CHAIRPERSON: Before we start I would like to apologise to the two medical witnesses who have made themselves available to give evidence here today, for the delay in starting. A number of problems have arisen this morning which were not anticipated and I am sorry that they had to wait for so long before they could start their evidence, and I'm sure I speak on behalf of all the people here.

The second matter I would like to mention is that there appear to be problems or potential problems with the timetable, which I would like to discuss with the legal representatives, if they could come up to see us during the short adjournment. I gather that a number of people have problems tomorrow and there may be others and we could perhaps talk about what would be the best solution for those matters. So if you could come and see us during the short adjournment. The reason for wanting to do it now is that if there changes to be made, I want to ensure that the victims, interested parties and people like that are given ample notice. Thank you, gentlemen, we can now continue with the Nerston/Amsterdam inquiry.

MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, I call the District Surgeon, Dr van der Wouden, who was stationed at Piet Retief in this instance and who reported on the post-mortem reports, Chairperson. Can you swear him in please.

MR LAX: Doctor, would you please stand. Are you English or Afrikaans-speaking?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Afrikaans.

MR LAX: Your full names for the record please.

PETRUS JEREMIAS DANIEL VAN DER WOUDEN: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Have you gentlemen got your earphones on - oh, you haven't got any earphones.

MR LAX: Sworn in, Chairperson. Is everyone okay with headphones? Can we proceed in the meantime?

EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson.

Dr van der Wouden, can you tell the Committee what your qualifications are.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: BScMBCHb.

MS LOCKHAT: So you are a doctor, is that right?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Yes.

MS LOCKHAT: Can you tell this Committee how long you've been practising?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: I've been practising for 26 years. The first 10 years I did not do any medical work, thereafter I went to Piet Retief and when these incidents took place I had been stationed at Piet Retief for two years where I had been busy with medical legal work.

MS LOCKHAT: Right. Now I want to refer you to the documentation in front of you, that is page 36 of bundle 2, Chairperson, and that relates to the post-mortem report on Bernard Khone. Can you tell us, Dr van der Wouden, if you look just down below the page, is that your signature?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Yes.

MS LOCKHAT: Good. I want to refer you to IV, just down below the page, and that relates to your findings in relation to Bernard Khone. Can you explain that to us.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Must I read this now?

MS LOCKHAT: Yes.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN:

MS LOCKHAT: Now just - I'll take you through it line by line, so you can just explain to us exactly what it entails.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: As it says here, the neck and head area were not wounded but everywhere else of the body there were bullet wounds.

MS LOCKHAT: You won't be able to tell us how wounds there were, how many shot wounds there were?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: If I did not enter it here I would not be able to say.

MS LOCKHAT: And then just the next line -

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: That means, it's a summarising way to say that the heart and lungs had been extremely injured, almost unrecognisable.

MS LOCKHAT: And can you explain to us how that could happen, as a result of what? Would you say it's the shot wounds or what?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: This is probably as a result of sideways traction of a heavy calibre and of a calibre which penetrated the thoracic cavity close to each other.

MS LOCKHAT: And then further -

Can you explain that to us?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: When the organs in the thorax are injured, then the blood flows from these organs and it goes into the chest cavity and the person dies. One

calls it a haemothorax.

MS LOCKHAT: And then just further -

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: The liver is a soft tissue organ, if a heavy calibre bullet hits a liver then it would destroy the liver entirely, it will break it up completely.

MS LOCKHAT: And then just further -

Can you explain that to us?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: This means that the damage to these organs was of such a nature that it was difficult to recognise these organs.

MS LOCKHAT: And then can you just explain the next line to us, the last line, the two last lines?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN:

It was difficult to recognise, that's why I put it as such.

There was a fracture of the radius above the pulse and it was an open fracture. This means that the bone was exposed, the skin and tissue continuity over the bone had been disrupted.

MS LOCKHAT: Can you explain to us, what do you think was the result of those fractures?

MR LAX: Do you mean the cause?

MS LOCKHAT: The cause. Thank you, Mr Lax.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: At this stage after these years it would be difficult to explain it now.

MS LOCKHAT: ... be caused by the bullet wounds, these fractures?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Bone fractures can be caused by bullet wounds, by being directly hit on the bone by the bullet.

MS LOCKHAT: Can you just tell us whether any pictures are taken or whether any pictures in this instance, if you can recall, were taken of the bodies?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Not that I know of.

CHAIRPERSON: ... for a moment, you've told us about the fracture of the femur and of the radius, were there any bullet wound in that vicinity, because there don't appear to be.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: I did not indicate it as such here and therefore I will not be able to remember it.

MR LAX: Let's put it another way. If you didn't indicate it here, does that mean they weren't there? Can we assume that if they were there you would have indicated it?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: I tried to the best of my ability to follow every entry wound and try to correspond every exit wound of every entry wound and we can accept that if we do not mention an entry wound in the area of the fracture, then there was not one. You must remember, keep in mind that a body with many bullet wounds, for a junior it is very difficult to do this specialised work like a specialist. You have to keep that in mind at all times.

MR LAX: ... that I'm not at all being critical of you, I'm just - we're just trying to get the best analysis possible from your report.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: I appreciate that.

MR LAX: And the sort of follow-up question is, we accept that you would have noted it as a bullet wound if it looked like that to you at the time. The next question is in a sense, what else might have caused such an injury, where the - I can't remember what you called this sort of wound, a sort of a compound fracture in a sense, where it opens up, what else might have caused such an injury, where the actual bone is exposed and the tissue and skin are broken? I'm talking about the wrist injury that you're talking about, that was exposed.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Someone who falls causes an open fracture if he blocks with his pulse or wrist.

MR LAX: ... take a one second break while they change your microphone for you and then we won't have this problem with it going on and off all the time.

MR LAX: Thanks Cecil, that's going to be a great help. Do I understand that the interpreters are requesting a copy of these documents?

INTERPRETER: Yes, for the other one.

MR LAX: Why don't they take my one and I can share with someone. Please carry on, Ms Lockhat.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you. Chairperson, I want to refer to page 33 now, this continues Bernard Khone's post-mortem report, it was just the pages got a bit mixed up, so we'll continue, page 33 of the bundle, that's bundle 2. You can see that it's the same Bernard Khone because the death register's number is the same, so just that we all can be comfortable that it is the correct person.

Dr van der Wouden, I want to take you to paragraph 4 there, that relates to the external appearance of the body and the conditions of the limbs. What I want you to do is to read each line for us and then explain to us exactly what happened and what the causes and results are.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: On the previous page you said I said compound or multiple bullet wounds and here the position of the bullet wounds are explained here.

In other words they probably went in somewhere and went in again.

You can see there were many bullet wounds, it was not easy for me to do this. To sort out all these wounds as I was a junior at that time, I can assure you it was not easy.

MS LOCKHAT: Can you just tell us, these gunshot wounds, would you be able to tell us whether it was at close range or whether it was a distance away from the deceased? Is that possible?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: I found one wound which I described as having a burn around it, so that could be from a close range. If I did not mention that there were burns around the wound, then it had to be from far but the wound where I did find it, to save time I did mention it and there is one place where I did mention that there was a burn to the skin, which indicated that this was a shot from close range.

MS LOCKHAT: So in relation to this deceased person, Bernard Khone, were all of these shots fired at a distance from the deceased?

CHAIRPERSON: No, he said one of them was at close range. There was a burn mark on the skin.

MS LOCKHAT: Yes, yes, thank you, Chairperson.

And then I want to turn to page 34 and then just at paragraph 11, can you tell us what that means? - in relation to the oesophagus.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: This means that the mediastinum structure was anatomically so damaged, I wrote here destroyed because of the sideways bullet velocity.

CHAIRPERSON: What is this structure, the mediastinum and oesophagus?

MR LAX: Is that this area above the oesophagus?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: The mediastinum is the part which contains the heart and the aorta and the mediastinum is the top part of the central part of the thoracic cavity.

MS LOCKHAT: And the oesophagus?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: The oesophagus's top part goes through the mediastinum and the bottom section is in the thoracic cavity.

MS LOCKHAT: And then we go onto the abdomen and that's also on page 34, that's paragraph 16, the peritoneal cavity. Can you explain that to us? "Gevul met bloed".

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: The peritoneal cavity was filled with blood, it was because of the wounds to the liver and the stomach did not have any contents and the fundus of the stomach was torn open and there was nothing wrong with the rest of the organs.

MS LOCKHAT: "Die fundus van die maag oopgeskeur", can you explain that to us.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: We saw here that the bottom section of the oesophagus was severely damaged and the bottom section of the oesophagus is joined up to the top section of the stomach and this is called the fundus.

MS LOCKHAT: And what did you say would cause that part be torn open?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: I would say it is also because of heavy calibre bullet shots.

MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, I'm going to go over the next deceased and that is Mr Tollman's post-mortem report, and that is on page 46.

Do you have it, Doctor? We're going to go through this in the same way as the other deceased person. Just at ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Could I just make on request. The interpreters are needing to interpret this and it's quite technical stuff and if we could just go a little bit more slowly, I'm sure they'd benefit from that.

MS LOCKHAT: That's correct, I'm finding difficulty with the words myself.

On page 46, IV, can you just read each line very slowly and again explain to us, that is your findings in relation to Mr Tollman.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN:

MS LOCKHAT: ... to the first line there "entry wound below left ear, exit wound below left ear with surrounding burn wound". ... close range or what?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: At the moment this isn't very clear to me, what I meant here, because this was quite a long time ago.

CHAIRPERSON: Looking at it, it says there's an exit wound with surrounding burn.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: What would cause such a burn?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: It may have been the velocity of the bullet, the velocity as the bullet point travelled. If it exited the skin at diagonal direction it could burn the skin.

MS LOCKHAT: I'll move down to V, just further down. I think that is pretty clear. Just in relation, that is B -

We'll turn to page 47, paragraph 4, that's the external appearance of the body and the conditions of the limb. Can you just explain that to us again.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN:

And that means that these entry and exit wounds could not be corresponded with one another, I could not determine the traction, that is what I have indicated here.

MS LOCKHAT: Can you tell us basically why you couldn't correspond those exit and entry wounds?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Chairperson, this is specialist work, these autopsies were specialist autopsies and the first thing I did when I was confronted with this for the first time in my life, is to realise that this was specialist work and I immediately applied for a specialist to conduct this work. Every time the opportunity was refused to me and I had to manage with what I had. I am not a specialist, I had only received six lectures in ballistics in my previous training, ballistics wasn't the thing in my time, blood alcohol was the thing in my time and with the limited knowledge at our disposal we assisted one another, we were not told beforehand that we would be trained for these autopsies.

I walked into an autopsy on morning and I was confronted with the work for a specialist. I immediately realised what my work was, as I realised in the theatre, in the maternity ward, in paediatrics, I immediately realised what my responsibility was and I applied for a specialist to be called in, but every single time when we were confronted with this sort of our work, our requests were denied. And I am very sorry that I could not answer the questions as a specialist would have, so that I could have delivered work of a much higher standard.

MS LOCKHAT: We'll move on to page 48, that is paragraph 10, the thoracic cage and the diaphragm. Can you explain that to us?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: In paragraph 4 we refer to the fractures of the third to the seventh rib, left front.

That is on the previous page.

MS LOCKHAT: ... to the abdomen. That is at paragraph 16.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: I beg your pardon. That would mean that some of the organs had been penetrated and damaged and bled and this filled the peritoneal cavity with blood.

MS LOCKHAT: Paragraph 17 -

And then just on paragraph, at page 49, paragraph 22 -

Can you just explain to us -

What does that mean?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: For the purpose of this autopsy the adrenals are very small glands which are the size of a bean above the kidneys and this has to do with renal secretion of noridrine(?)(?) and adrenaline and for the purposes of this autopsy these were not investigated.

MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, I'll move on to the next post-mortem report on Shadrack Sithole, that's at page 56.

We'll move down to IV, your findings in relation to Shadrack Sithole.

MR LAX: Sorry, it's on page 58 is it not?

MS LOCKHAT: 56.

CHAIRPERSON: My 56 is an identification at the mortuary.

MR LAX: In our bundle the findings are on page 58.

MS LOCKHAT: It's just that mine is on page 56, Chairperson. I apologise for that.

So that would be 58 and we'll move down to 59 and so forth. Can you just go through that line for line again and explain to us again. Thank you.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN:

That will be on the next page, we will come to that.

MS LOCKHAT: And then just V(b) -

... to page 58 and 57 for some of us, at paragraph 4. That's the external appearance of the body and condition of limbs. Can you take us through that please.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN:

That would be on the lateral side, that would be the external upper leg.

The tibia would be the inside of the leg. So it is the left lower inside leg.

The surgical junction is basically that the position on the collarbone is a name for the outside two-thirds of the bone and there is a bilateral long laceration with haemothorax.

MS LOCKHAT: And we'll just move on to paragraph ...(indistinct), that's the head and the neck.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: There is the large skull fracture which was described on the previous page, the bullet tract which moved through there is obviously due to the bullet which caused the injury and there is also the bilateral haemothorax which must have been the cause of death.

MS LOCKHAT: And in this instance the tracts through the brain, would you say this was from a distance, can you tell us that in this instance or not? Or if it was at close range.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: I would not be able to say, I'm sorry.

MS LOCKHAT: ... page 59 and 58 for others. That's the chest, thoracic cage and diaphragm.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN:

Those would be the muscles in front of the larger muscles.

With the two haemothorax's that we have referred to.

MS LOCKHAT: ... paragraph 14. That's the heart and pericardium.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN:

MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, we'll move on to the next deceased person, that is Sandile and that's the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You're not doing the injuries on page 61 of our papers?

MR LAX: I think it's a copy of the same papers we've just dealt with.

MS LOCKHAT: Okay, because my 61 just doesn't relate to that, but I think it's the same, it's a repetition, Chairperson, the chest and the diaphragm. Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS LOCKHAT: So is it in order if I move on to Sandile, Chairperson? That's the faxed copy that we received yesterday.

CHAIRPERSON: Now are we going to call this a separate exhibit or are we going to put it in here as page numbers ...

MS LOCKHAT: Can we rather call it an exhibit, Chairperson, because the page numbers are a bit ...

CHAIRPERSON: ... confusing anyway.

MS LOCKHAT: ... confusing anyway. So that would be Exhibit F, Chairperson. Chairperson, you will note that it's very difficult to read the hand-written portions of this post-mortem report and even Dr van der Wouden is also having problems with it, Chairperson. And then just - he's informed me that it is his signature on the page but a police officer, he dictated the report to the police officer and he had actually written this for him. So on page F1, is that your signature, Dr van der Wouden?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Yes, it is.

MS LOCKHAT: Good. We'll start with Sandile's report then, also IV, if you can just - I know it's going to be a bit difficult for you to understand the handwriting, but you can go through it very slowly.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: I would just like to join up here, because of the poor grammar and because of the language used that the typist used, we placed pressure on her and she then left. We could not find anybody else to take her place and the workload was of such a nature that one could not do an autopsy and write, one would not be able to finish the work, so there's usually two investigative officials, a black man and a white man. The black man would usually stand and help you cut and do investigation and then the police officer would take notes, and now after 14 years I only see that this was written down and that it hadn't been typed out.

This is fortunately very easy. This hole in the aorta arch caused this man's death immediately and I don't believe there is an argument about this.

MS LOCKHAT: Good. Then we won't do (v), you've explained that to us. We move on to the next page. We move on to paragraph 4. That's the external appearance of the body and condition of limbs.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN:

You will see that I do not use medical terms. I have found in the two years when I was busy with this, that magistrates and judges find it very easy when one does not use medical terms and I did away with it. I try to write my autopsies in layman's terms, so that everyone can understand them.

MS LOCKHAT: If we just turn the page, we go on to the chest. That's paragraph 11, the media sternum and the oesophagus.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Point 11.

and then what is important, point 14,

MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson and that concludes Dr van der Wouden's findings in relation to the post-mortem report and that concludes his examination in chief. Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Looking at the time perhaps we should take the short adjournment now before cross-examination commences.

MS LOCKHAT: All rise.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Dr van der Wouden, may I just ask you to page to page 36 of bundle 2? Do you have that before you?

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR LAX: Your mike, Mr Hattingh.

MR HATTINGH: Roman figure refers to the last entry, Roman figure (iv), the last entry, Fracture, there's something before radius, do you see that? Is it an L or an R?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: It looks like an L.

MR HATTINGH: Would that be the left radius open fracture? Please correct me, I did not listen properly what you said in this regard. Did I hear that someone asked you whether there was an entry wound or an exit wound with regard to this injury?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: If I recall correctly someone asked me what the mechanism of the injury could be.

MR HATTINGH: If it was not caused by a bullet wound, what do you think could it have been that caused this injury?

DR VAN DE WOUDEN: Persons who fall fracture the wrists in this position easily.

MR HATTINGH: But did I understand you correctly? I imagine and if I am incorrect, please correct me, that you said if you saw signs of a bullet wound there, you would have made that entry here.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And if we go over to page 33 where once again you deal with this injury under paragraph 4, in the centre there you say there was a gaping wound, left wrist with burning marks on the skin. Do you see that? It's the third paragraph, the second line of the third paragraph.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Page 33?

MR HATTINGH: Yes, page 33. It starts...

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Yes, I have that.

MR HATTINGH: I have forgotten that your page might not correspond to my page numbers. That's where you have your list of observations and you give a description of the wounds, do you have the correct one before you?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: "Yes a gaping wound, left wrist, with burning signs around the skin."

MR HATTINGH: Do we refer to the same wound as the one that we just dealt with on page 36?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Yes, it should be the same one.

MR HATTINGH: I have inferred that your conclusion, that you did not indicate it as a bullet wound, that this was because this wound was not caused by a shot from a firearm. Is that the correct inference?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: No, I did not imply that.

MR HATTINGH: Are you saying that it was caused by a shot from a firearm?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: The following page confirms that there was a firearm.

MR HATTINGH: So it had to be a firearm shot? Was it not caused by him falling?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: It was a shot from a firearm.

MR HATTINGH: Yes and also you do not give us a description of the nature of the burn marks. Was it around the wound, was it just on the one side, how large was it, what was the extent of it and so forth, is that correct?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: You will probably not recall today what the nature of these burning wounds was?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: That's correct yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did you, in your career, ever have to deal with bullet wounds that were caused by a tracer bullet?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Not that I can recall.

MR HATTINGH: So you don't have experience of that?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: No.

MR HATTINGH: You would not be able to say what the effect of such a bullet would be to the surrounding skin when it enters the skin?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Unfortunately I cannot.

MR HATTINGH: May I then ask you to page to page 46? Usually and I know one cannot be dogmatic about this, but as a rule the exit wound, or the entry wound of a bullet is smaller than the exit wound, is that not so?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And usually the entry wound is regular but if the bullet did not go in straight, otherwise it would just be a normal round hole and while usually one can probably not generalise this, but usually the exit wound is larger and the walls more irregular, is that correct? Please do not just nod your head because your answer has to go into the record.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: An entry wound caused by a bullet from an R1, do you know what the calibre of an R1 is?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: The past 9 years I have not had contact or experience of these things.

MR HATTINGH: 7.62 is the circumference of an R1 bullet.

CHAIRPERSON: Circumference? Diameter.

MR HATTINGH: Diameter, I beg your pardon. The diameter is 7.62 mm, is that not so?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And a hole or a wound which is caused by such a bullet is somewhere in that vicinity, not so? And I see on page 46 under (iv), you have an exit wound below the left ear approximately 3 cm. Do you see that?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: The fact that you indicate it as 3 cm, more or less 3 cm is then indicative of an exit wound as opposed to an entry wound?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: It's possible, yes.

MR HATTINGH: But it says exit wound here.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: So you refer to an exit wound?

MR HATTINGH: I say that the fact that the wound's size is described as approximately 3 cm, this indicates that as you have described it, it's an exit wound rather than an entry wound.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And could you probably give an explanation as to why there would be a burning mark surrounding the exit wound?

CHAIRPERSON: It says in his report that it's an exit wound.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, I accept that, Mr Chairman. I want him to explain why there would be burning around the exit wound. Usually burning wounds that one finds around a bullet wound, is caused by the gasses escaping from the barrel, do you agree with that?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: I don't know.

MR HATTINGH: You are therefore not able to give an explanation as to why there are burning marks next to an exit wound?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: I have not had any experience with this over the past 9 years and I was only called at the last day and a half.

MR HATTINGH: If you cannot say, you are free to say so. I just wanted to know whether you could possibly think of a theory for it.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: A bullet that moves at a high speed and exits the skin at an angel, can also burn the skin.

MR HATTINGH: I accept that. I don't know anything of it, but then that burning mark would not be found around the wound, you said in the surrounding.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: The wound would be elliptical and the burning marks would be centralised on the one side of it.

MR HATTINGH: When I asked you about tracer bullets, you said you don't know anything of the ballistic nature of a tracer bullet.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

MR DU PLESSIS: I have no questions Mr Chairman.

MR ROSSOUW: I have no questions Mr Chairman.

MR LAMEY: No questions Chairperson, thank you.

MR RAMAWELE: No questions Mr Chairman, thank you.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Doctor, will you please page to page 33? My colleague has already asked you about paragraph 4 where you refer to the gaping wound, left wrist with the burning marks in the surrounding skin. If this person that was shot, the deceased, had a pistol in his hand, could the butt have been hit causing this injury? If he had a pistol butt in his hand and you are saying he was shot on the pulse, could the injury have been caused because of the butt of the pistol that was hit?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: I don't know.

MR PRINSLOO: No further questions, thank you Chairperson.

MR LAX: Arising from that, if you'll allow me before you go, Ms van der Walt. This question of the gun butt has come up in the hearing, was there any injury to any of the hands? I haven't seen anything noted here?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: If it is not indicated there, then I would not be able to remember, then we would have to accept that there was no injury to the hands.

MR LAX: This particular gun butt, we can show you the photograph if you like, but it's basically got damage on the handle of the gun butt and one would assume that if that was in somebody's hand when they were holding it, that hand would have some injuries on it. You can't ...

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: I cannot answer that question with authority.

MR LAX: I'll leave it at that then. Carry on, please, sorry.

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions, thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NTHAI: So Dr van der Wouden, at the time when you conducted this post-mortem you only had experience for two years, is that correct?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: When I started these autopsies it was in 1986 and I arrived in Piet Retief in 1984, so it was probably less than two years.

MR NTHAI: You had, by then you had not done any post-mortem involving gun shots, is that correct?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Yes, we did autopsies where bullet wounds were involved, but not as elaborate and not as complicated as these, not at all.

MR NTHAI: Before this one, how many had you done which involved gun shots?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: I don't know the amount.

MR NTHAI: Was this the first one?

MR LAX: He has already said that he had done others involving gun shots, but nothing as complicated and maybe he could explain what he means by complicated and that would perhaps help.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: By that I mean that there were so many wounds with so many elaborate injuries and so many different directions of which tracts had to be determined. This needs specialist training, it needs an infrastructure and special circumstances.

MR NTHAI: Let me put the question this way Dr van der Wouden. At the time when you conducted this post-mortem, how many post-mortems had you done involving wounds caused by military types of rifle and ammunition?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: As far as I know this was the very first one, as far as I can recall. This group of autopsies was the first.

MR NTHAI: Had you done a post-mortem involving a fatal blast injury, which could have been caused by things such as hand grenades and military type explosive devices? Had you done something like that?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Before this incident? Not as far as I can recall, no.

MR NTHAI: So when these bodies were brought to you, you realised that this needed expert knowledge, is that correct?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Yes, that is so.

MR NTHAI: Did you try to refer this matter? In your evidence in chief you mentioned that you tried to apply to get experts and every time you failed. In this particular case, did you try to get expert assistance?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: In this case we also tried to have these autopsies referred to pathologists, but it could not be done. At that stage autopsies were not referred, at that stage autopsies were done locally and at the end of these political autopsies as far as I know, then they started to refer the corpses to units where the autopsies were done.

MR NTHAI: You said at the end of what? I didn't hear. There's something wrong, I can't hear well. You said at the end of what?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Now, after, as far as I can recall, this was the first four of these political autopsies and thereafter, and I do speak under correction, this was a long time ago, but I think that some of these corpses later, afterwards, were referred to units for specialist autopsies, but I do speak under correction, I am not entirely certain of it.

MR NTHAI: What do you mean? Was there a political autopsy and a non-political autopsy, what are you talking about? What is that?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: I mean by that, people who were shot by the Security Forces.

MR NTHAI: Who says that's political, if they are shot by Security Forces?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: If you want to call it anything else, you are free to do so.

MR NTHAI: Was then explained to you that this was a political autopsy, before you conducted this?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: No, it is a term that I use here myself.

MR NTHAI: But Dr Wouden, I have a difficulty. You told me that you tried - so in this one you didn't try to refer it? Can we put it that way?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: No, I clearly said that each of these, I attempted to have these referred to a specialist and in each case it was not possible. This is now the fourth time that I'm saying this.

MR NTHAI: But you are aware that these people were killed on the 14th is that correct?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: I didn't hear you.

MR NTHAI: I'm saying, you are aware that these people were killed on the 14th of August, you are aware of that? It appears in your report.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: What does the 14th of August have to do with what?

MR NTHAI: I'm asking you, are you aware that these people died on the 14th ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: If you look at paragraph 3 of your report, Roman (iii), as counsel has already put to you, the date appears there.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Yes. I'm not with you. I don't understand, what do you mean? What does the date have to do with the transferral of the patients, what are you saying?

MR NTHAI: I'm saying to you, these people died on the 14th, that's correct?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Yes.

MR NTHAI: You did the post-mortem on the 15th, is that correct?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Yes.

MR NTHAI: What time did you do the post-mortem.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: This is 14 years ago.

MR LAX: It says 3 o'clock on the report.

MR NTHAI: 3 o’clock. Now when you say you attempted to refer the matter, what do you mean? When did you do that?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: I shall explain to you. I was a part-time physician, we were in a group practise with 6 partners. The District Surgeon post cannot be given to partners. The District Surgeon makes the final decision. He was the contact person with the references. In each of these cases they were reported to the District Surgeon. he was requested to transfer them, he said it was not possible and said: "Continue with the autopsies". That's how it worked.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you go on, can I just ask a question? If you look at page 58, you will see the time of that post-mortem as 14.20, well here 58 I think is where you have problems. This is Shadrack Sithole post-mortem. It's 14.20.

MS LOCKHAT: We've got it, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Page 46, Tollamn is 14.40. Page 36 Bernard is 15.00. Right? And then we go to Zandile whose post-mortem is also given as 14.40. Zandile is Exhibit F. Is that correct? That's the times you gave.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Yes, that's how it is indicated here.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR NTHAI: Well, just following on that question. Is it how it happened? Is that how it happened? Is that how you conducted the post-mortems? Especially the times that you say?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: The times I entered here, I cannot recall it. It is indicated here, I cannot recall what happened back then, so long ago, but it is written down here as such, yes.

MR NTHAI: Doctor, I want to ask you, what is the purpose of conducting a medico legal post-mortem examination? Do you know?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: I was trained by a Professor van Pragkoch and he submitted an autopsy to me that I had to do this autopsy up to the point that I determined the cause of death. The reconstruction of the murder is not my job, that's the police's job. My job is to assist the magistrate and the judge to determine the cause of death to the extent that he is satisfied this reconstruction of the court, how the pistol was held, who hit who with how much force, that is not my job. That's the police's job. That's with the investigative official. These facts which I reconstruct before this court now, was confirmed by a judge. I think the man's surname was Brandt, where the investigative official asked me in a murder matter, do I think with how much force did this man have to hit that man, strike that man on the head, and the judge stepped in and said that has nothing to do with it, that is not his job, I am satisfied that the cause of death is the doctor's job, not the reconstruction of the murder scene. That is the training that I received of my 26 years back, that is what I was taught, but I am willing to assist the court in as far as it is possible.

MR NTHAI: No, hang on Doctor, don't - I'm just asking a very simple question. Just tell me, your professor who taught you, he must just - he told you that the purpose of conducting a post-mortem examination is to determine the cause of death, that's all?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: And to assist the magistrate about all questions which might emanate surrounding the cause of death, that is my primary function. The secondary function is to reconstruct, I understand that this is an auxiliary function, but that is not my primary function. I just have to determine the cause of death and prove that and have to answer questions surrounding the cause of death. With the rest of the questions I can offer assistance, but I am not the investigative official, it is the police's work to do that.

MR NTHAI: Is it correct that when you have to assist the magistrate, you have to record the relevant information of the deceased correctly? Is that not part of your duty, if you're conducting a post-mortem?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: I said that is also part of my function.

MR LAX: I haven't heard you correctly. Do you mean that you need to record all the injuries that you note on the body?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: No, I did not mean that and I did not say that.

MR LAX: But isn't that one of your functions?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Yes, definitely. No, I did not say that, I said I have to very clearly show the cause of death. I have to record all injuries, I have to complete the autopsy completely and my primary function is to determine the cause of death and if the magistrate asks about it, I have to applicably answer questions surrounding that and explain it, but I have to complete the autopsy thoroughly, of course.

MR LAX: So, the cause of death may be the final outcome of your observations, and that is obviously something that the form requires you to do and that something that at an inquest would be required of you to express a professional opinion on.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: That's correct.

MR LAX: But obviously what would also be important, because no-one else is going to have another chance, is to record every other injury that you note, or irregularity on the body.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: That's correct, yes.

MR LAX: Thank you.

MR NTHAI: I'm sure, Doctor, your professor taught you that in a post-mortem examination you have to record the identity of the deceased, is that correct?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Yes.

MR NTHAI: He also taught you that you have to record the time of the day, is that correct?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Yes.

MR NTHAI: He also taught you that you have to record the pattern of injuries, is that correct?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Yes, that's correct.

MR NTHAI: Yes, he also taught you that you have to record the presence of alcohol or drugs in the blood, if there is any, is that correct?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Yes.

MR NTHAI: Now when you - I'm coming to something else now, when you conducted this post-mortem involving gun shot wounds, you never tried to find out where the photographs were? The photographs of the bodies, did you try to ask where those were?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: I can't remember that. I can't remember anything about photographs, it was a long time ago.

MR NTHAI: But your professor did tell you that in a case involving gun shots, the photographs would assist you, is that not correct?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Why is that? Why would photographs assist you when you have the actual body in front of you?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: It could assist in order to obtain a holistic view of the injuries in order to be able to correspond the wounds with how one found these wounds on the body.

MR LAX: Sorry, maybe there was a problem. You said, what was translated to us was: "It will help you to assess the wounds or to compare the wounds with what wounds were found on the body." I'm not sure if that's necessarily what you meant.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: No, I said that the photos could give a global view or impression of the injuries, if the photographs were sufficient, this could also assist in corresponding the report if necessary, with the wounds on the body.

MR NTHAI: Now today it's after 10 years, 13 years down the line from 1986, are you able to tell us now, you said that was part of the function that your professor told you, are you able to tell us today what were the patterns of the injuries in those bodies that you examined, looking at your reports?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: But we went through this this morning. I mean, this is dealt with.

MR NTHAI: Are you able to tell us the direction of the fire, were you able to give us that? Whether the fire came from which direction?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: I don't think I will be able after all this time, to tell you that, I'm sorry.

MR NTHAI: You are not able to tell us, according to your report, the distance from which the shots were fired, is that correct?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: No, we went through that this morning. As far as I can encounter we got one close up wound, the rest was from a distance.

MR NTHAI: What distance?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: I won't know.

MR NTHAI: In the report of Bernard, the one that appears on page 36, there was somewhere where you talked about the injury on the liver. Have you spotted that?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Yes, here it is. Point 4. 36 on the outside, point 4, Roman iv, the liver was destroyed and the cavity filled with blood. Right lobe of liver filled with blood as well as left lobe.

MR NTHAI: According to you, what caused that injury?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: I can't say at this moment. It may have been sideways ...

MR NTHAI: You say it may have been sideways what?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Side ways shock waves from a bullet.

MR NTHAI: That does exclude other...

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: No this does not exclude other mechanisms. These were repetitive shot wounds.

MR NTHAI: You also talked about a fracture. I think it's on the same - a fracture on the left knee.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Yes, that was the final sentence. Fracture of the left femur above left knee.

MR NTHAI: And you say on this fracture there was no gun shot wound, is that correct?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Did I say it?

MR LAX: Well maybe just clarify it for us.

MR NTHAI: Can you clarify whether there was?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Can we read on the following page where the case is described?

MS LOCKHAT: Page 33.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: The second paragraph. On the left side of the chest, five exit wounds. On the left thigh two exit wounds, on the upper arm secondary wounds,

INTERPRETER: Could the speaker slow down please?

MR LAX: Doctor, the interpreter is just requesting you to slow down a little bit, they're struggling with some of these technical terms.

MR NTHAI: So according to you this was caused by a gun shot.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Yes.

M NTHAI: In paragraph 4 I think on the same post-mortem report, where you're talking about the gaping wound, I think my learned friend also asked you about this, saying the gaping wound with surrounding burn wounds on the skin,.

MR LAX: It's just the sentence before the one you have just read. Seven lines from the top.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN:

MR NTHAI: Yes, with surrounding the one that says ...(intervention)

DR VAN DER WOUDEN:

Is that what you are referring to?

MR LAX: Mr Nthai, what are you referring to, so that we can just be clear?

MR NTHAI: It's the one that has got the gaping wound with surrounding burns.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Yes, that is the gaping wound on the left wrist, with burns on the skin.

MR NTHAI: And you confirm that this can only be caused by a gun shot at a very close range?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: No, I didn't say that.

MR NTHAI: Could this be caused by a heavy calibre bullet shot from a distance, an injury like that?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: The previous also put the same question to me. I cannot give you or him an honest answer, I'm sorry about that.

MR NTHAI: If you go to the post-mortem of Tollamn, that's on page 46, where you are talking about the fracture of ribs.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN:

Yes that is on the following page.

MR LAX: Can you just remember to go a bit slower. I'm sorry, I know you're not used to giving evidence but if you can just try, please.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: I'm sorry. What do you want to ask about this?

MR NTHAI: I'm interested about the three to seven fractured ribs. According to you, what could have caused the fracture of the ribs?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Just a second. If you look at the previous paragraph, there was extensive damage to the muscle above these ribs. That was in the shoulder area. I would accept that the same force and violence which was applied to those muscles, was also the cause of the fracture of these ribs.

MR NTHAI: Well, you don't know what kind of a force.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: What it was I don't know. I'm sorry, I cannot say precisely what it was.

MR NTHAI: When you - let's come to the post-mortem of Zandile, the one that is ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Sorry, before you go, just help me, I'm a little bit lost here. You said the previous paragraph, what are you referring to? Oh, on page 46.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Page 46 Roman iv.

MR LAX: So you're referring to the triceps there?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN:

The cause of this trauma to the upper arm, could also have been the reason why the ribs were fractured, because it is in the same area of the body. It is a large area which was damaged due to an extensive force which could also have injured the ribs.

MR LAX: So if I could it in sort of practical terms, are you say that the force of a bullet hitting that arm ...(end of tape)

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: I didn't say it was the bullet that broke the ribs, I was saying that it was the force which was exerted in that area, which could also have been the cause of the fracture to the ribs. However, I said that I am not capable of saying exactly what force it was.

MR LAX: Okay. But one thing seems clear, there's no gunshot associated with that rib injury directly.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Just a moment please. If you'll note there was indeed a laceration of 10 cm, a laceration in the direction, it could have been a bullet wound. However this would not explain why the ribs were fractured.

MR LAX: That was my question, it was to do with the rib injury, there doesn't appear to be any wound going into that part of the body. The arm yes, one accepts that.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Yes, usually this sort of rib fracture would be a blunt injury. One would see this in motor vehicle, if the safety belt was applied very tightly and there was a collision, then the ribs would fracture, three to seven, so it could also have been a safety belt.

MR LAX: Thanks. Please continue, Mr Nthai.

MR NTHAI: But doctor, you will agree with me that normally injuries of broken ribs with no wounds around it, normally it should have been an accident as you are saying or severe assaults or a blunt instrument was used, is that correct?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Yes, blunt, violence, or something like that would be the usual case.

MR NTHAI: Now let's come to the post-mortem report of Sandile. You are saying that this was - you dictated and this was hand-written.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: That is correct.

MR NTHAI: It is your duty to read and understand what is recorded before you sign, is that correct?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: That is correct.

MR NTHAI: Did you do that?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: We studied every report after which we would sign such reports, yes.

MR NTHAI: And you are saying that, you mentioned that this report could not be signed because there was some pressure on the typist or something like that. What was the pressure?

CHAIRPERSON: He didn't say it couldn't be signed, he said he did sign it, he said it couldn't be typed.

MR NTHAI: Mr Chairman, that's exactly what I'm asking.

CHAIRPERSON: Well the interpretation given up was that you said it couldn't be signed.

MR NTHAI: No, no, no, no.

MR LAX: That was is ebsesima verba, but be it as it may - I think you just used the wrong word, Mr Nthai, nevermind.

MR NTHAI: There's a problem with this thing, Mr Chairman, I asked about the signing first ...(intervention)

MR LAX: I'm listening to you in English, I can hear you used the words ...(indistinct - intervention)

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: May I have the opportunity to put this to him again clearly.

MR LAX: Ja, if you want to, go ahead.

MR NTHAI: Yes, I am saying that you did mention that this post-mortem report was not typed because there was some sort of pressure that was put on the typist. What kind of pressure is that?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: We will deal with this with the next set of examination, the Professor would be able to explain this, but I can say that there has been criticism about the syntaxis and the grammar which the typist used and the pressure that we exerted on her to improve, led to the fact that she resigned and no-one else was there to replace her, and therefore the hand-written reports are the reports that follow after her departure. There were never again any typed reports as far as I can recall.

MR NTHAI: No, no, I'm with you. Was the pressure put in respect of these reports, what was the pressure? Was it related to the reports?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Not only to this report but to all the locum - to all the post-mortem reports.

CHAIRPERSON: Your evidence was to the effect wasn't it, that at this stage you no longer had a typist, she'd resigned and you couldn't replace her.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR NTHAI: Now I want to come to the report of Dr Saayman, which I believe you had a look at.

CHAIRPERSON: That will be Exhibit G.

MR NTHAI: Paragraph number 1 there, Prof Saayman is maintaining that this report has been poorly constructed from a technical and grammatical perspective, do you agree with that?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: It is very clear that the grammatical aspect is not up to standard, no-one doubts that, everybody is quite ashamed of it. The technical aspects of this were conducted to the best of my ability and for the sake of the families it was conducted in truth, to the best of a junior's ability. Someone who had applied for a specialist to do the work, it was not possible, we had to continue with the work and the work was done to the best of our ability and here we sit today. The causes of death have been determined, one can pose any number of questions regarding the causes of death and any judge can be satisfied that there was an autopsy which was conducted within the framework of truth and justice, by a junior person and that he can be satisfied regarding the cause of death and the circumstances surrounding these causes or any other points.

However, I do respect Prof Saayman's opinion, I know what he means, but you must also understand that Mr Saayman has an infrastructure which is very modern and these documents date from many years before, from a small police station which was overpopulated, where we had to saw heads open by hand. With the minimum time at our disposal the workload was tremendous, you don't understand the workload that we had to cope with.

MR NTHAI: Doctor, I sympathise with your situation.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Thank you very much.

MR NTHAI: What I merely - I know what you're talking about, I have been personally involved in a number of exhumations because of post-mortems that were not conducted properly. I know what you are talking about, you mustn't read it as if I don't sympathise with your situation.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Yes, I understand.

MR NTHAI: I just want you to tell me whether you disagree with Prof Saayman on paragraph 1, and my understanding is that you don't. Can we move to paragraph number 2.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: No, I have stated that I differed from the Professor in one aspect in all humility and I think that he understands better now. In all other aspects I do agree with him and I am ashamed to say that the grammatical syntax was so weak, those aspects that he had to evaluate.

MR NTHAI: But you also agree with me that Prof Saayman did not need any infrastructure to compile this report, he just read your report, is that correct? He didn't conduct a post-mortem, he just looked at your reports and made comments, so there was no question of infrastructure, is that correct?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: I don't follow your question.

MR NTHAI: Well you see as you were answering you mentioned that the Professor is better than you because he had infrastructure, now what I'm putting to you is that the doctor did not need any - Professor Saayman did not need an infrastructure, he merely read your reports.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Prof Saayman was never better than me because he had infrastructure, that is not what I said. He was a highly respected man in this country and that is why he was better than me, but he also had an infrastructure which would facilitate it for him to be able to conduct an autopsy which would be completely different today than what it would have been as it was conducted by a junior person all those years ago, lacking infrastructure under difficult work conditions. That is all that I meant.

MR NTHAI: Look you know ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Mr Nthai, let's move on please, the point is made.

MR NTHAI: Yes, I want to move on.

I mean Doctor, you read this report by Dr Saayman, can I just put to you to shorten these proceedings, is there anything that he has written here which you differ with? Perhaps we can point out those aspects to save time.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: In the following minutes, could we discuss the matters and then I will respond to your questions, I will submit to you very briefly, we've dealt with number 1 and number 2 -

The Professor agrees that this is so.

The Professor agrees but I believe that the Professor also realises that here we are dealing with a specialist level, not a junior level where people are not appropriately qualified to deal with this sort of work.

MR LAX: Sorry Doctor, can I remind you again that the poor interpreters are struggling to keep up with you.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: I'm sorry. I'll start off at Point 3 -

The Professor agrees, but I also believe that he understand why this was so. I think today he has gained insight and understanding for why it was like this, because despite the fact that we were in the rural area and that we lacked equipment, if we had had time and if we had been prepared we would have been able to do this work 100% better. Our undergraduate training was of such a nature that if we could have been briefed and received two days worth of training, especially to refresh our memories and then returned to hear what was expected of us and that there would be repercussions, if we had received this time to do this work, things would have been better, but I was only given two hours to do the work. However, the Professor agrees it's the truth. I am not trying to vindicate myself in any way.

You see, I didn't even think about this when I conducted the autopsy, I am just being honest with you, this was just such a tremendously huge case, I never thought to mention that these things could come from different sides, I'm being honest with you for the sake of the truth. The Professor is correct.

And here in all humility I differ from the Professor. As I've stated, we could point out the cause of death quite clearly, along with the injuries we could make clear descriptions of the wounds. If the Professor says seriously, I respect this.

I've already told you it is not a correct medical label to say ...(indistinct), it's actually a more microscopic term. I had to use a more lay description than macerated.

For the Professor and for I, crushed is not a medical term, but someone else would be able to understand this and that is exactly what it is supposed to indicate.

Yes, no difference was made, the Professor is correct.

Professor, I apologise but this states precisely that there was very little left of the mediastinum.

...(intervention)

MR LAX: Doctor, I don't think you need to cover that because we don't have that affidavit before us.

MR NTHAI: Then we can proceed, 5.1 I think, that's where ... Now I think it will be ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Your microphone, Mr Nthai.

MR NTHAI: No I'm trying to check where the Professor started with the continuation of the report without talking about the affidavit. I think he can continue from page, I mean paragraph 6, I think. No, no, I think no, paragraph number - I'm sorry, I'm sorry, Mr Chairman. I think he should start from 5.2, I think. 5.2. You can continue from 5.2.

MR LAX: I don't have it before me personally, but please if that's where you think he should go ...

MR NTHAI: No, I think that is where he's ...(indistinct)

MR LAX: Please carry on, Doctor.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN:

The Professor is correct, but an attempt was indeed made in order to determine the size and the measurement and the position of the wound, as well as the nature being entry or exit wounds.

That is the truth.

That is also the truth.

That is the absolute truth.

At no stage was I under the impression that shotguns had been used. I may be incorrect, but I am telling you honestly for the sake of the truth, that at no stage did I think that shotguns were involved in this.

CHAIRPERSON: The report doesn't say shotguns, it says gunshots.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: I'm sorry, I'm sorry, ja.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you agree with that 5.3 otherwise?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Yes, Sir. I apologise, I was thinking in Afrikaans.

If there had been more time and if circumstances had been more favourable, even I or any other doctor in my position would have been able to fulfil to the requirements of the Professor much better, but as I have stated, one was confronted, one didn't know before the time what would be happening, one would walk into the mortuary and be confronted by a matter such as this, with the minimum time at one's disposal. That is the truth of the matter.

That is a specialist decision, this is not the type of decision that a junior can make. No junior doctor in South Africa who has ever been confronted with this sort of thing, could make this sort of decision, we are not trained, we are not capable. It is not that junior doctors are incompetent, you could ask any junior doctor and he would give you the same answer.

MR NTHAI: Paragraph 7 ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Sorry, your mike, Mr Nthai.

MR NTHAI: No, I was just reminding him there's still another paragraph, paragraph 7. I think it will be the last, ja, paragraph 7 only, you can ignore paragraph 8, paragraph 7.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN:

The syntax is the truth, the judicial process is the truth, but with the middle section of what the Professor says here, with all respect I cannot agree.

That is true. If we deviate and expand to the primary cause of death, we would be moving directly away to a specialist field. This Professor is entirely correct. And then, any doctor with regular training, including four to five lessons in ballistics and bullet wounds which were undergone 30 years ago, who is not given the opportunity to undergo extra training and is then expected to walk into a situation like this and be a specialist although he is not, in this regard the Professor is speaking the truth.

MR NTHAI: So Doctor, you mentioned that you did this post-mortem in two hours, who gave you two hours to do these things?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: I did not say two hours exactly, approximately.

MR NTHAI: Well approximately two hours, who gave you approximately two hours?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: In the same way your life is rostered, my life is working according to a very strict roster and I'm servicing various aspects of medicine in a remote rural area and it is expected of us, it would appear to me, to be specialists on all levels and we are not. These days we are merely exceptional officers because there are no other hospitals for this kind of work to be done in and despite these conditions we are still extremely busy, I can assure you of that.

MR NTHAI: No, Doctor, I don't think you should misunderstand me, I'm not saying that, I just wanted to know if there's someone who brought the bodies and said "I need the report in two hours, in approximately two hours"?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: No, no, that is not the story.

MR NTHAI: Now Doctor, you have so eloquently described your position at the time when you conducted the post-mortem and now, as that of a junior doctor. Now I want to ask you if you expect this judicial process to rely on those post-mortem reports of yours, of a junior doctor?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: I can't ask them to rely on it, this is the way the system worked 16 years ago.

MR NTHAI: But you agree that today, in 1999, we are sitting here, we are trying to determine the cause, we are trying to determine what happened to the people who were killed, there are people who are applying for amnesty here, we need full disclosure of all the facts, we need to know all the relevant facts, do you agree that your report today is not helpful to us?

MR LAX: That's not a fair question, Mr Nthai, please.

MR NTHAI: I will leave that.

MR LAX: The report is helpful, but it could have been more helpful, that's maybe what you should put to him.

MR NTHAI: Well I won't put it that way because I don't agree, so I will just leave the question.

MR LAX: Please don't let me interfere in your questioning of the witness, if you want to put it that way you're free to do so, that's your ... If you want to say "I don't find it helpful", that's your business, but I don't want to interfere with your questioning of the witness, but you can't speak on our behalf.

MR NTHAI: Well Doctor, I put it to you that this report of yours cannot be helpful to us today.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: That is your opinion and I respect your opinion, but I don't agree to it.

MR NTHAI: And I put it to you that you did not conduct the post-mortem as you are expected to do, do you disagree with that? Did you hear the question, Doctor?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Sorry?

MR NTHAI: I'm saying I put it to you that you failed to conduct the post-mortem as you are expected to do as a medical doctor. Do you disagree with that?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Ja, I disagree with that.

MR NTHAI: I have no further questions.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson, no re-examination.

MR SIBANYONI: Doctor, you said you applied - it's me talking here, you said you applied that these bodies should be referred to experts but that was not done, to whom did you apply?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: I asked the main - Dr Kotze is the man who held the position of District Surgeon, because the position can't be granted to a group as I've said, it must belong to a person, not to a group, for medical legal purposes, and I went to the rooms, I can't remember if I phoned or if I went there because I did it more than one time, and he did his level best, he phoned and he - because we all knew what was up for us, this is so important for everybody, for the family, for the judicial process and we are GPs, and this is something specialised. But at that stage, Sir, the system did not work like that, the system worked that every post-mortem was done in the town that the death happened and this is a new thing for the system to transfer bodies to somewhere else for a specialised post-mortem, it was a new thing the system was confronted with. And as I've said, I'm not sure but I think as a result of this the system has adapted itself and nowadays - I think I'm talking under correction, District Surgeons are granted the opportunity to transfer patients for more specialised opinions.

MR SIBANYONI: So in other words you are saying you ended up conducting this post-mortem which you were not supposed to do because it needed someone with more skills or it needed a specialist?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: I needed assistance, I needed someone specialised to assist me or to do it for me. This is the truth, Sir.

MR SIBANYONI: Was the reason that you ended up conducting this post-mortem, the fact that during those times there were many instances of death and post-mortems were supposed to be conducted and reports produced?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Ja, that is the truth. We were very busy, we were very busy with motor car accidents, there has been in Piet Retief area a lot of murders at that stage and the post-mortem has been - the morgue has been extremely busy at that time.

MR SIBANYONI: No to use your language, did the fact that these were political bodies have anything to do with your request not being met? In other words, did the fact that these were people who were killed by Security Forces have anything to do with the fact that any doctor, whatever the qualification is, could conduct the post-mortem?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Sir, I don't think so, I don't know, but I don't think so but as I've said, the system at that stage was not geared to transfer bodies. And it was a new thing, post-mortems were not done at specialised units at that stage, it was not transferred. I don't think it has anything to do with because of what.

MR SIBANYONI: Now concerning the time, 14H40, should we understand that you conducted post-mortems on those bodies simultaneously or why is the time the same?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: No, it was not simultaneously, that was an error, it's not simultaneous. How can I do two post-mortems at one time? It's a matter or error.

MR SIBANYONI: What would have caused the error?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: As far as I understand there's been same time been shown up for two post-mortems, the same time. Is that what you refer to?

MR SIBANYONI: Yes, 14H40 as the time ...(intervention)

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Yes, that was an error, the time was an error there. In a busy atmosphere, it's easy to make a small error like that.

MR SIBANYONI: Were these post-mortems or these forms not completed immediately you finished one body?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: They were completed there and then in the mortuary, there and then.

MR SIBANYONI: After each and every post-mortem?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: After each and every one they've been filled in there and they've been completed there.

MR SIBANYONI: Now how could an error happen that the time be reflected as the same?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Sir, if you're very busy, to make a small fault of five or four minutes, it's possible, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: But it was the same - each post-mortem that you did was put down at a twenty minute difference, it wasn't a matter of four or five minutes, this was put down at 14H20, the same time as the previous one, the next one is 14H40.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: That I didn't even notice, I'm sorry.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you tell us, while we're on this subject of times and post-mortem reports, why this Exhibit F, the post-mortem on Sandile, wasn't typed?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Sir, I don't know the correct reason, as a direct fact, but what I know is that due to the inadequate grammatical presentation, what I've heard is that the typist left, they couldn't find another one and that's why the following report was hand-written.

CHAIRPERSON: But all three other reports done on that day, before and after the time of this report, were typed.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: I can't explain that, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: And you have told us they were all done in the mortuary there and then, so they would all have been taken to the typist together.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Sir, this is 14 years ago, please bear that in mind.

MR SIBANYONI: Last question, Doctor. Strange things were happening during the conflict of the past, I hope you as a professional person, you didn't merely sign the forms and somebody completed them after you've left.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Sir, I can assure you that this was a very serious matter because I realised there's three positions where a doctor can land very easily in very large trouble in his career and that is with post-mortems, with aesthesia and in a labour ward. I realised the urgency of this matter very, very, very intensely.

MR SIBANYONI: The urgency in the sense that ...?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: That this had to be done correctly and in a professional way by a specialist.

MR SIBANYONI: Lawyers before they're admitted they take an oath to apply the laws of the country or to respect them and the judges take an oath to administer the law without fear and favour, I hope doctors also take an oath to conduct themselves properly, am I correct?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: I can't remember if I ever had to do that, I don't think we had to do that.

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

MR LAX: Just one aspect arising and then another small issue. You've told us that you realised that this was an important matter and there's just one question that occurs to me as a professional person, why didn't you just simply so "I'm not doing this, I'm not going to do a bad job, you must find a specialist to come and do it"?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: That was the attitude I took up, but as I've explained to you we've been six partners on a roster and if you've got to do tasks A, B, C and D for that day, you can't leave task C, who will do task C? We worked in a firm, we worked as, we worked as partners.

MR LAX: Yes.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: I felt like doing that but it was impossible, I could not do that.

MR LAX: You see, I know it's easy 15 years later to say this to you, and I'm not for one moment being judgmental of you, so don't get the wrong impression, but you had simply said "I don't care what you do, you'd better find a specialist", the job would have been done properly. Do you understand my point?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: I do, I do.

CHAIRPERSON: Were there any specialists there?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: In Piet Retief area?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: The nearest ones is the department of the Professor in Pretoria and Johannesburg.

MR LAX: The issue is - I don't want to labour this point, but the bodies could have been kept in the morgue for a day or two longer while arrangements could have been made for a specialist to fly to Piet Retief or to drive to Piet Retief, so it wouldn't necessarily mean the bodies had to leave. I mean we've heard of countless cases where families have insisted that their own pathologists attend the post-mortems. Even in those days were people were dying in detention, people were being murdered, it's not an unheard of thing.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Ja, in our area it didn't happen.

MR LAX: Yes. And then, Dr Kotze wasn't part of your practice was he?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: At that stage we've been partners and he's been the, he kept the registration of the DG post on his name and we, for legal purposes we were his assistants.

MR LAX: And then just the last aspect, when you were confronted with these bodies, were you told what had happened? In other words, were you told the circumstances in which they been shot or killed or what the incident was?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: No.

MR LAX: So that didn't influence your findings in any way?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: As far as I can recall I did not even know what these patients were shot with, I was informed about it, I was not informed about where and what and when it happened, the bodies were just lying there and we just had to start the autopsy.

CHAIRPERSON: But you did know they'd been shot by the police.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Ja, that we knew, that I knew the moment I came there.

MR LAX: Surely the police must have told you more - your own inquisitiveness must have got the better of you there.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: It did not work like that.

MR LAX: There would have been people like this Mr Trussler who is referred to here, who probably worked with you.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Yes, Mr Trussler said - he was the assistant in the mortuary, he said the people were shot by the police and we have to undertake the autopsy.

MR LAX: It just strikes me, these people were killed the night before, that very night before and within the 24 hours the thing was done, did you normally work that quickly? Because one has heard of other instances where bodies waited much longer to be dealt with.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: No, in our area the autopsies were dealt with very quickly, not only these ones but all the other ones were dealt with very quickly.

MR LAX: It's that I know that in that other Piet Retief matter, those bodies waited a few days before the post-mortems were done.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: I don't know about that.

MR LAX: Because it was the one thing that struck those families quite horrendously, they were called to identify some of the bodies and the bodies were still lying there in the police station.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: I don't know about that, Sir.

MR LAX: That was your same area. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 2 o'clock gentlemen?

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, may I just be permitted to ask question arising from the blunt injury on the ribs, Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: One.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Yes.

Dr van der Wouden, you must say if you cannot comment and if this is outside your field of expertise, on page 46 you describe the injury to the ribs as a blunt force injury.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Yes, that is what I said, but I didn't describe it as such.

MR LAMEY: You said that was your interpretation of it. Let us assume that it is so, could that injury to the ribs be caused when a person was unloaded or off-loaded in a vehicle, when it was not done professionally by ambulance people?

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: I assume that is possible, but then they would have had to work very harshly with those bodies. It is possible.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, I've got no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, can Dr van der Wouden be excused?

CHAIRPERSON: I take you none of you have any objection. Thank you very much for making yourself available today, Doctor, you must have had to reorganise a great deal.

DR VAN DER WOUDEN: Thank you very much.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson. All rise.

CHAIRPERSON: ... the process of making arrangements to sit tomorrow morning to dispose of the Labuschagne application, I don't think it affects any of the rest of you, and then we won't be sitting on Friday as already agreed amongst us and we are still all waiting to hear about Monday.

MR LAX: Especially me.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought particularly to make these arrangements, for those of you who can then for once in your life have a long weekend.

Right, shall we continue. I gather that the Professor has returned, thank you very much Professor.

MR NTHAI: Mr Chairman, I'm calling him, he can be sworn in.

MR SIBANYONI: Would you please stand, Professor. For record purposes can you give us your full names.

PROF SAAYMAN: Just Gert Saayman.

MR SIBANYONI: Do you have an objection to taking the prescribed oath?

GERT SAAYMAN: (sworn states)

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, you may sit down. Sworn in, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

EXAMINATION BY MR NTHAI: Professor Saayman, what are your qualifications?

PROF SAAYMAN: Mr Chairman, I hold the degrees, MBchB which I obtained in 1980, from the University of Pretoria and MMed in Forensic Pathology which I obtained in 1987, from the University of Pretoria. I am registered as a medical practitioner with the Health Professions Council and as a Specialist Forensic Pathologist.

MR NTHAI: And what is your position at the moment?

PROF SAAYMAN: I currently hold appointment as the Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine at the University of Pretoria and as Chief Specialist or Chief State Pathologist for the Pretoria Metropolitan area, in the employ of the Gauteng Provincial Government Department of Health.

MR NTHAI: And what is your experience in relation to conducting of post-mortems?

PROF SAAYMAN: Mr Chairman, I have been actively involved, professionally involved in the field of forensic medicine for the past almost 16 or 17 years, I have conducted and performed all aspects of medico legal investigation of death over the said period, including have done more medico legal post-mortems than I care to remember.

MR NTHAI: And what is your experience pertaining to gunshot injuries?

PROF SAAYMAN: Once again, Mr Chairman, I think all practising forensic pathologists in this country have had an overexposure of, or to gunshots injuries in particular, it forms a major and important part of our daily forensic pathology practise. I myself must have seen thousands upon thousands of gunshot injuries.

MR NTHAI: And you have been involved in a number of high profile cases involving second post-mortem examinations, is that correct?

PROF SAAYMAN: Yes, indeed so, I have conducted or being present at a number of exhumations and secondary post-mortem examinations.

MR NTHAI: Would you just explain to us as to what is the purpose of conducting a medico legal post-mortem examination.

PROF SAAYMAN: Mr Chairman, the primary function must always be for the medical practitioner to establish the so-called primary medical cause of death, in other words to relate the cause of death to a medical entity, such as a fracture of the neck or a stab wound to the heart or whatever, as opposed to defining the circumstance under which the death took place, such as a motor vehicle accident or an accident of some other nature. So the primary purpose it to establish the primary medical cause of death and with that goes very often establishing the so-called mechanism of death, which would be the pathophysiological derangement in the body that attends such medical cause of death. But then hand-in-hand with this primary medical cause of death it is the, undeniably, it is the intention and purpose of the medical practitioner to ascertain and to assimilate all other relevant information from that body that he or she deems necessary for future medico legal proceedings or for legal proceedings rather. In other words, we should try to establish for example, the identity of the deceased, the date and time upon which he or she may have died, we should rather than just state that there is a gunshot injury, we should try to ascertain all other related facts such as the distance from which the guns were fired, the number of shots that must have hit the individual, the possible or probable survival period, the direction of entry of the bullets, entrance versus exit wounds etc., etc., and so too we should try to establish other important facts, whether the person was under the influence of alcohol or drugs, whether there were secondary injuries that formed a particular pattern and so the list is really endless, but I think it's very important to emphasise that we serve most definitely also to establish other information than the cause of death, which my be relevant to future proceedings.

CHAIRPERSON: By secondary injuries, do you mean things like whether there are marks indicating handcuffs on the wrists or rope marks round the neck and all those ...

PROF SAAYMAN: Absolutely.

MR NTHAI: Is there any relevance in having the photos, especially in cases involving gunshots?

PROF SAAYMAN: Certainly, Sir, the purpose of such photographs should certainly not be to elucidate or to clarify for the practitioner who is conducting the post-mortem, the nature of the injuries, but rather to serve as an adjunct or as an aid to his or her report. In other words it is for the purpose of those who come after and who are party to legal proceedings subsequently, that such photographs may serve to explain and add to the descriptions. Technically speaking, the report by the medical practitioner should in itself be sufficient for other medical practitioners or jurists whomsoever to conclude from the description what the nature of the injuries were, but we find very often, especially when the wounds are complex or when there are multiple wounds, that photographs serve as aid in this regard.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry to keep interrupting you, but I have had experience of this in the past, is it also of assistance to you if photographs are taken at the scene, so you can see how the body was lying, where it was and things of that nature? Does that assist you in determining the cause of injuries?

PROF SAAYMAN: Absolutely, Sir. This may not be entirely the appropriate forum in which to digress into a long excursion or into a long discussion of this, but I think it's important for the Committee to realise that the medico legal investigation of death comprises essentially four components. The first of which should be where at all possible for the medical practitioner, to attend the scene of death. Circumstance and logistics do not always allow for such, that certainly is an important component, where the doctor can obtain and ascertain a lot of information pertaining to the event itself.

Alternatively, he should at least try to obtain significant and appropriate information from those who may have been there or investigating officers who may be able to relay such information. That would include having access to photographs, that certainly would help.

The second component of a medico legal investigation of death would be the actual performance of a medico legal post-mortem examination, dissecting the body and eviscerating all the organs etc.

The third component would be the performance of specialised investigations, whether they pertain to the body itself, such as X-ray examinations or other dissection room investigations or to literally send specimens and samples away for further analysis, toxicological, histological etc.

And the fourth component would be to draft an appropriate report in a manner that will ensure that subsequent legal proceedings are facilitated and in conjunction therewith to ensure that evidence that is relevant may be preserved, whether these are specific fibres from the clothes or tissues of the deceased etc.

MR NTHAI: Professor, I know you never time really to look at this, there was a post-mortem that you had access to this morning, which I showed you, the hand-written post-mortem, you may not be able to comment on the contents thereof, but is that a normal practice that you'll find post-mortems being hand-written?

PROF SAAYMAN: Sir, this refers to a post-mortem report with Death Register 106/87, Piet Retief. Just to confirm, yes indeed I cannot comment in detail pertaining to the contents therefore. I should state without reservation however, that this is not unusual, I think that probably the vast majority of medico legal post-mortem reports that are reported on and are found in our courts in this country pertaining to or done by district surgeons, are in fact hand-written. Obviously that is changing with the advent of access to personal computers etc., but certainly 10 or 15 years ago it would have been more the norm than the exception.

I can also comment briefly on the practise that in fact that medical practitioner would conduct the post-mortem and that he would have a scribe, usually a policeman, who would take down the notes as the doctor dissects, usually or preferably in a manner which would allow the doctor subsequently to re-write if necessary or to re-dictate the notes, but very often that initial transcription was the only copy of the post-mortem report and then it was signed by the district surgeon or doctor, obviously subject to him concurring with the contents thereof.

MR NTHAI: So in a case where the doctor dictates the contents, the doctor has a duty to double-check whether what is going to appear on what he signed is actually correct?

PROF SAAYMAN: There can be no denying that, Sir.

MR NTHAI: Before we come to the report that you have given which is already on record, which is Exhibit G, I just want you to go to the post-mortem report number - the one of Bernard, I think it appears on page 36.

PROF SAAYMAN: Page 36.

MR NTHAI: Ja, page 36. Do you have any comment on respect of that post-mortem report?

PROF SAAYMAN: I have a lot of comments, yes.

MR NTHAI: Would you go ahead.

PROF SAAYMAN: Mr Chairman, I'm not quite sure, this could be quite a lengthy discussion, but I think I must to initiate the discussion, simply state once again that I find this report, as I do most of the others, technically and grammatically inadequate, perhaps for lack of a better term, there are numerous inconsistencies and inadequacies in terms of both the grammar and the technical descriptions. Other than that we'll have to go into particular detail.

MR NTHAI: Yes, can we go into particular details. I want to draw your attention to - there is somewhere where they mention that wound surrounded by burns, I think it's on ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: 33.

MR NTHAI: Do you have that?

PROF SAAYMAN: I have the reference in front of me, yes.

MR NTHAI: Yes. That wound, in your report here you mention that it may have been caused by a gunshot at a very close range, is that correct?

PROF SAAYMAN: That is correct, Mr Chairman. For all practical purposes the interpretation of this particular wound as it is described here, dictates that we should accept that it was a gunshot injury sustained by the deceased from a very close distance, in other words where the barrel of the rifle or the weapon was held very close to the surface of the skin.

MR NTHAI: So you describe as it could have been between 10 and 50cm.

PROF SAAYMAN: Yes, Mr Chairman, the quantification of the particular distance is subject to knowledge of the type of ammunition and the type of weapons that were or could have been used, but for practical purposes, if we suggest that this was a military-type weapon with a relatively long barrel, a rifle, then one can accept that thermal injury to the skin can take place at distances up to approximately 50cm, but probably closer to that. In other words, the distance was probably closer.

MR NTHAI: There is evidence so far here that the shots that were fired at the deceased were shots from a distance of about two to three metres, is that consistent with that wound that is there?

PROF SAAYMAN: Mr Chairman, a thermal injury of the skin as a result of the discharge of military-type rifle, cannot be caused at a distance of two to three metres in my opinion.

MR NTHAI: I want us to go to the post-mortem of Tollman, that is page 46. I am more interested in the aspects dealing with the fracture of the ribs. Are you able to get that quickly for me?

PROF SAAYMAN: I have page 47 here in front of me.

MR NTHAI: Yes, but do you have that aspect that deals with the ...

PROF SAAYMAN: Yes, indeed.

MR NTHAI: Okay. That injury according to the way it has been described there, could that injury have been caused by a gunshot, the three to seven broken ribs?

PROF SAAYMAN: Mr Chairman, reference to the broken ribs appears on page 47 and again on page 48 of the report. When I perused this post-mortem report I find no particular reference to gunshot wounds having affected that particular part of the chest or in fact any part of the thorax, so it is difficult to conclude that those particular rib fractures were the result of a gunshot injury.

There is reference in the immediately, in the next sentence on page 47 of that paragraph, that in fact there were gunshot wounds to the renal area at the back, the lower back area, but these injuries to the ribs are described at the front of the chest, the front chest wall and certainly don't seem to be discussed or placed in any context of the gunshot wound itself. So for practical purposes, I cannot place those injuries in relation to a gunshot wound.

Furthermore, the particular nature of the injuries being fractures from the third to the seventh rib, generally would allow for us to conclude that they were sustained as a result of so-called broad impact blunt injury of blunt force application.

Whether this was indeed the case or whether in fact the post-mortem was not adequately conducted so as to ensure that there were underlying injuries of penetrating nature, I cannot comment, but generally speaking these sort of rib fractures would be consistent with blunt force injuries applied to the chest, blunt force application to the chest.

CHAIRPERSON: How much force will be needed of there's ...(intervention)

PROF SAAYMAN: It's always very difficult to quantify force, but in an adult healthy man, I can only say that it would be a large amount of force, it would require stamping with a foot or kicking with a booted shoe or the person falling against a protruding object or with his full weight perhaps, but it certainly would be significant force application, it would not be negligible.

CHAIRPERSON: Why I ask this is if the man was sitting in a motorcar, tried to stand up in a motorcar and was shot somewhere in the body, through the head or something, and he fell against the steering wheel, against the brake lever, against the gear lever, could that falling cause this sort of injury?

PROF SAAYMAN: I would think it unlikely that a person sitting in a vehicle who sustains a rapidly fatal gunshot wound, would fall in a manner that would allow him to sustain these sort of injuries. If however he was standing up and fell with the full weight of his body onto some protruding object, that certainly could happen.

MR NTHAI: Could these fractures be caused by perhaps a body being picked up and be thrown into an ambulance?

PROF SAAYMAN: Certainly, injuries can be sustained post-mortem, this would once again imply broad impact, the nature and the quantity of energy transfer would be the same as in a living individual.

MR SIBANYONI: While you are on that point, Professor, injuries sustained after the person has died, will they be different from the injuries which he sustained when he was still alive?

PROF SAAYMAN: Yes, certainly, generally speaking they would what we would call vital reaction in relation to such fracture, which would be an indication of haemorrhage taking place. A person who is dead already would not haemorrhage as freely from those fractures. Unfortunately there is no particular reference to associated haemorrhage in relation to these injuries, to these rib fractures, so I cannot comment, but to the trained eye and to the person who is aware of the fact that he must try to differentiate, it certainly should be possible that the wounds were caused in vivo, during life.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you.

MR NTHAI: There's just something that I omitted on the - let's go back to the post-mortem of Bernard, the one that appears on page 36, there is a mention there of the fracture of the left femur above the left knee. From what you can read from that report, could that fracture have been caused by a gunshot?

PROF SAAYMAN: Well from the description as contained on page 33, I have little doubt that it was the result of a penetrating injury, probably that of a gunshot wound.

MR NTHAI: And an injury like this, a fracture like that, what could have caused a fracture like that? What could cause a fracture like that?

PROF SAAYMAN: Well if read in conjunction specifically with the description of the wounds as I say, on page 33, then where reference is made to an entrance gunshot wound as well as exit gunshot wounds, then certainly that is entirely consistent with a fracture having been caused by a bullet of projectile traversing those tissues.

MR NTHAI: Yes. Now I want to come specifically to your report. You have already - as you were introducing your evidence, you have already covered I think paragraph number 1 of your report, I want you now to look at paragraph number 2 and - the report has already been put on record, it's really not necessary to read it again, but if you have no comment there you can just give us some more comments on what you have written there.

PROF SAAYMAN: Sir, it may be appropriate to comment just broadly in this regard. From the descriptions as contained in the reports by Dr van der Wouden, I do not have particular reservations in accepting that the majority of these injuries were sustained as a result of military-type - and by that I mean generally, sharp-pointed full metal jacket ammunition, coming from a military-type weapon such as a rifle, R1, R etc.

It is well known that this kind of ammunition and these kind of weapons can cause devastating injuries, one of the reason being not so much that they are of large calibre, as may have been referred to previously, but that they are of particularly high velocity and secondly, that these projectiles very often, especially the R4 projectiles, tend to break up upon impact on the human body and thereby cause complete energy transfer of the missile to the tissues and very severe tissue disruption, often resulting in huge gaping and highly atypical injuries which often do not look like typical exit or entrance gunshot wounds.

MR NTHAI: Yes, you can go ahead and comment on paragraph number 3.

PROF SAAYMAN: At the same time perhaps it is important to note that based purely on the post-mortem reports however, at least pertaining to some of the injuries, it would be very difficult if not impossible, to exclude the possibility that some of those injuries were caused by other projectiles with high velocity, such as shrapnel particles coming from explosive devices, landmines, handgrenades etc. So that cannot be, on the basis of the reports per se, cannot be excluded.

With regard to paragraph 3, I am of the opinion that any medical practitioner that conducts a medico legal post-mortem report, should always be sensitive to the possibility that the injuries, although there may be many of them and especially when there are many of them, should be assessed not only individually but collectively as well, so as to allow for possible comments pertaining to a pattern of the injuries, were they predominantly caused from the right-hand side or from the left-hand side or from the back or from the front, are they all of the same intrinsic nature, in other words, possibly caused by the same calibre or from the same distance etc. The moment inconsistencies or discrepancies arise in this regard, I think the prosector should be particularly attentive and note that there are inconsistencies on differences between the wounds. The important rationale for this is that the patterns very often tell us more than the individual injuries per se.

MR NTHAI: You can move to paragraph number 4, you were commenting on paragraph number 3.

PROF SAAYMAN: Yes, once again I think it has been stated and so accepted by Dr van der Wouden, that reference to, or the use of terminology from a medical perspective such as "the heart and lung totally macerated" is quite is quite inappropriate, the term maceration is reserved for entirely other phenomena in medicine and pathology, most certainly not to be used in the context of gunshot wounds. If he meant total tissue disruption, then that would acceptable, but the term maceration is quite inappropriate. And to supply this as a cause of death, once again is quite inappropriate.

MR NTHAI: You can move over to paragraph 5.2 because paragraph 5.1 is ...(indistinct) on the affidavit you are referring to.

PROF SAAYMAN: Yes. Paragraph 5.2 is self-explanatory, and I think I have alluded to it already, all I can say is that from an overall perspective I believe that probably the majority of the injuries sustained in all these instances could have well have been caused by military-type ammunition.

MR NTHAI: Then 5.3.

PROF SAAYMAN: I think this is further amplification of that which I have stated earlier, any medical practitioner that evaluates or does a post-mortem examination where he is called upon to evaluate gunshot wounds, should always be sensitive to the particular forensic perspectives. In other words, he should always try to comment if possible, whether a particular wound is an entrance or an exit wound, whether it is a distant or a close range gunshot wound, how many wounds there are, from what direction they were fired, which vital organs were injured in relation to those injuries etc. In these particular cases the wounds have often been described but without regard for specifically the forensic perspectives.

Furthermore, and this combines with paragraph 5.4, there is internationally accepted terminology that pertains to gunshot wounds and in this regard reference to terminology such as collars of abrasion, smudge rings and so forth, as I have stipulated in my report, are the norm. In other words, those are the terms which we should use when we describe these injuries because they convey specific features and phenomena of gunshot wounds and their use would allow other experts and pathologists or medical doctors to conclude as to the primary nature of the wounds, whether they were entrance, exit etc.

MR NTHAI: While you are still on the terminology, is that terminology generally known by medical practitioners even though they are not pathologists?

PROF SAAYMAN: Mr Chairman, I certainly cannot, I must be careful to generalise too much, but there is no hesitation in answering that these are terms and features that we teach our undergraduate medical students and we expect of them to know that.

I think it's important to note that one must realise that medical practitioners are not called upon to display or to utilise their knowledge of gunshot injuries only pertaining to medico legal post-mortem examination but most certainly and probably more often in a clinical context where they must evaluate patients at casualty wards etc., and where evaluation and reference to these particular features are just as important as at a post-mortem examination.

MR NTHAI: And even a junior medical practitioner by then like Dr van der Wouden, would or is supposed to know about this terminology?

PROF SAAYMAN: I think he should have known about it, Sir, yes.

MR NTHAI: Let's move over to paragraph number 6.

PROF SAAYMAN: Well that which is contained in paragraph 6 I think we've covered to a large extent and I can just reiterate that reference to thermal injury on the skin in a person or patient that has been shot, in other words where thermal injury is seen in relation to a gunshot wound, really in mind allows for only one conclusion and that is that there was, that the weapon was discharged at a close range. In other words that the flame that exudes from the front of the barrel sears and causes thermal injury to the skin.

MR LAX: Just one question there Professor, if I may. We see reference to thermal injuries on an exit wound, that was a bit puzzling and an explanation was offered by Dr van der Wouden, which was that if it comes out an oblique angle, that that can sometimes cause that same appearance. What are your comments on that?

PROF SAAYMAN: No, Sir, burn wounds are not seen in relation to exit gunshot wounds, there should be no confusion about that. Burn wounds are not seen in relation to entrance gunshot wounds if they are caused at a distance. In other wounds the bullet per se cannot cause a burn injury to the skin and more particularly to the surrounding skin, the damage caused by the bullet is one of mechanical contact only. The reference to a burn around an exit gunshot wound is more than a bit perplexing, it is totally unacceptable.

MR LAX: There was a question put in cross-examination to the Doctor, which referred to a tracer bullet, do you have any experience of that or any idea if there might be a different forensic pathology visible as a result of that?

PROF SAAYMAN: Yes, it brings us to a particularly interesting topic and one which I should say at the outset is not well known. Even in South Africa forensic pathologists do not have a lot of experience in this regard, I myself have had limited contact, I think I recall two particular cases where I have seen injuries due to or attributed to tracer ammunition. However, once again it should be stated that a tracer bullet upon entering the skin does so at a very high velocity, there is literally no time for the tracer bullet to burn the skin.

It passes through the tissues or the through the skin very often, depending on the distance from which it was fired, at what we would call high velocity, a 1000 metres per second or more perhaps. There is no time for such a bullet to literally burn the skin, let alone the surrounding skin. There may however in certain instances be thermal injury in the tissue itself if the bullet lodges in the tissues.

MR LAX: So where there's talk in some of these injuries of a burn tract through the body, ...(intervention)

PROF SAAYMAN: That's technically possibly due a tracer bullet, Sir, yes.

MR LAX: But you would then expect to find the bullet, would you not?

PROF SAAYMAN: Well I think - no, I don't think that we would in all instances expect to find, once again this would be military-type ammunition which is of a very high kinetic energy value and very often, especially if predominantly soft tissues are involved, the bullets will pass through the tissues, muscle tissues, without losing too much of its initial kinetic energy, but perhaps still being in contact with the tissues sufficiently long to impart, over a tract of 10 of 20 cm in the tissues, to impart thermal energy to the tissues.

MR LAX: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Well while we're on this, would you look at page 46, Professor. There we have at the top of paragraph 4 -

... the end of the first line.

PROF SAAYMAN: Yes, my comment pertaining to page 46 IV, is that I cannot accept that there would be or can be thermal injury surrounding an exit gunshot wound, the only logical conclusion to my mind is that that may have been misinterpreted to have been an entrance gunshot wound. It is certainly not always easy to differentiate ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, "misinterpreted to be an exit, it could have been an entrance wound"?

PROF SAAYMAN: Yes, correct, pardon me if I conveyed the message incorrectly. In other words, that that which is here described as an exit gunshot wound was in fact an entrance gunshot wound with surrounding burn injury.

CHAIRPERSON: And in the fourth line to the bottom there's another one of -

MR NTHAI: The reference there appears to be, if I interpret it correctly, that there is indeed evidence of thermal injury traversing the tissues through which the bullet may have passed, and that would be consistent with that which I have described a moment ago.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR LAX: Just one thing before we move away from this issue. This is a 3cm entry wound, plus-minus 3cm, that's pretty big for an entry wound.

PROF SAAYMAN: Not particularly, no, Sir, military-type ammunition can readily cause relatively large entrance wounds, especially if the bullet is unstable upon impact on the body. That could happen as a result of a long period of flight or it can happen if the bullet has become unstable due to passing through an intermediary target or if the bullet has already become deformed, but certainly a 3cm diameter entrance gunshot wound in military-type ammunition is not unusual but it would be atypical.

MR LAX: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Would that include going through a door of a bakkie?

PROF SAAYMAN: Certainly, certainly.

MR LAX: Or just possibly somebody next-door to you? I mean if the bullet went through one person's body and then into another persons body.

PROF SAAYMAN: Absolutely, Sir. It really would be difficult to differentiate between what type of intermediary target, but it simply infers that the bullet had become unstable or deformed.

MR NTHAI: Well can you then your last comments on paragraph number 7.

PROF SAAYMAN: Yes, Sir. I maintain my initial position that in fact there are serious inadequacies in the reports from both a grammatical and a technical content point of view, however I must reiterate that I think the Committee can certainly draw some value from these reports, I think they allow for the broader conclusion that all these bodies probably sustained multiple gunshot wounds, that they were more than likely caused by military-type ammunition. The possibility of other types of injuries such as blunt force injuries cannot be entirely discounted and the possibility that some of the wounds were sustained due to discharge of a weapon from a close distance must certainly be considered.

So in conclusion, I think that although I can certainly be critical and I have been particularly critical of these reports, but I think they are of value in many respects.

MR NTHAI: Mr Chairman, I want to ask Prof Saayman something that is not in his report, it is in relation to the fractures that we are talking about, which is very clear from his report that some of the fractures we cannot be sure whether they've been caused by a blunt instrument or by gunshots.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR NTHAI: I want to ask him that if an exhumation of the remains of these people is done, are we able to still get some evidence of value, especially in respect of the fractures of the bones?

PROF SAAYMAN: Mr Chairman, it has been my experience that the approach to or the assessment of the potential value of exhumations must be done very carefully. In other words, it's difficult to anticipate how much information one may obtain from an exhumation, but my experience has taught me that in cases of gunshot wounds particularly there is almost always something more to be learnt.

The inference is that where bony tissue was involved, the direction of the passage of a projectile can often be assessed more accurately, perhaps not as often pertaining to the skeletal long bones, but particularly pertaining to the skull, the direction from which the gunshots were sustained can often be very accurately assessed. So the short answer is, valuable information may well be obtained but there certainly is no guarantee that one will have any measure of success with an exhumation.

MR NTHAI: Even after 13 years now?

PROF SAAYMAN: Well we're dealing with bony tissues, so they will still be sufficiently well preserved Sir, yes.

MR NTHAI: The fractures that we don't know what the, three to seven ribs, if an exhumation is done, will we be able to establish whether these fractures were caused by a gunshot or caused by something else?

PROF SAAYMAN: As I've indicated previously, based on the report itself, I think it's unlikely that those fractures were caused by, at least directly by a gunshot ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: The report doesn't suggest that, does it?

PROF SAAYMAN: It does not suggest that, Sir, no. The very fact that they are what we call consecutive fractures between the third and the seventh, or involving the third to the seventh ribs, suggests as I have indicated, broad impact blunt force application, but I doubt whether we will get any further by doing an exhumation on that particular perspective.

MR NTHAI: Will we still be able to get the evidence of the type of ammunition, if there were other ammunition that was used other than the military-type?

PROF SAAYMAN: I think an important perspective for any medical practitioner who conducts a medico legal post-mortem examination is always to try to obtain the residual fragments or the projectiles which may be lodged in the body. We all know of the potential forensic value of such items, especially if they are, or if jacketed ammunition has been used which can be used to accurately correlate the ammunition with a particular, a very specific weapon.

It would appear in this particular instance that no particular effort was made to harvest such fragments, I don't know whether X-rays of the bodies were done, such facilities are not always available, but certainly in most instances arrangements can be made for bodies to be X-rayed at the local hospital etc. And personally, I think that is a very important perspective and a significant or important omission in this particular case.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand it, there is no dispute whatsoever but that these people were shot by members of the Police Force, using military weapons, is there? I'm asking counsel now.

MR NTHAI: Well there is no dispute, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: No.

MR NTHAI: That concludes my evidence-in-chief, Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Professor, we know of at least one person who used an automatic machine-gun with 9mm bullets.

CHAIRPERSON: Is this the Uzzi?

MR HATTINGH: No, it's not the Uzzi, it's a different type of weapon Mr Chairman, but it's similar to the Uzzi.

9mm ammunition cannot really be described as military-type ammunition, is that correct?

PROF SAAYMAN: No, indeed not, conventional 9mm or 9mm parrabellum ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: 9mm parrabellum, the same ammo that they use in their pistols.

PROF SAAYMAN: That is not considered to be military-type ammunition, Sir.

MR HATTINGH: Now just coming back to page 46 of bundle 2, Professor, can you perhaps, looking at IV, can you perhaps establish either the entrance or the exit wound for the injury described in the first sentence -

... accept that is an exit wound, can you perhaps establish where the entrance wound would have been? From the report itself.

PROF SAAYMAN: Mr Chairman, I think this particular sentence highlights one of the issues that I have raised and that is that the wounds or the descriptions very often are presented in a manner which does not allow for logical conclusion, in other words it would be in my opinion most unusual to initiate description of a particular tract, by stating where the exit gunshot wound was. Logic dictates that one starts with the entrance wound. Even if you deviate from such accepted practice, at least reference should be made to where the entrance gunshot is.

Now at least on page 46, in other words the first page of that report, there simply is reference to an exit gunshot wound but no subsequent reference in that paragraph to any possible entrance gunshot wound. When we turn the page to where the more detailed description of the external injuries should be or should have been, there is as far as I can ascertain, no evidence of an entrance gunshot wound anywhere else on the head.

MR HATTINGH: Nor is there on that page a reference to an exit wound ...(intervention)

PROF SAAYMAN: It would appear that Dr van der Wouden did not in particular heed the construction of the post-mortem report, in other words that on page 1, just a distillation of the most important finding should be stipulated and that on page 2, the more detailed exposition should be given. So it would appear to me, and that in itself to me would suggest that that could rather have been an entrance rather than an exit wound, because if it was an exit wound there must have been an entrance wound somewhere close by.

MR HATTINGH: Let's assume for a moment that it was an entrance wound, do you find any reference then to an injury or a wound which could be described as an exit wound?

PROF SAAYMAN: No, I don't, but that would not be particularly unusual.

MR HATTINGH: Why is that?

PROF SAAYMAN: Because it's certainly possible for a bullet to enter the body and not to leave it.

MR HATTINGH: Well if the shot was fired at virtually point-blank range, wouldn't you have expected it to go right through the head?

PROF SAAYMAN: No, it depends entirely on the nature of the ammunition, Sir, an R4 projectile fired at close distance hitting the head, will disintegrate and well not leave the tissues.

MR HATTINGH: And if it was a 9mm?

PROF SAAYMAN: Even a 9mm, 9mm parrabellum ammunition often does not leave the head, especially when structures such as the base of the skull, which is a very solid bony structure, is hit.

MR HATTINGH: Alright, let's just come back to your explanation which you gave for an entrance wound being larger than the diameter of the bullet itself. You said that that could be attributable to the fact that the bullet passed through an intermediary target or that it simply lost velocity as a result of distance.

PROF SAAYMAN: Those would certainly be two explanations, yes.

MR HATTINGH: But we know now that the last one can probably ruled out, not so?

PROF SAAYMAN: I accept that.

MR HATTINGH: Yes. If that injury was bigger than normal for an entrance wound, then the only other possibility that you've mentioned is the fact that it might have passed through an intermediary target.

PROF SAAYMAN: Generally speaking I would accept that, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Alright, if that is so, that would mean that there was something in-between the body and the weapon when the shot was fired.

PROF SAAYMAN: That's possible, Sir.

MR HATTINGH: and if one accepts that, doesn't that mean that you wouldn't expect to find searing, as a result of the close shot?

PROF SAAYMAN: That I would expect to find? I'm sorry, there was ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: Burn marks. Okay sorry, if you accept that there was an intermediary target between the head of the victim and the weapon itself when the shot was fired, then you wouldn't expect burn wounds around the entrance wound, would you?

PROF SAAYMAN: Not if there was complete, in other words if there was a complete obstruction, but if it was partial I certainly could still expect to find it.

MR HATTINGH: What would you describe as a partial obstruction?

PROF SAAYMAN: Partial obstruction like a hand in-between or clothing etc.

MR HATTINGH: Like a hand or clothing?

PROF SAAYMAN: Yes, Sir, something to that effect, an item of clothing, whatever.

MR HATTINGH: I'm not sure that I understand you correctly.

PROF SAAYMAN: What I'm saying is that the barrel could have been relatively close to the skin upon discharge.

MR HATTINGH: Yes.

PROF SAAYMAN: You must remember that the searing injury takes place as a result of flame that comes out of the barrel, that flame can be partly obscured or obstructed due to an intervening object of sorts, whether it's a part of the body or tissue or a hand or an arm or whatever, but the flame itself is a very broad, very often with 5 or 10cm diameter.

MR HATTINGH: Yes.

PROF SAAYMAN: So the flame could have gotten by without the bullet. But your point is well taken, that if there was complete obstruction and the bullet had to pass through for instance, a bakkie door or a ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: A car window.

PROF SAAYMAN: ... a car window, then searing injury would have been less likely.

MR HATTINGH: And then in that event the size of the injury described here would be more consistent with an exit wound, not so?

PROF SAAYMAN: Yes, purely based on the size, certainly I would expect, I would be more inclined to think that that is an exit wound.

MR HATTINGH: Yes.

PROF SAAYMAN: But the problem is that we have two apparently contradicting features which the one would suggest and entrance, the one would suggest an exit. I can't take it much further than that.

MR HATTINGH: Alright. And we don't unfortunately have a description as to the size of the surrounding burning, the burning surrounding the wound.

PROF SAAYMAN: No quantification whatsoever.

CHAIRPERSON: If it was an exit wound below the left ear, that means he was shot from the right, the entrance would have been on the right side of the head normally.

PROF SAAYMAN: I think that's not necessarily a conclusion we should arrive at because first of all, if the entrance had been for instance, at the front of the neck but with an oblique path through the body, the exit wound could have been towards the left rear and secondly, we must recall that bullets, especially for instance, the R4-type ammunition which is a particularly lightweight ammunition projectile, can easily be deflected or deviated from its initial path.

MR LAX: Maybe we can help you just in this respect. There's no question of R4s having been used here, this is before the R4 was even in use because in was 1985 there were only R1s or other handguns or 9mm-type weapons. So just to help you there this is, we're not talking about R4s here.

PROF SAAYMAN: You're not talking about R4 at all.

MR LAX: We're talking about R1s almost, and other 9mm stuff.

PROF SAAYMAN: Right.

MR LAX: This was in 1985.

PROF SAAYMAN: Yes, I stand to be corrected, I would have thought that at that time R4s were in use.

MR LAX: I accept that I could well be wrong there.

PROF SAAYMAN: I'm fairly certain of that, but if for purposes of this discussion we can accept that only R1s were used, the R1 is certainly a different kettle of fish altogether, it is still a very high velocity projectile but it has immense penetrating power because it is a heavy long and very stable projectile and it tends not to disintegrate to the extent that an R4 would do. So the chances of an R4 bullet hitting, I mean an R1 bullet hitting the body and not exiting is unusual unless particularly strong or thick bone had been met.

MR LAX: Can I just ask this, you were asked earlier about the window, if a bullet hits a window and the gun is close to the window, might there still be burning?

PROF SAAYMAN: It's technically possible. The bullet precedes the flame, the flame follows the bullet to a large extent. It's possible that the bullet can shatter such a window and still have the flame following, but it certainly would be less likely.

MR LAX: Thanks.

MR HATTINGH: Professor, what do we make of the bit in brackets at the end of that first finding -

Can that be attributed to the shot below the left ear?

PROF SAAYMAN: It certainly looks as if the two words in brackets immediately following that sentence are actually meant to pertain to that particular sentence, even though an intervening fullstop had been placed. So from a punctuation perspective it's a little bit confusing, but common sense dictates that that refers to the wound that we are talking about.

MR HATTINGH: Now could that perhaps give us an indication of a possible exit wound?

PROF SAAYMAN: Certainly. On the face of it the suggestion would be that, and I cannot attribute meaning to Dr van der Wouden, but prima facie, on the face of it it would appear that that would suggest that the fragments have been displaced in a manner that may suggest an exit gunshot wound at that point. But there is a very important perspective which we should bear in mind here, especially in the case of military-type ammunition, where the skull or the cranial cavity is involved there is explosive injury of the skull contents, to the extent that the displacement of the fragments in a radial fashion, away from the centre of such shockwaves, is not unusual. Very often there can be complete extrusion of the brain from the cranial cavity and the skull simply bursts open like a cauliflower, irrespective of where it was hit.

MR HATTINGH: So one cannot draw an conclusive inference from that ...(intervention)

PROF SAAYMAN: Logic dictates that that would suggest that it could have been an exit gunshot wound, but we cannot exclude the possibility that it's the result of a high velocity military-type injury.

MR HATTINGH: One other aspect. You make reference in your report to an affidavit, on page, the second page of your report, paragraph 5 -

Whose affidavit was that, Professor? Do you remember? Do you have it with you?

PROF SAAYMAN: Yes, I think in the second paragraph of my report I indicated what the source of that affidavit was. In other words, not the second numbered paragraph but the second paragraph on page 1.

MR LAX: You refer to an affidavit by Thabiso Elizabeth Ramele(?)

PROF SAAYMAN: That would be correct, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: I missed that, thank you. But now, what sort of information did that affidavit contain, were you given descriptions of injuries as observed by this person?

MR NTHAI: Can I just explain a bit about the affidavit? Mr Chairman, what happened is that when the reports were handed over to Dr Saayman, we prepared a report of one of the family members, of Bernard, and that is the Thabiso that is mentioned, and in that affidavit she was trying to explain the wounds as she saw them when they went to collect the body. It was an explanation from the layman point of view. The reason that was done was because we did not have the photos and I wanted Dr Saayman to check whether what she has seen it's actually consistent with what is contained in the - this affidavit was never filed with the Committee, but Dr Saayman has got an affidavit with him.

MR HATTINGH: I'm indebted to my learned friend for that explanation, Mr Chairman.

So in that report you were given a description of what somebody, of certain gunshots wounds as observed by the person who made the affidavit, is that correct?

PROF SAAYMAN: Yes, indeed, Mr Chairman. The precise sequence of events I don't recall, I know that I received the post-mortem reports and I more than likely had completed or drafted my report because the affidavit to which reference is now being made, was faxed through to me at a later stage, but I certainly had sight of that affidavit before submitting my report to counsel.

MR HATTINGH: Was it of any assistance to you in arriving at your conclusions?

PROF SAAYMAN: I don't think it was of any - none of the conclusions that I arrived at in my report would have been compromised or altered significantly. In other words, my report can for all intents and purposes, be based entirely on the post-mortem reports. Those are the only source documents for which I had regard.

MR HATTINGH: Just one other aspect that I should probably have asked Dr van der Wouden about but I didn't pick it up at the time, in paragraph 4 on page 46 ...

PROF SAAYMAN: Roman numeral four?

MR HATTINGH: The post-mortem report, page 46, bundle 2, he describes the first, the gunshot wound that we've been talking about, as -

... in the singular, and if we go to page 33, this is now a different post-mortem report where he deals with the injury to the arm, the left wrist area. There he talks about -

... plural.

Do you think that any significance can be attached to those descriptions, the fact that he talks a burn wound in the singular in the one instance and burn wounds in the plural on the other one?

PROF SAAYMAN: Mr Chairman, I can think of no good or obvious reason why the one should be singular and the other one plural.

MR HATTINGH: Can you - from the description of the injury to the wrist, can you give us any idea as to where - first of all, you agree that that injury was caused by a bullet, is that correct?

PROF SAAYMAN: Yes, I think reference as made in an almost academic sense I believe, to such a type of injury being sustained as a result of falling, personally I think that would be highly unlikely, in the context of this discussion certainly it would appear that that is a gunshot wound.

MR HATTINGH: Can you give us any - from the report itself, can you give us any idea where the bullet struck the person and the direction in which it went?

PROF SAAYMAN: Once again unfortunately that particular injury is described literally sandwiched between references to other injuries which are anatomically quite removed, so once again that wound is not juxtaposed or placed in the context of another would which could be interpreted as either an entrance or an exit would. It could for that matter have been a tangential wound.

MR HATTINGH: The fact that he describes it as a gaping wound, he doesn't give us the size of it as far as I can recall, could that perhaps have been caused by a ricochet bullet?

PROF SAAYMAN: Certainly. Once again as I have indicated, a ricochet wound would cause instability of the projectile and as such it can cause a larger than to be expected entrance wound. But I'm not sure that I am understanding you correctly, I think that, whether it was a ricochet or a direct hit, but if it was a tangential or a glancing injury, then it could well be a gaping wound.

MR HATTINGH: And if it's a tangential, or what was the other word ...

CHAIRPERSON: Glancing.

MR HATTINGH: ... glancing type of force that was applied to the body, that fact would probably be attributable to the fact that the bullet had struck something else first, that it was a ricochet.

PROF SAAYMAN: No, I don't think that's a logical conclusion, any gun fired at another person can strike such a person tangentially or at an angle, in a manner which can cause a tangential or ...(indistinct - intervention)

MR HATTINGH: I follow, I follow what you mean. Very well. Can you establish from the description here, whether that was a glancing type of injury or whether it went through the wrist?

PROF SAAYMAN: Well there certainly seems to be no particular reference to a fracture of the underlying bony tissue and - oh, I beg your pardon, there is reference to a fracture of the left radius on the previous page. If those two wounds are to be interpreted or seen as one and the same injury, then once again I wouldn't be able to say whether this represents and entrance or an exit wound, but it was probably caused by a gunshot, moreover it could well be an entrance and exit wound with such severe tissue disruption that the two wounds had merged into one.

MR HATTINGH: Please explain what you mean by that.

PROF SAAYMAN: In other words, such an injury could have been due to an entrance gunshot wound hitting the wrist as it were, shattering the bone, deflecting, changing direction, exiting the tissues and ripping a gaping wound which is a continuous wound from the entrance to the exit site. That's just a possible scenario.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

MR LAX: Just while we're on this Professor, there's no description here of the bullet, if we assume it is a bullet, having gone in one side and out the other, it just talks, all there's mention of is this gaping wound, so - and then obviously underlying fracture.

PROF SAAYMAN: I think it is - that's why my opening comments were and why I was particularly critical, where wounds are not typical and we as forensic pathologists or medico legal practitioners generally immediately recognise a wound that is a typical gunshot wound, be it entrance or exit wound, the moment a wound appears to be atypical and does not relate to that which our frame of reference allows us to interpret as a typical wound, we are obliged to become more critical and to describe the nature of that wound, is it of an incised nature, does it have irregular edges etc. Unfortunately we have not further reference in this particular context.

MR LAX: Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I think Mr Hattingh has probably asked all the questions I wanted to ask.

Professor, may I just clear one thing up, can you just explain to me again the affect that a tracer bullet may have pertaining to burning wounds, pertaining to burning on the skin. Just explain that to me again.

PROF SAAYMAN: Right. First of all, Mr Chairman, I think that we should appreciate that tracer ammunition or tracer bullets is a generic concept, there may be multiple different types of tracer ammunition and, in other words I should limit my answers, and I presume the questions are placed before me in a very generic sort of fashion. In other words, we cannot be specific unless we are relating to specific types of tracer ammunition. But generally speaking, tracer ammunition refers to ammunition which literally as it were, burns as it enters the tissues or whilst it's in flight.

The point however is that such tracer ammunition traverses the skin which is a structure of maximum, a few millimetres in thickness, in an absolutely split second period, during which time there will not be an opportunity to sear the surrounding skin.

However, those parts of the tissue of the subjacent tissue through which the bullet passes and is now being rapidly decelerated, may be in contact with the bullet for a sufficiently long time so as to develop thermal injury.

So I do not expect thermal injury on the surface, in other words on the skin, because the bullet passes through there exceedingly rapidly, more specifically I would not expect it to be surrounding the skin, this is not as if there was a flame applied to the skin surrounding the entrance wound, but within the wound tissues itself, the tract itself, thermal injury is possible.

MR DU PLESSIS: Doctor, am I correct in saying that what you've explained to us now is based upon the premise that the bullet enters the wound at more-or-less a 90 degree angle?

PROF SAAYMAN: I think it makes very little difference when regard is had for the velocity of this bullet, it makes very little difference. If the bullet were to be entering at a significant angle, there would be other wound features, collars of abrasion that are eccentric or accentuated to one side, that would be more prominent than a thermal injury.

MR DU PLESSIS: Well may I ask you this, if a bullet causes an injury on an arm of a person but it hits the skin at a degree of let's say 5 degrees, 3 degrees, one can actually in layman's terms say that the bullet moves alongside the skin and then gradually goes deeper into the ...(intervention)

PROF SAAYMAN: It causes an abrasion injury, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Correct. ... would your - the evidence that you gave now about the affect of thermal injury, would that be the same or would there be a greater possibility of thermal injury if a tracer bullet hits the skin at such an angle?

PROF SAAYMAN: Mr Chairman, if a bullet enters the surface of the body at an angle of 5 degrees, it will probably not cause an abrasion of more than a few millimetres. So the same argument holds.

MR DU PLESSIS: Right. In your evidence it would make no difference what angle that bullet hit the ...(intervention)

PROF SAAYMAN: It would make for all practical purposes, no difference whatsoever in my opinion.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright. Doctor, is there - may I ask you the question in such a fashion, if a bullet in the scenario that we've been looking at, would hit some kind of a metal object and perhaps ricochets and causes bits of metal to disperse and to hit the person, could that cause some sort of thermal injury of the sort that we're looking at now?

PROF SAAYMAN: I'm not quite sure that I understand the question.

MR DU PLESSIS: The metal - if it hits metal ...

PROF SAAYMAN: Right.

MR DU PLESSIS: ... alright, say close to where the wound is and the metal, there are sparks that fly from where the metal is hit and parts of the metal hit the wound ...(intervention)

PROF SAAYMAN: No, Sir, I don't believe that's at all possible.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright, that's what I wanted to ...(intervention)

PROF SAAYMAN: Yes, no, I follow now, but I don't think that's possible at all.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright. Mr Chairman, if you'll just bear with me for a moment.

Doctor, I'm going to put the following question to you in Afrikaans because I don't know how to translate my client's language. Do you have any idea which combustion degree the phosphorous would have under such conditions?

PROF SAAYMAN: Do you mean the temperature?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, the temperature.

PROF SAAYMAN: I'd inadvertently switched to Afrikaans. We know that these particular metals burn at a particularly high temperature, probably in excess of a thousand degrees celsius, Chairperson, but I stand to be corrected.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, if you'll just bear with me please.

Professor, the only question I want to ask you in respect of that is, wouldn't you say that there is a possibility that even if a tracer bullet hits the skin at say a 90 degree angle, that the kind of heat that we're talking of here, in excess of a thousand degrees, can cause depending on how the bullet hits the skin, thermal injury around the place where the bullet enters the skin?

PROF SAAYMAN: Mr Chairman, I think it may be that we're, if not splitting hairs, that there's an element of semantics involved, it depends what we mean by "around". If we say the surrounding skin being a surface area away from the point of entry, I would think that would be highly unlikely, if we are speaking specifically of the wound edges which were in direct contact and/or apposition to the bullet as it passed through, that certainly must be considered, but still not to the extent that the subjacent tissues would have been thermally injured.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, if you'll just bear with me. Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Professor, just one aspect which I think Mr du Plessis might have started to touch on but he didn't quite proceed with it. You've said that the thermal injury to a wound, you would not expect that to be at the entrance wound because the bullet would not be in sufficient, long enough time in contact with the skin itself because of the high velocity. Now would you accept that if such a bullet passes through a metal object such as a car door, it would lose some of its velocity?

PROF SAAYMAN: Oh yes, it certainly would lose some of its velocity.

MR ROSSOUW: And if it then enters the skin is there a, well let's call it a slightly higher probability that it would be - I know we're splitting seconds and hairs here, but it would be in a longer contact with the skin because it doesn't have such high velocity?

PROF SAAYMAN: Mr Chairman, with all due respect, we are really splitting hairs here. The point is that the change in velocity would be fractional, in other words if that bullet still has sufficient kinetic energy to penetrate the skin and the underlying tissues to the extent that damage of this nature can be caused, it was still travelling at a tremendous rate.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes, well I'm not an expert, I don't know ...(intervention)

PROF SAAYMAN: We're probably still speaking of a projectile travelling in excess of 500 metres per second, which is very fast.

MR ROSSOUW: Alright, Professor. Then one other aspect. If you have a look at paragraph 5.2 of your report you're referring to, at the top thereof, you refer at 5.2 at the bottom of page 3, or the second page thereof, to some of the injuries that could have been caused by shrapnel and then you specifically refer to explosive devices. Has this been your own conclusion, to refer to an explosive device like a handgrenade?

PROF SAAYMAN: Mr Chairman, I think, just to ensure that there is no misunderstanding on this particular point, if one were to present this or that, these post-mortem reports to another forensic pathologist without telling him at all what the primary nature of the wounds were probably due to, I think it would be acceptable for such a pathologist to include in his differential diagnosis, and by that we mean having regard for other possible causes which may have caused injuries of this nature, it would be acceptable and in fact appropriate to conclude that at least some of these injuries may have been caused by an explosive device. The very multiplicity and the extensive and the severe nature of the injuries are such that blast injuries must certainly be considered, but in the light of Dr van der Wouden's evidence and in the context of the specifics of each case, I think it is less likely.

MR ROSSOUW: Alright. I thank you for that, but the only reason why I'm asking is whether this was perhaps suggested to you in the affidavit that you received, because you're dealing in paragraph 5 with the affidavit.

PROF SAAYMAN: I think indeed it was, I think indeed it was. I'm not sure whether it was literally suggested or whether it was by means of discussion, but certainly that element was submitted to me.

MR ROSSOUW: Alright. Then similarly ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, can I interrupt at this stage please. If anybody here is driving a blue Jetta or a white Polo Playa, these cars are at present parking people in and they are asked to please remove them.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Professor, similarly, when you've referred in your discussion to the fractured ribs, you've mentioned stamping with the feet, hitting with the fist, which would suggest assault, was that also suggested to you in the affidavit?

PROF SAAYMAN: Mr Chairman, I stand to be corrected, but I doubt that I made reference to the use of a fist, certainly I think I used the example of stamping with a foot or kicking with a booted shoe, booted foot. No, that element of, or that kind of assault was certainly not, as far as I recall, contained in the affidavit or in any consultation, that was my own venture insofar as that is the kind of injury I on an almost daily basis associate with assault. In other words when I see that kind of injury I think of assaults but typically also obviously from motor vehicle accidents.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes, it struck me at the time that you didn't include motor vehicles or ...(intervention)

PROF SAAYMAN: No, no, I simply alluded to broad impact blunt force injury or application, it's as broad as that, it could be assault, it could be motor vehicle accidents. I think I explicitly said that it could be due to a fall as well.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you. Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson.

Professor, just on this last point. I remember also that you said that that type of blunt injury could be caused also post-mortem. If I could just by means of hypothesis put to you, could that have been caused also for instance if a body, a dead body was handled not professionally and without care, loading on and off a bakkie or ... and I also say without care?

PROF SAAYMAN: Yes, I think, once again that particular question has been answered, I have indicated that injuries of that nature can be sustained post-mortem by much the same mechanism as if it were in vivo, it would certainly require the body falling onto something or something heaving stamping on the body etc. The important point however is that the wounds would typically have a post-mortem appearance, in other words there would be no vital reaction to them.

And once again, medical practitioners are in fact taught and should be acutely aware of the onus to differentiate between vital and post-mortem injuries and if that injury had the appearance of having been sustained post-mortem, it would certainly have been the duty of Dr van der Wouden to account for it in such a manner.

MR LAMEY: Yes, but that differentiation we don't have unfortunately in the report.

PROF SAAYMAN: No, my suggestion is that in the context of all these injuries, the inference is that they were vital injuries, in other words injuries sustained by living people. If any one of those injuries had the appearance that it was sustained post-mortem, he should have singled it out specifically. The fact that he did not single it out, to my mind would suggest that it was a typical anti-mortem injury but that he did not say in what manner it was caused.

MR LAMEY: But when I asked him the question he didn't state that, he said, he conceded that. You heard that evidence.

PROF SAAYMAN: I'm not sure that you actually placed the question to him in terms of differentiating between the appearances of post-mortem and anti-mortem injuries.

MR LAMEY: No the question was asked to him "Could that injury have been sustained post-mortem?" Now he didn't say no, because then he would have differentiated it in that manner in the report.

PROF SAAYMAN: Yes. All I can say, I cannot answer for Dr van der Wouden, but there is usually a distinct difference between wounds caused anti-mortem and post-mortem and if this was a post-mortem wound, I believe it would have been his duty to suggest that it has the appearance of a post-mortem injury. But whether in fact he did or he was capable to do such, I cannot answer for that.

MR LAMEY: Okay, fair enough. Doctor, the post-mortem report on page 33 and page 36, am I correct in by reading this, that the only injury or wound suggesting thermal wound or thermal injury is the left pulse in that post-mortem report?

PROF SAAYMAN: Ja, I would suggest the left wrist, yes.

MR LAMEY: But from the totality of the report that is the only injury that could suggest a gunshot being fired from a close range, is that correct?

PROF SAAYMAN: In that particular post-mortem, yes.

MR LAMEY: In that particular post-mortem report.

PROF SAAYMAN: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Doctor, assuming - so just to point that out, none of the other injuries suggest a shot at close distance?

CHAIRPERSON: In that report?

MR LAMEY: In that specific report.

PROF SAAYMAN: Yes, I think I must agree with that.

MR LAMEY: I assume - I mean you just testified from the report, I just want to put another hypothesis to you, assuming that the victim was sitting in front of a vehicle and had a handgun in his right hand and was shot at from outside the vehicle and triggered the handgun which he had in his hand while in the process being shot, then that injury could have been caused as a result of that.

PROF SAAYMAN: Do I understand the question correctly, to infer that it was a self-inflicted injury?

MR LAMEY: Yes.

PROF SAAYMAN: Accidental or albeit, but ...

MR LAMEY: Ja, perhaps in the process of while he's being shot from outside the vehicle by the Security Police members and perhaps in the process of dying or just before he dies or in that sort of circumstance.

PROF SAAYMAN: Mr Chairman, just two points. The first is that I cannot really differentiate between - or I would not be in a position to say that this particular thermal injury was caused particularly by a military-type weapon as opposed to a 9mm or a handgun type ammunition, certainly the likelihood of a military-type weapon causing thermal injury is far greater because it has a very much larger flame component. Secondly, the nature of the injury to describe it as being "'n gapende wond", a gaping wound, would somewhat unusual for a 9mm handgun, but not impossible. So the simple answer to the question is, all I can say is that that would suggest close discharge of a weapon but what kind of weapon it was I cannot say.

MR LAMEY: Let us assume it was a pistol, an Eastern Block pistol, either a Makarov or a Tokarev pistol.

PROF SAAYMAN: Those are weapons with shall we say, intermediary-type calibres, they are not particularly heavy or small and they certainly can cause thermal injury if fired from a close distance, that would usually be between approximately three and seven or ten centimetres maximum. But they technically can cause thermal injury of the skin.

MR LAMEY: Okay. Doctor, then further, in your paragraph 7, the conclusion paragraph of your report you say -

What in that sentence on page 33, made you to conclude that the shot must have been at close range? What grammatical description is in that sentence?

PROF SAAYMAN: Are you suggesting that my comment in paragraph 7 has specific and exclusive reference to that sentence in ...(intervention)

MR LAMEY: No, no, no, is there - the grammar used in this sentence, let us just take it as it is there, what in that, what word there has led you to conclude that this must have been at close range? Word or words.

PROF SAAYMAN: Right, so the question really is, what in that particular sentence contained in paragraph, on page 33, allows me to conclude that it was a gunshot wound sustained from a close distance?

MR LAMEY: Ja, and say for example excluding perhaps a tracer bullet.

PROF SAAYMAN: Well I think first of all ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Haven't we finished with tracer bullets?

PROF SAAYMAN: I think the answer is very simple. First of all, the very reference to a thermal injury surrounding a penetrating injury is highly suggestive, for all practical purposes, of a close range gunshot wound and more particularly the specific use of the word "brandwonde om vel", that would suggest an area extending beyond the wound margin itself, but that's my interpretation thereof.

MR LAMEY: That is what I was wondering about, the word "om" and I - if that word would have been "op", could that have maybe made a difference?

PROF SAAYMAN: I could have been more in keeping with thermal injury, but even then it would have been to my mind, ambiguous and it should rather have been described specifically to say "involving the wound edges", "aan wond rante", that would have been explicit.

MR LAMEY: But the word wasn't used "omliggende vel", just "om vel". "Omliggend" in Afrikaans is a more wider area in Afrikaans, would you agree with me?

PROF SAAYMAN: It would be technically a better term if you want to suggest whey the surface area was involved, but "om" in general Afrikaans usage to my mind, would certainly convey a similar meaning.

MR LAMEY: And then regarding the other thermal injury on the other post-mortem report, there we don't have - page 46 which I'm referring to, we don't have a description "omliggende vel", we just have a description "omliggende brandwond".

PROF SAAYMAN: Well that certainly is more in line with the suggestion that you made a moment ago. In other words, that it involves the surface area of the skin surrounding and extending beyond the wound edges.

MR LAMEY: But yet if we assume that the grammatical description isn't accurate here, it could have an impact also on your conclusion about the distance of the shots being fired.

PROF SAAYMAN: Mr Chairman, that particular sentence is explicit in my mind, it says "the surrounding tissue", and I would assume that it refers to the skin.

MR LAMEY: Yes, but it doesn't state skin, it doesn't state skin as in the other report.

PROF SAAYMAN: Absolutely, you are right, but in the context of the wound description "'n uitgangswond" has reference to the skin injury, to the defect in the skin, and "die omliggende aria het 'n brandwond". That would be, with all due respect, Mr Chairman, the common sense approach, but if we digress from common sense then anything is really possible.

MR LAMEY: Could that thermal injury not also have been surrounding tissue instead of skin?

PROF SAAYMAN: As I have indicated, in the context of how gunshot wounds are described and specifically we are referring here, the essence of that paragraph or the essence of that sentence pertains to an exit gunshot wound and if we say an exit gunshot wound, even if it were an entrance gunshot wound, any further description using terminology "omliggend", would suggest ...(end of side A of tape) ... but I leave the Committee to make their own inference, it's just a common sense approach.

MR LAMEY: Did I understand your evidence correctly that regarding these wounds in this specific report, you don't exclude the possibility that it could be caused by a tracer bullet?

PROF SAAYMAN: I think I cannot entirely exclude it, but I would certainly think it highly unlikely, at least in the manner in which it has been reported. If Dr van der Wouden made, albeit a bona fide error in his terminology, then certainly we cannot exclude a tracer bullet, but the way that it has been reported I think it makes it unlikely that that particular reference is due to a tracer bullet, especially also if it was an "uitgangswond".

MR LAMEY: And if it was an entrance wound?

PROF SAAYMAN: Well really the same would apply, but perhaps to a lesser extent because I can accept thermal injury surrounding an entrance wound far more readily, not necessarily from a tracer bullet but specifically just thermal injury surrounding an entrance wound is not an uncommon event.

MR LAMEY: You also had the advantage of listening to Dr van der Wouden here at the hearing and with his experience at that time, do you really think that he had the necessary expertise as compared to your expertise and specialist expertise to accurately give us a picture in his post-mortem report, so that we could draw reliable conclusions on certain important facts such as the question whether the victims were shot from a close distance?

PROF SAAYMAN: Mr Chairman, I think it should be stated very clearly that there is a big difference between arriving at conclusions based on factual observations and actually making those observations. There should really be nothing that prevents a trained medical practitioner to make observations pertaining to the primary nature of the wounds, the factual morphological features of the injuries can and should be described by any medical practitioner.

The conclusions based thereof, in other words, whether that particular injury was caused by a tumbling projectile or by a projectile having gone through an intermediary target or as to the calibre of the projectile or whether it was high velocity or not or metal or jacketed ammunition etc., that is a different matter, that is often a function of experience and training. But I think the major deficiency in my opinion in these reports, is that the actual wounds were not technically correctly described pertaining to the nature of the wound edges, the sizes of the wounds, the logical sequential nature of the wounds, in other words, that you describe an entrance wound and then an exit wound in relation thereto where possible, the precise anatomic positions, in other words, making reference of established and well recognised anatomical landmarks etc.

So I think in that respect if Dr van der Wouden had perhaps been more precise, with all due respect to my colleague, it would have facilitated a lot of conclusions, but I do not expect someone with limited experience to come to conclusions pertaining to the probable type of ammunition that was used or whether they were shrapnel injuries etc.

MR LAMEY: But given the background of his evidence also that he did not give exact medical and accurate descriptions, given his present circumstances and also that he understood that he should rather use also language in the report that is more understandable to judicial officers, that as I understand your evidence, actually detracts from accuracy and to be in a position to draw reliable conclusions.

PROF SAAYMAN: If I understand correctly you are suggesting that Dr van der Wouden said the reason why he did not use or refer to specific anatomic or make use of specific anatomic terminology, was so that he does not confuse the subsequent judicial process or the judicial officers.

MR LAMEY: Well that was one of the things that he used, as I understood his evidence, various factors, circumstances, his experience at the time, the multiplicity of the injuries which made it difficult from his point of view and also that he understood that when you write your post-mortem report, do it in such language that the judicial officer would understand it by reading it. In other words, what I assume from that was he didn't use medical terminology with, because medical terminology in itself has exactness in it, and he didn't use that for that reason. But taking all those factors into consideration which he has testified about, leads us, what you have stated in your report, am I correct, that one cannot really as a result of that, draw reliable conclusions from the report in many respects. Is that correct?

PROF SAAYMAN: Well there are various elements to your statement, the first is that I'm entirely certain or satisfied that Dr van der Wouden did not use precise medical terminology, he makes reference to features such as the surgical neck of the humerus, I'm not sure how many laymen would know where or what that is and numerous other instances where he uses very precise anatomic terminology. So I think without making too much of this, I certainly don't think this is a major issue, but I think it is possible and it is important that the precise anatomic sites be described and if a doctor does not or cannot do such, at the very least he should compile a sketch, that would help a lot.

MR LAMEY: So what you're saying is the precise anatomical sites have not been described.

PROF SAAYMAN: Precisely.

MR LAMEY: And that has an impact on the conclusions that we have to come to.

PROF SAAYMAN: That not only the fact that the anatomic sites have not been correctly described, but the fact that they have been very haphazardly described. In other words, you jump from the left wrist to the right lower leg, to the neck and then back to the right lower leg etc., and that confuses the issue tremendously.

MR LAMEY: So what you have done is you're looking at this at face value and you do the best given the circumstances, also your conclusions about the distance from which, and that is suggestions. I mean in the report we can, it is a suggestion that there was a shot at a close range, is that correct, from what you read from the report? But taking it all into account, we cannot really come to a reliable conclusion, given the deficiencies in the report?

PROF SAAYMAN: Well I think it depends what you want to be reliable about. I think - it seems to me fairly reliable that these wounds were caused by, if not all, but predominantly by military-type ammunition, because the nature and the extent and the severe nature of these wounds would be consistent with that, not with handgun ammunition. So in a broad sense certainly there's that.

And the reference to thermal injuries certainly are very specific and would allow for, would suggest that we must make conclusions in regard thereto. Whether in fact ultimately they were due to tracer bullets or due to close range discharge, is perhaps open for argument, but the fact is those are specifics and in that respect they may or they are very helpful.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, I've got no further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RAMAWELE: Professor, the ...(indistinct) on which you based your comment is the post-mortem reports of Khone, Tollman and Shadrack Sithole, is that so?

PROF SAAYMAN: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR RAMAWELE: You didn't base - your comments are not further based on the fourth(?) post-mortem report?

PROF SAAYMAN: No, Mr Chairman, my report was compiled before I had access to the hand-written report.

MR RAMAWELE: Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Professor, on page 47, the rib fractures to which reference is made, can you tell us in terms of this report, whether this person may have had the fractures before he ended up in the hands of the police? In other words you cannot tell the age thereof?

PROF SAAYMAN: There's no way that I can attribute an age to any one of these injuries.

MR PRINSLOO: And you cannot say what the degree of the fractures were?

PROF SAAYMAN: No, I'm not sure that I understand what is meant by the grade or the ...

MR PRINSLOO: The nature of the fractures.

PROF SAAYMAN: The grade.

MR PRINSLOO: Was it remote or serious?

PROF SAAYMAN: Are you referring to specifically the femur or the ribs?

MR PRINSLOO: Reference is made to the fracture, page 47, paragraph 4, fracture 3 to 7 rib.

PROF SAAYMAN: So you are excluding the reference to the femur fracture?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

PROF SAAYMAN: Alright, so the rib fractures. Well all I can say is that in forensic medical practice that suggests a large amount of force application over a broad area. In other words, five ribs appear to have been fractured consecutively, probably due to the same episode of impact trauma.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Professor. Thank you, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions thank you, Chairperson.

MS LOCKHAT: No questions thank you, Chairperson.

MR SIBANYONI: I've got no questions, Chairperson.

MR LAX: Just one thing, Chair.

If we look at page 46 and at that first wound, could the portion in brackets, the portion that reads -

... could that be referring to an exit wound? In other words, if a bullet went in under the left ear, would it blow out the back of the skull?

PROF SAAYMAN: Mr Chairman, it certainly could. In other words, if we work on the premise that that which has been described as the "uitgangswond" were in fact an entrance wound, then it's quite possible that a tangential passage through the skull or brain could have led to an exit wound at the posterior or the rear side of the skull. It's difficult for me to conclude, but I think that's something to consider, I don't think it's ...(intervention)

MR LAX: It's not beyond the realms of logic?

PROF SAAYMAN: No, it's certainly not, in fact I think it's a fairly good suggestion.

MR LAX: If you then look at the next piece which talks about "veelvuldige frakture", those would all be consistent with one another.

PROF SAAYMAN: I should explain perhaps to the Court, without going into grizzly detail, what a skull looks like that has been hit by a high velocity-type 7.62 pointed, jacketed bullet. There is severe tissue disruption, portions of the skull that are remote from the point of entry or point of contact with the bullet, simply shatter, so one can accept that there were numerous skull fractures of the skull base and the vaults of the skull and that many of these fractures or fragments would have been displaced in a centrifugal manner away from the point of impact. I think it's really difficult now to conclude what the primary nature or direction of that gunshot wound was.

MR LAX: Thanks.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Nobody has any objection do they, to us releasing the Professor now and thanking him very much for made himself available to us today at extremely short notice. Thank you.

PROF SAAYMAN: My pleasure, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: What time tomorrow? Nine?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, that's my suggestion.

CHAIRPERSON: For those of us involved in the matter tomorrow, we will adjourn now till 9 o'clock.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, may I just ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, wait a bit.

MR LAX: We've still no answer on - we're now talking about Wednesday. Sorry, we're now talking about possibly talking about putting my part-heard hearing on Wednesday, so one doesn't know what on earth is going on.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, may I just enquire about the evidence tomorrow of Mr Labuschagne, I understand it doesn't relate to the merits of the matter.

MR DU PLESSIS: Well Mr Chairman, it's the MK Viva matter that we're talking of, I don't think my learned friend has an

interest in it. Mr Chairman, may I just enquire in the light of what Mr Lax said, what is going to happen with this application?

CHAIRPERSON: Well he's just going to tell us something else I think.

MR LAX: One of the - the logistics officer wants to talk to me, would you excuse me just for a minute, there may be an answer.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, with regard to Mr Pienaar, who is still under cross-examination by Mr Nthai, could he be excused at this stage or is that still on the ballots?

CHAIRPERSON: We won't be going on with him this afternoon, but he'll probably want to know when he's got to come back, which is what we are trying to ascertain.

MR PRINSLOO: Alright, Mr Chairman.

MR LAX: I've now been told that the matter has been set down for Wednesday, the one that was supposed to be Nelspruit, but it now in Jo'burg. The suggestion is that we do the other matter, the Valdez matter on Monday and Tuesday and that we continue this matter on Thursday and Friday next week. Does that suit everybody?

MS VAN DER WALT: I don't know whether I will be ready at that stage with my new legal representative, the record still has to be obtained and then the legal representative will basically have to study that record and then obtain a statement from me because basically I will be a witness in the matter. Could we perhaps deal with the matters that we could finish in a day, such as Sidebe or Msibi, because those persons have already been subpoenaed for that time?

MR DU PLESSIS: Sorry, there's another complication, my client is currently, they call it Crime Intelligence, but it is in the same sort of field that he's been operating herein, and he's involved in certain operation that could cause him severe difficulties next week.

CHAIRPERSON: Who is not available next week? Your client? Mr du Plessis? Well by Thursday you may be.

MR LAX: They assure us that you'll have your record by Monday.

CHAIRPERSON: There's no possibility of making arrangements for your client?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, my client tells me that he can try and see what he can do and then one will have to deal with it next week, but I will on be in a position later to tell you if he was able to deal with it. They have certain operations and things that they planned and so on, so that's one of the problems that he has, but he'll be able to tell you.

CHAIRPERSON: Well let's then say adjourn this matter till Monday, this present application. If anything develops in the meanwhile, will you please communicate with, I think communicate rather with the - They've arranged something else for Monday already. I'm afraid I know nothing about what our Cape Town office does.

MS VAN DER WALT: I think that's going to be not sufficient time for me or for my attorney to prepare because he'll have to go into the whole history, he'll have to go into all the affidavits, he'll have to consult with me ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, he's got eight days. I think we'll adjourn till Thursday on the basis that your attorney will have to work hard. Because he doesn't really have to bother about the other applications, it is your client's affidavits he has to go into and the averments or allegations made by Mr du Plessis' side. I do think however, that it would be only proper if that is possible, for you to give, supply a statement from your client, a statement as to what your client intends to aver, so that can be investigated and prepared and not sprung as a surprise.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I think I've put in cross-examination quite clearly what he is going to come and say, he's not going to come and say anything more really than what I've put in cross-examination. I can however endeavour to prepare a statement in that regard. May I just mention that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: If you put his case fully, that's sufficient, if however there are other averments I think you should notify your colleague so she can take full instructions and prepare on them.

MR DU PLESSIS: I will consider the position, if there are any other allegations which I did not put, which I don't think there are, Mr Chairman, I will notify her.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. So this matter is now adjourned till Thursday of next week. 9 o'clock suit everybody? And we will adjourn till tomorrow for MK Viva and till Monday for the matters set down then. Sorry, Valdez, not the matter set down, Valdez, part-heard matter. Nine thirty on Monday?

I must apologise on my own behalf to all of you gentlemen for the disorganisation and the uncertainty that has come about.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do I understand it correctly that we must cancel all the other cases for next week, because Msibi was on for Monday?

CHAIRPERSON: I gather so, I gather that arrangements will be made immediately to inform the victims and the implicated parties and all legal advisors involved for applicants or such implicated parties, that now this has to be adjourned to a date to be arranged. Thank you all.

MS LOCKHAT: All rise.