CHAIRPERSON: Good morning everybody. Just before we start with the evidence this morning, I would just like to rectify something that I should have done yesterday and that is namely to identify exhibits. I think the video for instance that we watched, should be an exhibit, that is an exhibit, Exhibit 6. Is it Exhibit 7, thank you Ms Thabethe?

The video will be Exhibit 7 and then Prof Vanezis' report, that is the two-page report that accompanied the video, that will be Exhibit M. That is the two-page report done by Dr Vanezis and then I think we ought to also have that article by Shahrom, the one that was used and referred to, which we had in our possession and which was sent to us by Prof Vanezis, that is that article on facial reconstruction, Shahrom et al, computer aided facial reconstruction, that article, that article, that article will be Exhibit N.

I notice that, and I think we are all in the same position, that the copy that we have, starts with page 2. Is there a page 1, does anyone have a page 1 to the article, because it is also clear that page 1 is missing, it starts with the figure 2, there is no figure 1 on it? The first page of the fax is missing, I think we are all in the same position, is that so, no one has got anything ...

Ms Thabethe, if you can just make enquiries about that, I don't think it is vital, but in any event. We are also given a photograph of Ms Ntombi Kubheka, a photograph of her sitting on a bed. That photograph will be, that photocopy of the photograph will be Exhibit O.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, please forgive me for interrupting you. You will also recall yesterday, and I am mentioning this merely just to keep matters that belong together, to keep them together. You will also recall that ...

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR VISSER: Yes, and we have made copies for you Chairperson. Then that can be the next exhibit?

CHAIRPERSON: That will be ...

MR VISSER: It is ...

CHAIRPERSON: The photograph is O?

MR VISSER: Yes, it is Iskan and Loth.

CHAIRPERSON: Iskan and Loth article?


CHAIRPERSON: If we could have copies of that distributed, please?

MR VISSER: That is available, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: That will be Exhibit P?

MR VISSER: Oh, I thought O?

CHAIRPERSON: The photograph is O.

MR VISSER: Oh, are you putting interposing photograph, because there are other photographs that have come to hand.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's make the, sorry then, let's change that, we will give that photograph a number later, when we get other photographs and then keep them as a batch.

Just to recap then, the video is Exhibit 7, the Prof Vanezis' report, is Exhibit M, the article by Shahrom et al is Exhibit N and the article by Iskan and Loth, is Exhibit O, and then that photograph, we will give an exhibit number later, because there might be other photographs. Thank you.

MR LAX: Sorry, okay, I understand, in fact you have given us an extract from this publication?

MR VISSER: Yes Chairperson.

MR LAX: ... also refer to another article by Helmer yesterday?

MR VISSER: But that is quite a voluminous book from which we have made various extracts Chairperson, and we will make it available to whoever is interested, but I don't want to burden the record overduly. The only two aspects there that we will submit, are really relevant, which are not covered by Iskan and Loth, are the two that I read out.

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe you can make photocopies of those pages.

MR VISSER: Yes, that we can do.

CHAIRPERSON: And then identify them by writing on the top of the photocopy from which publication it comes?

MR VISSER: Yes, we will do so immediately. It is from the "Forensic Analysis of the Skull" and we can give that an exhibit number immediately, P if you wish Chairperson, and I will see to it ...

CHAIRPERSON: What is the author's name?

MR VISSER: It is edited by Iskan and Helmer and the book is called Forensic Analysis of the Skull.

CHAIRPERSON: It is extracts?

MR VISSER: It would be extracts, yes Chairperson. We will make this available to Mr Wills or whoever is interested to go through it. If they want to add extracts from it, well, then they are welcome.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think any extract that you make from that, we will call that Exhibit P, but if you for instance make two pages, call it P1 and P2.

And then if you can get the copies of the ones that you, the pages that you make, to everybody please?

MR VISSER: Yes, certainly Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, when we concluded on Friday with Ms Stephanie Miller's testimony, she was being questioned by Mr Visser. Mr Visser, do you have any further questions?

MR WILLS: Sorry Mr Chairperson, before I forget, could I just place certain things on record?


MR WILLS: At this stage, Mr Chairperson, certain members of the deceased's family were measured and weighed at the rooms of the District Surgeon yesterday.


MR WILLS: And I thought it would be relevant to just put that on record.


MR WILLS: In case there is any doubt about the correctness of this information, Dr S. Naidoo, the Pathologist, was present and this was done in his presence.

The first person is a sister of the deceased, the sister's name is Sibongele Gugu Kubheka. She weighs in at 56,6 kg and is 1.38 m in height.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, 1.38?

MR WILLS: The second sister of the deceased is Lynn Matoko Masetla.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Masetla.

MR WILLS: Sorry, it is Masetla nee Kubheka. Her weight is 63,2 kg and her height is 1.48 m. The brother of the deceased is Themba Muziwakhe Kubheka. He is 74,6 kg and 1.55 m. We also did the same in respect to the deceased's two children.

The first, the son is Clifford Thamsanqa Kubheka. The second name is T-h-a-m-s-a-n-q-a.

He is 62,6 kg and 1.67 m in height. The daughter of the deceased, Peggy Tulesile Kubheka, she weighs 127 kg and is 1.68 m in height. Thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Wills.


CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, do you have any further questions for the witness?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: (continued) Yes, thank you Chairperson. On Friday you testified that according to your understanding, your investigations were what you called "victim driven", is that correct?

MS MILLER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: What does that mean to you?

MS MILLER: It means that the information that initially instituted the investigation, came from information derived from family, relations, friends of victims during the period that the Truth Commission was about.

MR VISSER: Do you not intend to suggest with the phrase "victim driven", that you believed your duty was to find facts and circumstances which pointed against the veracity of the applicants' version?

MS MILLER: That is not true.

MR VISSER: I see. And during this trial and presumably before, is it correct that you have had consultations with the legal representatives of the victims, is that correct?

MS MILLER: I am sorry, what you are asking is after my investigation and prior to this hearing?

MR VISSER: During this hearing?

MS MILLER: During this hearing, I have had consultations with those Attorneys, yes.

MR VISSER: And did you then keep them informed on the latest developments?

MS MILLER: I am not sure what you mean by latest developments?

MS MILLER: Well, there were enquiries made about documentation and there were the search for witnesses. We know Mr Ismail was found and that kind of thing. Did you keep the victim's legal representatives informed about what was going on?

MS MILLER: I would keep the victim's family informed if the representative was present, then he or they would have been informed equally.

MR VISSER: Alright. Now, may I, let's get down to the case which I will refer to as case 580, as opposed to 1155, 580 is the skeleton which Dr Chetty examined and 1155 the one that Dr Naidoo examined.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you call them case 580?

MR VISSER: I don't know what to call them.

CHAIRPERSON: It is a post-mortem number?

MR VISSER: Yes, it is a post-mortem number.

CHAIRPERSON: We will call it PM580, that is Dr Chetty you say?

MR VISSER: Yes Chairperson.



CHAIRPERSON: PM, post-mortem, 1155, the one performed by Dr Naidoo.

MR VISSER: Yes, now to make it absolutely clear ...

MR LAX: Just to be absolutely clear, we are talking about 580/87 and 1155 was of which year?

MR VISSER: 1997.

MR LAX: 1997?

MR VISSER: I am not attaching any particular significance, it is just for the ease of reference.


MR VISSER: Just to make it absolutely clear, is it your contention that the remains examined by Dr Chetty, belonged to the same person as the remains examined by Dr Naidoo?

MS MILLER: I believe that is correct.

MR VISSER: And those remains belong to Kubheka?

MS MILLER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: As far as, well, will you please tell us, do you have in your possession any post-mortem report about any other post-mortem performed by another body in this hearing or don't you have?

MS MILLER: I have acquired other post-mortem reports subsequent to the hearing commencing.

MR VISSER: Where are they?

MS MILLER: They are in front of me. They were acquired as a result of the suggestion that you would call for such things on Friday. Am I misunderstanding your question, Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: No, you are understanding the question perfectly correct, what I find is just to be amazed at what you have just said, because in November last year we asked for these things and we were just never given them. I just find it amazing. I am not blaming you for it.

Chairperson ...

MS MILLER: Mr Visser, my understanding is, if you don't mind me mentioning that these were freely available from the mortuaries, on request by any party, interested party.

MR VISSER: Ms Miller, I am not going to argue about that, we were not, we are not an investigation team with access to these things, you are.

MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, can I intervene at this point. My learned friend often refers, or a number of times have referred to things that we have not provided to them like post-mortem reports. I would like to put it on record that we had indicated where these post-mortem reports could be found in Pretoria, in the office of Mr Holmes, Mike Holmes. I don't know really where he is going to with these kinds of remarks.


MR VISSER: We will make our submissions during argument, Mr Chairperson.

Before, let me ask this, when in relationship to the date of the exhumation, did you obtain the report of Dr Chetty, the post-mortem report of Dr Chetty, was it before or after?

MS MILLER: It was before.

MR VISSER: Before? And I take it, you read it?

MS MILLER: Yes, I read it.

MR VISSER: And your statement and your evidence says that you concluded that PM580 fitted all the criteria and you mentioned age, sex, size and level of decomposition?

MS MILLER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Do you know whether apart from what Dr Naidoo and Dr Chetty found in their post-mortem reports, there were any tests done to determine the age of the living person to whom the skeleton belonged, PM580?

MS MILLER: The only tests that I am aware of that were done, was subsequent to the exhumation on the remains, I am not aware of any tests that were done prior to that.

MR VISSER: And that would have been done by Dr Naidoo?

MS MILLER: Or at the behest of Dr Naidoo.

MR VISSER: Well, that is my question, do you know of at his behest, someone else performed any tests?

MS MILLER: I believe a test was done by an expert on her teeth and an age analysis being done on that basis.

MR VISSER: Yes, that is the one that we have on record in the Bundle, is that the one you are referring to?

MS MILLER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, the witness is referring to, I am sure I've got it marked, page 39. It is Spears, Chairperson, I believe, in Bundle 2, I believe that is what the witness is referring to.

Apart from that, you are not aware of any other tests that were done?

MS MILLER: My memory, I cannot remember any other test being done.

MR VISSER: May I ask you this, I will ask Dr Naidoo as well, but do you know of any tests which were done in order to attempt to establish the age of the skeleton, PM580 since death?

MS MILLER: Only what you see before you in the Bundle, that I am aware of, in terms of age.

MR VISSER: We've got no problem with the sex issue, but now I would ask you about the size. When you said that the skeleton PM580, fitted the criteria of size, what did you mean by that?

MS MILLER: All the reports given to us, including that by your clients, were that the deceased was an extremely short person.

MR VISSER: Which of my clients said that?

MS MILLER: I think most that I spoke to.

MR VISSER: I see. Did you listen to their evidence?

MS MILLER: I did listen to their evidence.

MR VISSER: Wasserman, may I just remind you, gave evidence here about the dress and Wasserman was the only one of the applicants that I appear for that said that she was a short person.

MS MILLER: In his evidence?

MR VISSER: In his evidence.

MS MILLER: Yes. He is the only one that mentions it in his evidence, but the others have mentioned it on previous occasions.

MR VISSER: That is only half the question, because that relates to height?


MR VISSER: And we will come to that.

MR LAX: I didn't hear what you said, relates to what, sorry?

MR VISSER: Height.

MR LAX: Height, sorry, I just couldn't hear you, sorry.

MR VISSER: Length or height.

MR LAX: Yes.

MR VISSER: Now let's just look at the other side of the coin, size in the sense of girth, the sense of how big. What was your impression from what you had learnt from the family of Ntombi Kubheka, was her size in that respect?

MS MILLER: The family said that since they had last seen her, she had gained weight. There was an agreement that she was somewhat overweight at the time, whatever that might mean, of her death.


MS MILLER: I am not sure if we can call her large, I think we should call her overweight, because she was a small person.

MR VISSER: You might think so, but the evidence throughout Ms Miller, and if you were here, you would have heard it, was that she was a large woman and that was never contested?

MS MILLER: I am not sure that is correct Mr Visser, my understanding from all accounts, is that she was a small woman who was overweight.

MR VISSER: Alright. Well, if one assumes that Mr Wills ...

MS MILLER: Small being, in height.

MR VISSER: If one assumes that Mr Wills as we must, did his job properly, we can assume that it is common cause that she was a large woman, I am putting it to you on that basis.

MR WILLS: Mr Chairperson, with respect, large is a relative term, what is exactly meant by that term? If Mr Visser could possibly give me a criteria what he means by that, and then I will be in a position to agree whether or not it is common cause.

If he says that she weighs 125 kg's, then it is not common cause.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I am not entering into an argument, I am simply saying what the evidence is so far. The evidence was she was a large person, that is what I am putting to Ms Miller.

CHAIRPERSON: The evidence of the applicants?

MR VISSER: The applicants, and it was never contested. We have checked very carefully through the record.

No qualifications were made.

CHAIRPERSON: Whatever large may mean?

MR VISSER: Whatever it may mean. Did you in your mind's eye visualise the late Ms Kubheka as your size, for example, or larger than yourself, or smaller?

MS MILLER: Well, I would have thought she was considerably shorter.

MR VISSER: I am not talking about length.

MS MILLER: Well, you see, we are at odds as to what large means. By me large means a large person, I am not a large person, I would have thought that in stature, nor in girth, I would have thought that Ms Kubheka was smaller than I am, so I ...

MR VISSER: Shorter?

MS MILLER: Well, you see, that is what I am trying to put to you, you say shorter, I would have said smaller. If you are talking about weight, she was probably in girth, larger than I, but shorter in stature.

MR VISSER: Ms Miller, I thought in English language when you refer to the height of a person or the length of a person, you say she is tall or she is short.

CHAIRPERSON: But when you talk about a large person, I mean if you've got a person who is standing 5ft and he is fat, is that person large? If you've got a person standing 6'7ft and he is thin, is that person large?

MR VISSER: Yes, well ...

CHAIRPERSON: You see, you've got big people and little people, it is a very difficult, it doesn't slot in. The word large does not slot in. Most people consider a large person to be tall and of big build. That is a large person, but a short, fat person, some people may not call large, I will call him short and fat.

MR VISSER: Yes, thank you Chairperson. Well, is that how you would in your mind's eye describe her, short and fat?

MS MILLER: I would have thought she was short and fat, or short and plump.

MR VISSER: Let's forget about the short, I don't want to talk about the length at all. Would you consider your girth, with what the picture that you had in your mind's eye of Ms Kubheka, to be the same size as hers or do you think you were bigger or what?

MS MILLER: Okay, I would have thought that if Ms Kubheka weighed what I weigh ...

MR VISSER: Which is?

MS MILLER: And it was condensed ...

MR VISSER: Which is?

MS MILLER: I am not sure exactly what I weight, but it is certainly larger than I would like.

MR VISSER: Larger, yes? Thank you. Thank you. Please continue.

MS MILLER: Okay, it is certainly more than I would like to weigh, I would have thought that if Ms Kubheka weighed what I weighed, and she was considerably shorter than I am, she would have looked disproportionate and we would have considered her maybe plump or fat, but in a taller person weighing what I weigh, you wouldn't notice that she was plump at all.

MR VISSER: I am just talking about girth really, would she have been - may I read to you Chairperson, what I have been referring to, in the record on page 1900?

Mr Wills asked Ms Masetla to stand up and an estimation was made of her height in relation to whatever and then in the middle of the page says Mr Wills -

"... Thank you Ms Masetla."

And then he says this, have you found the passage Mr Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR VISSER: That is right.

"... The evidence of the family will be that she was a particularly short woman of similar height to Ms Masetla, although she was quite large. Thank you."

A very clear distinction between length and girth if I might call it that, size. Chairperson, we will refer to that, and I may as well do it now, in Bundle 2 at page 91, there is the evidence on affidavit of the husband, Mr Nqobo and you will see at page 93 in the middle of the page again where he describes her appearance.

"... The general appearance of Ntombi was as follows -

1. approximately 1.6 m tall, normal build." (transcriber's own interpretation)

CHAIRPERSON: There is also this photograph which we were going to call exhibit, but which we didn't, of her sitting on the bed. I cannot recall precisely when that was taken.

MR VISSER: We don't know yet.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but that portrays to my mind, and it is also a question of opinion, I suppose, that she wasn't a huge woman?


CHAIRPERSON: Plump, a bit overweight, but not obese?


CHAIRPERSON: This one of her sitting on the bed counting, it looks like, money.

MR VISSER: We haven't got that one.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps if we can get the photocopies of these photos, I think while we are dealing with it, various photos, the photographs that we have available, if copies could be made and distributed.

MR VISSER: We would be very pleased to receive them, yes Chairperson.

MS THABETHE: Who else does not have? I've got some few copies.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't have one, I had one, but I cannot find it, I am afraid.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I believe that I have laid the basis of what I want to put to Ms Miller. Ms Miller, I believe last week on Thursday or Friday, when the dresses, the exhibits were displayed, and during an adjournment, were you present when the belt that came with Exhibit 1, the dress, was taken off the dress and measured?

MS MILLER: Yes, Mr Wagener tried it on his waist.

MR VISSER: Yes, did it fit his girth, did it go around his waist?

MS MILLER: The belt as it was without the buckle, went around his waist. Well, he said it fitted him and he was a size 31 denim, was his exact comment.

MR VISSER: Well, Ms Miller, your memory is very short. It didn't even fit him. It wouldn't go around his waist, not the full length of the belt.

MS MILLER: It did not have a buckle on it, I seem to recall.

MR VISSER: That is correct. It doesn't have a buckle on it, now from the buckle marks to where the buckle is supposed to be, we measured and anyone is free to measure as well, we measured it at 79 cm. You were present?

MS MILLER: I was present when you did that.

MR VISSER: And the full length of the belt without the buckle, was 87 cm? Do you remember that?


MS MILLER: I don't recall how long it was?

MR VISSER: 79, 87.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you mean, what is the 79 and what is the 87?

MR VISSER: The full length of the belt Chairperson, from end to end measured 87 cm.


MR VISSER: There are marks on the holes where the buckle used to be worn by whoever wore it, from that point, to where the buckle is supposed to be is 79 cm.


MR VISSER: Ms Miller, is that belt present? Could we just have a look at it please. Are those exhibits present?

MS MILLER: The exhibits are here, I don't have it.

MR VISSER: I think while we are on this point, Chairperson, if you will forgive me for the interruption, we would just wish to demonstrate to you the point of our case as it were.

MS MILLER: Mr Visser, I think I should advise you that those exhibits are actually in the possession of what used to be called the D'Oliviera Unit, and they brought it down for the purpose of this, so we don't have them.

MR VISSER: I understand. I am certainly not casting any blame on you, I am just asking whether they are present.

It seems that they are going to be found. Can I go on in the meantime? What did you mean by the level of decomposition being appropriate to the approximate date of death, what exactly in layman's terms did you intend to express by that expression?

MS MILLER: In my discussion with the Forensic Pathologist, I requested information as to what I could anticipate in the level of decomposition of a body that was found in the veld and my understanding was that if a body had been found within a day or two of death, it would be fairly fresh in terms of a post-mortem, easily handled in terms of medical terms and a post-mortem would be efficiently and effectively done.

After a week or so, the body would decompose quite rapidly, depending on the weather conditions at the time, and over a period of a month or two, it would be anticipated that the body might be decomposed sufficiently for a level of decomposition to be reached where no fingerprints would be taken, where no photograph could be taken, where it would be unpleasant to handle.


MS MILLER: Even in medical terms.

MR VISSER: Who was the Pathologist that told you this?

MS MILLER: Dr Naidoo?

MR VISSER: Dr Naidoo? We will ask him questions about that and we will leave that aside. The clothes have arrived, thanks to the Registrar of the Judge, of the Chairperson. If we could possibly just have the belt, if you don't mind.

I would like you to give it to Ms Miller please. Ms Miller, would you mind terribly standing up and fitting that belt around your waist please?

MS MILLER: Around my waist?


MS MILLER: I suspect Mr Wagener might be slimmer than I. MR VISSER: It fits from end to end around your waist.

CHAIRPERSON: With quite a big space between the body and the end of the belt?

MR VISSER: Now you have found the buckle marks, have you?

MS MILLER: Yes, I found the buckle mark, but I don't know how big the buckle was.

MR VISSER: Okay, fair enough. Can you just measure that, is that ...

MS MILLER: It is a little loose for me.

MR VISSER: It is still loose for you?


MR VISSER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, could we see the ...

MR VISSER: The belt?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I would like to take a look at it.

MR VISSER: That hasn't been given a separate number, it is part of Exhibit 1 Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. It is a plastic belt which one would expect would not shrink in any way with water or time.

MR LAX: It had a metal buckle on it.

CHAIRPERSON: It had a metal buckle that was -

MR LAX: Quite big?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, you can see there are two rust marks near the holes, which are about two to three inches, indicate the buckle was probably two to three inches big. The belt is a little bit brittle at this stage and not too pliable. It's got a few kinks and knobs which means it could perhaps be straightened out by about another centimetre or two, if it was flat?

MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson. Ms Miller, did you have a close look at, I have just forgotten the exhibit number, the bra? I thought it was Exhibit 4, did you inspect the bra at all?

MS MILLER: No, no, I didn't inspect the bra, and I hope you are not going to ask me to try it on.

MR VISSER: I won't do that. I won't do that.

CHAIRPERSON: It has just been pointed out to me that I might be wrong in saying that that belt might not have shrunk, that was just my own personal view, and I am certainly not an expert on materials, but I will just put that on record.

MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson. You don't know whether the intended measuring up of the clothes had taken place yet, or not?

MS MILLER: Of the clothing?

MR VISSER: Of the clothing, yes?

MS MILLER: I could find out, I don't know.

MR VISSER: Including the bra, because that is what we were told last week, was going to happen. Alright, in your evidence here, apart from those factors which we have just run through, you added that the dress which was exhumed with the remains, belonged to Kubheka, is that correct?

MS MILLER: The dress belonged to Ms Kubheka?


MS MILLER: I understand subsequently it has been identified as that belonging to Ms Kubheka.

MR VISSER: This identification, were you present when Ms Dludla identified this dress?

MS MILLER: I was not present.

MR VISSER: Well when anyone else identified the dress?

MS MILLER: I was not present.

MR VISSER: Fine, thank you. You see, if you are correct that PM580 was the same body as PM1155, don't you have a problem with the fact that PM1155 is a considerably short person, while PM580 was approximately 1,6 m tall, which is an average height?

MS MILLER: I am not sure that that is correct, can I refer to PM580?

MR VISSER: Sure. You will find it in Bundle 2, Chairperson, page 67 onwards. You can look at page 68 if you wish.

MR LAX: You will note Mr Visser, that the height is identical, 1,6 m.

MR VISSER: I beg your pardon?

MR LAX: On 580, the height is identical. It is on the top corner, under item 1 on the top of page 68?

MR VISSER: Identical to what, Chairperson?

MR LAX: I thought you said this person was 1,6 m?

MR VISSER: According to Dr Chetty.

MR LAX: Yes?

MR VISSER: And assuming it is the same skeleton, we find Dr Naidoo measuring ...

MR LAX: I misunderstood you, I thought you were saying it the other way around.

MR VISSER: No, no.

MR LAX: Thank you.

MR VISSER: If I did, I did so unwittingly.

MR LAX: It is just my confusion, don't worry about that.

MR VISSER: To make it absolutely clear, Dr Chetty finds that the skeleton which he examined was 1,6 m, Dr Naidoo finds that it was 1,35 to 1,44, isn't that a problem?

MS MILLER: It is not a problem in the light of how ...

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just before you answer that, I just want the reference for the second one, Vol 2?

MR VISSER: Page 68. Page 28 Chairperson, you have Dr Naidoo. I will put all this to him obviously, but in fairness, I want to put it to this witness as well.

At page 28 in the middle of the page, well almost the middle ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, 1,35 to ...

MR VISSER: 1,42 m in height, which prompted him to consider her as a considerably short individual.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Sorry.

MR VISSER: I am putting it to you that if you are, if you intend to say that they are the same skeleton, you have a serious problem.

MS MILLER: No, I don't have a serious problem in the light of the fact that a post-mortem was probably not in fact done ...

MR VISSER: Well, how do you know that, Ms Miller?

MS MILLER: Well, I did submit a statement from Mr Ismail who was the Mortuary Assistant at the time, who explained how viewing of the body took, could have taken place, not specifically did take place.

MR VISSER: Well, let's assume for the moment that people act normally and correctly, rather than abnormally and incorrectly, that would assume that Dr Chetty did the job for which he was appointed, and he did the post-mortem examination. Let's assume that for a moment. He measured this skeleton?

MS MILLER: The assumption is that he measured the skeleton, yes.

MR VISSER: Well, he is not here to defend himself.

MS MILLER: That is true.

MR VISSER: And on his report, he finds that this skeleton was 1,6 m, not plus-minus, 1,6 m?

MS MILLER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Isn't that a problem?

MS MILLER: Not really when you consider he put the weight at 40 kg.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if it is 40 or 60.

MR VISSER: 60 kg.

CHAIRPERSON: Because it has been typed, if one looks at the next page, as 60, but if one looks at it, it is not a great "6".

MR VISSER: Yes, if you look at page 73 Chairperson, the typewritten ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but that is just the typist's interpretation of what that figure is.

MR VISSER: Yes. And in fact Chairperson, the typed one is the one signed by Dr Chetty.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so it is 60.

MR VISSER: 60. Well, forget about the weight. We are talking about length.

I suggest to you that anyone that wishes to maintain that these two skeletons are the same, has a serious problem in this regard.

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

MR VISSER: In grave 343?

MS MILLER: In 343.

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

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

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

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

MR VISSER: You cannot, okay.

CHAIRPERSON: It would seem that the weight, I cannot see a weight in Dr Naidoo's report, but the question of weight might not be too important, because don't know exactly how far the body had decomposed when it was buried during 1987.

One would expect it to have been heavier than 10 years later, when decomposition was complete.

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

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

MR VISSER: Yes, thank you Chairperson.

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

MR VISSER: Chairperson, with respect, the weight couldn't possibly have been measured, because it was completely decomposed.

He could have measured the skeleton, but I have never heard of that being done and I wouldn't be certain for what purpose that would be done. Certainly as far as the height is concerned, he finds that she is 1,6 m.

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

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

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

MR VISSER: Even if it does not exist?

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

CHAIRPERSON: That is basically a question of argument now.

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

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

Ms Miller ...

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

MR VISSER: A skeleton?

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

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

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

MR VISSER: Chairperson ...

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

MR VISSER: Yes, thank you, I hear what Commissioner Lax says, Chairperson, we will attempt to deal with that in argument when the time comes.

Can I refer you to ... (tape ends) ... it says here as far as the chest is concerned, this is according to the report in Bundle 2, of Dr Chetty, "fractured ribs on both sides".

You did not mention that when you spoke of your criteria, the age, the sex, the size, the level of decomposition, the dress and the fact that she was such a short person, which we have now dealt with. Did that play any role?

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

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

MR VISSER: We will deal ...

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

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

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

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

"... numerous fractured ribs were also noted."


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

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

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

MR VISSER: Yes. Ms Miller, just lastly, I said to you on Friday that there are two other post-mortem instances which we want to place before you. The one is 502 in the records which you have provided, which are now serving before the Committee. We have made photocopies, perhaps it might assist you if we could just hand the photocopies.

My Attorney makes a point Chairperson, and that is again the question of cluttering up the record. Perhaps we can place this before you without handing it in as an exhibit at the moment.

CHAIRPERSON: If we could have ...

MR VISSER: The copies?

CHAIRPERSON: It is probably better to have the copies.

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


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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think that would probably be a convenient way of doing it, K2, these are the copies taken from mortuary registers that were handed out earlier on at the hearing.

There is quite a large number of pages here. I won't at this stage number them K2(1), K2(3), but they will be K2.

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


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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: So you are dealing with 502?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I see that.

MR VISSER: Can you just tell us, Ms Miller, I am sure I know what you are going to say, but please just let's go through the exercise, did you consider 502 as a possible candidate?

MS MILLER: Was 502 on my list?


MS MILLER: I don't recall.

MR VISSER: No, it wasn't.

MS MILLER: No, I didn't consider 502 as a candidate.

MR VISSER: Can you just look at it now and tell us why not?

MS MILLER: Well, if you will note, the body was found in Newlands East.

MR VISSER: Yes, but that is the only difference, would you agree with me?

MS MILLER: No, it is not the only difference in this particular case. In this particular case, it was a skeletal, it was skeletal bones, not a decomposed body that was brought in.

MR VISSER: What is the difference?

MS MILLER: There is a considerable difference between bringing in a skeleton and bringing a decomposed body into the mortuary, I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, before you proceed, this thing is like a weapon. Before you proceed, where is Newlands East?

MS MILLER: Newlands East is in exactly the opposite direction from where the family live, in relation to where the pointing out was done.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but is it in Durban or is it down the south coast?

MS MILLER: Yes, it is to the north of the city, it is to the north of the city, it is northwest of the city.

MR VISSER: Not to be confused with Newtown, I take it?

MS MILLER: Not to be confused with Newtown.

MR VISSER: Newtown being very close to Bambai?

MS MILLER: Newtown is very close to Bambai.


MS MILLER: In relationship to ...

MR LAX: The other main difference, I can just put on record, is that Newlands East is a so-called Coloured area and Newtown is an informal shack settlement area.

MR VISSER: Yes. We appreciate the difference Chairperson. Would the same exactly apply to 826?

MS MILLER: Well, not exactly. As you can see the person was found in Newlands East, and it was fairly decomposed, but no, Newlands East was the wrong area.

MR VISSER: Yes. But that is the same as in 502, Ms Miller?

MS MILLER: Yes. It was out of the area.

MR VISSER: So in both of these instances, the individualising factor was that the body was apparently according to the entry found in Newlands East?

MS MILLER: Correct.

MR VISSER: The rest of the information is almost a text book copy of PM580, would you agree with that?

MS MILLER: No, I wouldn't say that. I would say on 826 the woman was certainly by no stretch of the imagination, a short person. You see the difference is that in 502 it is a skeleton that was brought in, and the issue I think that you would have to ask Dr Naidoo and not myself, is whether a body could have decomposed totally to a skeleton within a month.

MR VISSER: Yes, we will ask him.

MS MILLER: Which is one of the reasons why I would not have considered that to have fallen within the criteria.

MR VISSER: Yes, but you explained to us that you regard a skeleton, skeletal remains as something different from a decomposed body?

MS MILLER: Yes, yes, and in 826 the person was decomposed, but not a skeleton, and was apparently measured and weighed. At 1,7, 61 kg is not, would be a very slim person?


MR LAX: Where are you picking up all these weights?

MS MILLER: On number 826, the second page in the middle it says "decomposed, undetermined, Charlottedale", a date and then where it says "undetermined" it gives a weight and a height.

MR LAX: Yes, no, no, I just couldn't read it properly.


MR LAX: Mine is a bit indistinct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, these 502 and 826, does that come from the same register as the other one? Is it the same, it is not from a different mortuary?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, no, no, there are three registers of Verulam which were apparently sent to Phoenix after Verulam closed, that is what Ms Miller said, and it comes from those.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the same registers?

MR VISSER: In any event, just the last question on this issue, once you have excluded them, I take it you did not apply to have the post-mortems on those two persons, or did you attempt to find out where they ...

MS MILLER: No, that is not correct. Their burial is stipulated here, it tells you exactly where they were buried.

MR VISSER: Yes, they were buried in paupers' graves in Charlottedale.

MS MILLER: It was a contract that was held by the State and Thombart Hearse Services to dispose of bodies that were unidentified, in paupers' graves at Charlottedale, so all unidentified bodies at that mortuary, were given paupers' burials at Charlottedale, so it is not unusual that this would happen.

MR VISSER: Ms Miller, just listen to the question, really it is quite simple. Did you try to establish in which grave any of these two people ...

MS MILLER: No, I would not have tried to establish in which grave they were in.

MR VISSER: Thank you. And you would not have asked to obtain the post-mortem reports?

MS MILLER: Yes, I probably would have. I don't recall specifically, but in an initial search, we would have drawn up a list.


MS MILLER: I would have then asked Mr Kubheka to assist me, I did then ask Mr Kubheka, he looked through the books, he gave me his list, we did it for a third time, and each instance that I went, I called for post-mortem reports. So there might have been something contained within those reports that made me discard that.


MS MILLER: In the initial search. But I don't recall specifically which ones I looked at the first time.

MR VISSER: Is this a correct summary of your evidence, that as far as your investigations go, what you are certain of, is that the body which was examined by Dr Chetty, was buried in grave 343, so far so good?

MS MILLER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And you go further to say that the body that was exhumed, was the body on which the post-mortem examination by Dr Chetty was carried out, is that correct?

MS MILLER: I am saying that the body that was exhumed from 343 in terms of the paper trail, is exactly that as Dr Chetty had done a post-mortem on that morning, and it is the same body that Dr Naidoo did a post-mortem on subsequently.

MR VISSER: That is the next point. And you say that is the same body that Dr Naidoo did a post-mortem on and you say that is Ntombi Kubheka?

MS MILLER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Thank you. I have no further questions, thank you Mr Chairperson.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser. Mr Hugo, do you have any questions that you would like to put to Ms Miller?

MR HUGO: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.



MR NEL: Mr Chairman, thank you, I have no questions, except for I would like to reserve the right to maybe ask one or two questions, if necessary, on the documentation which I believe is in the Evidence Leader's possession, about the Section 29 hearing, or whatever happened regarding Mr Taylor.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Taylor, yes.

MR NEL: Which we requested and ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, if there is anything, certainly you would be able to put questions relating to that.


MS MILLER: Mr Chairman, may I add to that, I am sorry, I should have asked someone to bring this up earlier, apparently the documentation was looked for, and it was determined that after we had informal discussions with I believe, Mr Taylor and his Attorney who I believe is Mr Booysen, a Section 29 was commenced and an agreement was made between the Truth Commission and the Attorney that written questions would be given to Mr Taylor and he would reply in writing as a result of his ill health, and inability to perhaps sit through the process.

So, whilst I had been there at the initial stages, which is what I recalled, I did not know that it had been adjourned.

CHAIRPERSON: I am informed that the transcript of that proceeding and the other written questions and answers is available, and will be distributed now, very shortly.

MS MILLER: Correct.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, in that regard, I am sure I probably won't have, but if something appears from that, would I be allowed ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, no. Mr van der Merwe, any questions?

MR VAN DER MERWE: I have no questions.


CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wills, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WILLS: Yes, thank you Mr Chairperson. Briefly, Ms Miller, do you, as I understand your modus operandi in attempting to trace the body, was that you relied on the applicant's application as to where they disposed of the body, dumped the body and you searched records from the mortuary, that had the jurisdiction over the area where the body was allegedly dumped, is that correct?

MS MILLER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, may I ask Mr Wills not to refer to the body as having been dumped? Nobody has given that evidence, and it is insensitive of him to do so and it is unnecessary.


MR WILLS: If Mr Visser is concerned with my ...

CHAIRPERSON: We can use the word disposed or left?

MR WILLS: As you please, Mr Chairperson, I am appreciative of Mr Visser's concern.

Well, if you could just substitute the word I used, for the word disposed and answer my question.

MS MILLER: That is correct Mr Wills.

MR WILLS: So obviously if the applicants had said that they had disposed of the body in Durban, you might have checked the Gale Street mortuary?

MS MILLER: As I initially explained that our job was to confirm the veracity of what was told to us, and by having found the body in the appropriate area, it indicated that that part was partially correct.

MR LAX: Can I just, I understood that you did actually check at Gale Street?

MS MILLER: I did check at Gale Street, I was looking for other bodies at the time. There was a series of people who had disappeared, whose bodies had not been found and it was incumbent upon us to look for them, and so whilst we were doing that, we would look for all of the cases under our jurisdiction, in the event that the body had not been disposed of in the area where it had been alleged.

MR LAX: Because in answering Mr Wills' question, you appear almost to be saying "well, this is justification why you didn't look at Gale Street", but in fact you did look at Gale Street?

MS MILLER: Yes, I did look at Gale Street.

MR WILLS: My understanding of your evidence was to the effect that you paid particular attention to the records from Verulam, because this was the mortuary that had the records that, for that particular area?

MS MILLER: That is right, I paid particular attention to those mortuary records.

MR WILLS: So in this specific case with the disappearance of Ms Kubheka, you thought that Verulam was an appropriate place to give attention, Verulam mortuary?

MS MILLER: Verulam mortuary would have been the only place to pay particular attention, given the structure at the time of how bodies were dealt with.

MR WILLS: Yes. Now just lastly, you have seen Exhibit 1 -Exhibit 3, the clothing. You were at the exhumation, do you recognise any of those exhibits as being found at the exhumation?

MS MILLER: I was at the exhumation, at the time when the clothing was found, it was in a bundle over the skeletal remains, so the dress that was exhibited here, is of the same colour and design, but I did not see it laid out as a dress at that time. I did not know whether it was a skirt or a dress, you could see the fabric.

MR WILLS: So you would safely say that Exhibit 1 was in the, you saw that on the day of the exhumation?

MS MILLER: I would say that is the one that I saw on the day of the exhumation.

MR WILLS: Thank you Mr Chairperson, no further questions.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Wills. Mr Samuel, do you have any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR SAMUEL: Yes, I would just like to ask one question to clarify some doubts in my mind. You spoke about some exhumation at Elandskop and you noticed there was a similarity between the bodies found at Elandskop and that of Ntombi Kubheka, do you recall that?

MS MILLER: I do recall that.

MR SAMUEL: Ma'am, was Mr Wasserman and du Preez also involved in the Elandskop matter?

MS MILLER: Mr Wasserman and du Preez were involved in that, Mr Wasserman and Mr Botha and some of the other applicants were there at the pointing out of where the grave sites were.

MR SAMUEL: And did they make application for amnesty for those matters?

MS MILLER: They made amnesty applications in those matters.

MR SAMUEL: Thank you. No further questions.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Thabethe, do you have any questions, re-examination as such?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Yes, Mr Chair. Ms Miller, would you say in doing an investigation, do you need to have, to follow your hunch sometimes in doing an investigation?

MS MILLER: Often it helps having prior knowledge and sometimes a hunch is based on information that you aren't aware is at your disposal.

MS THABETHE: So you would say in doing an investigation, you do follow hunches sometimes?

MS MILLER: Well, you know, one would have to define what a hunch is, but my understanding is that often what you believe is a hunch, is in fact information that you have, you are aware of, or experiences that you have had in the past, which are similar or where there is common ground, so one recognises it as a hunch, but perhaps it is in fact a similarity of experience.

MS THABETHE: Okay. Now, I want to refer you to the letter that was written by Mr Wagener to ourselves, dated the 26th of November 1999, where he requested a number of documents and photographs, do you remember that letter?

MS MILLER: I have seen that letter, yes.

MS THABETHE: On paragraph 4.6 of that letter, he says he -

"... requires urgently all registers of hospitals, mortuaries and cemeteries in the surrounding area, where the body referred to in Bundle 2, was found."

I just want to re-emphasise the phrase "where the body referred to in Bundle 2, was found", would you say we have done this? We have furnished him with those mortuary reports?

MS MILLER: Yes, I think that that has been done.

MS THABETHE: Just a last question as well, would it have been necessary for you to look at mortuary reports, let's say in Johannesburg?

MS MILLER: Well, there would have been, I think the applicants would have had a distinct problem if I had found the body in Johannesburg.

MS THABETHE: In Lamontville?

MS MILLER: Well, Lamontville is substantially further from, there is no resemblance between any of the statements and a body in Lamontville.

MS THABETHE: And would I be correct to say if the applicants would argue that you had to look for the body anywhere else except where they said they disposed of the body, it would mean they have misled the Committee all along?

MS MILLER: Well, it would have meant that the information contained in the amnesty applications, would have not been correct.

MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair.


CHAIRPERSON: We have been handed some documentation now, while you were asking questions, Ms Thabethe. I've got three bundles here, one is headed "Proceedings in terms of Section 29, held at Durban on the 27th of November 1996", and it would seem that this relates to the Section 29 hearing of Mr Taylor.

Then there is an affidavit, fairly lengthy affidavit, dated the 11th of December 1996 which was deposed to be, we will get that in order now, by Taylor, and then there is a letter containing a whole lot of questions. This letter is written by one, S. Govender, Head of Investigations, and it is undated for some unknown reason.

Should we give these exhibit numbers now, I think they can go in as a group. It will be Exhibit Q, so Q1 will be the proceedings in terms of Section 29, Q1. Q2 will be the letter, I would presume, would be the letter written by Mr or Ms Govender, and Q3 will be the affidavit and I think, it is tea time, but I think let's see if we can finish with Ms Miller here.

Do you have any questions to ask, Mr Lax?

MR LAX: I have no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Adv Bosman? Ms Miller, that concludes your evidence, thank you, but I would request you please, if you could just stay here, because there might be questions arising out of Exhibit Q.


This would then be a convenient stage to take the short tea adjournment. We will adjourn for tea.




MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair, I will be calling Ms Dludla, the neighbour.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, just before that happens, there are two matters which I believe should be raised. The one is the issue of further cross-examination of Ms Miller and the other matter, Chairperson, is that I am given to understand Mr Joe Coetzer have responded to a subpoena to be here and he is present.

Apparently he wishes to be released if he is not going to be called as a witness. He is here, I thought I might just mention it to you.


MR VISSER: I don't appear for him.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser.

MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair, I have communicated with Mr Joe Coetzer after speaking to Mr John Wills who requested us to issue the subpoena in the first place, he does not intend testifying and I spoke to John Wills that we will withdraw the subpoena.


MS THABETHE: I have communicated that to him.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Coetzer, is Mr Coetzer here? Mr Coetzer, have you heard what has been said? Apparently you won't be called as a witness, and you are accordingly released from the subpoena, and we apologise for the inconvenience. Thank you.

Sorry, with regard to the Section 29 of Mr Taylor, have you had time to go through those documents, or do you wish to have more time before you want to make a decision whether you want to put further questions about that?

MR VISSER: Thank you for the opportunity Chairperson, Visser on record. We have gone through that, and it does not appear that anything that is contained in those documents, in that Exhibit Q affects any of my clients, so I will leave it to Mr Nel to take further.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser. Mr Nel?

MR NEL: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I haven't got cross-examination as such, but there are one or two things that I would like to put to Ms Miller, if she is available, we can do that after this witness, I really do not have a problem with that.


MR NEL: Whenever she is available, I see she is not in here at the moment.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and Mr Hugo?

MR HUGO: No questions, Mr Chairman, it does not affect my client.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van der Merwe?

MR VAN DER MERWE: No questions for me either, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wills, will you be wanting to put any further questions?

MR WILLS: No Mr Chairperson.


MR SAMUEL: No Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright. Then Ms Thabethe, perhaps Ms Miller could be recalled briefly after Ms Dludla and then she can be finished. Sorry is it Mrs or Ms Dludla.

MRS DLUDLA: Mrs Dludla.

CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Dludla, what are your full names please? Your full names?

MRS DLUDLA: Jabulile Rose Dludla.


MS THABETHE: Spelt J-a-b-u-l-i-l-e.





JABULILE ROSE DLUDLA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Thabethe?

EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Mrs Dludla, where do you live?

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, we didn't get the interpretation, it did not come through, the answer? I think she said kwaMashu? I heard it faintly? I think if you could just repeat the question again as a test, Ms Thabethe.

MS THABETHE: Where do you live?

CHAIRPERSON: We still did not get the interpretation.

MR LAX: Yes, we cannot get the interpreter.

CHAIRPERSON: If you can try again, Ms Thabethe? Are you swopping seats? Channel 1, a change of channel, so it is channel 1 now, for English, channel 1? Thank you. The answer to the question is, where do you live, the answer was kwaMashu.

MS THABETHE: During April/May 1987, did you live at kwaMashu?

CHAIRPERSON: We are getting, Ian, there is a screaming noise going on? Okay, let's try again. You lived in kwaMashu during May 1987?

MS THABETHE: How far from the Kubheka house did you live?

MRS DLUDLA: (No interpretation)

MS THABETHE: So you were neighbours?

MRS DLUDLA: (No interpretation)

MR WILLS: Sorry Mr Chairperson, maybe I am on the wrong channel, but I am not picking up the translation.


MR WILLS: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: They chanced it to channel 1 for English.

MR WILLS: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: The answer to that was she lived, there was one house between her house and the Kubheka's house, she lived one house away from the Kubheka's.

MS THABETHE: Mrs Dludla, can you just tell us what took place on the day when Ntombi was last seen by you?

MRS DLUDLA: (No translation)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, about what time of the day was this, Mrs Dludla?

MRS DLUDLA: (No interpretation)

CHAIRPERSON: Was it day light?

MRS DLUDLA: (No interpretation)


MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair. Do you remember the date by any chance, or the month when this was?

MRS DLUDLA: No I do not remember the month, but what I can remember very well is that after two weeks she disappeared, there was a June holiday, in other words, school holiday.

MS THABETHE: Now, did you see the dress that was displayed here a few days ago, last week?

MRS DLUDLA: Yes, I did.

MR LAX: Sorry, Ms Thabethe, there were three dresses displayed here in the last day or so, you need to be a bit clear about which one.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we've got Exhibit 1 and then we've got the blue dress and the dark dress.

MS THABETHE: Maybe I should rephrase my question, Mr Chairman. Would you say you remember or would you remember what Ms Kubheka was wearing that day, on the day?

MRS DLUDLA: I didn't remember very well what dress she was wearing, but since she was a close person to me, when I saw the dresses I recognised the other dresses, one of the dresses she was wearing on the day.

MS THABETHE: There were three dresses that were shown on that day, which one would be the one she was wearing? Maybe let me lead you on this.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you could describe, can you describe the dress now?

MS THABETHE: Yes. Was she wearing the green dress?

MRS DLUDLA: No, not the green one, the one with a maroon colour, the floral one.

MS THABETHE: Did she have anything on besides the dress, that was visible?

MRS DLUDLA: Yes, she had a T-shirt or a poloneck underneath.

MS THABETHE: What did it look like, can you describe it if you can? You say it was a skipper?

MRS DLUDLA: A cream-white poloneck.

MS THABETHE: You have indicated that you never saw her after that, is that correct?

MRS DLUDLA: Yes, that is correct.

MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Thabethe. Mr Visser, are there any questions that you would like to put to Mrs Dludla?

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chair.

MS THABETHE: Sorry Mr Chair, before my learned colleague, I am sorry for interrupting, there is just one question I forgot to ask, can I?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly Ms Thabethe.

FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Thank you. In your own description, what would you say Ms Ntombi Kubheka looked like, or what was her weight, in your own words?

MRS DLUDLA: She was a little bit taller than I am and she had quite a small breast, and a flat stomach and she had hips, large.

MS THABETHE: You say she was a bit taller than you? Do you know how tall you are? What is your height?

MRS DLUDLA: No, I don't know how tall I am.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps, Mrs Dludla, would you mind just standing up, perhaps we can see, I didn't notice you when you were standing up.

Ms Thabethe, do you mind standing up? Yes, Mrs Dludla is a good half a head shorter than Ms Thabethe, although I must say I cannot see what sort of shoes they are wearing, but as they are standing here.

MS THABETHE: She is wearing flat shoes.

CHAIRPERSON: Flat shoes and Mrs Dludla, with respect, Mrs Dludla, that you are quite short.

MS THABETHE: Yes. I can take off my shoes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, now it is a third of a head, the difference, thank you.

MS THABETHE: Mrs Dludla, you have indicated that she was a bit taller than you, would you say she was my height approximately? Would you say she was taller than me or shorter than me?

MRS DLUDLA: Almost your height, because she wasn't that much taller than me, but she was a little bit taller.

MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair.


MR LAX: Sorry, just one thing, how well did you know her? Were you friends, were you neighbours, did you know her casually, did you know her very well, how well did you know her and for how long?

MRS DLUDLA: We have been friendly for a long time. She was married and she was staying at eSikhawini, we were still friends and we used to visit each other.

MR LAX: Thank you.


CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mrs Dludla, what is your address where you stayed in April to May 1987? Was it 921 Ndlondlo Street?

MRS DLUDLA: Yes. It is not Ndlondlo, it is Ndondakusuka Street.

MS THABETHE: Spelt ...

MR LAX: Carry on Ms Interpreter.

INTERPRETER: N-d-o-n-d-a-k-u-s-u-k-a.

MR VISSER: And did Ms Kubheka live in the same street?


MR VISSER: At 923?


MR VISSER: Why I am asking you is that there is some evidence that at the time of her disappearance, she was living with her mother?

MRS DLUDLA: Yes, she was.

MR VISSER: Was that at this place, at 923 Ndondakusuka Street?


MR VISSER: Did her husband live at this address with her before?

MRS DLUDLA: No, the husband was staying at eSikhawini.

MR VISSER: Is it your evidence that Ms Kubheka lived in eSikhawini and that she at some point in time, came to kwaMashu to live with her mother at 923 Ndondakusuka Street?


MR VISSER: Can you remember when that happened, when she moved to kwaMashu?

MRS DLUDLA: No, I cannot remember.

MR VISSER: Well, can you give us some sort of idea, was it years before the date when she disappeared or was it a question of a few months before that time, or a few weeks?

MRS DLUDLA: After months, even though I do not remember how many months.

MR VISSER: After months? And you say you knew here beforehand when she was living with her husband at eSikhawini?


MR VISSER: How is it that you knew here there, how did that happen, when she lived at eSikhawini?

MRS DLUDLA: As I explained she only moved to eSikhawini after she got married, before she got married, she was staying at kwaMashu.

MR VISSER: Alright, so you were friends before she moved to eSikhawini, is that what you are saying?


MR VISSER: How long before she disappeared was that, can you remember more or less?

MRS DLUDLA: I don't remember the month, but all I know is that she disappeared and two to three weeks passed, and then there was a June vacation.

MR VISSER: Yes, alright, it does not matter. You see why I am asking you about her mother is in Bundle 2, at page 94 there is a statement, perhaps you should just look at it, page 94 to 96 and 97 to 98. Are those statements which you made and signed?


MR VISSER: I am sorry, I am not hearing any answer.


MR VISSER: Thank you. You see at page 94, it is recorded here, well, first of all, let's just establish the person that you made the statement to, was that Mr Holmes?

MRS DLUDLA: Yes, I do remember giving someone my statement, even though I don't remember his name or last name.

MR VISSER: Alright. It is recorded at page 94 that you said that Ntombi lived at that address, 923, alone with her daughter in that house. Is that incorrect?

MRS DLUDLA: It is correct.

MR VISSER: So her mother didn't live there as well?

MRS DLUDLA: She was staying there.

MR VISSER: I am sorry Chairperson, I was being unfair to the witness, I beg your pardon, I have just noticed at the bottom of that page, you actually say so, I do apologise, Mrs Dludla.

You see, I want to come to this clothes issue. First you tell the Committee today that you cannot remember from your own memory what clothes she wore on the day she disappeared, but you said that later when you were shown a dress, you recognised that as a dress of Kubheka, is that correct?


MR VISSER: Did you recognise it as a dress of Kubheka, or did you recognise it as the dress which she wore on that day of her disappearance?

MRS DLUDLA: I recognised it as the dress she was wearing on the day when she disappeared.

MR VISSER: Why did, seeing, had you seen that dress before the day she disappeared?

MRS DLUDLA: I have seen it before.

MR VISSER: And have you seen her wear that dress before the day she disappeared?

MS THABETHE: Sorry Mr Chair, can I request maybe that she repeats, because it is ambiguous, the answer that she gave.


MS THABETHE: She, in Zulu she said it is only after seeing the dress that she recognised that it is Ntombi's dress, it doesn't necessarily say she had seen it before. Maybe if there can be clarification.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps if you can just repeat the question, Mr Visser, please.

MR VISSER: Yes, certainly Chairperson. Had you ever seen that dress before the day that she disappeared?


MR VISSER: When you saw that dress before that time, was it when Ms Kubheka was wearing it or did you see it in her cupboard?

MRS DLUDLA: It was her dress, and she used to wear it.

MR VISSER: How did she normally wear that dress, alone or together with other articles of clothing?

MRS DLUDLA: In summer she will wear that dress alone, but since this was towards winter, that is why she had worn a poloneck, and I do remember seeing the poloneck underneath the dress.

MR VISSER: Yes, you see, that is the other thing I wanted to ask you because you said you didn't remember what she was wearing, but you recognised the dress as the one she was wearing on that day, and then yet, you now remember that she was wearing a poloneck T-shirt, skipper or jersey on the same day? How is that possible?

MRS DLUDLA: Yes, I did say that I couldn't remember at first, as to what she was wearing, but when I saw the dress, I remembered that she had worn that dress on that day.

MR VISSER: Did you ever see her wear that dress together with a jacket?

MRS DLUDLA: If it was cold, she would wear the dress and a jacket or a jersey on top.

MR VISSER: Can you help us to describe that jacket?

MRS DLUDLA: No, it is difficult for me to describe her jerseys.

MR VISSER: Let me ask you this, did you know, did you know her dresses?


MR VISSER: And the jackets that she had?

MRS DLUDLA: She had jerseys, not jackets.

MR VISSER: Are you saying that, as a positive fact, that she did not have a jacket, as far as you can remember?

MRS DLUDLA: Even if she had a jacket, but what she usually wears was jerseys, not jackets.

MR VISSER: I see. Just tell us about this dress, you know which one I am talking about, the maroon dress. That was a dress that you could buy in a shop, would that be correct?

MRS DLUDLA: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Would you say only one of such dresses of that material would have been manufactured, or would there have been more than one that would have been offered to the public for sale in clothing shops, or can't you say?

MRS DLUDLA: It can be a mass production.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, do you know by chance, by any chance, Mrs Dludla, where Ms Kubheka actually bought that dress?

MRS DLUDLA: No, I do not know, because she brought these dresses when she came back from eSikhawini.


MR VISSER: Are you speculating, or are you sure about the fact that she brought them from eSikhiwini, this particular dress?

MRS DLUDLA: I would say so, because I only saw the dress when she came back from eSikhawini and she brought these dresses from eSikhawini.

MR VISSER: Alright. If you are wondering why I was asking you this question, I will refer to Bundle 2, page 93 at the top of the page. This is apparently a statement made by Kehla Mncobo who says he was Kubheka's husband, would that be correct?

MRS DLUDLA: Yes, yes, he was.

MR VISSER: And he says that he knew her dresses and he identified, he says at page 92 he immediately identified ...

MS THABETHE: Which paragraph?

CHAIRPERSON: The bottom of the page.

MR VISSER: Page 92, bottom of the page.


MR VISSER: It says "Captain Holmes showed me a maroon dress", and he says that he immediately recognised that dress as one of Ntombi's articles of clothing. What I want to refer you to is on page 93, at the top of the page, I want to tell you what he says. He says she always wore that dress with a navy blue jacket.

CHAIRPERSON: He says that she got it in Grey Street, Durban?

MR VISSER: Yes, yes. If you will allow me Chairperson, I will come to that. He says that she always wore that dress with a navy blue jacket. What do you say to that?

MRS DLUDLA: I wouldn't dispute that, because I wasn't at eSikhawini when Ntombi was wearing the dress together with the jacket.

MR VISSER: But she was wearing it according to you, on the date of her disappearance, and I asked you "was she wearing a jacket" and you said "no"? You told us also, Mrs Dludla ...

MRS DLUDLA: No, I don't remember seeing a jacket, she wasn't wearing a jacket on the day of her disappearance.

MR VISSER: I specifically asked you whether you saw that dress before the day of her disappearance, while she was wearing it, and you said "yes"? I then asked you "did you ever see her wearing that dress with a jacket" and you said "no, only with jerseys"?

Do you disagree with Mr Mncobo's evidence?

MRS DLUDLA: What Mr Mncobo is saying here is what used to happen in eSikhawini, I wasn't there. I am testifying about what I have seen at kwaMashu, not eSikhawini. This is what I have seen at kwaMashu.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just for the record Mr Visser, is eSikhawini very close to Richards Bay and Empangeni, which is about 200, it is a different place from Durban, about 200 km plus-minus?

MR VISSER: Would the house of Kubheka's parents have been in eSikhawini, or don't you know? Page 91, Chairperson, in the middle of the page?

MRS DLUDLA: I do not quite follow, would you please repeat your question.

MR VISSER: You see, I am asking you because I don't really know what he says here. I want to know whether the house of the parents of Kubheka was in kwaMashu or in eSikhawini, could you help us perhaps?

MRS DLUDLA: kwaMashu.

MR VISSER: Alright. Mr Mncobo said at page 92 of his statement that the dress that he recognised, Kubheka had bought at Grey Street in Durban. Do you know anything about that?

MRS DLUDLA: I did state that I did not know where she bought the dress, all I know is that she brought them from eSikhawini.

MR VISSER: Alright. Now, how did it come about exactly that you identified that maroon dress, Exhibit 1, did you go somewhere or was the dress brought to you?

MRS DLUDLA: I was taken and shown the dress where the dress was kept.

MR VISSER: Alright. Let's just go through that step by step. Did somebody come to your house and say you must accompany him?


MR VISSER: Was that a policeman who came to your house?

MRS DLUDLA: I am not sure whether he was a policeman, since he was not wearing a police uniform.

MR VISSER: Do you remember his name at all?

MRS DLUDLA: No, I do not remember.

MR VISSER: Was he a white man, an Indian person or what?

MRS DLUDLA: A white man.

MR VISSER: And did you travel in a motor vehicle with him?

MRS DLUDLA: No, I was together with Ntombi's brother and I think I made a mistake there, it wasn't the day when we went to recognise the dress, or to identify the dress.

MR VISSER: What happened on the day when you were with Kubheka's brother, what happened then?

MRS DLUDLA: Ntombi's brother and Ntombi's son and myself and my daughter, we went to a certain area in Curry Road and there were dresses on the floor, and they were shown to us.

MR VISSER: Was that at the mortuary? Was that in the doctor's offices or where was that?

MRS DLUDLA: It was in Curry Road, I am not sure what place is that.

MR VISSER: What I hear is Curry, presumably like curry and rice?

CHAIRPERSON: Curry and rice, yes.

MR LAX: Curry Road is in Durban.

MR VISSER: Thank you. How many dresses were you shown there?

MRS DLUDLA: I didn't count them. There were dresses on the floor, it wasn't one dress, there were many dresses, I didn't count them.

MR VISSER: When you went with the brother of Kubheka to this place where you saw the dresses, what were you told did you have to go and do there?

MRS DLUDLA: He told me that Ntombi's body had been exhumed and there were dresses and I was supposed to go there and look at all the dresses and see if I can recognise the dress Ntombi had worn on that day when she disappeared.

MR VISSER: Fine. Can you remember what the other dresses looked like, today, that you saw there?

MRS DLUDLA: No, I wouldn't be able to do that.

MR VISSER: Did you see the dresses that were displayed here, Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 6, I think it was, apart from the maroon dress, Exhibit 1? Did you see that here?


MR VISSER: Are you able to say whether those other two dresses, Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 6, who they belonged to?

MRS DLUDLA: Ntombi's.

MR VISSER: Right. Now, are you saying therefore that you knew her articles of clothing quite well, so that you were able to be, you were able to identify Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 6 as her dresses, did you know her dresses quite well?


MR VISSER: Give us an idea, how many dresses did she have in her wardrobe?

MRS DLUDLA: She had too many dresses.

MR VISSER: Alright, can you give us a description of one other dress, apart from the three dresses that you saw here at the Commission?

MRS DLUDLA: There was a black dress with white, small white dots.

MR VISSER: Is that what you can remember of her other dresses?

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, you only asked her to describe one other dress.

MR VISSER: I am now asking her whether, well, perhaps I should put it differently, can you remember any of the other dresses that you can describe?

MRS DLUDLA: Do you want me to describe all her dresses that I can remember?

MR VISSER: Well, can you? How many dresses that she had, can you describe do you think?

MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, I think that is a bit of an unfair question.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, the witness can answer it.

MS THABETHE: Taking into consideration that this was in 1987?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but let's hear, she hasn't expressed any difficulty in it.

MRS DLUDLA: As I have already mentioned that there was a black dress with small white and red dots and - I don't think I can recall all of them.

MR VISSER: Alright, thank you for your assistance. Let's talk about her shoes. When she wore that maroon dress, what colour shoes would she wear with it?

MRS DLUDLA: Black full shoes, not her sandals.

MR VISSER: High heels or low heels?

MRS DLUDLA: It wasn't a real high heel or a flat shoe, but it was a short heel.

INTERPRETER: As the witness is pointing.

MR VISSER: Yes, pointing about one inch, two inches, it doesn't really matter, Chairperson.

Are you satisfied in your own mind that your recollection is correct that she used to wear black shoes with Exhibit 1, the maroon dress? How certain are you of that?

MRS DLUDLA: Yes, I am certain, but on the day when she disappeared, I don't remember what type of shoes she had worn.

MR VISSER: Well, again at page 93 the husband, Mr Mncobo, says that she wore that dress always with navy blue jacket and then he says "and high heeled white shoes"? What do you say of that?

MRS DLUDLA: He can say so. Maybe she used to wear that dress with that white high heels at eSikhawini, but here in kwaMashu she never wore any white high heels.

MR VISSER: Which child did Kubheka bring to you to look after on the day of her disappearance?

MRS DLUDLA: The one who is right here in the hall.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the daughter? Don't you know her name?




MR VISSER: Alright. Mrs Dludla, would you mind awfully if we asked for you to be measured, your length, would you mind, so that we can establish exactly how tall you are, and to be weighed?

MRS DLUDLA: You can do so with pleasure.

MR VISSER: Thank you. Was Ms Kubheka a bigger person than you around the waist, around the body or was she the same as you or smaller than you?

MRS DLUDLA: She was not the same as I am. Her structure was a little bit different, because I am a little bit bigger on top. She was small on top, because even her breast was smaller than my breast, I have a big breast. The bottom, she was a little bit bigger than I am.

MR VISSER: Would you say she was overweight? In other words, was she fat?

MRS DLUDLA: No, I cannot say she was overweight, I don't know how I can precisely describe this, but she had big bums and big hips.

MR VISSER: I wonder whether you could have a look at a belt which we've got here. If that could possibly just be taken out and could I ask you, Mrs Dludla, whether you would try to fit that belt around your waist, if you don't mind? If you can perhaps just stand up - oh, is it not here?

I am so sorry.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what we will do is, seeing it is come into quite a lot of action, call the belt Exhibit 7.

MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Give it a number, is it 7, are we up to 7?


CHAIRPERSON: Is it 8, Exhibit 8, we will call the belt Exhibit 8.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, are there any questions that you want to ask while we are waiting for the belt?

MR VISSER: I am just looking at our reference Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps if I could ask a question while you are looking at your reference?

MR VISSER: Certainly.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you know what Ms Ntombi Kubheka's age was at the time when she disappeared?

MRS DLUDLA: I do not remember.

MR LAX: Just while we are also waiting, please forgive me, this may seem like a very rude question, but do you regard yourself as a fat person or an overweight person? I am sorry if it is a rude question, please forgive me?

MRS DLUDLA: No, I am not a fat person.

MR VISSER: And just on that same line, what do you say was the size of dress which Ms Kubheka wore when you knew her, not in eSikhawini, in kwaMashu?

MRS DLUDLA: Are you asking me as to what size her dresses were?


MRS DLUDLA: 40 and sometimes 42, depending on the make.

MR VISSER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I think the belt is available now, Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Yes, thank you Mr Chairperson. If you have the belt before you, would you please do me the favour of just standing up and fitting it around your waist, so that we can just see how it fits you.

I know it hasn't got a buckle, but just strap it around your waist.

CHAIRPERSON: It is better to stand up, because one's waist is normally a bit bigger when you are sitting down.

MR VISSER: Alright, you are pulling, are you pulling the belt tight, as tight as you can?

CHAIRPERSON: The belt is being pulled, and it seems to be from the one end to the other ...

MR VISSER: Six inches?

CHAIRPERSON: A bit less perhaps, probably about four inches.

MR VISSER: Four inches, alright.

CHAIRPERSON: That would be 10 cm approximately, but not meeting by 10 cm.

MR VISSER: Thank you. Now, this is a matter of argument, but I just want to make it clear at this stage, it wasn't from the buckle holes?

CHAIRPERSON: No, from the one end to the other end.

MR VISSER: From the one end to the other, that is the full 87 cm?


MR VISSER: Did you at all know the underwear of Ms Kubheka, that she used to wear or that was in her wardrobe?

MRS DLUDLA: Some, yes, I used to.

MR VISSER: Alright. When you say that she had small breasts, can you - I am terribly sorry, this is very personal but there is nothing we can do about that, could you give us a size perhaps? You as ladies, you know sizes of these things, don't you, B or a D or a D4 or whatever, I am not sure what they are called?

CHAIRPERSON: Is the question does she know what size bra the deceased wore?

MR VISSER: Yes, wore, yes.

MRS DLUDLA: I am not sure, but I think she was taking a size 36 or 38.

MR VISSER: I want to show you a poor photocopy of a photograph, we haven't given these exhibit numbers and perhaps we will do that directly after, Chairperson. Could I ask Ms Thabethe perhaps to show you this photograph, she might have the original with her?

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe, won't you show the photograph of the deceased, the one depicting her sitting on a bed?

MR VISSER: Now, can I suggest to you that by looking at that photograph, it does not appear that Ms Kubheka had small breasts? What would your reaction be if I made that suggestion to you?

MRS DLUDLA: She didn't have big breasts at all.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, at this stage Mr Visser, we should give this a number, so that one reads the record, we won't get confused.


CHAIRPERSON: What are we up to R, so this will be Exhibit R1? We will call it R1, and if we do get any other photos, we will slot them into the R category.

MR VISSER: Yes, that is an excellent idea, Chairperson.

MS THABETHE: Sorry Mr Chair, I don't know whether this is an appropriate time, I am not sure about what I am saying, maybe Mr Wills can confirm this with his clients, I think I heard from one of the clients that this photo was taken when she was pregnant or something? I don't know if we can ascertain that here.


MS THABETHE: I think I heard something like that earlier on.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, maybe we will get some clarity on that later, thank you Ms Thabethe. Yes, Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson. I know that I am causing a lot of inconvenience, but could I perhaps ask for the petticoat, Exhibit 3?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the slip or the petticoat ...

MR VISSER: To be shown to the witness. Mrs Dludla, I understood you to say today that Ms Kubheka had large hips, is that what you said?

MRS DLUDLA: Yes, she had big hips, but not that she was too large.

MR VISSER: Alright, can you give us an indication from where you are sitting, how, as you remember her, how wide, how broad were here hips, can you just give us an indication?

MRS DLUDLA: When Ntombi disappeared, I wasn't this size, I have put on weight today.

MR VISSER: Yes, you misunderstood you, I didn't want to know how wide your hips were, I wanted you to explain if you could, how wide the hips of Ntombi were?

MR VISSER: Is that what you are doing?

MRS DLUDLA: That is what I was doing, not bigger than this, maybe a little bit like this for me, not to say like this.

MR VISSER: I understand, but just give us some idea.

MRS DLUDLA: Maybe like this.

MR VISSER: She is holding her hands Chairperson, just away from her hips it seems.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, about two inches on either side.

MR VISSER: Probably that. Probably that. And you wouldn't know, I don't suppose, how broad your hips are if one measured them?


MR VISSER: Alright, thank you. I want to show you Exhibit 3.

I want you please to tell this Committee whether that slip will fit you?

CHAIRPERSON: The slip is being held up by Ms Thabethe. Can you take a look at it, Mrs Dludla, behind you. I think if you can just come to the front, sorry Ms Thabethe.

MR VISSER: Perhaps it might be helpful if you just could stand up again, Mrs Dludla.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Ms Thabethe, it is difficult to see from here, but would that slip have had elastic in the top?


CHAIRPERSON: Yes, elastic top, yes.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I don't want to ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it is difficult to ...

MR VISSER: It is now becoming very difficult.


MR VISSER: I suggest we measure, we will ask Mrs Dludla to measure and we measure that petticoat and the rest will be argument.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Yes, because one must also bear in mind that you know, if you measure a garment that's got elastic, you don't wear it so that the elastic is not getting any larger, do you know what I mean?

MR VISSER: Not really Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You know, when you put it on, the elastic expands ...

MR VISSER: No, we will certainly expand it as far as it will go.

CHAIRPERSON: When it is measured, it should be - yes, that is what I am trying to get at.

MR VISSER: No, no, that we will certainly do, absolutely, yes.

MR LAX: You will obviously take care not to break it, bearing in mind how old it is?

CHAIRPERSON: We will get an expert to measure it.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I believe I don't have any further questions, thank you.


MR VISSER: I am sorry, I am sorry, I do. I am terribly sorry. I am just, the last thing I want to ask you to explain to us, Mrs Dludla is how exactly did you recognise this dress, did you just look at it and say "I recognise the dress" or did you examine the dress and then recognise it?

MRS DLUDLA: When I arrived in the place where there were dresses, I just pointed at this one, and I said "I do recognise this dress as Ntombi's dress".

MR VISSER: Yes. Alright. So, I take it your answer means that you did not examine the dress, you just looked at it and you recognised it?

MRS DLUDLA: I did touch the dress with my hands when I looked at it.

MR VISSER: Yes. Did you recognise it from the flowers and the colour or was there anything else that you recognised the dress from?

MRS DLUDLA: The colour.

MR VISSER: Now, when you saw that dress, did you see that the dress was, did you see that the dress was perished in some places, do you know what I mean when I say perished, like it was torn?

MR LAX: Frayed is probably a better word?

MR VISSER: Frayed, yes, thank you. Were there holes in the dress somewhere?

MRS DLUDLA: Yes, I did.

MR VISSER: And you told us before that you were told that by the brother of Ms Kubheka, that she had been exhumed?


MR VISSER: And did you think that the dress was exhumed with her?


MR VISSER: And did the fact that there were holes in the dress, did that make you think that that was the dress that was exhumed with the body?


MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser. Mr Hugo, do you have any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HUGO: Thank you Mr Chairman, just two or three. Mrs Dludla, during this time we are talking about, April or May 1987, did you notice that there were vehicles coming to visit Ms Kubheka from time to time?

MRS DLUDLA: Yes, I did.

MR HUGO: Can you just try and give us a description of the vehicles that came to visit her?

MRS DLUDLA: I never took notice or I never paid that much attention to remember what type of cars they were.

MR HUGO: Can you remember whether they were normal passenger cars, sedan vehicles, or kombis?

MRS DLUDLA: No, I don't remember.

MR HUGO: I take it you cannot remember whether the windows of these vehicles were tinted or not?

MRS DLUDLA: No, I do not remember, I never came closer to those cars.

MR HUGO: Yes. And on that fateful day when she disappeared, can you remember how she got to the station?

MRS DLUDLA: Yes, I do remember.

MR HUGO: Can you just tell us how did she get there?

MRS DLUDLA: She walked towards another street where, at the corner of that street, that is where she was going to take a taxi. She was going to go to another taxi rank to take taxis to Durban station.

MR HUGO: Yes, thank you, and then just lastly you said that you can remember, I am referring to page 95 of Bundle 2, that she disappeared on a Friday. Can you just tell us why are you so sure that it was on a Friday?

MRS DLUDLA: ... (tape ends) ... myself and her mother who went to King Edward, looking for her and we couldn't find her. Then we decided to go to Verulam mortuary, but then we didn't have transport to go there, we asked somebody to take us there.

MR HUGO: And just finally, can you remember what was Ms Kubheka's occupation at the time of her disappearance?

MRS DLUDLA: She was unemployed.

MR HUGO: And did you have any information as to whether she was involved in political activities at the time, or not?

MRS DLUDLA: No, I do not know.

MR HUGO: Thank you Mr Chairman.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Hugo. Mr Nel, do you have any questions?

MR NEL: I have no questions, thank you Mr Chairman.


CHAIRPERSON: Mr van der Merwe?

MR VAN DER MERWE: No questions, thank you Chair.



MR WILLS: Yes, Mr Chairperson, I have one or two questions. There has been a bit of evidence that has come up, that I would like to take some instructions on, I see that it is just about one o'clock, I ask if we could take the lunch adjournment at this stage, then I can cover that and commence examination after lunch?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I see it is almost one o'clock, we will take the lunch adjournment.





CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WILLS: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mrs Dludla, my instructions are that Mr Themba Kubheka collected you and took you to the place where the doctor in fact showed you certain clothing.

With you was the deceased's son, is that correct?

MRS DLUDLA: That is correct.

MR WILLS: If you can just bear with me, Mr Chairperson.


MR WILLS: And also your daughter also accompanied Mr Kubheka on that day, is that right?

MRS DLUDLA: That is correct.

MR WILLS: You have indicated and I think that I heard you correctly, but you have indicated that there was a number of clothing, items of clothing on the floor in the doctor's room. My instructions are to the effect that it was only the items of clothing that we have seen as were removed, allegedly removed from Ms Kubheka's grave, that is the dress, the slip, the poloneck jersey and there were I believe certain items of underwear, including a bra? Is that correct?

MRS DLUDLA: That is correct.

MR WILLS: So either when you gave your earlier evidence that there were other dresses or, that in fact wasn't the case, it was only this one dress that you had to identify, is that right, or you went to identify?

MRS DLUDLA: I cannot recall clearly because of the time that has elapsed.

CHAIRPERSON: I've got an interpretation of the answer, and it was "I cannot recall clearly because of the time that has elapsed."

MR WILLS: Did your daughter identify any of the clothing that was there, that you can remember?


MR WILLS: And what was that?

MRS DLUDLA: It was Exhibit 1.

ADV BOSMAN: May I just ask, how old was your daughter at the time?

MRS DLUDLA: Are you referring to the time that Ntombi disappeared or when we went to identify the clothes?

ADV BOSMAN: At the time, I think if you could give us both ages, at the time that she disappeared and the time that she identified the dress please.

MRS DLUDLA: My daughter was born on the 5th of February 1971.

ADV BOSMAN: How old was she when Ntombi disappeared and how old was she when she identified the dress?

CHAIRPERSON: Just by arithmetic, more or less, just over the age of 16 at the time of the disappearance and then the identification, can you recall the year in which you identified the dress, Mrs Dludla?

MRS DLUDLA: I cannot recall whether it was 1996 of 1997.

CHAIRPERSON: So she would have been 26, 25 or 26 at the time of identifying the dress?

MR WILLS: Yes, thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Chairperson, I have no further questions.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Wills. Mr Samuel, do you have any questions?

MR SAMUEL: No questions, Chairperson.


CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe, do you have any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Yes, Mr Chair, thank you. Mrs Dludla, earlier on when Adv Visser cross-examined you, you indicated that you have now gained weight from the time Ms Kubheka disappeared, is that correct?

MRS DLUDLA: That is correct.

MS THABETHE: And then you were requested to indicate the weight of Ms Kubheka.

MR VISSER: I beg your pardon, Chairperson, with respect, that was never a question put by me.

CHAIRPERSON: It was the size, not the weight, I don't think we got down to kilograms.

MS THABETHE: Okay the size, sorry, my mistake. I am indebted to you, Mr Chair, the size. When you were asked about the size, you stood up and you indicated a few inches from the weight you are now, is that correct?

MRS DLUDLA: That is correct.

MS THABETHE: I just want you to clarify, what is your evidence, is your evidence that Ms Kubheka was bigger than what you are now by a few inches, or are you saying she was bigger than you then? Can you just clarify that?

MRS DLUDLA: I explained that Ms Kubheka is not my size. She was smaller on the upper torso and her waist was also smaller.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what Ms Thabethe is getting at is, when you indicated, when you stood up and you put your hands next to your hips with a bit of space between your hand and your hip to indicate how much larger you estimated her to be, to you, in that area, were you indicating that at the time, that was the case at the time of the disappearance, that she was that much bigger than you, or now? That is what Ms Thabethe was referring to.

MRS DLUDLA: I referred to the time when she disappeared.

MS THABETHE: If you were to compare her now, her size now, would you say she was bigger than you now?

MR LAX: Can I just, before you answer, if you say compare her size now, you may confuse her, with respect.


MR LAX: What is crucial in this issue is, what was the, are you able to give us an indication in relation to your own size now, as to what Ms Kubheka, what her size was before she disappeared?

MRS DLUDLA: As I have just explained, the only difference was her upper body, she had a small bust as well as a small waist. She had big hips, but she was not that large.

MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair, no further questions.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Thabethe. Mr Lax, do you have any questions?

MR LAX: Chair, at the risk of labouring this point, Mrs Dludla, I am still not clear in my own mind how big you think Ms Kubheka was in relation to you today. I have heard what seems to me to be two slightly different answers. On the one hand you were indicating, or so I thought at the time, that she was one to two inches wider than you are now and then now, under re-examination, you are saying that was in relation to your size at that time.

I am going to ask you this question again, are you able as you, if you were to stand up now, to try and give us, and if you cannot, say you cannot, it is okay, you don't have to be forced to do this, are you able to give us any indication as to how big Ms Kubheka was, as far as you can remember, in relation to your own size now?

MRS DLUDLA: What I recall is that the only difference would be our upper part of the body, she was small breasted.

MR LAX: So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that her size then, is roughly your size now, except for the difference in your upper bodies?

MRS DLUDLA: Yes, that is what I would say, however, she had slightly bigger hips than myself.

MR LAX: Is that yourself now?


MR LAX: Thank you Chairperson, I think I have clarified that.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lax. Adv Bosman, do you have any questions?

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you Chairperson. Mrs Dludla, when you identified the dress, did you have particular regard to the size of the dress, or did you only identify it from its general appearance?

MRS DLUDLA: I only looked at the dress itself, not the size.

ADV BOSMAN: I think there is something wrong with this, you saw it when it was displayed here on the floor?


ADV BOSMAN: And did you have regard to the size then, when you looked at it, when you saw it?


ADV BOSMAN: According to you, would it have fitted her?

MRS DLUDLA: Yes, it would.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lax has indicated he would like to ask a further question. Mr Lax?

MR LAX: Thank you Chair, there was just one other aspect that has been worrying me. When you looked at the clothing, did you look at any underwear at that stage?


MR LAX: Did you, the clothing that was displayed here in front of us, one thing was striking to me that was missing, and that was there was no panties amongst those clothing. Do you recall whether you may have seen a pair of panties at some stage?

MRS DLUDLA: There was none.

MR LAX: And was, it is a very personal question and I am sorry to have to ask you this, but was as far as you know, Ms Kubheka in the habit of wearing panties?

MRS DLUDLA: Yes, she used to wear panties.

MR LAX: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any questions arising from questions that have been put by Members of the Panel, any questions?

MR VISSER: Visser on record, none from my side, thank you Mr Chairperson.


CHAIRPERSON: No questions Mr Nel?


CHAIRPERSON: No, Mr van der Merwe?


CHAIRPERSON: No, Ms Thabethe?





FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WILLS: Just one issue in relation to size. In relation to your size now, Mrs Dludla, and specifically in relation to your waist size, would you be able to say how big Ms Kubheka's waist was just before her disappearance, in relation to your size?

CHAIRPERSON: That is your size now, Mrs Dludla.

MRS DLUDLA: She was smaller than I was, she had a very small waist.

MR WILLS: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I would just like to place one thing on record, that is arising out of my instructions over lunch time. It is regarded culturally as very insensitive and inappropriate method of placing persons who are deceased, their clothes onto a living person, I would like the Commission to just take that into account, with respect. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, sorry, I was unaware of that. If we have offended anybody, we apologise for our ignorance in that regard.




Chairperson, I am sorry, but there is now something that I have to ask of Mrs Dludla. It is just one question, if you would allow me.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly.

MR VISSER: Mrs Dludla, what size dress do you wear? Will you just tell us again, what size dress do you wear?

MRS DLUDLA: If it is a full dress, a size 42.

CHAIRPERSON: So the dress for instance that you are wearing today, Mrs Dludla, would that be a size 42 or is it a skirt?

MRS DLUDLA: The shirt is a size 44, but the skirt is a size 42.


MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson.


CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Dludla, thank you very much. That concludes your testimony, you may stand down.



MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair. If I may put it on record, we are going to call Dr Aiyer.


MS THABETHE: Dr Naidoo has indicated that he can only be available tomorrow for the whole day, so he won't be testifying today.

MR VISSER: While Dr Aiyer is on his way, Chairperson, may I just enquire as to what the most convenient way would be to go about the measurement which we asked of Mrs Dludla. There seems to be no report back as yet, over lunch time. I don't know whether we should buy a measuring tape and ask her whether she is going to be here tomorrow and do the measurement here or what we should do? That will probably be the most convenient, but I don't want to inconvenience her.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Perhaps that might be easier, you know, if we just buy a measuring tape, one of these dressmaker's tapes and somebody, perhaps her daughter or whoever wishes, can take measurements.


CHAIRPERSON: That can be of height, waist, whatever. Either that, or a dressmaker can come here with a tape and measure everybody who needs to be measured, and clothing, etc.

I think we should make arrangements in that regard. Ms Thabethe, what is the situation relating to the dressmaker? I believe that a dressmaker has been approached to measure certain items? Do you have any feedback as to what the current status is, it was indicated to us that if that particular dressmaker was available, she would only be available to give evidence on Friday morning, which I don't think is very convenient?

MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, that was the position, the dressmaker came, she measured the dresses, she compiled a report. It is not a formal report, but she has written down, recorded her findings or the centimetres and everything, but she said she would be available on Friday. Debra is still trying to get hold of her, if she cannot be available earlier on, probably today at about half past three.

CHAIRPERSON: If that, that would be good if that could happen, because I don't anticipate that her evidence will be very long.


CHAIRPERSON: She's just got to testify as to what she measured.

MS THABETHE: We are arranging that she comes today, but we...

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Thanks a lot. Dr Aiyer, what are your full names please?

DR AIYER: Sagram Nomican Aiyer.

SAGRAM NOMICAN AIYER: (sworn states)


MR WILLS: Sorry Mr Chairperson, if I could just interrupt again here. Mr Chairperson, I have just been handed a photograph of the deceased, which was handed back from the doctors, I think it might be of some assistance.

If I could just hand it out, there is only one original, but I have made copies of the other. I think it will be Exhibit R2?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. The one sitting on the bed is R1, so this will be Exhibit R2, thank you Mr Wills. Just pass it along the line, I think. Mr Wills, do you have any idea as to more or less when this photograph would have been taken?

MR WILLS: Mr Chairperson, I haven't taken full instructions on this yet, but I will endeavour to do so, over lunch.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Yes, if we could get ...

MR WILLS: Over the evening.

CHAIRPERSON: If we could get information as to the photos that we have, more or less when they were taken, whether it is several years prior to the disappearance of Ms Kubheka, or very close before then.


CHAIRPERSON: It will be of assistance. This we will mark R2, it is a picture of Ms Kubheka sitting on a fence pole, with her hat on hear head, with a house in the background. Ms Thabethe?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I do ask your forgiveness, but while we are busy with Exhibit R, could we perhaps attempt to complete the photographs because we are going to use them now in the cross-examination of Dr Aiyer.

May I suggest Chairperson, that R3 be either of the two photographs, the one of presumably Ms Kubheka standing next to a motor car, or the one of her and the baby. Either one of them can be R3 and the other, R4.

CHAIRPERSON: We haven't seen them, except the one with the baby we saw fleetingly yesterday. I haven't seen the other one?

MR VISSER: Have you not been provided ...

CHAIRPERSON: No, we haven't seen them.

MR VISSER: Well, then Chairperson, it may present a problem. Have you been provided with a colour photocopy ...

CHAIRPERSON: No, we got no photos, save for these two.


CHAIRPERSON: That is R1 and R2, and then we saw that one with the baby, but just during the course of the video evidence, yesterday.

MR VISSER: It might facilitate matters if it could be arranged that you had these photographs.


MR VISSER: Colour photographs, because you can make out nothing from the photocopies.

MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, my instructions were that I make one copy of colour photographs, because of the expenditure, the expense involved in making the colour photographs. So I don't know whether now my instructions are that I should make colour copies for everybody or can't we circulate the pictures around?

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know what the expense is, and I don't know how unreasonable it would be to say that everybody get a copy, but I should imagine that it would be certainly better if at least the Panel had one to share, because we've got nothing at the moment.

MR VISSER: I am not sure that my learned friends are all that interested, from the point of view of their instructions, in the colour photographs. I just thought that the Panel should have that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think we should have a set at least.

MR VISSER: There is one more set available, but that is in the police docket.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I should imagine, I am just thinking aloud now, but Mr Visser has a set, it would seem and maybe he could share that with the other applicants, the Panel can have a set to share, and Mr Wills, a set, that would seem reasonable to me. I am sure Mr SAMUEL, you don't need a set?


CHAIRPERSON: If we could get ...

MS THABETHE: Three more sets?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, Mr Visser's got one. I don't know if you want one? Then two, one for the Panel and one for Mr Wills.

MS THABETHE: I will make the arrangements.

CHAIRPERSON: So we can get two more of those, thank you. Yes, and then also if you can include, when they are making colour photographs, to include the colour photo of R2. Thank you. Alright, Ms Thabethe? We will deal with that when we get it, Mr Visser.

EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: If the Committee can bear with me, I am sorting out my papers. Mr Chair, I would request that Dr Aiyer be sworn in?

CHAIRPERSON: We have done so.

MS THABETHE: You have done so?


MS THABETHE: Thank you, Dr Aiyer, can you please state your qualifications for the Committee?

DR AIYER: I have a Doctorate degree in medicine.

MS THABETHE: Is it all?

DR AIYER: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Where did you study, Dr Aiyer?

DR AIYER: At St George's University School of Medicine.

CHAIRPERSON: Where is that?

DR AIYER: Its Headquarters is in New York.

MS THABETHE: Can I proceed, Mr Chair, thank you. How did it come about that you became involved with the exhumation of...

MR LAX: Sorry, before you ask that, how many years did you practice as a pathologist?

DR AIYER: I am currently holding my, well, I am holding my current post for the past five years, so five years.

MR LAX: And did you practice pathology before that in any way?


MR LAX: Thank you. Have you had any other specialist training in pathology?

DR AIYER: I worked for the Department of Forensic Medicine prior to that, many years.

MR LAX: Thank you.

MS THABETHE: Thank you. Can you please tell the Committee how you got involved in the exhumation?

DR AIYER: I was requested by Dr S.R. Naidoo to perform the exhumation for him, because he was unable to do so. That is basically my involvement.

MS THABETHE: On page 82(a) of Bundle 2, there is a report, was this report written by you?

DR AIYER: That is correct.

MS THABETHE: Is that your signature at the end?

DR AIYER: That is so.

MS THABETHE: Thank you. I just want to ask you a few questions with regard to this report. At the grave site that you went to, you indicated that when the exhumation, after the exhumation had taken place, you saw, that is paragraph 3, a plastic bag with contents which were carefully lifted to the surface and briefly examined. Did you examine this, the contents of the plastic bag?

DR AIYER: It was a cursory examination, a sort of look/see examination.

MS THABETHE: Look/see?

DR AIYER: It wasn't a detailed examination, no.

MS THABETHE: And can you tell the Committee what was in that plastic bag?

DR AIYER: According to my notes, I noted the following - the skull was covered with a white fabric, the upper torso was covered with a pinkish fabric, the right femur and the right tibia and fibula were in ...(indistinct) order, the left pubic bone was fractured as was the radius and ulna, there were numerous fractures of the ribs also noted.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Ms Thabethe, Doctor, as you are sitting here now today, do you have an independent recollection of yourself, at the exhumation and at the grave site?

DR AIYER: A vague recollection, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: Thank you. You have indicated that there was a whitish fabric covering the skull. Do you know what this whitish fabric was?

DR AIYER: No, I do not.

MS THABETHE: Did you examine it by any chance?

DR AIYER: No, I did not, as I said earlier, I did not perform a thorough examination, it was a cursory examination so that I noted what was there, and the arrangement was that I exhume the body and have it transported to the mortuary for further examination.

MS THABETHE: Okay, maybe I should have asked you this at the beginning, when Dr Naidoo requested you to go and stand for him at the exhumation, what were you supposed to do there?

DR AIYER: Well, there is no hard and fast rules about exhumations. Essentially the functions of a pathologist at an exhumation is to stand there and supervise. Usually to obtain the necessary specimens particularly where poisoning is suspected.

The normal, actual ...(indistinct) of the body is left to the police or the labourers performing the task. Since Dr Naidoo and I have a special interest in sort of, exhumations, we tend to take it a bit further, where we personally get involved in actually stepping into the grave and facilitating the removal of the remains as best we can.

That is basically what we do.

MS THABETHE: And then you go on in your report to say that at the stage when you were busy collecting the remains, the rain started to fall, is that correct?

DR AIYER: That is so, yes.

MS THABETHE: And then what happened after that?

DR AIYER: Well, basically we terminated any further examination. Under normal circumstances, I would have had a closer look, to look for other bits of evidence that I may find, for instance we talk about something called ...(indistinct), where there might be more than one set of bones attached to that particular scene.

In this particular case, I did not do so. We gathered all that we had, we put it in a blue plastic body bag, I sealed the bag, because it was a sort of resealable bag, I sealed the bag, I marked it as I indicated here, "unknown from Charlotteville", I think. Yes, the remains were placed in a blue plastic bag, sealed and assigned the label "unknown from Charlotteville cemetery", and I handed it to a police officer, named Andrew Arthurmolen who was from the Stanger mortuary, for transportation of that remain from the grave site, to the mortuary and then he was instructed to facilitate transport to the Gale Street mortuary, where Dr Naidoo would conduct the autopsy.

MS THABETHE: When these remains were actually handed over to Dr Naidoo, were you present?

DR AIYER: No, I was not.

MS THABETHE: So would I be correct to say that your role in this matter, was at the exhumation, and nothing after that?

DR AIYER: That is correct, yes.

MS THABETHE: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Thabethe. Mr Visser, do you

have any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson. Doctor, on the evidence, I think you are going to be let off early today, I don't seem to have too may questions for you.

According to your report, is it correct that the plot that was opened, was grave 343?

DR AIYER: That is correct, yes.

MR VISSER: And this happened on the 5th of May 1997?

DR AIYER: That is so, yes.

MR VISSER: Present were those that you stipulated there, which included a Mr Ode, is that the correct pronunciation?




MR VISSER: What role did he play at the time?

DR AIYER: He played no role. Dr Ode was a newly appointed medical officer, he joined our Department from the United Kingdom and we were training him, so he was, he joined us about two weeks prior to that date, and I decided to give him some exposure to an exhumation.

MR VISSER: Alright. Just please explain this also, you gave us your qualifications and you said that you studied at St George's School of Medicine and then you said the Headquarters of that School of Medicine is in New York, is that where you studied, or did you study elsewhere or, how does it work?

DR AIYER: No, no, the Headquarters of the University is based in New York, but the University has different campuses.


DR AIYER: My clinical training for instance, was in the United Kingdom. My final examinations were in New York, so I did travel around.

MR VISSER: But it was all under the auspices, I think that is what you intended to say, of ...

DR AIYER: Yes, of St George's.

MR VISSER: Alright. When did you finish with your studies, Doctor?

DR AIYER: With my Doctorate degree in Medicine, in 1994.

MR VISSER: 1994? Did you then come out to South Africa immediately?

DR AIYER: That is correct, yes.

MR VISSER: And did you then start working in the profession in which you explained that you at the time, at this time, the whole five years?

DR AIYER: That is, yes, I did a year of clinical medicine and then ...

MR VISSER: Yes, alright, so from approximately 1995 to date?

DR AIYER: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Visser, when you say you were a member of the Department of Forensic Medicine, what Department ...

DR AIYER: Yes, prior to the ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but what Department is that, a government Department or a University Department?

DR AIYER: The Department of Forensic Medicine ...


DR AIYER: It is a State Department which has affiliations to the University.


MR LAX: Just so that we are clear, is that the University of Natal?

DR AIYER: That is correct.

MR LAX: Durban?

DR AIYER: Durban, yes.

MR VISSER: Yes, well Doctor, great minds think alike, because that was really the question I wanted to ask you. In other words you were in the government's service from 1995 as a pathologist, to date you are?

DR AIYER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: What precisely would your duties have comprised of, would you have chambers or rooms in Durban or would you sit out at a mortuary all day, just tell us more or less what this comprises?

DR AIYER: Okay, essentially with the practise of Forensic Medicine, we view autopsies usually in the mornings and that is at Gale Street mortuary, State mortuary, sometimes we go out to other mortuaries, depending where we are required. Following that, we tend to do whatever reports need to be done, or whatever consultations need to be done, any opinions for courts and things like that, we do specialised tests.

And in between we have court appearances as well as attend crime scenes.

MR VISSER: Alright, yes. You see, I was really aiming to find out, perhaps I should ask you, simply ask you the question, at the time in 1997, you were busy then for approximately two years, I am not even going to restrict you to that, in the whole of your experience, how many exhumations would you say have you done, many, some or what?

DR AIYER: Well, I have done, I will put the figure around 20.

MR VISSER: 20? Can you try to remember how many of those were at Charlottedale?

DR AIYER: Sorry, at?

MR VISSER: Charlottedale?

DR AIYER: No, this was the first at Charlottedale.

MR VISSER: The first at Charlottedale? Alright, well then would Dr Naidoo have perhaps a wider experience of exhumations at Charlottedale than yourself, would you imagine?

DR AIYER: I cannot answer that.

MR VISSER: Yes, well then perhaps I better ask him? We were given to understand from the evidence of Ms Miller, that she was present, as you say and that when the grave was opened, the remains that were found, were not in the position which appear or appears, from photographs which we have in our possession.

First of all, I see you are frowning with shock-disbelief. The point is that these photographs were not taken at the grave site?

DR AIYER: That is correct. If you look at my report, one of the reasons I stated that I terminated my investigations, was that I did not have a photographer to document my findings.

MR VISSER: Yes. Did you find that extraordinary?


MR VISSER: Are exhumations normally done without photographers?

DR AIYER: No, I tend to do all my exhumations with photographers. You see, because I didn't make all the arrangements for this exhumation, I could not guarantee the presence of my auxiliary staff.

MR VISSER: Yes, I accept that. What I want you to do is to look at, is the police docket perhaps available, so that the Doctor can look at a colour photograph, because a black and white photocopy is going to be of no use.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps if you can look at it, and try to remember it as best as possible, and then we will pass it over to Dr Aiyer?

MR VISSER: Yes. Chairperson, I am referring to the photograph which appears at page 49 of Bundle 2, and - thank you, I am chasing you around today.

CHAIRPERSON: At page 39 you say?

MR VISSER: Page 49.

CHAIRPERSON: Page 49, the bottom of page 49?

MR VISSER: Yes Chairperson. At this stage, you will recall, we haven't given them, because we are still awaiting a further photograph of Ms Kubheka, and that was the one which Prof Vanezis says he sent back to Dr Naidoo. That one we haven't received yet, and I would imagine that that one would be one of either, 3, 4 or 5.

If we want to mark the photograph, we would want to start with 6, I would presume, but there is a problem with that, because some of the photos are missing.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think what we will do, we will number the photos when we have them all.

MR VISSER: I think so Chairperson, with respect. And at this stage, we might refer to this ...

CHAIRPERSON: It is page 49, Volume 2, although we cannot see it properly.

MR VISSER: Yes, you will see there is an identifying figure, it says figure 2, so perhaps we can just refer to it by that identification in the meantime.

MR LAX: Should we not just refer to these photographs as being from that photo album, refer to the photo album, figure 1, figure 2, figure 3, and then it is a separate identifiable, separate bundle on its own?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I don't mind. I thought ...

MR LAX: And then whatever number we give it in due course, would be, let's say it is for example, it is T, Exhibit T, it will just be T1, T2, T3, as per the Bundle.

MR VISSER: If you wish to make it a separate exhibit number, there is no problem.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We can at this stage just refer to it as it appears in Volume 2.

MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson. Dr Aiyer, I hope I am pronouncing your surname correctly?

DR AIYER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Thank you. May I assume that that is not how you found the body?

DR AIYER: You may assume that, that is correct.

MR VISSER: You see, because the assumption is based on what you say in your report, your cursory observations which you made about the ...(indistinct)

DR AIYER: The bones, yes.

MR VISSER: The bones, and so on, that you could never tell from ...


MR VISSER: So what we must assume then is that during transportation, because you say you lifted it up very carefully, with the body bag I take it?

DR AIYER: With the, if you look at your picture, the discoloured body bag, that is what I lifted it with.


DR AIYER: That body bag was then placed into the blue body bag.

MR VISSER: Oh, I see.

DR AIYER: On the picture, that was mine, yes.

MR VISSER: That was going to be my next question. That whole body bag was placed in another body bag and that was taken away?

DR AIYER: That is correct, yes.

MR VISSER: Alright. Is it fair to assume then that in the course of the transportation, the remains landed up as they are on figure 2 of the photograph in front of you, by the time the photograph was taken?

DR AIYER: Yes, that is.

MR VISSER: What I want you to do is, first of all, you have now given the evidence about what you found there, and one of the things that you say at page 82(a) of your report in Bundle 2, you refer in the second paragraph to the fact that -

"... remnants of a disintegrated wooden coffin was found".

DR AIYER: That is correct, yes.

MR VISSER: And then you go on to say -

"... a large plastic body bag was observed at the depth of 1050 mm",

that would be correct, would it?

DR AIYER: I am just trying to locate, yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: That is correct? Alright. Coming to the next paragraph, when you cursory examined the contents, you found that the skull was covered by a whitish fabric. What I want to know from you is, in your examination there, did you remove the whitish fabric, or did you leave it around the skull"

DR AIYER: I would have left it in situ.

MR VISSER: Yes, for the pathologist who was going to do the post-mortem, to remove it?

DR AIYER: That is correct, yes.

MR VISSER: May I assume that in your five years, you have done a number at least, of post-mortems?

DR AIYER: Oh yes, certainly.

MR VISSER: Would you put it at a great number?

DR AIYER: Running into thousand, yes.

MR VISSER: Okay. Fine, so, what I want to ask you then is from your experience, if you were, forget about this case for the moment, if you were to receive a body which you can best describe as being totally decomposed, and the body lands on your table in the mortuary, with a dress, does it land there with a dress or would the dress be removed before it lands on your table, by someone else?

DR AIYER: No, it will depend, most often we request that the clothing accompany the body, so the body will be sent to us as is, so that we can examine the clothing as well because it is imperative that we examine the clothing.


DR AIYER: Quite often, depending on the police officers at a crime scene, they may decide they know better and remove the clothing ... (tape ends) ... as far as possible, we try not to cut the clothes.


DR AIYER: We try to remove the clothes as intact as possible, because one of the things, as you probably know, clothing may facilitate in the identification of the deceased.


DR AIYER: And that is one of our priorities when doing an autopsy on a decomposed body.


DR AIYER: So most often, we would undress the body as we would undress a live person.

MR VISSER: Doctor, you know, I find that almost unbelievable. If you have a body which is totally decomposed in a dress, how would it differ in, how would it make a difference in identification, in an identification process, whether you cut the dress off or whether you took it off carefully?

DR AIYER: No, what I omitted to say is the reason, the clothing is not used purely for identification, we will look at the clothing for other signs of trauma, for instance, penetrating incise wounds, or stab wounds.


DR AIYER: Or gunshot wounds, maybe we find gunshot residue, so this is why we try to preserve the garment as intact as possible.


DR AIYER: So that we may lay it out and examine it.

MR VISSER: Doctor, please try to be of assistance in this regard as well, if you can, if you cannot, please say so.

In your experience where a body laying in the veld, completely decomposed, in a dress, what would normally be the position, the condition of that dress?

DR AIYER: I just want to sort of clarify something here.

MR VISSER: Please do.

DR AIYER: We differentiate between decomposition and skeletonisation.

MR VISSER: Yes, I have been told so, and I have been told I have been wrong in a certain assumption, so you don't have to rub that in.

DR AIYER: From the appearance here, this is a skeletonised body, more than decomposed.


DR AIYER: The clothing usually, coming back to your question, the clothing usually, depending on the exposure to the environment, may be altered by the environment in the sense that there might be fine growth of roots growing through the clothing, or the clothing may be brittle, the clothing may be destroyed by the bodily fluids that leak out of a body while the body is decomposing.


DR AIYER: And there might be insect bites on the clothing, so it can vary.

MR VISSER: Yes. Insect infestation is one of the factors, but I am more concerned about the affect of the bodily fluids. Would that be noticeable on a dress taken off a person that had completely decomposed inside that dress?

DR AIYER: Yes, in fact I have recently used dress from decomposed body and partially skeletonised bodies to try and obtain DNA where there was alleged rape. So it is contaminated, it is soiled, it doesn't destroy it, but it does soil it.

MR VISSER: Would that be noticeable?

DR AIYER: It should be, yes.

MR VISSER: I don't suppose Exhibit 1, is still around, Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: It should be.

MR VISSER: I am just wondering, well, Exhibit 1, 2, 3. I am just wondering whether the Doctor might be asked to look at that.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe, is it available, Exhibit 1, 2, 3 for Dr Aiyer to look at? Exhibit 1, 2, 3 and 4, the dress, the poloneck, the slip and the bra.

MR VISSER: I am sorry about having to put you through this, Doctor, but we are led by circumstances here.

I want you to look at the clothes, particularly the dress, Exhibit 1, and I want you to consider whether you would have expected to find a dress in that condition after the body that was in that dress, had decomposed completely and the dress had been buried with the body, for 10 years?

DR AIYER: May I enquire, was the dress washed after ...


DR AIYER: It wasn't washed?

MR VISSER: No, not as far as we know. I am going to tell you this, I will put it to you also so that you can consider that, apart from certain portions of the material that is frayed, I believe that if you washed it now, it is almost wearable, but please have a look at it yourself.

DR AIYER: There is certainly some soiling, particularly at the label on the other end, which may resemble bodily fluids. This is a rather thin garment and I would imagine that is a bit of soiling there.

MR VISSER: Yes. You are now trying to find spots on the dress?


MR VISSER: But my question to you is ...

CHAIRPERSON: He was asked to, so he is looking.

MR VISSER: Yes, no, no. I am not criticising, Mr Chairman. What the question really is, is that wouldn't you have found it to be far more obvious?

DR AIYER: I am going to have to sort of maybe throw a spanner in the works here, but your question is supposing that the person was dressed in the correct position, with the dress lying as it should be. What if the state of dress was altered, for instance...

MR VISSER: I accept that.

DR AIYER: If the dress was curled up to the top.

MR VISSER: I accept that.

DR AIYER: Then the bodily fluid will ...

MR VISSER: Will miss the dress?

DR AIYER: That is right.

MR VISSER: Is it your opinion that in this case, given the information of having totally decomposed in the dress and having been buried for 10 years, you would look for a possibility that the dress was probably not covering the whole of the body?

DR AIYER: The whole body, yes.

MR VISSER: Is that because you would have expected to have found far more, far clearer signs of bodily fluids in that dress if she was dressed properly?

DR AIYER: Yes, I would have expected it.

MR VISSER: Thank you. Thank you, I think we can put that away, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Thabethe.

MR LAX: Just while we are on this, what about the other items? Can we just get his opinion on the same basis, of the other items?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, yes, if you want to ask him to do that. I am interested in the dress.

MR LAX: No, it is fine. We will ask that later then, that is fine.

CHAIRPERSON: I would just like to ...

MR VISSER: But we can do it now.

CHAIRPERSON: I would just like to ask Dr Aiyer something, now that he has seen the dress. You referred to the upper torso was covered in a pinkish fabric in your report, have you seen that dress before?

DR AIYER: No, I do not recall seeing that before. I wouldn't have described that as either a maroon or a crimson coloured fabric, rather than pink.

ADV BOSMAN: Just for the record, it is a whitish fabric according to the description?


DR AIYER: Pinkish fabric ...

ADV BOSMAN: Sorry, I missed that, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: The upper torso was covered with a pinkish fabric. I think perhaps the best is that you take a look at Exhibit 2 and 3, if that is possible. Just the colour more than anything.

MR VISSER: Doctor, I believe another item allegedly coming out of that, out of that grave, was the item being shown to you, and you must forgive me, I keep on getting mixed up with the numbers, the Chairman seems to remember them.

CHAIRPERSON: That is Exhibit 2, the poloneck.

MR VISSER: Exhibit 2.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you recall that item?

DR AIYER: Not particularly, no, but if I may, pertaining to your previous question, that seems as though it would have been on a body that was decomposing, without a doubt.

MR VISSER: Yes, yes. And then Exhibit 3 would be the petticoat, I think Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON: The slip, I think we called it, yes, the petticoat, same thing.

MR VISSER: I am sorry to put you through this, but by this time I suppose you are used to this kind of thing?

DR AIYER: I am quite used to it. This may have been the item that I described as pinkish, may have, I am not saying with certainty, but it may have been.

MR VISSER: Yes, but again pertaining to the question of bodily fluids, would you say that there are signs of bodily fluids on that particular garment?


MR VISSER: Yes? Doctor, yes, I think in fairness to you ...

CHAIRPERSON: I think it is not necessary to look at the bra?

MR VISSER: No, no. In fairness to you, I believe some of, some samples of the clothing was in fact sent for DNA testing and I must be honest with you, that I haven't looked at that for some time, I am not sure off the top of my head what the results were pertaining to the dress, but if at all it is relevant to you, I do just mention the fact that there was DNA testing done and I am just trying to find it, if you will forgive me for wasting your time, Doctor.

I am at page 45, 46, I am not sure whether that is the one I am looking for, Chairperson. I think it is earlier, I think it is 44, thereabouts. It does have a reference, and I do apologise for not having my finger right on it. There is some reference Chairperson, to the material.

CHAIRPERSON: That is on page 45 ...

MR VISSER: Yes, I will look for it Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: But put what you can recall at this stage.

MR VISSER: Yes, my Attorney just tells me that we may have noticed that in the police docket, and that it is not, that may be the explanation why I cannot find it straight away. It is not in your Bundle.

We will certainly look for that and if at all relevant, we will draw your attention to it. If we can just come back to, Dr Aiyer, if I may, to your report. You see the other thing that you noted here was that, well two things, the one is that the left pubic bone was fractured and then you say "as was the radius and the ulna".

In the photographs which you have before you, I believe there is support in one of the photographs, I am afraid I haven't got clear enough copies to be of assistance to you, of the pelvic bone. Perhaps if you could turn to that photograph and just tell us what figure number it is. It might be figure 8.

DR AIYER: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: I am not sure.

DR AIYER: Figure 8 does have a pelvic bone.

MR VISSER: Okay. Is that, I am just running through them quickly and I think ...

CHAIRPERSON: Page 54 of Volume 2?

MR VISSER: Yes Chairperson, and then apparently page 63, that would be figure 19.

DR AIYER: That is also, yes.

MR VISSER: Do you observe the fracture on the photographs there?



DR AIYER: Figure 19 actually shows that fracture much better, yes.

MR VISSER: Now, coming, moving on to the what you saw there and I understand what you are telling us, your examination was very cursory, you also found "numerous fractured ribs".

I would ask you Doctor, if you could look at those photographs and point out to us, I realise that this is not the way you found the skeleton, I realise that immediately, but is there a photograph which shows fractured ribs that you can find there?

Perhaps look at figure 8, at page 54?

DR AIYER: I did have a look at that. It is difficult to show a fracture in these photographs. I mean when one talks about a fracture, the visual impression that one gets in one's mind's eye, is a clean break with the ribs separated?


DR AIYER: But that doesn't necessarily mean that was what I was referring to. Even a slight crack or ...

MR VISSER: Would represent a fracture to you in medical terms?

DR AIYER: Medically yes.

MR VISSER: I accept that. I accept that. On figure 8, what is significant there, I put it to you is the fact that this person had no hands? So it seems?

DR AIYER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And again I know that you didn't do a thorough examination, I will certainly ask Dr Naidoo about this. Can you remember seeing any hand bones among the bones that you found there?

DR AIYER: No. The hand bones are divided into two, the carpal bones as well as the metacarpal bones, and these are normally small bones. It is frequently difficult to find these after a long term of interment, they tend to disintegrate quite easily.

MR VISSER: Alright.

DR AIYER: And as indicated, I didn't make a thorough search for the smaller bones.

MR VISSER: Please just, on this issue, you did mention fracture of the - what did you call it - the radius and the ulna?

DR AIYER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: You say, in fact your words are -

"... the left pubic bone is fractured as was a radius and ulna ..."?

DR AIYER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Does it not appear that both the radii and ulnae, and I am speaking in the company of my erstwhile teachers, I better get my Latin correct, were broken?

DR AIYER: From the photograph here?


DR AIYER: It may seem so.


DR AIYER: Yes, it may seem so.

MR VISSER: Yes, alright. Again Doctor, I am not criticising you, I am just trying to establish what was found. Just one last aspect, would you have seen at the time of the exhumation, a post-mortem report filled out by Dr Chetty?

DR AIYER: I don't recall seeing it, no.

MR VISSER: Did you know Dr Chetty at all, personally?

DR AIYER: I have met him, but more an associate rather than knowing as a friend.

MR VISSER: Alright, so you didn't know about this standard of professional work, etc?

DR AIYER: Unfortunately not.

MR VISSER: If I had to put to you, Doctor, that when bodies are brought to the mortuary in a decomposed state and there is no indication in the documentation accompanying the body, that District Surgeons or Doctors would often not do a post-mortem on such a body, would that be, as a sweeping statement, would that be correct?

DR AIYER: That is an unfair generalisation.

MR VISSER: Alright. Let me put the next one to you. If I put to you that a District Surgeon or Doctor who often does not do the post-mortem report, would view the body and would enter the cause of death often, enter the cause of death as "undetermined", without investigation?

DR AIYER: I must concur there, I have observed a few reports where I had to do a second autopsy in which District Surgeons had placed the cause of death as being "undetermined due to decomposition".

MR VISSER: Yes. That is understandable.

DR AIYER: They aren't trained as pathologists, just General Practitioners who use their basic knowledge of anatomy and physiology. We are specially trained to look for ...(indistinct)

MR VISSER: But the point here is this, if that body contained a bullet wound in the head, with or without special training as a pathologist, wouldn't you expect a Doctor or a layman to have observed it, on a totally decomposed body?

DR AIYER: Well, not necessarily. Again, this is just a generalisation and I am not being specific, one would imagine that because a decomposed body stinks, and because it is not very pleasant to the eye, people who are uninitiated will find it offensive and may not pay particular attention.

MR VISSER: And a seasoned Doctor that has done, as you say, thousands of these things?

DR AIYER: Well, we get stuck in and ...

MR VISSER: And have a look.

DR AIYER: And definitely tear it apart, yes.

MR VISSER: Yes, yes. Yes, thank you Doctor.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser. Mr Hugo, do you have any questions?

MR HUGO: No questions, Mr Chairperson.



MR NEL: No thank you, Mr Chairperson.


CHAIRPERSON: Mr van der Merwe?

MR VAN DER MERWE: No thank you, Mr Chairperson.



CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WILLS: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Doctor, I want to refer you to Dr Naidoo's report at page 28 of Bundle 2, dealing with the stature of the skeletal remains.

I want to refer you specifically to the last two paragraphs. Are you familiar with Lundi's formula?

DR AIYER: In theory, yes.

MR WILLS: Yes. And I see ...

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Wills, whose formula?

MR WILLS: Lundi's?

CHAIRPERSON: Lundi's? Whereabouts is that?

MR WILLS: It is after (vii), that paragraph.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, thank you, yes, here I see it.

MR WILLS: Yes. Now, my understanding is when Dr Naidoo applied this formula, he came up with this approximation of 1.35 - 1.42 m in height?

DR AIYER: Right.

MR WILLS: What I want your comment on is the next paragraph. He says -

"... please note that the above formula provides not for precise estimation and the actual height calculated may be considered to be inaccurate."

That is the point that I am wanting your opinion on. How inaccurate could that height be?

DR AIYER: I am afraid I cannot give you a fair answer on that. One has to look at the tables and get an opinion from a mathematician who will give you a statistical evaluation on the formula itself, because if you notice in his formula, he says "plus-minus 32", a number of factors may be factored into that, you know. The accuracy of the ruler being used or the calliper being used, to what number of digits he's measured. So it's a difficult thing to say. Dr Naidoo would be more precise, because he did the measurements and he would be able to tell you.

MR WILLS: Are you in agreement that this formula, Lundi's formula would just give you an estimation as opposed to a precise height?

DR AIYER: That is correct, yes.

MR WILLS: Sorry, if you could just explain to me what the difference is between complete decomposition and skeletal remains?

DR AIYER: Skeletonisation?

MR WILLS: Skeletonisation, yes, briefly.

DR AIYER: Well, when a person dies, the body starts to autolyse, the chemicals, the enzymes in the body starts to disintegrate the cells. Our gastro intestinal system also has micro organisms which would be responsible for breaking down the body, by using whatever contents are in the gut as nutrition, we progress along a sort of scale, it is a continual, where you may start with the early signs of decomposition which may be skin slipping, dehydration, marbling, skin slipping and things, and then you can have gaseous distension. In an advance stage of decomposition, we have this bloating appearance, we have maggot infestation and the body then is consumed, or the soft tissue, shall I say, is consumed by the maggots and it is also destroyed by the automatic process of enzymes.

When we refer to skeletonisation, we ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Just before you get to skeletonisation, that was advanced, where you have the bloating ...

DR AIYER: Decomposition?

CHAIRPERSON: But completely decomposed, as which was the term used in one of the ...

MR WILLS: It was Dr Chetty's report, at page 67.

CHAIRPERSON: Dr Chetty's report, he used that word completely decomposed. What do you think he would mean by that?

DR AIYER: I would think it is a subjective evaluation, which may mean that the organs were so autolytic that the actual structure of them, that we sort of observed microscopically, may not have been identified, so they didn't maintain the normal texture.

CHAIRPERSON: Doctor, we don't know precisely, but if a body was laying in the veld, exposed, for two months, what would you say, I know it is difficult for you, in Durban, in Bambai, or that area?

DR AIYER: I don't know where that is.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, Inanda, not right next to the sea, sort of a bit in, what would you expect with regard to the degree of decomposition? Is two months correct, more or less?

MR WILLS: Approximately two months.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it was June, July, about two months.

DR AIYER: I would say that the body would have been decomposed. Was this in winter or in summer?

CHAIRPERSON: From May, through to July. It is basically, it includes mid-winter.

DR AIYER: Mid-winter?

CHAIRPERSON: Dryer type, not as much rain as in summer.

DR AIYER: Yes, I would expect the body to be in an advanced stage of decomposition, with partial skeletonisation at least, depending on the maggot infestation.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Wills?

MR WILLS: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Now, I just want to get back to the ...

CHAIRPERSON: You just wanted to finish, he was just finishing what skeletal is, I think, if you could just for the record tell us.

DR AIYER: As the soft tissue disappears, because the bone is hard, one notices the bone structure and that is skeletonisation.

It can either be partial skeletonisation, where the skin, some parts of the body might still cover bone, or it might be totally exposed, where you have total skeletonisation.

MR WILLS: Now, if Dr Chetty was to do a post-mortem on a body that was in this completely decomposed state, how easy would it be for him, or how would he go about weighing that body?

DR AIYER: He could just put the entire remains on a scale.

MR WILLS: Would it be quite easy to do?

DR AIYER: It would be relatively easy to do, but it may not be accurate.

MR WILLS: I see, when you say it may not be accurate, are you inferring that the weight given would not reflect the true weight of the individual when the individual was alive, but it would in fact give the weight of the remains that he weighed?

DR AIYER: That is correct.

MR WILLS: How would he go about measuring the height of the person?

DR AIYER: That might prove a little difficult. If the body has been skeletonised, it is quite difficult to actually get the accurate height, but if there was soft tissue, then he can lay the body in the anatomical position and the measure from the heel to the tip of the head, the crown.

MR WILLS: That would depend, the accuracy of both of these figures would obviously depend on the state of decomposition, at the time, is that basically what you are saying?

DR AIYER: As well as the operator, the person that was measuring.

MR WILLS: Would it be a particularly intricate procedure, to measure the height?

DR AIYER: No, not particularly, not in my opinion.

MR WILLS: I am talking of a body in that, in a completely decomposed state? I would imagine it would be more difficult than to measure a fresh body?

DR AIYER: Fresh body, yes, that is correct, yes.

MR WILLS: In your experience, have you come across, given a second opinion in regard to District Surgeons who have done these types of measurements in respect of bodies in decomposed states and have you found them to be accurate or not?

DR AIYER: Well, in our experience most often, the District Surgeons in the more rural areas do not measure either the weight or the height of the body. Quite often people estimate the weight and the height.

Because we are a specialist centre, we pride ourselves in the accuracy of our measurements, so it will vary.

MR WILLS: And no doubt, if you use the equipment, well, I suppose it will depend on the equipment, but my experience is very limited, I attended at the District Surgeon's office in Durban yesterday, and the equipment that they use to measure both weight and height, certainly had a sort of a partial measurement in the sense that it would reflect let's say 52,53 kg, what would be, do you know what the position would be at the District Surgeon's office in Verulam?

DR AIYER: You attended the District Surgeon's office in Durban yesterday where they deal with live patients, so they have much more accurate measurements, if you had to attend the mortuary, you would have seen a different set-up altogether.

Our methods are a bit, not as accurate as the clinical set-up, we could have one of these large scales. One has to look at the equipment that existed at the mortuary at the time.

MR WILLS: So basically what you are saying is that the, am I understanding your evidence correctly in that you are inferring that the possibilities are that the, as a result of the inadequacy of the equipment, the chances are that these figures would be less accurate than in the District Surgeon's office with clinical patients?

DR AIYER: That is correct, yes.

MR WILLS: I want you to refer to page 68 of Bundle 2, and look at the findings of Dr Chetty where he says the height was 1,6 m and the mass 60 kg. Do you, would you be able to comment on that in any way?

You see what is striking is that there are no portions of kilograms for example, and it is just 1,6 m, not 1,625 or anything like that. Would you be able to comment on that?

DR AIYER: Well, I may give an idea in the sense that the person measuring that body may have rounded off that figures, so for instance if he had 1,59 or 1,61, he might have rounded it off to 1,6. Similarly he may have had a scale that measured in whole kilograms or half kilograms, but rounded it off for convenience. It would be more accurate to ascertain who took the measurements.

An example, in our mortuary at Gale Street, the body is weighed and its height measured by the policeman on entry, but the pathologist re-measure the height. We don't re-weigh it, we accept that the policeman's weight is correct. One will have to find out who weighed it.

MR WILLS: I see the report on page 71 is signed by Dr Chetty and unfortunately it is just a copy of a carbonised form. If the Commission would just bear with me - I am not sure if I can see any measurements on this report.

MR LAX: Look on page 73 on the top.

MR WILLS: Thank you. Yes, the same two measurements appear on that, on page 73 on the top. Are you saying that it is possible that Dr Chetty himself didn't actually perform these measurements, usual procedure?

DR AIYER: It may be possible, yes.

MR WILLS: That it was done by a policeman who brought the body into the mortuary?

DR AIYER: Who registered the body into the mortuary. Page 68 that you referred to earlier on, is a hand-written copy which may mean that this was the contemporary notes that were made whilst the autopsy was being performed. Page 73, the typed copy, may have been the more formalised copy, after Dr Chetty may have had some time to think about what he did.

MR WILLS: Yes. Turning to the discolorisation or staining of the clothing that you have seen, we have shown you Exhibit 1, 2 and 3.

If one assumes that Exhibit 2, which is the poloneck, discoloured sweater, I will call it white, cream, if that was worn between the dress and the body, and the slip, which is Exhibit 3, was worn between the dress and the body, would that have any affect on the staining of the dress itself?

DR AIYER: Yes, it certainly would. The poloneck garment was a thick garment which is capable of absorbing more liquid in comparison to the dress, which is quite thin, as well as the nylon half-slip which was quite thin and porous.

It would have an affect on staining, yes.

MR WILLS: As a lay man I would imagine that, if that was the case, the dress would be less stained than would have been the case had that poloneck sweater not been worn between the body and the slip?

DR AIYER: That may be considered, yes.

MR WILLS: Now also, if the dress had been cleaned in any way, would this affect your opinion on the markings on that dress?

DR AIYER: Yes, certainly.

MR WILLS: Thank you Mr Chairperson. If you could just bear with me for one minute, please Chair - thank you Mr Chairperson.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Wills. Mr SAMUEL, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR SAMUEL: One or two questions. Sir, if the dress was stained and at a certain stage it would have dried, the stain would have dried up, and it is left exposed to the weather, wouldn't that staining on the dress fade be a bit, at least?

DR AIYER: If it was exposed to the sunlight, yes.

MR SAMUEL: So the discoloration as such, would be less noticeable today than if the body was found almost immediately after the decomposition, am I right?

DR AIYER: Let me be true, yes.

MR SAMUEL: Now, in regard to this height, you will notice that on page 28, the height was gauged by using certain calculations. The variation between that height, 1,35 with that of Dr Chetty's 1,6 m, one must consider that Dr Chetty had a decomposed body as a whole, as such, and here we have the calculation, would that variation be a marked difference or is it normal?

DR AIYER: Basically Dr Chetty had a body to measure and Dr Naidoo had bones to measure. He used a formula that was an average which Lundi obtained by measuring a number of other people's bones and then making a calculation.

There is a difference, there will be a difference.

MR SAMUEL: There will be a difference? So one can expect that difference in all, on all occasions, the difference between a body being measured in situ as such and the calculation from the bones, you will always get a variation?

DR AIYER: There will be a variation, yes.

MR SAMUEL: Thank you.

ADV BOSMAN: May I just ask, would you regard that as a significant difference taking into account the circumstances?

DR AIYER: The text in Forensic Medicine say that the actual height if a person, when measured alive, may vary by a few centimetres, when measured dead, that is because of rigor mortis and things like that, so if we extrapolate from that, there might be a significant difference, yes.

MR LAX: And just to follow that up, you are talking about alive and dead, is the difference between the 1,6 m recorded in Dr Chetty's PM on this body and assuming it is the same body that Dr Naidoo performed his post-mortem on, is the difference between his finding using Lundi's formula and this noted here, is that significant in your estimation?

DR AIYER: Well, if we take the upper limit, 1,42 and we take Dr Chetty's 1,6, there is about a 20 cm difference, and that is a significant difference, however, as I mentioned earlier, Dr Chetty may have measured the body with its tissue still in situ, which might have given that extra bit of padding and given you the length. Dr Naidoo did not measure the body laid out, he measured the diameter of the bones, the length of the bones, and incorporated that into a formula and made an estimate or calculated height. There will be a difference, and there is a difference.

MR LAX: Yes, you didn't understand how I meant to use the word significant. I understand 20 cm is a significant difference, the point is though, is it significant enough to rule out the possibility that these are the same body, put it differently, is it significant enough to indicate that we are dealing with two different bodies here? Do you understand what I am getting to?


MR LAX: In other words, would the difference be such as to exclude the possibility that we are dealing with the same body?

DR AIYER: I have not considered that problem before, and I probably, if I do give an opinion here now, I probably will mislead the Committee. I think Dr Naidoo will be better able to answer that question, because he is more experienced in this field, than I am.


MR SAMUEL: Just one last question. Sir, would I be correct in saying that the discoloration of white or beige garments would be more noticeable than the discoloration on darker garments, am I right? If there was discoloration on the dress which is significantly darker, it would not be so noticeable as such, am I right, with the naked eye?

DR AIYER: Yes, you would be.

MR SAMUEL: Thank you. No further questions.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Do you have any re-examination, Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: No Mr Chair, thank you.


CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lax, do you have any questions you would like to ask?

MR LAX: It looks like Mr Visser wants to ask a question.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Visser, do you wish to ask a question?

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Chairperson, I don't have this love which you might think, to work, but may I just ask one question, with your leave?

Doctor, you just said a moment ago on a question that was asked of you that Chetty had a body to measure and Naidoo had bones to measure, and he worked according to a formula. If you had the two, a choice of the two, which one would you accept on the probabilities, as being more accurate?

DR AIYER: The physical body. That is my personal choice.

MR VISSER: Yes, the 1,6 as opposed to the 1,3 to 1,42?


MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Lax?

MR LAX: Chair, please just bear with me, there is one aspect that I want to check.


ADV BOSMAN: Thank you. Just one question, Dr Aiyer. Taking into consideration the degree of decomposition which you expect the body to be in at the time when it was found, how would this decomposition, this degree of decomposition have affected the hair on the skull?

DR AIYER: Well, with decomposition, I mentioned as part of the decomposition process, you get skin slipping and you might have the scalp actually coming away from the skull itself and other times, you might have the skull adhering more, adherent, so to speak to the skull itself. So it will vary, depending on the nature of the environmental conditions at the time, and any other intervening factors like maybe animal bites, for instance.

ADV BOSMAN: I realise it is very difficult for you to give us an opinion here, but what I am getting at is, would the hair possibly, I mean I have read sort of lay articles that hair grows after death, it is not true, is it?


ADV BOSMAN: In any event, could the hair or the decomposition of the hair have prevented a person from seeing the bullet entry wound at all?

DR AIYER: Yes. If the scalp hair was in situ and if the person had a thick mob of hair, it is not unknown for a person to miss a gunshot wound unless you tease the hair apart and look at the injury. Quite often this is why, in fact it is mandatory for us to shave the scalp when we suspect a gunshot wound, we shave the scalp to get a clear vision.

However, on opening the skull itself, the calvarium and if you examine the calvarium, you would notice if there was a bullet wound, the bone would have been fractured, one would note that fracture.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you. That answers my question.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lax, anything?

MR LAX: Chair, I am now covered ...

CHAIRPERSON: Dr Aiyer, just two quick points. I know you only had a cursory glance at the remains, at the exhumation, but could you determine whether the remains were wearing the clothes, or whether the clothes had been just put in, obviously taken off the remains and then put in as a separate bundle?

DR AIYER: I am afraid I cannot answer that, I didn't note it at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't know that? And then secondly, you have said that the remains were in a body bag, black body bag and that you saw the evidence of a disintegrated wooden coffin. Was that black body bag complete, or was it torn and broken?

Why I am asking is, just about the hands, you said that you didn't look for the hands, but if they were in a body bag, could those little bones have escaped from the body bag, or can't you say, or maybe is it difficult to find these little bones and reconstruct the whole skeleton, even when you've got them in a bag?

DR AIYER: Well, I would think the body bag we are referring to, may have actually been the lining of a coffin and not the thick body bags that we use. The coffins are quite often lined with plastic bags to retain the contents.

So with the coffin being disintegrated, I would gather that some of the bones would have lost, because the shape of the coffin was altered, and therefore we, that may account for some of the bones being below the level of my exhumation.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and a small bone, can that completely disappear, you know with insects and the soil, etc, can it be lost forever?


CHAIRPERSON: I mean not found ever, just disappear, biodegraded to nothing?

DR AIYER: Quite often. Quite often, I have sometimes difficult, found it difficult to find the smaller bones of the hand, because they are rather small and you can get clogs of sand, which may be larger than these, so you may mistake it for a clog of sand and discard it, inadvertently.

CHAIRPERSON: So you've got, the fact that these pictures show a lack of hands, it doesn't disturb you at all, it doesn't make you suspicious that the hands were chopped off or anything like that?

DR AIYER: Again, one will have to draw a conclusion with the complete autopsy or complete examination.

CHAIRPERSON: So, Dr Naidoo would ...

DR AIYER: Yes, he would.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand that. I think you have been hijacked quite a lot here with questions.

MR LAX: Just one last question.


MR LAX: Just one last thing, and that is in relation, did you have any doubt in your mind that the body in that plastic had come from that coffin?

DR AIYER: No, I had no doubt. The coffin and the bag would have been in close proximity and as I said, I reached that at a depth of little over a metre, 1050 m, and I had no doubt there was co-mingling of bodies. That is what I was referring to earlier on.

MR LAX: There was no evidence of that?


MR LAX: Was there any evidence that the grave site itself went deeper than that? In other words, that there might have been another body in the same grave for example?

DR AIYER: We dug until we came to this coffin, when the coffin was disintegrated, we removed the contents, we did not go any further, so I would not be able to answer that question.

MR LAX: Yes, because from the little bit of experience that I have had with these matters, one can tell the difference between soil that has been disturbed, in which something is buried, and when you hit so-called "virgin soil"?

DR AIYER: Yes. I didn't test further.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Are there any questions arising out of questions that have been put by Members of the Panel? Mr Visser?

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Yes Chairperson, I was afraid I was going to put this very point to Dr Naidoo, but it has now been raised with this witness, so I'd better ask him the questions now.

I am told Doctor, that it is reasonably standard practice in this country, that more than one body, up to three in fact, are buried in paupers' graves, could you agree with that?

DR AIYER: I was not aware of that, no.

MR VISSER: This body that you exhumed, you exhumed at one metre?

DR AIYER: 1050 mm, yes.

MR VISSER: What is the normal depth of a grave?

DR AIYER: It may vary.

MR VISSER: Yes sure, but what is the normal depth of a grave?

DR AIYER: Well, the well known figure is six feet, two metres.

MR VISSER: Yes. Didn't you find it surprising to find this body at 1050 m?

DR AIYER: No, I have exhumed other bodies at similar depths in farms, where bodies were interred by the family.

MR VISSER: You see, but that is the difference, you see, that is a farm. Here we have a government, or we have a service in the, a hearse service in the employ of the government and graves are dug, presumably by government servants who are told how to do it?

DR AIYER: Our understanding, or our information concerning pauper burials, as the case may be, is that the, for legal reasons the graves contain only one body and they are numbered, so that in the event of an identification being made by the family, by other means, by photographs or clothing, then the body may be exhumed and returned to the family.

That is the information we have from the Police at the Gale Street mortuary.

MR VISSER: Yes. Well, we will just have to hear what the police have to say about that, because as I say, that is my information.

I am told also that in fact, the reason for that is that it is very expensive, grave sites are very expensive, and in fact, they are at a premium in the sense of availability?

DR AIYER: The other thing pertaining to that question, the gentlemen, Mr J.B. Naidoo and his team of labourers, Mr J.B. Naidoo pointed out the grave to me, the grave site to me, and I would imagine that if there were more than one body buried there, he should have informed us, and there would have been more than one labelled, to that site.

MR VISSER: Well, what label was there to the site, 343?

DR AIYER: There was a tag attached to a length of wire.


DR AIYER: So ...

MR VISSER: And what did it say?

DR AIYER: No, 343. So in his books, like a curator of a cemetery or an undertaker or a crematorium, they must have records of the contents.


DR AIYER: So presumably I would have taken it for granted that he would have told me to look for more than one body.

MR VISSER: We thought as well that there must be records, and we asked for the records, but none has been forthcoming. I am asking you Doctor, if I put to you that there may be one or two bodies below the point where you stopped digging in grave 343, what is your reaction?

DR AIYER: The only thing I am going to have to say is I will have to go in and dig and look.

MR VISSER: Yes. You don't know?

DR AIYER: No, I don't know.

MR VISSER: It is possible?


MR VISSER: Yes. Thank you.


CHAIRPERSON: Any other questions arising? Thank you very much Dr Aiyer, for your evidence. You have been most helpful, thank you. That concludes your testimony, you may stand down.

DR AIYER: Thank you.



MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, may I please have a two minute adjournment?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, a short adjournment? Are you going to find out about the dressmaker?

MS THABETHE: Yes, I understand she has arrived?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so you just want to have ...

MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. We will take a short adjournment at this stage.




MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair. I would like the Committee members and my learned colleagues to bear some indulgence because I haven't consulted with the dressmaker, so I will take it as I go along.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. What are your full names please?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: My full names? Marisa Fick-Jordaan.

MARISA FICK-JORDAAN: (sworn states)


EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair. Mrs Fick-Jordaan, can you please state your qualifications for the record and for the Committee members?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: I have a National Diploma in Clothing Design from the Natal Technikon. In that course we did three years of pattern cutting, three years of garment construction and that was my formal qualification, I also practised for six years as a designer, working with individual clients where patterns were made to fit each body specifically.

MS THABETHE: Sorry, I have missed you, you say you have been in practise for how many years? Six years?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: I practised for six years and studied for three.

MS THABETHE: You were called in today by Ms Debra Quinn to have a look at clothing, a dress, is that correct?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: That is correct. I was asked to look at three dresses, and take the measurements of those, and in my opinion state whether I thought that there was a discrepancy or whether it looked like the dresses all belonged to the same person.

MS THABETHE: Okay, at this stage maybe, I don't know Mr Chair, would you like to have a look at the dresses that she had a look at.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you tell us what they were, because we have had three dresses before us.

MS FICK-JORDAAN: I picked up the same dresses.

CHAIRPERSON: We have had Exhibit 1, which is a sort of maroon coloured, darkish dress with a floral pattern on the bottom part and a type of horizontal or stripes, diagonal stripes on the top; and then there was another dress which was black, it is essentially dark in colour and it had a type of a top thing; and then there was the third one which was a sort of bluish colour dress. Does anybody want the dresses to be seen here, or do we, I don't think anyone disputes that the three dresses that you looked at, were the three that have been placed before this Committee, and are entered into the record as exhibits.

MS THABETHE: In your measuring of the dresses, exactly what you do, what were your findings? Can you enumerate that?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: Well, in pattern making really is what identifies the size of a garment. There are certain measurements that one takes that are crucial to the construction.

The most important being the bust measurement, the waist measurement and then the measurements from the shoulder to the waist and the waist to the hem. The waist to the hem, giving a sort of rough guide, but obviously due to fashion and - women's length of dresses can vary, so that is a little bit harder I think to pin point the exact height of a person.

That is really, I worked on those four major measurements. I also looked at the size of the belt that came with the dress that, I will call it the exhumed dress, and had to look, was particularly looking at whether that belt belonged to the dress and how that affected the proportions as well.

MS THABETHE: Okay. There is ...

CHAIRPERSON: We have been handed ...

MS FICK-JORDAAN: A page of measurements?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: That is correct.

MS THABETHE: Can I at this stage ask that it be marked as an exhibit?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Is this your measurements?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: That is my handwriting and my measurements that I took this morning.

CHAIRPERSON: That will be Exhibit S.

MS THABETHE: Starting at the bottom of each dress, I realise that the bust is 110 cm, what does that mean?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: Well, that obviously means that as far as we can ascertain, I would like to point out that all three dresses in fact, were not tight-fitting dresses, they were not, the styling which would clearly have shown if it was a very tight fitting dress, it would have been darted and there would not have been an elasticised waist. In this instance, all three the dresses have got elasticised waists and were styled accordingly which makes it very difficult, although the measurement we have given is of the actual garment size, you cannot pin-point exactly what the waist measurement in fact would have been, because of it is not darted, there is a variable.

MS THABETHE: The bust?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: Okay, the bust measurement, according to all three, were the same measurement. The waist measurement as you can see, there was a 2cm discrepancy, which as I say could mean the exhumed dress for instance, the elastic had perished. It could also, 2cm on proportions like this, is very marginal. The other thing, the across bust measure which is really from the shoulders to the waist, pointed out to me that the person didn't have a very long torso, in fact, what we call short-waisted.

That measurement was also not dramatically different. The styling of these dresses are that they are a sort of blouson style, which was kind of fashionable in the 1970's and the 1980's. It meant that that could vary again.

CHAIRPERSON: So these actual figures that you have, I am just looking at the shoulders ...

MS FICK-JORDAAN: The actual garment ...

CHAIRPERSON: Shoulder to waist, the one is 46, the one is 42 and one is 44? What is your comment on those differences?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: My comment on that is really that that has more to do with the styling. As I said because of the elasticised waist in each of those garments, it meant that it was designed as a sort of blouson style, it could either be, I mean I particularly have a long body, so I know that when I buy off the peg clothes, that the waists are always too high for me.

There is a lot of variation in that. With clothing, in the factories, and I have worked in the industry as well, sizing as such is so variable, it depends on the styling. From one label to the other, it could change. It is very difficult, that is why people try their clothes on normally before they buy.

MS THABETHE: Okay. What can you say about the waist of this person, or the waist from looking at the dress?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: Well, looking at, I think what was really, what was incredible is that there is such a little variance in the waist measure, the actual waist measure on the dresses, I mean there is a 2cm difference, and the fact that they are elasticised, which also in a way, when you look at the belt measurement of 89, in my opinion the 89 is not a true reflection, we tried to pull the belt, it is warped a lot and you cannot actually flatten it to get the exact size. There could be shrinkage and with the warpage, you are losing some. I think there you could add on 2cm or 3cm. You cannot pin-point that belt accurately. It is completely warped, which also in terms of dresses ...

MS THABETHE: Sorry, I just wanted you to give more clarity on the warped, the warped up of the belt, what would cause a belt to be warped up and eventually shrink?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: Well, it depends of course on the material that it is made, in this particular instance it is a man-made synthetic material, which most materials like that, anything from heat to water to moisture can affect it. The belt, when you look at it, obviously had come straight and it is not straight, it is now warped.

CHAIRPERSON: I actually commented on that, I think, when I was holding it, that - I didn't use the word warped, but it was buckled, and it wasn't straight.

MS FICK-JORDAAN: It is not straight. I tried to straighten it, but I was afraid because it is very brittle and it is actually breaking.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Just one question, while it is still in my mind, Mrs Fick-Jordaan.

I see here and you have also noted it at the bottom, that all the waists were elasticised. What would be, and that they were dresses, would you wear a belt as well with that sort of dress? Was there ...

MS FICK-JORDAAN: I think sir, the style of clothing, as I mentioned, was actually known, was called blouson style. I think with blouson style, it is very much the idea that you would pull in the waist because it is a loose fitting, it is not a tight dress. It is styled like that.

MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair. Looking at the dresses that you measured, what would you say was the size of the person who wore those dresses?

CHAIRPERSON: I think the first question is, would those dresses be able to be worn by one person?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: Yes, I have no doubt about that. The descriptions, as I said, even the waist to hem measurement, if you start looking at four, five centimetres, it is not a dramatic difference, even on the length, on the height of a person. If it a sort of below the knee and a little bit down, and it is not major. I think one of the crucial things is the waist measure, the actual waist measure which is more or less the same, and the bust measure, I think those are the two really important measurements in clothing, and that is what would, you know would really make me thing that definitely this is, and the fact that the styling of the clothes.

I mean people that generally are maybe a little bit overweight or that, prefer styles like this, with the elasticised waist, because it is more comfortable like that. The fact that all three are elasticised is quite crucial.

MS THABETHE: Were there any alterations on the three dresses that you had a look at?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: Some of the, the one hem had definitely been altered by hand, it had, obviously it was a bought, off the peg dress, and the hem had been put up. The other dress was a commercial hem.

MS THABETHE: Sorry, just to cut you, you are referring to ...

MS FICK-JORDAAN: I am trying to remember now.

MS THABETHE: Which dress are you referring to, if you can say maybe the black dress, the green dress and ...

MS FICK-JORDAAN: I actually cannot remember now which one, we did look at the hems. I noticed that one had most definitely been put up. I think it was the black dress. I am quite happy to double check on that. It was not something that I marked on the note.

MS THABETHE: My question was, what would you say the size of the person who wore these dresses, was?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: It is quite difficult to say because of the figure disproportion, in terms of the waist being extraordinarily large in a way, to measure because of the elastication to fit. It could be anything from a size, I would say a size 40 would really be probably the person.

Again, I mean, sizing, a commercial size 40 in every country, there is different sizes that operate, so I don't think that is really important at all, whether she was a 38 or a 40. I think the point is the actual measurement as they stand. One cannot dispute that.

CHAIRPERSON: If you bought a dress like, let's say the top one, 102 waist, with these measurements, more or less what size would that be, if you bought it from it from a shop?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: From a shop would be, I would say a 40.



MS THABETHE: Would you regard the person as small or large, in your opinion?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: In my opinion, looking at the clothes, obviously the person was a large person, it is not a slim, tiny framed person. I also didn't think the person was particularly very tall and just going on, can I mention the photograph?


MS FICK-JORDAAN: I was also shown photographs this morning, and without having actually even measured the clothes, my first impression was that she had what we call a figure disproportion, in the sense that she had a very much larger breast measurement, hip measurement to a waist measurement.

It shows in just about every, especially this one and this photograph. That is very normal for people to be like that, so that the bust measure and the hip measure is much bigger than the waist, the actual, physical waist measure.

If somebody has a big breast or big hips, does not mean that they don't have a small waist measure very often.

CHAIRPERSON: Some people are shaped like tubes, and there is very little between the top and the hip and the waist?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: We actually did this exercise, I measured Lynn and I measured Thabisa, who - a very similar situation, they've got very small waist, but very wide hips. It is quite normal. It is not what we would say is the model figure, in some sense, but it is very normal. You get a lot of people with this figure disproportion.

MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, those are the questions, thank you.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Thabethe. Mr Visser, do you have any questions you would like to put to Mrs Fick-Jordaan?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Yes Chairperson, may I just enquire from Ms Fick-Jordaan, whether she will be available tomorrow as well, tomorrow morning?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: I am sorry, I have a problem, this has come at quite short notice, I have to be in Eshowe all day tomorrow, and overnight.

MR VISSER: Yes, no, you don't have to apologise. I am hoping that I will be able to cover everything that I should cover, Chairperson. Can I just try to understand what you are saying, did you use the phrase the waist is extraordinarily large, is that what you said?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: No, I didn't say the waist, we are talking about the measurement of the waist. What it means is that it is quite a straight cut, which means one cannot pin-point from the dress, and get exact measurements of the size of the waist of the person, because of the styling of the dress, it is elasticised, it is not like a normal skirt, that is fitted, or a dress that is fitted, that would be darted, with a zip.

MR VISSER: I heard all of that.

MS FICK-JORDAAN: The actual, so it is not, when I said that, I didn't mean that the waist in particular is bigger, but all I am trying to say is that it is not unusual.

MR VISSER: Mrs Jordaan, did I hear you incorrectly when you said when you measured the dresses, you found the waist to be extraordinarily large?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: No, I think I am sorry, I didn't mean that.

MR VISSER: I am not talking about the person, I am talking about the dress?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: Well, I don't think it is, if I look at my measurements, it is not that large.

MR VISSER: What would be average?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: Well, the average is, on all the measurements, the waists were the same, on all three dresses, except for the exhumed dress which was 2 cm smaller.

MR VISSER: Alright. You see, and you were then asked what, I think it was by the Chairperson, what would you consider the size of the person would have been that wore those dresses, and then you said "from size 40", is that correct?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: 40, 42, that is what I said.

MR VISSER: Yes, what I want to know from you is, is it from size 40 upwards, or from size 40 downwards, what did you intend to say?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: Well, I said it is very difficult to say because the size of the person is actually very difficult to ascertain, because of the style of the clothes. I said that. The dresses themselves are not fitted, the styling is not fitted, so it is very difficult to get an actual size on the person that they would fit.

MR VISSER: Yes. Did you say that the person who wore those dresses, had a very large bust measurement?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: What do you say, in proportion to what?

MR VISSER: I don't know, I am talking about your evidence.

MS FICK-JORDAAN: I said that I thought that the bust and the hip measurement were much larger, disproportionately large to the waist measurement.

MR VISSER: Alright. You see, can I summarise your evidence, that you really can draw you conclusions from your measurements as to the size of this person and that in effect, it has been a fruitless exercise?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: I would disagree with you, because I think the fact that we are sitting with three dresses here in the same style, number one, usually people tend to like a style and have clothes on the same style, especially if you are a person with figure disproportions you are going to find a style of dress that suits you.

What I think is very significant here is in fact all three dresses are more or less on the same styling, significantly all have more or less the same waist measurement, they are all elasticised and I think from that in itself, tells you a lot.

MR VISSER: You don't understand my question. My question is, is it, would it be correct to say that from your measurements you cannot tell us much about the person, the size of the person who wore these dresses, except that she was large?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: Well, I think ...

CHAIRPERSON: No, I think she did say in her evidence that the waist to shoulder height indicates a short person, didn't you say that?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: Yes, I did say that from the dresses you can tell that it is not a very tall person and that the fact that the bust measure, the dresses would have fitted a person, all three dresses would have fitted a person of the same size, which I think is crucial, because all three would fit a person with a bust of 110, the waists are the same and those are the crucial measurements.

MR LAX: Yes, but what is being put to you is something subtly different, and perhaps I could put it in a different way. What you are being asked is are you able, looking at these measurements, of these garments, to give us any indication, assuming you didn't know anything about the person who may have worn these three dresses, are you able to tell us just from these measurements alone, what the person's height might have been, what their weight, mass, may have been, things of that descriptive ideas as to that person's appearance? Is that what you are trying to get?

MR VISSER: Yes, except that I specifically didn't ask about height.

MR LAX: Yes.

MR VISSER: I am talking about size.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that is girth.

MS FICK-JORDAAN: Look, for me, on those clothes, because they are not fitted, if it was fitted and darted maybe one could, but as it stands with these, with the styling of the dresses, in my opinion, I am not able to do that.


MS FICK-JORDAAN: To say exactly, what the person physically, actually looked like.

MR VISSER: Yes, well, that is the only point I was actually putting to you, that is precisely the point I was putting to you, thank you.

Now, coming to the belt, on what basis do you say that there was shrinkage of that belt?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: Well, if you look at the belt as it is today and, the first thing is trying to flatten it out to do a proper measurement, I was unable to do that because of the warpage, it is not only warped in the length, it is also warped like this. It is, one cannot actually get an actual measurement.

I was also actually trying to pull it, get somebody to hold the other end, to try and straighten it, it was starting to break, because it is very fragile, it is perishing.

MR VISSER: On what basis can you state that one should add two to three centimetres because of the condition of the belt?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: Well, it is not, I cannot state that.

MR VISSER: But you did?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: I said that you could add to it, because of the warpage. I think if you calculated it, that most definitely with the warpage, that is the exact measurement as it stands, it doesn't have a buckle on it, so one cannot actually even get the waist, the measure of how it is going to go around because the buckle no longer exists.

The other thing is that, as I have explained to you, that it is warped. Warpage, with warpage, it most definitely would be longer, it is not going to be shorter.

MR VISSER: Did you measure it on 89 cm?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: I measured it on 89 cm.

MR VISSER: Did you take the trouble of trying to measure it by assuming a buckle to be present to the point where the buckle marks are in the belt?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: Well, the buckle marks, I think, are also misleading, because of the tarnishing and that. You can more or less see where the hole was, but the size of the buckle is not necessarily the size that is shown, because when something rusts, it will spread a round a lot.

The point is, the belt as it stands now, is warped and unless you actually get it flattened out, there is also, I am not an expert on the material that I can say to you now that there could not have been any shrinkage, there could have been dramatic shrinkage. I am sorry, I cannot answer that.

MR VISSER: On a plastic belt, is that your experience?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: Well, plastic does perish and plastic does change and warp.


MS FICK-JORDAAN: It does not stay the same forever.

MR VISSER: Yes, and plastic can also stretch?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: It can also stretch. In fact it would probably have been better when it was new, in terms of the stretchability, which is lost completely. There is no elasticity, which is why it is now wanting to break and perish when you pull it.

MR VISSER: If one assumes, if one assumes the waist measurement that you have here of 102, 104, 104 again to be the actual waist measurement of the person that wore it, that would make a difference of 21 cm that that belt would have had to be longer for her to w ear it, do you agree?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: I think I clearly stated that this measure was not in fact, the 102 waist is not the measurement of the person, because of the styling, it is a blouson style, which means it is elasticised.

I think that is what I said right from the beginning, it is absolutely crucial that that measurement, it could have been much larger, the dress measurement than the actual size because of the style.

MR VISSER: Just listen to the question now, please. If one assumes that the actual waist measurement of the person wearing the dress, was in fact this measurement, I am putting a simple proposition to you, then the difference would have been, that the belt would have had to be 21 cm longer to skirt her waist, would you agree with that?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: Well, I still cannot see how you can say that the person is 102 cm?

CHAIRPERSON: I think that is a question of ...

MS FICK-JORDAAN: I am not understanding it.

CHAIRPERSON: It is just a question of arithmetic.

MS FICK-JORDAAN: Look, I am saying that, of course 89 cm, I can see that is different to 102 and that there is a discrepancy there in the centimetreage which would be normal, considering if your dress is a blouson style with an elasticised waist, is going to be pulled in. It is not abnormal to have a dress that is wider, and a belt that pulls it in. That is not abnormal at all.

MR VISSER: Madam, what were you told about this case, when you were asked to come and give evidence?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: Absolutely nothing. I was asked to come and measure dresses.

MR VISSER: Who contacted you?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: I was contacted by Debra Quinn.

MR VISSER: Do you know her?



MS FICK-JORDAAN: Yes, I know her, not in a professional way.

MR VISSER: As a friend?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: We don't work together.

MR VISSER: As a friend?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: As a friend, yes.

MR VISSER: For how long?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: Oh, for it must be about eight years.

MR VISSER: Yes, and she told you nothing about why you had to come and give evidence?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: She said to me there was a discrepancy about clothing, and could I come and do measurements. I asked her what was required and she said to me, can I please come and what was required was to ascertain whether the dresses would have fitted the same person, and whether, what the measurements were of the dresses.

MR VISSER: Yes. Well, we know that you cannot tell us really anything about the size of the person that wore the dresses, we have passed that point.

I am just now on the belt. Let me ask you this question as a general question, would you expect a person wearing approximately a 42 dress, normally speaking, an African woman, Swazi woman, that her waist would be girded by a 79 cm belt?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: I find it interesting that you refer to race on this issue, because I think it is particularly in African, South African woman that I know, that is the disproportion in their bodies, compared to Western women. The disproportion, the figures we work on when we cut patterns, are geared towards Western women where that disproportion is not that big.

I think by measuring Lynn and Thabisa, it is exactly that that is pointed out. You can look at them, that the proportions of their waists are much smaller, it is very small compared to the hips and the bust size.

MR VISSER: So you say you would expect that ...

MS FICK-JORDAAN: I wouldn't find it surprising at all. I wouldn't find it surprising because of the styling of the dress.

MR VISSER: I have no further questions.

MS FICK-JORDAAN: It is a blouson dress.


CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, that word keeps coming up, bluezon?



MS FICK-JORDAAN: Which really means loose or more fabric or it has an elasticised waist, which pulls the fabric in. It is not a slim cut dress, it is a style, and all three have the same.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Hugo, do you have any questions you would like to ask?

MR HUGO: No questions, thank you.



MR NEL: Rather not, thank you Mr Chair.


CHAIRPERSON: Mr van der Merwe?

MR VAN DER MERWE: No Mr Chairman.



CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WILLS: Briefly, thank you Mr Chairman. Ms Jordaan, you mentioned that you measured Lynn, are you referring to Lynn Kubheka?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: Sorry, I am not sure, there were two ladies, and I thought this would be interesting just to see them.

MS THABETHE: Yes, it is Lynn Kubheka.

MS FICK-JORDAAN: Was it you?

MS THABETHE: Yes, it was Lynn Masetla.

MR WILLS: What were her measurements?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: Lynn's were, the bust was 95, the waist was 77 and the hips, 113.

MR WILLS: And so this would also fit into that category of ...

MS FICK-JORDAAN: Disproportion?

MR WILLS: Disproportion? In terms of Western women standards?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: I think Western women are much more proportionate in general. We are talking generalities, and no two people are exactly the same, but there is a standard sort of proportion to bust, to hips, to waist, that is much more marked in African women. They have much broader lower half, I mean their hips tend to be much wider and their breast, that measurement is very often bigger, and the waists are very small.


MS FICK-JORDAAN: We tend to be more straight.

MR WILLS: Yes. You mentioned another person, did you measure another person?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: Yes, Thabisa here.


MR WILLS: For the record, can we have her measurement, it might be interesting?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: Do you mind? Thabile was, the bust was 91, the waist was 74, and the hip was 103.

MR WILLS: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Wills.

MR WILLS: Sorry, there is one question. Just on the waist measurement, the 102 cm elasticised. Do I assume that this measurement was the completely stretched measurement?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: Yes, those are the stretched measurement. I mean obviously with the, but even, I was quite amazed actually with the exhumed dress, that in fact there was still a little bit of elasticity left, which is unusual. I mean one would have thought that it would all be gone by now.

There was a tiny little bit, so I stretched that and there was, yes, very little play. So that is the stretched width. On all the dresses, were the full measurement.

MR WILLS: So if you hadn't stretched it, that measurement would have been less?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: Oh yes, definitely.

MR WILLS: Thank you, no further questions.


CHAIRPERSON: Mr SAMUEL, do you have any questions you would like to ask?

MR SAMUEL: No questions, Chair.


CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe, do you have any re-examination?

MS THABETHE: No re-examination, Mr Chair, except to say if anyone wants to call their own dressmaker or designer, they are free to do so. If this evidence is in contest.


CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Lax, do you have any questions?

MR LAX: Just one Chairperson. If one were to assume that somebody with the figures, the measurements given here, was to try and wear this dress, somebody whose proportions were exactly as you have measured them here, does it - what is your opinion of how they would feel or fit into those clothes?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: I think, as I said, I think the three, the measurements on all three dresses would mean that whoever was one size, that if one dress fitted them, all three would fit them.

MR LAX: Yes, you see my point is, if you took somebody with a waist of 104 cm, to me it is logical they would be totally and utterly uncomfortable in this garment, that would defeat the whole purpose of the styling of the garment?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: Absolutely. That is why I said that there is no way that the waist would have been in actual fact that measurement. It is also, the styling tells you.

MR LAX: The point I am trying to make is, can we safely assume that the person who wore these garments, their measurements were slightly smaller, at least, if for example in the waist, it would have been less than 102 cm?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: I think you can say that.

CHAIRPERSON: Adv Bosman, do you have any questions?

ADV BOSMAN: Just one question. Ms Jordaan, I noted that you said that you are not an expert on fabrics, but could you just assist us here. It is a synthetic material that the exhumed dress is made of, is that correct?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: That is correct.

ADV BOSMAN: Would you say it is a strong synthetic material?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: I think it is, because it survived obviously. Most definitely if it was a natural fibre, it would have disintegrated, and it looks like it's got quite a high nylon content.

ADV BOSMAN: Yes, that is actually what I was trying to get at. Considering that it had probably been exposed to the elements for about two months, do you think that type of fabric would have withstood it in the way this dress seems to have done?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: Yes, I think nylon most definitely, it is a very hardy fabric, unless it was burnt. I think that is about the only thing, it melts, but normal elements, exposure to elements and water would not affect it. It would only be heat. If heat was applied.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you very much. Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: These three dresses, Ms Fick-Jordaan, are they all off the peg dresses as it were, or are they custom designed like those that you make?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: No, it looked like they were all, the labels aren't so clear and that, but they look like they were all off the peg dresses. The finishes most certainly showed ...

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Are there any questions arising out of questions that have been put by Members of the Panel?

MR VISSER: I was hoping that I wasn't going to talk Chairperson, but I have to.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Ms Lynn Masetla, is she in the audience? The person that you measured?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: Yes, she is.


MR VISSER: I wonder whether she just couldn't stand? Oh, I see. How would you describe the build of Ms Masetla?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: I think she must stand up, sorry, I just want to look at her, because I haven't.

Well, I would look at her, and I would say that she's got large breasts for a person, she is quite short, she also has wide hips and she is hiding her very much smaller waist, which I think she would be quite happy to lift her top and show.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I don't think you need to go that far.

MS FICK-JORDAAN: Not completely but just to there.

MR VISSER: Would you describe her as an average built person?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: I beg your pardon?

MR VISSER: Would you describe her as an average built person?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: It depends what are we talking about? As I said to you there are averages that apply to Western builds, there are average, it is a cultural thing also where people are built differently. I think for African women, very often that is the case, very small waist is very normal, wide hips and breasts.

MR VISSER: Would you describe her as an average African woman?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: I would say she is an average African woman.

MR VISSER: Thank you. If on the questions that Commissioner Lax asked you, if one assumes and one has to, that the person who wore the dress, would be smaller than that dress, I accept that, what would you say would the normal tolerance be of a person wearing a dress like that?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: Well, the tolerance could be anything, because of the style.

MR VISSER: The normal tolerance, what would you expect, what would you advise as a dressmaker, your client who comes to you and ask you to make a dress, how much are you going to allow, what tolerance?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: Well, if you are going to put elastic on the dress, that you can work at least on 10 or 15 cm, if you are going to pull it in and it becomes like a gathered dress which is, in her case, because of the wide hip measure, it probably was also to compensate for that, to find a waist that fits comfortably and it is not too tight around the hips.

That is why this style is actually very popular with people with wide hips and with small waists, because it immediately compensates for the disparity in the two.

I mean 15 cm is definitely, I wouldn't say is unusual to add on for this style of dress, for elasticised. I mean at this stage, we also don't really have the full figure. If that waist was slightly dropped in any way, it would have had to be adjusted as well.

MR VISSER: So the short answer is 10 to 15 cm?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: Most definitely.

MR VISSER: Thank you.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any questions further arising? Another question Mr Lax?

MR LAX: Sorry Chairperson. We have been told that the person had a fairly large backside, that was one description we got today. Would, bearing in mind the waist sizes and all that sort of thing, would that be consistent? Might it be consistent, are you able to offer any opinion?

MS FICK-JORDAAN: I think so. It is really a difficult one to say, because some people have a big backside, some people have a flat backside and wide hips, so it is quite a difficult one, or they might have a big tummy and no backside. It is always the circumference which is measured.

The body in the round, it is quite difficult really to say.

MR LAX: No, fine, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Does that prompt any questions arising? No? Ms Fick-Jordaan, thank you very much, that concludes your testimony, we appreciate what you have done, thank you.



CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe, will that be the evidence for today? I see it is twenty to five?

MS THABETHE: That is the evidence for today, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Tomorrow, will we be commencing with the evidence of Dr Naidoo? At what time will we be starting tomorrow? Nine o'clock or half past nine?

MS THABETHE: Half past nine?

CHAIRPERSON: Half past nine?

MR SAMUEL: Mr Chairman, I did indicate before taking the brief, that I will not be ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I remember, is tomorrow the day.

MR SAMUEL: Tomorrow.

CHAIRPERSON: You will be excused.

MR SAMUEL: However, if I finish early, I will come in.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you will be excused, Mr Samuel, and I am sure it will not have any direct impact on Mr Mbane, the evidence of Dr Naidoo.

MR SAMUEL: Chairperson, if the matter falls through, I will come through.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I know it is late in the day, but may I detain yourself and the Committee a moment longer?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly.

MR VISSER: Because of questions that originated from a question of Commissioner Lax, and which I took up with Dr Aiyer, there may be, there may be some talk of going to that grave and to dig deeper, to see whether there are other bodies in that grave.

I just want to place on record, Chairperson, that if that should happen, we would like to be present. That is the one thing.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know anything of that, but ...

MR VISSER: Yes, the other matter Chairperson, that we would raise is with this whole issue of identification, all sorts of things, paper trails, and graves, etc, we are beginning to think that it is important for the Committee and ourselves to go to this grave site and go and have a look at what is going on there.

We think that the matter is of great importance obviously to the relations, and we believe that it may be a bit of trouble to go there, but we should make that sacrifice and do that, in case something, we haven't been there, in case something arises there, which may be of assistance, one way or the other.

CHAIRPERSON: Not joining issue with you, Mr Visser, but what do you, would we expect to see there? Look, I've got no idea what happens at an exhumation, whether they fill in the hole again or whether they leave it open indefinitely.

Because to drive out passed Stanger, to look at a piece of ground ...

MR VISSER: It would be mere speculation on my part to advance any argument to you at this stage, but we might check for example the sequence of the numbers of the graves. I don't know what we will find there. I am just suggesting it Chairperson, that if you feel that it is not worthwhile to go out there, well then I will ...

CHAIRPERSON: Unless there is some sort of real, I wouldn't like to just go there and we see that the grave next to it is number 342 and the other one on the other side is 344 and it has been filled in, and we are just looking at a piece of ground. That of course would be a waste of time.

MR VISSER: I take your point Chairperson, I just thought that...

CHAIRPERSON: But if there is some sort of reason, but I take the point that if there is to be any further digging at the grave, that shouldn't be done without prior notification to the Committee and then we can inform all the parties prior to that happening.

We don't want it just done unilaterally by somebody.

MR SAMUEL: Sorry Mr Chairman, that is assuming that another body has not been placed in the grave after the exhumation?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Well, we don't know anything like that, Mr SAMUEL. You know, that is why I say, but there shouldn't be any further digging without prior notification to the Committee and if the Committee gets such notification, we will obviously inform all the parties concerned, prior to ...

MS THABETHE: Can I interpose Mr Chair. Would maybe my learned friend like one of the officials who are responsible for the graves, to come and give evidence, rather than us going there? And then, if it is still in contest, then we can take a trip there, because I think this can be remedied?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but I don't think I am going to take a trip there just to go to, just for the sake of going to Charlottedale cemetery. You know, I will go there for some stated, specific reason if you think it is worthwhile.

MS THABETHE: What I am asking Mr Chair is, would my learned friend prefer that Mr Naidoo, because we've got a Mr J.B. Naidoo who is responsible for the graves, who assisted our exhumation team, who pointed out the grave, would he like him to come through and be cross-examined, if there is something in dispute?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I will make it absolutely clear, I don't prescribe to the TRC how the officials should do anything.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Okay, if you want to call Mr Naidoo, you can do so, but you know, all I am saying is, that as I am sitting here now, I haven't been convinced that we should go to Charlottedale. I don't know any good reason.

MS THABETHE: I don't wish to call Mr Naidoo, Mr Chair.


MS THABETHE: I am not disputing anything about the graves.

CHAIRPERSON: We will then adjourn until half past nine tomorrow morning, at the same venue, thank you.