you join then?

MR RICHARDSON: Through the Mandela United Football Club.

CHAIRPERSON: As a ...(indistinct) individual?

MR RICHARDSON: As an individual.

CHAIRPERSON: Who did you approach? Did you approach Mrs Madikizela-Mandela directly and you said now I want to be a member of the African National Congress?

MR RICHARDSON: I was introduced by Siswe Sithole and Ronnie Sikukune and they told Mrs Mandela that I was going to be a coach and also I was going to help her.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I'm referring to a time when you made up your mind that you wanted to be a member of the ANC. When you joined what did you do, were you approached or you approached?

MR RICHARDSON: She didn't say that I should join ANC but given the circumstances the way we conducted everything I concluded or it became clear to me that I was ready to be a member.

CHAIRPERSON: You assumed membership from your role within the football club?


CHAIRPERSON: Now another thing is that I have looked at the evidence you gave late last year, 1999, and the transcript of the hearing of the Human Rights Violations Committee. You told the Human Rights Violations Committee that Stompie Sepei was killed next to a mountain in Noordgezicht and you have said before us that you killed him at New Canada. Now on reflection could you now tell us between the two where you killed Stompie?

MR RICHARDSON: It is near New Canada next to a mountain when you're going towards town, the mountain will be on your right hand side.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me assist you because I also come from Soweto, I somewhat know the area you are talking about but I want to get it from you. Using the old road to town before the Soweto highway you'll go past Noordgezicht, go into a dip and as you take the incline on your right there will be a mine dump. Would I be correct?

MR RICHARDSON: You are correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Then you'll go past the New Canada station which would be on your left hand side and the next turn you go underneath the over bridge of the train and on your right there would be a mine dump and further on your left where now you find factories, just before you come to where the Patco Depot is, there would be a hillock there. Now in relation to all this, where was Stompie killed?

MR RICHARDSON: You're now going a little bit further, it is before the overhead bridge, you don't go past the overhead bridge.

CHAIRPERSON: And from there you ambled towards the mine dump. Which one, on the right or on the left?

MR RICHARDSON: On the right.

CHAIRPERSON: And lastly, Mr Richardson, on the 9th November you told us and it has been confirmed that you were detained after the shooting at your place in Nsimshlope and upon your release on the 25th November you went directly to Mrs Madikizela-Mandela's house. I followed you correctly, did I?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And you never went back to your place, your residence, your house?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you not curious of the damage that was done to your house, to go to somebody else's house and stay permanently, not go back to your own house, were you not curious of what was happening to your house?

MR RICHARDSON: I am certain we all went there. It was myself, Mrs Mandela and some members of the football club. We discovered that my house was terribly damaged and Mrs Mandela took it upon herself that she was going to repair the house for me and she did that. She also put furniture and everything, in other words she renovated the house for me.

CHAIRPERSON: After how long was that?

MR RICHARDSON: I think it was after two weeks.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I don't mean putting in the furniture and all that, the visit to your house to see the damage caused?

MR RICHARDSON: If I'm not mistaken it is approximately three to four days.

CHAIRPERSON: So that damage took such a short time to be fixed and furniture put inside? The damage you're talking about, the terrible damage?


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Richardson. Anything arising from the questions from the Committee?

MR RICHARD: Nothing Chairperson.


CHAIRPERSON: Mr Semenya, anything arising from what I've asked?


The question asked of you is this. The police on the 25th say go home, Richardson. Why don't you go home, do you go to Mrs Mandela's house because you don't know that the house is such that you can't inhabit it?

MR RICHARDSON: My house was damaged and I went to report to Mrs Mandela that I have been released from prison and Zinzi and Mrs Mandela welcomed me.

MR SEMENYA: In any event, finally, according to the evidence of Mr Sono Senior, Lolo would have told him on the 10th November 1988 that they were there at your place when your house - they did see the attack on your house. This story about you giving them taxi money and they must go to Park station is untrue?

MR RICHARDSON: That is the truth.

MR SEMENYA: That is all, thank you.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Semenya. Ms Mbuyiswa?

MS MBUYISWA: I have nothing.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: Nothing Chairperson, thank you.


MR RICHARD: Chairperson, may I proceed if no-one has any further questions, to Mr Garwood?

CHAIRPERSON: I just wanted to thank Mr Richardson, to say he is excused. Thank you very much, Mr Richardson. You are excused. That concludes your evidence. You are excused.


MR SEMENYA: Chairperson, might I ask the Committee's indulgence that we be excused? The proceedings we're on this point may not bear any particular evidence to my client.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Semenya, may I just find out first before we even consider excusing her that Mr Richard, firstly, other than this witness, are you going to call any other evidence?

MR RICHARD: Besides Mr Garwood, no.


MS MBUYISWA: I have no witness.


MR MAPOMA: There's no further evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Semenya, are you going to lead evidence or call witnesses?

MR SEMENYA: No Chairperson.

JUDGE DE JAGER: ...(inaudible) evidence I believe there was a request to the TRC that somebody else wants to give evidence, wouldn't that evidence be given?

MR MAPOMA: Well, as far as I understood it, it was Ms Falati who said she wants to make a particular submission to the Committee. I may have to consult with her as to whether it is evidence which has got something to do with the merits of this matter but from the submission that she wanted to make.

JUDGE DE JAGER: If it impacts on Mrs Madikizela-Mandela then at least they should be notified about it so that they could consider whether they want to attend or not. Maybe they don't want to attend, I don't know.

MR SEMENYA: Chairperson, if it relates to the issue highlighted which bear no relevance to the amnesty application of Richardson, we certainly are not interested in it. In the first place our submission it would be, it's not admissible, it's not relevant, there would be no purpose whatsoever in hearing her so-called submission.

CHAIRPERSON: We wouldn't know until Mr Mapoma has consulted with her but in any event we are saying because I'm intent on, as I indicated earlier, or rather this morning, that we are going to stop at four so that should Mr Mapoma consult with Ms Falati and whatever transpires from that inform you because we would be left with submissions whether we should or should not grant Mr Richardson amnesty.

MR SEMENYA: Chairperson, I follow but the last I heard he had nothing to do with support or not support of the application for amnesty, it has something to do with social issues. If you recall the event, I just don't want to put in on record. I think it's too disgusting.

CHAIRPERSON: Would it be ready some time, or submissions for Thursday morning?

MR SEMENYA: Chairperson no, we were not on plan to come unless if the evidence indicated a basis upon which the amnesty could be granted. We think that the evidence - we believe the evidence is incapable of arriving at that conclusion and no submissions will be made except that it is not possible on the evidence to grant Richardson amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: We would however in the interest of fair justice indicate to Mr Mapoma after we have heard his evidence to communicate with you whether we still need your submissions. We would at this stage excuse you.

MR SEMENYA: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: For order now, Mr Richard, could we get your next witness's full names?

PAUL ANDREW GARWOOD: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: Thank you Chairperson.

Mr Garwood, when did you first meet Mr Richardson?

MR GARWOOD: On the 14th June 1990 at Diepkloof Prison.

MR RICHARD: Now if I'm correct that was after he had been convicted before sentence?

MR GARWOOD: He had been found guilty of murder and he was about to be convicted.

MR RICHARD: About to be sentenced?

MR GARWOOD: About to be sentenced, sorry.

MR RICHARD: Now what was your methodology in considering what needed to be said?

MR GARWOOD: Well my partner Mr Pell and I went out with instructions to a lawyer that if he could not find any extenuating circumstances then we would obviously not take on the case. So I initially went there for a psychological interview and I did one test on him which was to draw a personal test. It was done so badly that I thought that there might be some kind of brain damage with Mr Richardson and I recommended that he have an EEC.

MR RICHARD: And was that done?

MR GARWOOD: Yes it was.

MR RICHARD: And was the first page of Exhibit A?

MR GARWOOD: That's it there.

MR RICHARD: Right. Now Exhibit A consists of that letter and the psychological report prepared by you and Ms Tipple?


MR RICHARD: Now in preparation of the report did you take a narrative of the case that Mr Richardson had been involved in?


MR RICHARD: In fact did he get an account of what?

MR GARWOOD: We asked for a biographical - auto-biographical story in Zulu which he wrote for us. We had ordered court transcripts from the trial of Stompie Sepei and that was all we had.

MR RICHARD: And now you've been present today and you've heard some of the evidence. Was the evidence essentially that he had kidnapped and abducted the four youths from the Methodist Church manse?


MR RICHARD: And assaults had ensued?


MR RICHARD: And the assaults had led to the death of Stompie Sepei?


MR RICHARD: Now at that stage what did Mr Richardson say about why he did that. Did he give an account, any instructions received from him?

MR GARWOOD: My memory of that time is very vivid in some sections and not so good in other sections but I don't think Mr Richardson denied having killed Stompie or assaulting or ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Could we have tranquillity, this talking disturbs the witness and we want to hear what the witness has got to say. You may proceed Mr Garwood.

MR GARWOOD: Jerry never denied having assaulted Stompie and he didn't deny having assaulted the other three boys and he didn't deny killing him either.

MR RICHARD: Did he speak to Mrs Madikizela-Mandela's role in these events?

MR GARWOOD: It was strange because every time we brought up the subject he changed the subject or he just would not talk about it.

MR RICHARD: Now ...(intervention)

MR GARWOOD: And he even put words in our mouths, I think, he would say something like "Mrs Mandela did not tell me to do it" which was not what we had asked him.

MR RICHARD: What did you gather from the interactions, was he telling the truth or protecting Mrs Mandela.

MR GARWOOD: I can only conjecture that my feeling was that he was protecting Mrs Mandela.

MR RICHARD: And during the course of your interactions with him did you form an opinion of his relationship with Mrs Mandela?

MR GARWOOD: Yes, it was almost like a child with a mother, he called her Mummy.

MR RICHARD: Did he exhibit affection, obedience, loyalty?

MR GARWOOD: Yes I think he worshipped her.

MR RICHARD: To turn to the psychological report. To prepare the report - before I go there I've got to qualify you. What studies did you study after school?

MR GARWOOD: I have a BA, BA Hons. and an MA in Counselling Psychology.

MR RICHARD: And did you do anything else to qualify?

MR GARWOOD: Yes, I am a qualified psychologist as well.

MR RICHARD: And for how long have you been practising your profession?

MR GARWOOD: I became a Psychometrist in 1986 and I became a psychologist in 1995. I do lecture at Wits University and I supervise the final year interns there.

MR RICHARD: Now based on that qualification, experience and skill and to prepare the psychological report what tests and procedures did you administer?

MR RICHARD: As you see there are about seven or eight tests, there's an appendix at the back. We estimated we spent about seven and a half hours with Mr Richardson, we saw him on four separate occasions and on least one of those occasions I gave him some tests. I found that his concentration span was not good so we didn't do that many tests all in one day.

MR RICHARD: Now you said about seven tests. Can you briefly describe what they were?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Well I suppose he is confirming his report?

MR RICHARD: He is confirming his report but I think it's important because I'm going to criticise the report and then by Sterkfontein as superficial perfunctioning and I was going to basis for that.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, I think you should deal with the criticisms on these reports.

MR RICHARD: Yes. Now you heard the evidence this morning by Dr Stevenson?


MR RICHARD: How many tests did they administer and what did they do to prepare their opinions?

MR GARWOOD: The two tests, very short ones, I think they based their opinions mainly on the clinical interviews which Dr Dean Stevenson told us about. My feeling was that when he told me that he was going to Sterkfontein to be assessed, my feeling and my hope was that he was going to have a detailed assessment there, meaning being held there for 30 days and being given a great deal of psychometric testing. So I am disappointed, I have to say that, in my college for not having done that. I believe that it would shed more light on this whole case.

MR RICHARD: The two tests that were done, do you know what they were?

MR GARWOOD: The one was a Ravens and the other one I've forgotten. The Ravens is a very perfunctionary kind of intelligence test.

MR RICHARD: Now do you believe that they conducted an indepth and thorough ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Shouldn't we qualify that because the mandate Dr Garwood got and the mandate given by the TRC for the purposes of this hearing were two completely different mandates and wouldn't that Dr Garwood depend largely on the mandate you have when you conduct a test?

MR GARWOOD: Maybe I misunderstood.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's start with you, what was your mandate? What were you supposed to do to find if there are extenuating circumstances before Mr Richardson was sentenced, isn't it so?

MR GARWOOD: In 1990, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And the mandate given to Dr Stevenson was to see if Mr Richardson is fit to follow the proceedings in this application of his?

MR GARWOOD: Well I did not understand that that was his mandate, I thought that Mr Richardson had asked for some kind of assessment, so if I'm wrong I apologise.

CHAIRPERSON: No, Mr Richard is well aware because that was asked and that's the question that cropped up from time to time, what kind of mandate was given for what both of you did.

MR GARWOOD: Okay, well then I'm mistaken, I'm sorry.


MR RICHARD: Now based on what you heard this morning from the doctors from Sterkfontein, do you believe that you had any reason whatsoever at all to alter or vary what you say in Exhibit A?

MR GARWOOD: No, nothing.

MR RICHARD: Do you believe that their criticisms of the assessment of Mr Richardson's IQ would impact on the content and conclusions you came to?

MR GARWOOD: Yes, can I talk about that?


MR GARWOOD: In South Africa in the '60s, '70s, '80s, the Human Research Sciences Council were the people who constructed tests for South Africans. In all that time they never conceived of an IQ test for Black people. There's no ...(indistinct) test for Black people as being standardised and valid in this country. So what we often did was to use so-called White tests which had White norms, White standards, White validity having applied it to Black patients and get a rough kind of idea. What I did in my second part of my testing, I got what is called a culture free test which is mainly about - it involves no verbal ability and Jerry did as badly on that as he did on the ...(indistinct) which is the AC ...(indistinct) test.

So the one explanation may be that he was forced to do a White test rather than a test based on Black norms, the other possibility may be that he was under a tremendous amount of stress. When I did the second test on him I think that was about a week to go before his trial and he said that he wanted to be alone.

MR RICHARD: Sir ...(intervention)

MR GARWOOD: But I think the argument this morning is relevant.

MR RICHARD: But nonetheless you wouldn't change any of your opinions?


MR RICHARD: Now if you refer to paragraph 11.3 at page 23 of the report. There you say:

"Jerry's persistently lies in the face of all evidence to the contrary strongly suggests that he is easily influenced."

Now when you wrote those words "persistent lies" what experience word formation were you dealing with?

MR GARWOOD: Jerry lied about many, many things. I think he lied more than he told the truth sometimes and we were not quite sure at times whether he was lying to protect other people or we weren't actually sure of the reasons but we thought he was doing it to protect other people.

MR RICHARD: Who do you believe he was protecting?

MR GARWOOD: Again we thought Mrs Mandela.

MR RICHARD: Did he lie to you?

MR GARWOOD: Oh he lied to everybody. He's lying today, you know, it's part of Jerry.

MR RICHARD: Now that was my next phrase. You saw his performance today in the witness box or on the witness stand. Do you have any opinions that you do promote?

MR GARWOOD: I find Jerry's behaviour bizarre sometimes. Just for example that one when he was asked whether he was going to lay a charge against himself, he's not even sort of joking when he said yes, I am. There's a kind of bizarreness about Jerry.

MR RICHARD: And that bizarreness, does it stem from any particular psychological condition that you've observed?

MR GARWOOD: That's why I would like him to go into a hospital like Sterkfontein or Weskoppies and have a full month's evaluation, both psychological first and psychiatric evaluation because I think he is showing signs of quite a disturbed man.

MR RICHARD: If you compare his performance today compared to that ten years ago, eleven, ten years ago, is there any change?

MR GARWOOD: You mean in the actual room today?


MR GARWOOD: I wasn't in court because I gave evidence last so I never saw him give evidence at his trial.

MR RICHARD: But your observations of him?

MR GARWOOD: You know, I haven't spoken to Jerry today. I don't think in any way he's got better in the last ten years and I'm not surprised because I would doubt very much whether he had any kind of rehabilitation or psychotherapy and people who work with personality disorders normally don't get better - well, especially psychopathic personality disorder.

MR RICHARD: But what I'm dealing with is the fact that he seems unable to hold a sequence of events or a narrative in answer to straightforward conditions. Is that a product of his mental condition?

MR GARWOOD: I believe so.

MR RICHARD: But nonetheless do you believe he's so far off normal that he is unfit to partake to participate in legal proceedings?

MR GARWOOD: No. No, I think he should take part but I think he may not fully be - well let's say ...(indistinct) that he may not fully be here, if you see what I mean.

MR RICHARD: At page 23 under the heading "Summary and Recommendations" you make a statement, 11.1:

"In terms of diagnostic category, Jerry falls into the following: mixed personality disorders with aspects of psychopathy, narcissism and indications of borderline functioning.


MR RICHARD: Now the functioning that we've observed in these hearings is that what we talk about borderline?

MR GARWOOD: Borderline yes, borderline is very close to being psychotic. It's one step away from being psychotic on the spectrum from neurotic to psychotic and a personality disorder has an extremely grave mental illness.

MR RICHARD: And then he is easily influenced as you say at 11.3. What do you think the influences were at the time that he did the various deeds?

MR GARWOOD: Well I mean I'm actually repeating Mrs Mandela, that's probably unfair because they have been probably other people in his life at that time who were also influencing him but I don't remember from ten years ago who those people were and in what way they may have been influencing him.

MR RICHARD: So if the collective opinion in the house that Mrs Mandela ran was that people perceived to be impimpi's should be injured or killed, what do you think Mr Richardson's response to that collective opinion or pressure would be?

MR GARWOOD: I think he would have been very heavily influenced by it.

MR RICHARD: And then if somebody had wanted him to do a killing or participate in a killing do you think he would have had the necessary moral fibre, psychological make up to withstand or to reason his ...(intervention)

MR GARWOOD: I say that because we did find that he was psychopathic and one aspect of psychopathic is a tremendous amount of aggression. Another factor of psychopathy is that there is no remorse after a crime like murder.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Richard, I don't think we've got a problem about the killing and the reasons for the killing or whatever it may be. Our problem is, it's stated even here in the report the persistent lies. Our problem is we've got these contradictions. On his evidence why is he contradicting himself? What is the reasons for that? Is he lying or can't he cope with anything or is he trying to sort of escape the truth?

MR GARWOOD: I don't know. Psychopaths often lie a lot, they often lie compulsively. I can't tell whether it's lack of intelligence or compulsive lying or trying to protect people. It's very difficult to talk about someone I only saw ten years and my feeling with the psychopathy compulsive lying, perhaps protecting somebody and perhaps his own mental illness that he cannot sometimes discriminate between truth and fiction.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But if that's the position on the evidence then, he being the only witness, how could we come to a conclusion that he's made a full disclosure of everything?

MR GARWOOD: I don't know if I'm speaking out of turn but my feeling here is that that has not happened.

JUDGE DE JAGER: That's ...(indistinct)

MR RICHARD: You've been using the word psychopathy, why do you use it?

MR GARWOOD: What describes an anti-social personality disorder and psychopaths do lie a lot expect psychopaths or normally much more intelligent and there lies are much more convincing.

MR RICHARD: Now in this particular case couldn't it be said, in favour of Mr Richardson, that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Richard's mike is off.

MR RICHARD: Sorry. In this situation today couldn't it be said in favour of Mr Richardson, yes, as a result of his personality defects and limited intelligence he's told a very unsatisfactory story in an unsatisfactory manner but essentially, within - and this is the important - his parameters of his truth and to the best of his ability he has made a disclosure as fully as he could?

MR GARWOOD: Possibly, but I can't say that for sure. My feeling is that he is a very sick man at the moment and I'm not sure whether he knows what he is doing or what he knows what he's talking about or whether he's trying just to fool all of us but I cannot believe he's trying to do that, he's not intelligent enough to do that.

MR RICHARD: Do you believe that he should be released back into society?

MR GARWOOD: No, I believe he should - okay, I'd like to suggest that he is sent to Sterkfontein for a time of thirty days, given extensive psychological tests and then maybe he remain at Sterkfontein or Weskoppies.

MR RICHARD: But certainly not into ordinary society?

MR GARWOOD: No ways, no.

MR RICHARD: I don't believe there's much more to ask apart from the formal question, do you confirm your 1990 report as correct in the year 2000?


MR RICHARD: Thank you. No further questions.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Richard. Ms Mbuyiswa?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MBUYISWA: Thank you Chairperson, I just have a few questions. I won't be long.

Doctor, earlier on you met with Dr Stevenson, correct? To discuss his report and yours and to identify where you guys did not agree, correct?

MR GARWOOD: ...(inaudible)

MS MBUYISWA: Okay, I'm saying, earlier on you met with Dr Stevenson to discuss the dissimilarities in your findings and the similarities so as to know where you agree and where you don't agree, correct?

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike please?

MR GARWOOD: ...(inaudible)

MS MBUYISWA: Now Doctor, earlier on you testified that the major dissimilarities is the IQ test?


MS MBUYISWA: Right and you also explained what could be the reason for such dissimilarities, correct? Now was the IQ test the only thing that you did not agree on?

MR GARWOOD: It was basically, yes, but that was in the narrow confines of my finding that Mr Richardson had a serious personality disorder. The people from Sterkfontein said the same thing so in that we were totally in agreement but I think - I think what I'm saying now has gone deeper than that.

MS MBUYISWA: I understand that Doctor, but then let's bear in mind that Dr Stevenson's brief was not as wide as yours in 1990. Now Doctor, would you ...(intervention)

MR GARWOOD: Sorry, I'm not a doctor, I'm Mr Garwood.

MS MBUYISWA: Oh, mister. Sorry. My mistake. Mr Garwood, in light of what you just said right now would you then agree with Dr Stevenson's report that he was fit to proceed with this hearing and he could appreciate what transpired at this hearing?

MR GARWOOD: It's hard for me to disagree in a way because I did not see Mr Richardson before today and I've only seen him, you know, sitting next to him. So I ...(indistinct) my past evidence that I had.

MS MBUYISWA: Doctor, I just want a confirmation, you mentioned in your testimony that when you consulted or evaluated Mr Richardson in 1990 he lied and it's also your impression that he lied again today?


MS MBUYISWA: Thank you. I have nothing further.



MR MAPOMA: I have no question to the witness, Chairperson, thank you.


CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination.

MR RICHARD: No re-examination.


CHAIRPERSON: Judge de Jager?

ADV BOSMAN: No questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much Mr Garwood.

MR GARWOOD: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: That concludes your testimony.


CHAIRPERSON: Gentlemen, I see there's only - and lady. How could I do that to you? We have to listen submissions and the time is tight even on my side. Would it be a proper time for ten tomorrow? Obviously depending again on your consultation with Ms Falati of what she wants to state, that probably you meet up an hour earlier so that when we commence at 10 you have taken proper instructions or inform us what she proposes and thereafter we'll go straight into submissions. Is that okay to everybody, Mr Richard?

MR RICHARD: Chairperson, 9 o'clock tomorrow morning is perfectly in order.

MS MBUYISWA: It's also perfect for me, Chairperson.


MR MAPOMA: That suits me, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for today, we'll commence tomorrow at ten and I would ask members of Correctional Service that it is important for Mr Richardson to listen to the submissions and what probably Ms Falati may say in respect of his application and that it would be important for him to attend. Could you please bring him in a little earlier in the sense that he should be here at least 15 minutes before we commence. Is that a reasonable request, Sir? Thank you very much. We adjourn for the day.