Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: Morning everybody. We proceed with the hearing and we'll be commencing I believe, with the evidence of Ms Stephanie Miller. Is that right, Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: That's correct, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: What are your full names please?

STEPHANIE MILLER: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Thabethe?

EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Thank you, Mr Chair.

Mrs Miller, is it correct that you were working for the Truth Commission as an Investigator from 1996?

MS MILLER: That's correct.

MS THABETHE: And when did you stop working for the Commission?

MS MILLER: I left the Commission in 1997 and returned for this period of time to complete this amnesty.

MS THABETHE: Can you tell this Commission how it came about that you investigated the matter of Ntombi Kubheka?

MS MILLER

"The original investigation started immediately on my appointment to the Truth Commission. One of the first cases I was given was the case of the Phoenix 3. That was a case where three people were blown up on the railway line at Phoenix."

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what's it called?

MS MILLER: We called it the Phoenix 3. It was a case which involved three KwaMashu youths who had, their bodies had been found blown up next to a railway line in Phoenix. I had had prior knowledge of this case in 1988 and it was initially investigated by one of my colleagues and then came to me as part of a greater investigation involving the Port Natal Security Branch. So that was my initial investigation and as result of that, and having known some of the members of the Port Natal Security Branch, I ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I'm just going to ask them to stop the banging. But I think you can carry on in the meantime, Ms Miller.

MS MILLER

"Because of some prior knowledge that I had of some of the workings of the Port Natal Security Branch, I dealt with that particular case and made contact with some of the members who subsequently applied for amnesty in this case. At a later date - we started to look then at the victims' statements which had come into the Truth Commission, largely those of people who had disappeared, where there was no body found or there was no - the family had no knowledge of what had happened to their children or husbands, spouses. And later on during the course of the Commission, amnesty applications were then received.

When the two were put together, both the victims, the missing, the disappeared and the amnesty applications, there was some meeting of the two and we were able to marry some of those that had disappeared, together with some of the amnesty applications that had been received.

We then, in this particular case with the Port Natal Security Branch, received a bundle which included applications from Andy Taylor, Hentie Botha, Sam du Preez and Wasserman, plus some others, and we were able then to split the number of cases between us within the office and we started doing what was then called 'special investigations' around specific cases and I was allocated this specific case as part of my brief.

Essentially we were looking at the veracity of the statements that had been received in terms of the amnesty applications and verifying, in terms of what had been said, that this was correct and that it could be backed up by other evidence.

In this particular case, one of the problems that arose was there was a conflict in that Andy Taylor, who was the Commander of the group, applied for amnesty for possible murder of Ntombi Kubheka whereas some of the others had applied for hiding her death in that she had died of natural causes, and essentially it then became fairly important to try and trace why there was this discrepancy.

Andy Taylor at the time had come in for what we called a Section 29, which was held in our offices in Durban and he was questioned and answered, but what became apparent was that he wasn't there the entire period of her, the period that she was held in Winkelspruit, whereas some of the other members had been there more of the time.

There was quite a lot of conflict between Hentie Botha's statement and those of other parties who'd applied for amnesty, in that he was adamant she died of natural causes, some of the other people who said she died of natural causes, in fact were not present and were repeating what they had been told. One of the askaris gave conflicting evidence and it became quite difficult to determine what in fact happened on that day."

MS THABETHE: You're referring to a Section 29, when did this take place?

MS MILLER: Unfortunately I don't have access to my original investigative file, so I don't have this specific detail and I can't give you the date, but it was in the period just before Andy Taylor died.

CHAIRPERSON: So are you saying there was a Section 29 hearing?

MS MILLER: There was a Section 29 hearing in the TRC offices in Durban.

CHAIRPERSON: At which the applicants appeared?

MS MILLER: No, in which Andy Taylor, Col Taylor appeared.

CHAIRPERSON: Taylor appeared, yes.

MS THABETHE: Do you know who was representing Col Taylor then? In that Section 29 hearing?

MS MILLER: If my memory's correct, I think Mr Nel represented Col Taylor.

MS THABETHE: Okay, you may proceed.

MS MILLER

"As it happened, a colleague of mine was doing more of the cases that involved Col Taylor, so my contact with him was minimal, more specifically as he had not been present when Ms Kubheka died, or he alleged he hadn't been present when Ms Kubheka died.

This was one of many cases we dealt with and one of the issues that became quite apparent after a while was that there seemed to be a pattern, a merging in our investigations, in that there were periods of time where activists or MK units would disappear and never be seen again. There were coincidences such as, in some of the cases where there were exhumations, where the amnesty applicants fairly consistently said that the reason that these people had been killed and the manner in which they had been killed and disposed of and the manner in which they had been disposed, was because they were aware of the fact that they couldn't be convicted in a court of law.

And in our discussions with Botha and others at the exhumation sites and at other times, it appeared that their intelligence at the time must have been fairly good, in that they were infiltrating a substantial amount of MK cells in the country at that time, or in the Port Natal region at that time, and these people were disappearing."

MS THABETHE: Okay, Mrs Miller. Now I just want to introduce your statement that you've written with regard to the incident of Ntombi Kubheka. I want us to concentrate on that incident and I want you to tell the Committee as to what ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, are you referring to the statement which we received earlier this week, the one that was dated the 11th of July?

MS THABETHE: Yes, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Does everybody have a copy? This will be Exhibit K. We'll refer to it as Exhibit K.

MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, we'll also refer to another statement by Mohammed Sadik Ismail. I think everyone has got it as well. I handed it in on Tuesday.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I don't think, I haven't seen a statement by a Mohammed, no.

MS THABETHE: I will arrange that copies be made for you.

MR LAX: While I remember, could I have my one back? Did you make a copy of it? I gave you the one.

MR WILLS: I will get it back to you.

MR LAX: Thanks.

CHAIRPERSON: Do we need the statement of ...

MS THABETHE: We will refer to it later, Mr Chair, but I've got three copies.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want us to give it a number now?

MS THABETHE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Exhibit L will be the statement of Mohammed Sadik Ismail. This is the mortuary attendant at Verulam, yes, that will be Exhibit L.

MS THABETHE: Do you confirm the statement, that you made the statement?

MS MILLER: I confirm that I made the statement.

MS THABETHE: Do you want to make any clarifications with regard to the statement?

MS MILLER: I would like to, in that I did mention on page 5, in paragraph 3.1 ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I think just for record purposes, before you proceed Ms Miller, the statement is in fact an affidavit?

MS MILLER: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: It starts off like being a statement but it doesn't refer to making it under oath, but it has been attested before a Commissioner of Oaths. And you confirm the correctness of the contents of this statement?

MS MILLER: Well I'm speaking to that if I may.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, ja, but you're not just confirming that you made it, you're confirming that what you made is, that it's correct, the contents are correct.

MS MILLER: Well it's correct subject to what I'm going to proceed to cover.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS MILLER: In paragraph 21 I mentioned that after completing my contract with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, I handed in my investigation file and have not had sight of it since.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes.

MS MILLER: As a result, I am a little wobbly on some of the dates.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I understand that.

MS MILLER: As a result of that and the last week having been present here and having access to some of the documents, there are two corrections I would like to make if possible, and that is that I mentioned in paragraph 3 that Ms Kubheka disappeared whilst her mother was away attending the youngest daughter's wedding. In fact, it was after her mother returned from attending the youngest daughter's wedding.

MS THABETHE: Do you know when she returned, her mother?

MS MILLER: I believe that she returned on or about the 10th or 11th of May, from Zambia.

MS THABETHE: Are there any other clarifications you want to make with regard to the statement?

MS MILLER: The other clarification I made which possibly doesn't need clarification, was that I said that there were approximately 20 bodies which had been brought ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Is that paragraph 9?

MS MILLER: Paragraph 9. ... that had been brought in and in fact on having gone back to those records on Tuesday, there were 15 that I listed.

MS THABETHE: Mrs Miller, on page 82 of bundle 2, page 82 of bundle 2 there is a memo from you to ...(indistinct) Govender. Do you confirm that this memo was written by you?

MS MILLER: Yes, that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, page?

MS THABETHE: 82 of bundle 2. Now in this statement you say you spent considerable time going through the records at the mortuary at Phoenix and found only one body that fitted all the criteria, can you give an encounter as to how this happened, why did you have to go to the mortuary?

MS MILLER

"When this case became a special investigation, we were able to devote much more time to the specifics and it became fairly clear that if the body could have been found, it would clarify where it had been disposed of, the cause of death, the approximate date of death, and it would verify or deny the veracity of the applicants' claims.

It was our practice to spend considerable time going through records in looking at other cases, and this became part of a similar process and we looked at mortuary records fairly extensively throughout Durban and one of the reasons that this was so was, in the discussions that were had with the applicants and in their own applications it was not clear to me why they would have taken the body from Winkelspruit, where there was uniformity that she was killed there, all the way across Durban to the opposite side of the city to dump the body.

It was not as if the body was dropped really close to the home where it was found, which was what the reasoning was by the applicants, it was allegedly dropped a considerable distance away, which would not make it easy for the family necessarily to have found the body. So I wasn't certain in my own mind that that aspect had been the truth and I had no way of knowing exactly where the body had been disposed of. So we looked quite extensively at the mortuaries and ..."

...(intervention)

MS THABETHE: Which mortuaries did you look at?

MS MILLER: Well we focused specifically at the Phoenix mortuary, because if the body had been disposed to the north of the city, in that area or in its environment, the body would have been taken at that time, 1987, to the Verulam mortuary, which had subsequently been closed and all the records had been moved to Phoenix. So if that aspect had been true, then the body would have been found and taken to Verulam. On going through the records for the period, and we looked - at that time we weren't sure of the date and we had either April or May as the possible date of abduction, and looked at those mortuary records from April right through for a year.

MS THABETHE: Okay. Mrs Miller, I just want to find out, was the family involved in searching for their relative's body as well?

MS MILLER

"We had been in contact with the family, very specifically with Mr Themba Kubheka, and I had requested that he assist me. I had gone to the mortuary, I had spent a considerable amount of time there.

It was quite a slow process in that when you identify that an unknown woman was brought into the mortuary and there was any points of similarity, one would call for the post-mortem report which would be more specific and you would be able to see the height, the weight or any other descriptions, age, cause of death, whatever would be contained within the post-mortem report, and what I asked Mr Kubheka to do was to assist me by going through those selfsame records and seeing if he identified the same or different, as being possibly his sister. Mr Kubheka did this and came back to me with an abbreviated list of the women who could possibly have been his sister, from the mortuary register.

Although I don't believe that Mr Kubheka did see any of the post-mortem reports in his search. I subsequently compared that to the list I had, went back to the mortuary, called for the post-mortem reports, and after all was done and it took a considerable period of time, I isolated a specific register with a specific entry as being the most likely person meeting the criteria that, most of the criteria on the description of Ntombi Kubheka."

MS THABETHE: Okay. Maybe just for the record, can you briefly go through which bodies did you identify, because in paragraph 9 you talk about the fact that you found approximately 20 women that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: That's been changed to 15.

MS THABETHE: Yes, 15. ...15 women who could have been Ntombi.

MS MILLER: Well there were three registers. I believe the register numbers are 21 to 23, from the Verulam mortuary of that time. The first one was number 293, which was a woman of 37, whose body had not been identified from Tongaat - the body had been found at Tongaat, the date was the ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Can I just stop you for a second. We were given yesterday another sheet of paper which lists these entries.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got that piece of paper, Mrs Miller? MS MILLER: That's correct, I'm reading from that.

CHAIRPERSON: Does everybody have it? It's a single sheet with a number of entries, is that the 15?

MS MILLER: That's correct. May I just refer to that by number rather than go through each one?

MR LAX: Shall we call this K1?

CHAIRPERSON: I think if we could call this K1, let's call it K1, this document.

MS MILLER: The first one which was in the earlier book, a woman had been stabbed. I haven't entered her height or weight, it is on the post-mortem report, but it was prior to the date subsequently that we isolated, but it was in our initial search.

CHAIRPERSON: Those dates there, just for clarity Ms Miller, are they dates that the body was found?

MS MILLER: Yes, that's correct.

We discarded the first one because the cause of death was not ...(indistinct) and it was prior to the date of her disappearance. It turned out subsequently. The second person, a very similar scenario was found in KwaMashu area, but it had been strangled and was a child, it was a new born child, which we couldn't tell from the initial records. Or didn't note from the original records.

The second book was of greater value to us, because it was during the period, it was from May until August, I believe, and most of the woman recorded in that book had either at the time been identified or subsequently someone had come and identified them. And in most cases, the person identifying them had arranged the burial, they hadn't been buried as paupers. So we'd eliminated them.

465, in terms of age and height was inappropriate, she'd also been stabbed and found in a different area. 514, although the age could have been correct, we understood that Ntombi was overweight and 60 kilos didn't seem to indicate being considerably overweight, but she was also a victim of a motor accident. So whilst a person being disposed of on the road could have been a victim and subsequently run over by a vehicle, it was also freshly brought into the mortuary and not a decomposed body, and given the dates that we knew that Ntombi had disappeared and that she had died immediately, there was no possibility that this would have been the body.

Subsequently, some of those listed were from hospital and 580 was the most likely candidate when we completed our search through the books. The person had not been identified, had been buried in a pauper's grave, had been brought in approximately two months after disappearance.

According to the forensic pathologist, the decomposition as recorded would have been appropriate for somebody who had died two months previously, could have died two months previously. We extracted the post-mortem that Dr Chetty did and it appeared very sketchy, but unfortunately Dr Chetty had since died, so we weren't able to interview him and find out what level of post-mortem had been held."

MS THABETHE: Sorry, Mrs Miller, you've referred to the post-mortem of Dr Chetty, for the record it's on page 71 of bundle 2, and you've referred to it as being scanty or sketchy.

MS MILLER: Yes.

MS THABETHE: Why do you say that?

MS MILLER: Well if you have a look through it, it doesn't appear as if an extensive post-mortem relative to the other post-mortem reports had been held, and I wasn't sure how much was done if a body was brought in after it had decomposed and I then asked people who did these sort of things in the mortuary, what sort of level of post-mortem would be held on a completely decomposed body.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it the same one that also appears on page 67? It probably makes more sense than the one that appears on page 71.

MS MILLER: It is the same one.

MS THABETHE: Okay you were still saying you made enquiries from other people who worked there.

MS MILLER: And it appeared that when a body is brought in with that level of decomposition, very often it's difficult to do a post-mortem.

MS THABETHE: Would this tie in with ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Could I just ask something?

Are you saying it's difficult to do the post-mortem, or the officials who are supposed to do those kinds of post-mortems don't like to do them because of obvious reasons? I mean the decomposition, etcetera. We know a post-mortem was done subsequently, by Dr Naidoo.

MS MILLER: Correct.

MR LAX: And we have seen, I've certainly seen other post-mortems done by Prof Botha and others where bodies were in pretty advanced stages of decomposition, but it takes a pretty dedicated pathologist to want to do that.

MS MILLER: Well it's conjecture on my part, but I would presume that because of the level of decomposition, this is not a pleasant experience and Dr Chetty possibly elected to do it in as simple manner as possible. And it appears that the body was given immediately thereafter to the collection agency for a pauper's burial, without any attempt to find anybody to identify the deceased. So it appeared that they wanted to dispose of the body as quickly as possible.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry to keep interrupting, Ms Miller, this post-mortem on page - take a look at page 67 and page 71, they're not the same.

MS MILLER: They are the same.

CHAIRPERSON: Well you see on page 71 it says

"Undetermined"

MS MILLER: Yes, the cause of death.

CHAIRPERSON: But I'm trying to find that on page 67, the one that appears there, and I don't see it. I'm just wondering ...(intervention)

MS MILLER: This is part of the same post-mortem.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but I see the one's typed and the one's written. So this typed copy isn't - the typed version isn't the copy of the written version, they're different?

MS MILLER: No, it's a continuation, it forms part of the same post-mortem.

CHAIRPERSON: Does it form part?

MS MILLER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So he wrote some and then typed some? Or part of it.

MS MILLER: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. 'Cause that signature at the bottom, is Dr Chetty's signature, on page 71?

MS MILLER: Correct, Dr Chetty was the district surgeon in Verulam.

MS THABETHE: Would this, Mrs Miller, tie in ... (interven-tion)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry. Because I'm just trying to get - this typed copy obviously was typed originally on some proforma form, because it makes no sense when you read it here, I mean, you know it just says

"Undetermined. Completely deposed(sic)"

and it doesn't relate to anything. Do you see what I'm getting at? It's a carbon copy from a form, but it's not from ...

MR LAX: The actual printing on the form is missing.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS MILLER: I believe we might be able to access the original copy.

CHAIRPERSON: One would image that it was a similar form to the form on page 67.

MS MILLER: I believe I can access the original copy if you'd like to see that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thanks. Yes, you can continue.

MS THABETHE: Let's proceed. Mrs Miller, would this tie in with what Mohammed has said in his statement? Mohammed Ismail, on paragraph 4, that

"When a body was brought into the mortuary in a decomposed state and there was no indication by documentation accompanying the body that the person was shot or murdered, the district surgeon or the doctor would often not do a post-mortem, but would view the body and the cause of death was often noted as undetermined."

Would this tie in with what happened with Dr Chetty, with regard to this body?

MS MILLER: I contacted Mr Ismail who was a serving member of the South African Police Force, and he was in fact the member who received the body into the mortuary on that date and he advised me that it was common practice for Dr Chetty to do exactly that.

MS THABETHE: Okay. Can you proceed then with what happened thereafter, after you had identified the body that fitted the criteria?

MS MILLER: I wrote to - I motivated them to do an exhumation of this grave-side, the grave site at Stanger, at Charlotteville, Charlottedale, and contacted the authorities who controlled this, so that we could identify, to make sure that the grave site could be suitably identified before we apply for exhumation.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what's that place called, Charlotte?

MS MILLER: Charlottedale cemetery in Groutville.

CHAIRPERSON: Whereabouts is that?

MS MILLER: It's next to Stanger hospital, it's controlled by Stanger hospital.

At that time it appeared that the State had given Tongaat Hearse Services a contact to bury unidentified bodies and paupers' graves at Charlottedale.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because that's some distance from Verulam, isn't it?

MS MILLER: Yes, it is.

CHAIRPERSON: It's quite a way up the coast.

MS MILLER: It appears that all the paupers' graves were there at that period time from that area.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR LAX: You mean from that mortuary?

MS MILLER: From that mortuary.

MS THABETHE: You were still answering the question as to what happened after you had identified the body that fitted the criteria that you were looking for. What did you do next?

MS MILLER: Well we then drew the docket from the mortuary, the post-mortem report. I motivated to them find where this site was at Charlottedale cemetery and see whether it was possible to exhume the body and confirm that it was the same as that of Ntombi Kubheka.

MS THABETHE: Would you just bear with us, Mr Chair, there is a statement that my witness is looking for.

Okay, then you arranged to have the exhumation.

MS MILLER: I arranged to have the exhumation done and arranged for the South African Police to be present and Dr Aiyer from the forensic laboratory attended. We went to Groutville and the site was dug by the local authorities and the coffin was exhumed. The remains were found to have been interred in a body bag, together with clothing. Dr Aiyer commenced to examine on site the remains and it started to rain and he elected at that point to remove the body bag ...(intervention)

MS THABETHE: Okay, just hang on. You referred to clothing that was exhumed as well, would this be the clothing that has been displayed here in the previous hearings, referred to as Exhibit 1, 2, 3 and 4?

MS MILLER: That is the clothing that was found in the body bag.

CHAIRPERSON: You were present when they were shown?

MS MILLER: I was present. CHAIRPERSON: So you can confirm having seen Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4? Was that the total amount of clothing there? Were there any shoes or panties, for instance?

MS MILLER: I did not see any shoes, I saw - the way in which the body was removed, the dress was clear, it was on top of the body, but the skull of the deceased was shrouded in something white and I couldn't determine at that stage because I wasn't standing where Dr Aiyer was, as to what the white was, but it appeared that it was her underwear or a sweater that had just become wrapped around the skull as the body decomposed.

CHAIRPERSON: So as far as you know, the clothing before us was all the clothing that was found there, or can't you comment on that?

MS MILLER: Inside the body bag, what I saw was a dress, something white around the skull and what appeared to be underwear.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Yes, so it started to rain ...?

MS MILLER: It started to rain and Dr Aiyer then handed the bag together with all the contents, clothing included, to the South African Police Services who were with us. They took charge of the remains and delivered it to him at the forensic laboratory for a second post-mortem to be done.

MS THABETHE: Who was it delivered to?

MS MILLER: I understand that it was taken away by the Stanger Police Services.

MS THABETHE: And delivered to?

MS MILLER: To the forensic laboratory.

MS THABETHE: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: So you believed that the body was taken by the police?

MS MILLER: Yes, it was removed from the cemetery.

CHAIRPERSON: By the police?

MS MILLER: By the Police Services.

MS THABETHE: And then, do you know how Dr Steve Naidoo got involved in doing the post-mortem?

MS MILLER: Dr Naidoo, I believe that Dr Aiyer and Dr Naidoo are colleagues at the forensic laboratory.

CHAIRPERSON: The forensic laboratory is in Durban?

MS MILLER: They were both in Durban and in Pinetown, and they're both Forensic Pathologists.

CHAIRPERSON: And do you know where the remains were taken to, to which forensic laboratory?

MS MILLER: I saw them subsequently at the forensic laboratories in Durban, but I don't know that that is where they were originally taken.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

MS THABETHE: And then is there anything else you did after the exhumation, with regard to this case?

MS MILLER: Well there was a substantial amount of work that needed to be done, largely in consultation with the family to try and get photographs of the deceased, which we did not have in our possession at that time. To try and get the exact date of when the deceased died and try and get more specifics about the case which were not available to us earlier in the day.

MS THABETHE: And in your endeavour to do this, did you also contact the D'Oliviera Unit?

MS MILLER: At some stage, and I'm not sure exactly when, but at stage during the investigation, we were fairly advanced into the investigation I believe, I became aware that the D'Oliviera Unit were looking at exactly the same case. I came across a Capt Holmes who appeared to be looking at the case from a slightly different angle, and I was able to obtain copies of Vlakplaas records which would help us identify the dates in which the unit had been operating in Durban. I went to see them and tried to ascertain whether they had any additional information that we didn't have at our disposal.

MS THABETHE: And all of this, it's correct that it was done to try and get the truth as to what happened to Ntombi Kubheka?

MS MILLER: It was merely to check the veracity of the amnesty applications. Our brief was very clear, we were victim driven in that we were there to ensure that those people applying for amnesty were telling the truth, that the facts that they were giving to us were correct and that the families of the people who had disappeared and who had died, would be informed of this as part of the reconciliation process.

MS THABETHE: Okay. In the amnesty applications of the applicants, all along the cause of death was that she died of natural causes, or they assumed, they suspected that she died of a heart attack, now after the body was exhumed, handed over to the forensic laboratory, when did you first discover about the bullet wound?

MS MILLER: I was not aware that she had sustained a bullet wound at all, until after the second post-mortem, until I was advised by Dr Naidoo that he had, whilst examining the body, found the remnants of a .32 bullet head inside the skull cavity and that there was a bullet entry wound on the top of her skull. I found this of particular interest because on the three exhumations in Elandskop, where the Port Natal Security Branch had pointed out burial sites of three of the deceased, all three had sustained bullet holes on the top of their skull in a very similar sort of fashion and at the Verulam site where Nxweni's body had been exhumed, he'd also had a bullet hole in his skull. And I suspected that it was possibly a modus operandi, rather than Ntombi had died of natural causes.

MS THABETHE: Did Dr Naidoo, was he the pathologist in all these three bodies you have referred to?

MS MILLER: If I remember correctly I think he was, I think he was present at Elandskop and I believe he was present at Verulam.

MR LAX: Just to correct you, Aiyer was present at some of those exhumations as well.

MS MILLER: It's possible that Aiyer was there, they were colleagues and I don't recall whether it was Aiyer or Naidoo at Elandskop.

MR LAX: I remember seeing photographs of the Verulam one and he was definitely in those photographs. Naidoo was also there at one point, but just so you know that.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just before it slips my mind, Ms Miller, did you actually obtain photographs of Ms Kubheka?

MS MILLER: I did obtain a photograph of Ms Kubheka.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know where that is now?

MS MILLER: It is in the file.

MS THABETHE: There are two photographs from the file that Pete ...(indistinct) brought from Pretoria.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: We were still talking about the bullet wound, you were still telling us what you found out from the post-mortem from Dr Naidoo. Of course Dr Naidoo is going to come and give evidence as to what he did after the body had been handed over to him.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I'm just thinking about something, would this be a convenient stage to introduce those photographs? Did you obtain them, the photographs from ... Under what circumstances did you first see the photographs?

MS MILLER: At one stage I obtained a photograph from the family, but I suspect that was later, the earliest photograph I obtained of Ntombi Kubheka was from Capt Holmes in Pretoria. We met at about, either on or about the same day as I went to Johannesburg to arrange with Ms Kubheka's two sisters, Lyn and Sibongile, for blood samples so that we could try and match the body with that of the sisters.

MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, I've arranged that the photographs be brought up here, so that I can introduce them. Oh, Mrs Miller has indicated that she has one.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you can proceed.

MS THABETHE: Can we proceed? Ja, okay, Mrs Miller, you've heard the applicants' version that they stick to their version that Ntombi Kubheka died of a heart attack and now as the TRC have exhumed a body with a bullet wound and their evidence is that this is the wrong body, what would be your response to that?

MS MILLER: I am convinced in my own mind that as a result of our investigations we had exhumed the correct body. All the evidence obtained from the people who saw Ms Kubheka when she departed to meet Jimmy Mbane, indicate that the dress that was found in the grave was the dress that she was in fact wearing on the day.

MS THABETHE: Sorry, who are these people you are referring to?

MS MILLER: The neighbour in the house next door, Ms Dludla.

MS THABETHE: Who else?

MS MILLER: Well that was one level of the evidence. The other issue was that if you were to look at the mortuary records of all the deceased that I listed, or the average height of most of the deceased and the most women, by all accounts Ms Kubheka was an extraordinarily short woman. And I think it's clear from the family that the siblings are substantially shorter than average and the body exhumed from the grave-side was of an extraordinarily short woman relative to the national average. We obviously couldn't tell the weight from the remains. The level of decomposition would seem to match according to expert evidence which I'm sure will be presented later, that this was appropriate for a body that had been out in the veld for a period of time. And the bullet hole that was found in the skull, came as somewhat of a surprise given the evidence that was before us at that time.

MS THABETHE: Thank you, Mrs Miller. I have no further questions, Mr Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS THABETHE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Visser, do you have any questions you'd like to put to Ms Miller?

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

Ms Miller, so we start off on the pitch that according to you the body that was exhumed from grave 343 at Charlottedale, belonged in fact to Mrs Kubheka, that is your conviction?

MS MILLER: Yes, that's correct.

MR VISSER: Okay. Can I just commence by going through some of the issues which you raised in your evidence-in-chief. You say that there was a Section 29 Inquiry, do you know what happened to the record of that Inquiry?

MS MILLER: I would imagine that they are in the archives of the Truth Commission.

MR VISSER: And would you imagine also that they would be easy to find if one wanted to find them?

MS MILLER: Mr Visser, I have no idea how easy they would be to find.

MR VISSER: Well let me ask you this, you wouldn't know of any reason why they were not placed before this Committee, would you?

MS MILLER: Possibly because they would not necessarily have been asked for.

MR VISSER: Well they are relevant, aren't they?

MS MILLER: I'm not sure that they are relevant.

MR VISSER: Well you told us that Taylor told you a whole lot of things, he said he wasn't there when Kubheka died, he wasn't there throughout the time when she was at Winkelspruit. He was giving evidence as to the facts and we know that Mr Taylor is since deceased, doesn't that make it absolutely relevant?

MS MILLER: I would disagree with you, Mr Visser, on the basis that in Mr Taylor's amnesty application he says that he was not present when she died.

MR VISSER: Really?

MS MILLER: Ja. He said, if my memory serves me correctly, that he was present at the site but he never saw her be - he applies for murder or a possible culpable homicide, but he did not see her being assaulted, which seems to indicate that he was not with her all the time.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Visser, if I could just intervene. Did you attend those Section 29 hearings?

MS MILLER: I was in and out of those Section 29 hearings, because not all of the matters related to issues I was dealing with.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it's just what I wanted to ask about. Was there a particular Section 29 hearing relating to the disappearance of Ms Kubheka?

MS MILLER: No, no it wasn't specifically on the disappearance, there was a Section 29 hearing which was held to ascertain what knowledge Mr Taylor had, Col Taylor had on a whole range of things.

CHAIRPERSON: And do you know whether, you yourself as you sit here, do you know whether any other person at that Section 29 hearing testified as to this matter, the disappearance of Ms Kubheka?

MS MILLER: Nobody else testified as to this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you. Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.

May we just follow this up, you've just stated that, two things, one, Taylor's said himself in his amnesty application that he wasn't there all the time and then you said you drew the inference that he wasn't there, because he said he didn't see anybody assault her. Now which is which?

MS MILLER: They're not separate.

MR VISSER: Oh I see, you don't see any neutral ...(indistinct) between the two answers?

MS MILLER: No, I don't. My understanding from Col Taylor's amnesty application is that he is applying for the same incident that everybody else in that group is applying for as well, but there seems to be a variance in their interpretation about what happened to Ms Kubheka.

MR VISSER: And that you say is because he applies for murder?

MS MILLER: Or the possible culpable homicide.

MR VISSER: Yes, or culpable homicide.

MS MILLER: He obviously had a very different viewpoint.

MR VISSER: But if you look at the facts which he states, where does the murder come in?

MS MILLER: Where he mentions it in his amnesty application. He mentions murder.

MR VISSER: On the facts, where does he state how she was murdered?

MS MILLER: He doesn't state how she was murdered.

MR VISSER: Precisely. So what happened here is obviously, Mr Taylor got advice from his lawyer to apply for murder and the whole, just the same as the other applicants are doing at the present time.

MS MILLER: Well that is conjecture on both of our parts.

MR VISSER: No, no, no, not on my part, Madam, not on my part. The point is this, you drew an inference that there's something sinister in Mr Taylor having applied for amnesty for murder, which I put to you is without a foundation.

MS MILLER: I draw nothing sinister about Mr Taylor applying for amnesty for murder, I found it unusual that the Commanding Officer would apply for amnesty differently to those of the people under his command.

MR VISSER: Precisely. Alright. At any rate, you know in November of 1999, on the 26th of November, my attorney wrote a letter to the Amnesty Committee of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Cape Town, in which he pointed out certain aspects of the whole issue of the investigation into the remains, as to whether they belonged to Mrs Kubheka or not, were you ever made aware of the contents of this letter? Do you know which letter I'm talking about?

MS MILLER: When was ...(indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: November 1999, the 26th.

MS MILLER: I have been given a copy of that letter, yes.

MR VISSER: When did you receive a copy of that letter, Mrs Miller?

MS MILLER: I can't tell you exactly, but fairly recently.

MR VISSER: Only fairly recently?

MS MILLER: Well I wasn't employed by the Truth Commission after September '97.

MR VISSER: I thought that you were kept being employed in regard to this case.

MS MILLER: No, that isn't strictly so, I was re-employed effectively, or reappointed for the duration of this amnesty hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: When was that reappointment?

MS MILLER: In June of this year.

MR VISSER: I see. Alright, more-or-less how long ago did you hear about, did you take note of this letter?

MS MILLER: Since my reappointment.

MR VISSER: In June?

MS MILLER: Some time since, between - the last couple of weeks.

MR VISSER: Yes. In paragraph 4.2, were you aware that what we requested to be handed to us was the full investigation file of the Investigation Unit in this regard, in the Kubheka incident?

MS MILLER: Well I have read the letter, I'm aware you've requested it.

MR VISSER: Yes. And are you aware that an answer came back to say that the full investigation file is contained in the bundles before this Committee?

MS MILLER: I'm not aware of that response, no.

MR VISSER: If that is the response, it would be entirely incorrect, isn't that so?

MS MILLER: The investigation that I had, that I conducted was done as a special investigation.

MR VISSER: Yes, and that's not in these bundles?

MS MILLER: Well part of it appears to be in these bundles.

MR VISSER: Mrs Miller, just listen, just listen to this, is your full investigation report contained in the bundles before us?

MS MILLER: No.

MR VISSER: Thank you. So whatever Mr Taylor may or may not have said at the Section 29 Inquiry, we only have your word today to go on? That's the position we find ourselves in.

MS MILLER: I am not sure how extensively Mr Taylor discussed any of these cases, I don't have access to those Section 29 documents.

MR VISSER: Yes, and what is worse is you weren't even there full-time, you were in and out you say.

MS MILLER: I wasn't required to be there full-time.

MR VISSER: Yes, you were there in and out.

MS MILLER: Correct, in the matters where I had interest.

MR VISSER: But that didn't stop you from drawing the adverse inference against the other applicants that there was some conflict in the evidence between Mr Taylor and Hentie Botha and the others?

MS MILLER: I'm not sure that I drew an adverse inference at all, Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Well you say that there was a conflict ...(intervention)

MS MILLER: If I finish, if that's okay with you. I would like to just add that I did not draw an inference, what I noted was a discrepancy.

MR VISSER: Are you finished?

MS MILLER: I did notice a discrepancy and as a result of that, it obviously made me look at the case a little differently.

MR VISSER: Yes. Now let's just go through that discrepancy again. The discrepancy as I understand your evidence, was that he was not present at Winkelspruit all the time and he applies for murder, is that the discrepancy?

MS MILLER: The discrepancy is that he applied for murder.

MR VISSER: Just that?

MS MILLER: And culpable homicide, whereas the others allege that she died of natural causes.

MR VISSER: Yes.

MS MILLER: I infer from what he said by using that terminology, he is a policeman, a high-ranking policeman, he was a policeman, a high-ranking policeman, he knows the difference, my presumption would have been that if he believed that she died of natural causes, he would have said so.

MR VISSER: Mrs Miller, did I hear you correctly say in your evidence

"Taylor alleged that he was not present when Kubheka died."

Did you say that or didn't you?

MS MILLER: I believe I did say that.

MR VISSER: Will you please turn to page 4 and 5 of bundle 1, and indicate to this Committee where you read that.

CHAIRPERSON: Just for the record, page 4 and 5 are part of Taylor's amnesty application.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.

MS MILLER: Are you wanting me to say that he was present when Ms Kubheka had convulsions?

MR VISSER: I don't want you to say anything, your evidence was that according to your reading of his amnesty application, he wasn't present when Ms Kubheka died. That's what you've testified to. Now I ask you, please tell the Committee where you read that in his amnesty application.

MS MILLER: Well the way I read it is that he was present when she was interrogated and then he says

"All of a sudden the woman started having convulsions, she seemed to be out of breath, grabbed her chest and fell over."

MR VISSER: And you say that indicates to you that he wasn't present when this happened?

MS MILLER: No, I didn't say that, I said I don't know that he was there when she had the convulsions, I know that he was there when she was interrogated.

MR VISSER: He said so.

MS MILLER: He says he was there when he interrogated her.

MR VISSER: And when the rest happened, Mrs Miller. With great respect to you, where do you read any indication in his application that he was not present when she died?

MS MILLER: He says

"The reason that I apply for amnesty in this matter is that I'm not certain whether she did indeed die of natural causes."

MR VISSER: That's the point you see, that's the point.

MS MILLER: Yes.

"Although I have no personal knowledge of any injuries inflicted on her, or anything done to her which could have caused her death."

MR VISSER: Hence, I apply for amnesty for murder because some court of law may find what we call dolus eventualis in regard to her death, or common purpose of whatever. It's just a safe thing to do, there's nothing sinister in that.

MS MILLER: So he would apply for murder and the others would not?

MR VISSER: The others are also applying for murder, Mrs Miller, it's just not in their amnesty applications, but they're also going to ask this Committee to grant them amnesty for murder.

MR WILLS: With respect, Mr Chairman, that's not accurate. I specifically asked Capt Botha whether he was applying for murder and he said he wasn't. It's a misleading question.

MR VISSER: I'll withdraw that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it's not stated in their applications.

MR VISSER: It's not stated in their applications, I withdraw that Chairperson, I'm trying to concede to the witness that there was a difference between the various applications and I'm just trying to say to the witness that in spite of that difference, there's nothing sinister in it. But I withdraw that.

CHAIRPERSON: I think just on the line that you're following, Mr Visser, whatever Ms Miller might have thought, the fact is what was said in this application sparked her into action.

MR VISSER: Yes, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Whether you agree that it should have sparked her or not is a different matter, it did in fact get her on the track.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, yes, I'm just on a slightly different track and the track I'm following from the first question and that question being, Mrs Miller is convinced in her mind that the body that was exhumed belonged to that of Mrs Kubheka. And I'm going to ask questions of her to indicate to you that her mind was clouded with prejudice when she came to these conclusions, Chairperson. Because that's the direct evidence before you at the moment, this body belongs to Mrs Kubheka.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, before you proceed Mr Visser. Ms Thabethe, will it be possible when convenient, as soon as possible, to make arrangements for the Section 29 hearing of Mr Taylor, copies to be obtained.

MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, I'll have to phone Cape Town because ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, obviously it will be in Cape Town, because as far as I know all records of Section 28 hearings certainly are meant to be kept, so it should be available.

MS THABETHE: Can I ask ...(indistinct) then, Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: No, but we don't needn't do it now, I just wanted to mention, when it's convenient just to ask them to track it down. Thank you.

MR VISSER: Mrs Miller, if I may continue. You say in your evidence if I understood you correctly, that in discussions which you had with the applicants, now where did these discussions with, which applicants are you talking about first of all?

MS MILLER: Mr Wasserman. I had great difficulty having any discussion with Mr du Preez.

MR VISSER: So you had no discussions with him?

MS MILLER: I contacted him on several occasions, but he wouldn't communicate or discuss anything regarding the cases.

MR VISSER: Mrs Miller, did you have discussions with him?

MS MILLER: Not regarding the cases.

MR VISSER: Ja, fine.

MS MILLER: ... except at the grave sites, at the other exhumations where we had discussions.

MR VISSER: Whom did you have discussions with?

MS MILLER: I had discussions with Mr du Preez, Mr van der Westhuizen, all of them at the grave sites. I did try and have informal discussions with Mr du Preez as part of our investigations prior to the exhumations, which were not successful. I did have discussions with Mr Wasserman and I did have informal discussions with Mr Taylor at the Section 29 hearing, but not as part of the hearing.

MR VISSER: Alright. And you went on to say that it was not clear to you why the body of Mrs Kubheka would have been taken away from Winkelspruit, because that would have made, according to the applicants what they did, would have made it difficult for the family to find the body, is that your evidence?

MR LAX: That wasn't he evidence, with the greatest of respect, Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: That's what I wrote down.

MR LAX: She was talking about why the body was dumped where it was, because the family were from KwaMashu, she was saying why it was taken away from Winkelspruit and dumped in that area. So your note is probably a little bit incomplete, but that was the full extent of her evidence.

MR VISSER: Was to make it difficult for the family to find her.

MR LAX: No, she said that made it more difficult, she didn't make identification easy. That was the gist of her evidence.

MR VISSER: Let's ...(intervention)

MS MILLER: I'll answer your questions.

MR VISSER: Yes?

MS MILLER: It seemed to me that it would have been easier, logically, to have disposed of the body closer to Winkelspruit, not necessarily at Winkelspruit, because the applicants made it quite clear that they did not want the body found near where the safe-house was or where they had other people or where she had died, they were protecting the camp. They also said at some stage that they disposed of the body in the area where it was disposed of, to make it easier for the family to locate the remains.

MR VISSER: That's the point.

MS MILLER: However, it is my opinion that it did make it easier for the family to find the remains, because if they had disposed of the body where they said they had disposed of the body, the remains would have been taken to a mortuary which was fairly substantially far from the family, it wouldn't have been close-by, and there was no logical reason why the family would scour the veld to look for the deceased.

My other concern which I did not raise earlier, was that there was a great deal of violence in Bambai, which is an area where they are alleged to have disposed of the body at that time.

Now I can't exactly describe how much violence there was, whether it was every day or twenty times a day, but there was extensive violence in the area. As a result of which the local community, both the political divisions had SPUs and SDUs posted at night. Two white men in a, what was identifiable as a likely police vehicle, if it was a Skyline, disposing of a body on the side of the road, would have been observed, given the situation that prevailed in Natal at the time. So I questioned whether that was possible, given my reasoning and my knowledge of the area of the time, whether they would in fact have disposed of at that place at that time and why they would have travelled with the deceased in the vehicle over such an extensive distance.

MR VISSER: Where was the body found? This body number 580, where was it found?

MS MILLER: Two kilometres away from the site that was pointed out to us.

MR VISSER: And there were no SDU and SPU guards there do you suppose?

MS MILLER: Not at that specific place, because there was a security base fairly close by.

MR VISSER: There was a security what?

MS MILLER: Base, fairly close by. My memory is a little vague and I'm not sure whether it was the South African Defence Force base or a Police base or a combined Force base, but in the locality there was a base.

MR VISSER: Who pointed out this site where this body was found, to you?

MS MILLER: I located the site by finding out the house number where the person reporting the body had been.

MR VISSER: Was this body found near a house?

MS MILLER: No, the body was found in an open area, it appears, near where there used to be a brickwork, which no longer exists. The house that stood at that site has since been relocated, a school has been built on that site.

MR VISSER: So nobody pointed out the exact site to you where this body was found?

MS MILLER: Nobody pointed out the exact site.

MR VISSER: But you tell us today that it was approximately two kilometres away from where the applicants told this Committee ...(intervention)

MS MILLER: That's correct.

MR VISSER: ... the body of Kubheka was deposited?

MS MILLER: That's correct.

MR VISSER: And you say at that site there wouldn't have been any guards, but at this site where the applicants pointed out, there would have been guards of SPUs and SDUs, who would have noticed a Skyline motor car depositing a body?

MS MILLER: No, I'm saying that it is less likely that there would be SPUs or SDUs in that specific vicinity. That is not what governed by thinking, we knew where the body had been found by the reports of where the body had been collected. In the mortuary report.

MR VISSER: Mrs Miller, were you present at the inspection in loco?

MS MILLER: Correct.

MR VISSER: That body was taken and driven for 54 kilometres from Winkelspruit to within two to five kilometres, depending on how you measured the distance, from the home of Mrs Kubheka. Would you agree with that?

MS MILLER: It's possible it's that close, I don't think it's two kilometres, it certainly could be five or seven.

MR VISSER: Well it was between two and five. Those were the guesses.

MS MILLER: I think it's a little further, but it's not that different.

MR VISSER: Make it ten if you wish.

MS MILLER: Okay.

MR VISSER: Relatively, the body was taken to the area where she lived, isn't that so?

MS MILLER: I wouldn't have said so, no.

MR VISSER: Oh you thought it was further away from Winkelspruit, is that what you're saying?

MS MILLER: No, that's not what I'm saying, Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: But obviously it's closer to where she lived.

MS MILLER: It's closer to where she lived at Winkelspruit, certainly.

MR VISSER: Yes, well that's the point I'm making, that's the point.

MR LAX: But the point you made was the area where she lived, and it's not the area where she lived. So ... It's closer to the area where she lived, yes.

MR VISSER: She lived in KwaMashu.

MR LAX: Yes, but this is Bambai, it's a completely different area.

MR VISSER: Is this in fact - the point that was pointed out, was that in Bambai, because I wasn't aware of that, Mr Chairman?

MR LAX: It's in the area of Bambai, yes.

MS MILLER: Yes.

MR VISSER: I see, so the main road, is that the boundary between KwaMashu and Bambai?

MS MILLER: No.

MR LAX: No, KwaMashu's much further away from that place. It's obvious, you can see the built up area of KwaMashu ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: Well Chairperson, ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps we could determine that quite easily with some sort of map, because I personally don't know where one area ends and the other starts.

MR VISSER: Yes, neither was I, Chairperson, but I have a recollection, and unfortunately we forgot to place the notes of the inspection in loco on record, but I have a clear recollection that somebody was pointing out where she had lived and there approximate distances guessed and it ranged between two and five kilometres, it was just up the hill, and I was under the impression it's the same area. But if it's called something else, it doesn't matter Chairperson, I'm still putting to Mrs Miller that it was relatively close to where she lived.

MS MILLER: Well relative to what, Mr Visser?

CHAIRPERSON: Winkelspruit.

MS MILLER: Winkelspruit, yes.

MR WILLS: Sorry Mr Chairperson, I must place on record that my recollection of the distance between the place where the body was allegedly dumped and the house, was that it was in excess of five kilometres. I just would like to place that on record. I don't agree that it was two kilometres, or it was ever agreed that it was two kilometres.

MR VISSER: Mrs Miller, how many State mortuaries, government mortuaries were there in and around Durban at the time in 1987? Do you know?

MS MILLER: I can't answer that question.

MR VISSER: You can't answer that question.

MS MILLER: I could give you a list.

MR VISSER: Could you give us list you say?

MS MILLER: Not right at this moment because I don't have it accessible.

MR VISSER: But would you please do that for us, we'd appreciate it, because that's something we asked in the letter as well.

Because you see, as I understand your evidence this morning is, what you modus operandi was, was to go through the Verulam mortuary records of the whole year, from number so and so to number so and so and by a process of elimination, attempting to find the most possible remains that could belong to Mrs Kubheka. This is what I understood you to say.

MS MILLER: That is partially so.

MR VISSER: What other part is there to it?

MS MILLER: Well it wouldn't just have been that, we would have been guided by the fact that your clients would have told us where they disposed of the body and therefore it would have gone to that mortuary.

MR VISSER: Ja, okay, fair enough. I'm sorry, I didn't quite understand what you were saying. But what you did was you tried to isolate the body which most possibly belonged to Mrs Kubheka, that is why you went through the registers.

MS MILLER: The most possible likely body, yes.

MR VISSER: Yes.

MS MILLER: If there had been three or four, we would have isolated those.

MR VISSER: Yes, and you came up with 580?

MS MILLER: We came up with 580.

MR VISSER: Yes. Now the point here is just this, that only relates to the Verulam registers.

MS MILLER: That's correct.

MR VISSER: Yes. Can you tell us please, because we've been trying to find this out, can you tell us whether there were records of other mortuaries in the Durban area, in the greater Durban area?

MS MILLER: Of course, every mortuary keeps records.

MR VISSER: Right. Can I ask you then, must we accept that you did not go through any records of any of the other mortuaries?

MS MILLER: I did go through records of other mortuaries in other cases, specifically.

MR VISSER: No, no, in this case.

MS MILLER: In this case, whilst looking for other victims I would have gone through other mortuary records and keeping this in mind, I would have also observed what they had in them.

MR VISSER: Yes, alright, alright. But those registers aren't here?

MS MILLER: No, those registers are not here.

MR VISSER: No, those registers are not here. If those registers were here it would indicate that your clients would have been fundamentally dishonest in saying where they had disposed of the body, so I had to presume that that was, they had made an error in the locality, but not in the general area.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Ms Miller, you've gone through the Verulam records and you've also spoken about the Phoenix mortuary, now at that time were there two mortuaries, or the is the Phoenix a new mortuary that's come into existence since then?

MS MILLER: That's correct, the Phoenix mortuary wasn't in existence at that time.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, but it then took over the functions that were performed by the old Verulam mortuary, which was done away with and the records were brought over to Phoenix.

MS MILLER: That's correct.

MR LAX: Could I just ask something if I may, did you look at Gale(?) Street, for example?

MS MILLER: I had spent a considerable period of time in Gale Street, going through the mortuary records.

MR LAX: In relation to this matter?

MS MILLER: Not specifically in this matter, but with this matter in mind I had also looked through their records. I had focused specifically on the area where the amnesty applicants said they had disposed of the body.

MR LAX: Let me put it in another way, why did you exclude Gale Street?

MS MILLER: I didn't exclude Gale Street, specifically. I had gone through their records extensively and even having done that, during that period of time this body size and description most closely over that period, matched what we were looking for.

MR LAX: Did you look, for example, at Gale Street during April and May and June and July, for example, of 1987?

MS MILLER: I did in relationship to some of the other cases of the other missing people who we believed were abducted at the same time.

MR LAX: And why did you not copy any of those registers?

MS MILLER: I didn't find a match in the same way as I found a match at Verulam.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Visser, before you proceed, I've received a note that we should carry on till eleven thirty, so we won't stop at eleven. But I also would like to, during the tea interval, speak to the legal representatives about Monday's evidence and perhaps then if we could adjourn for tea at eleven fifteen and then we'll have a discussion immediately in my room and then have the tea at eleven thirty. Thank you.

MR VISSER: I'll try to note the time, Chairperson.

Alright. You see I was just going to ask you the same question and I'm not going to repeat what Commissioner Lax has asked you, but I just want to ask you this now, would you say that it is possible that while you were looking through the Gale Street mortuary records, with a view of other matters in which you were involved, that you did not specifically look out for a possible match of Mrs Kubheka? Would that be a fair statement?

MS MILLER: No, I don't think that's a fair statement, I think I would have looked at all of the mortuary records, with a view to all of the cases. I could not be certain at any stage that all of the matters were truthfully told to me, I could only presume that.

MR VISSER: And if you tell this Committee, Mrs Miller, that in the Gale Street mortuary records you didn't find a single body that matched what you understood from Mrs Kubheka, how she looked, can we accept that as being absolutely not only truthful, but correct?

MS MILLER: Mr Visser, what you're attempting for me to say, I can't say, I can say that there were women brought in to the Gale Street mortuary who would be of the same age but not of the same height, who would have been not of a correct level of decomposition for the period of time when they were found and from when we know she died. So yes, whilst there are women who are listed there, unknown women who were brought in and whose bodies were disposed of in paupers' graves, in terms of the criteria that I was looking for, I didn't find one that was as good a match.

MR VISSER: Oh, were there possibles? Matches.

MS MILLER: There were bodies that were brought in, but invariably not appropriate.

MR VISSER: Right. And can you just answer my questions, can the Committee and ourselves then accept the correctness of your investigations and research? Can we trust that as being correct, so we don't have to go and look at the records?

MS MILLER: I would certainly hope so, Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.

MS MILLER: I said I would hope so, Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: I think ...(intervention)

MS MILLER: I am under oath, so I will tell you the truth.

MR LAX: ...(indistinct)

MR VISSER: Oh, is it me, I just couldn't understand what is going on.

MR LAX: ...(indistinct)

MR VISSER: Thank you for pointing that, because I was hearing half the sentence every time.

MR LAX: Can I just say this, that there has been a slight cutting in the sound system from time to time, perhaps the technicians can just be aware of that. What happens is that the voice tends to cut a little bit and then come back on, not sufficiently to actually deter probably the recording, but just to be aware of it.

CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Miller, could you just repeat your answer to Mr Visser's question about, which was "Can we accept that the investigations carried out by yourself and what you've told us about them, is not only truthful but correct?" If you could just repeat your answer please.

MS MILLER: I'm under oath, Mr Visser, you can accept that.

MR VISSER: Thank you. We will a little later come back to this. Now are you saying that you were told that Dr Chetty, when he received the body with a bullet wound in the skull, had the practise of saying "Well, the cause of death undetermined"? Is that what you said?

MS MILLER: Why would you presume that, Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: Well that's what I wrote down here, my note says, and please tell me if I'm wrong, you made enquiries, you were told that it is difficult to do a post-mortem with that level of decomposition and then you said that you were told by Mr Ismail, who worked with Dr Chetty in the mortuary, that when he received a body that was decomposed, with a bullet wound, he would say "Cause of death undetermined."

MS MILLER: I never said that, you misunderstood.

CHAIRPERSON: My note is, if I can read it out, I can't recall the bullet wound being mentioned ...(intervention)

MS THABETHE: Can I be of assistance, Mr Chair, because I was reading straight from his statement?

CHAIRPERSON: No, if I can just get my note.

MS MILLER: Paragraph 3.

CHAIRPERSON: Paragraph 4, I think it was.

MS THABETHE: It's paragraph 4.

MS MILLER: But paragraph 3 ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You see mine is "Mohammed Ismail advised me that it was common practice to do what is stated in paragraph 4 of Exhibit L. But anyway you can look at the record, but I can't recall her saying that, you know, if they got a body with a bullet wound, that he would say "undetermined."

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I'm quite willing to accept that, because the reason why I asked the question is because it sounded strange to me, because paragraph 4 of Exhibit L says something slightly different to what I thought I heard you say.

MS MILLER: Absolutely.

MR VISSER: And that is that when a body was brought into the,

"... a body was brought into the mortuary in a decomposed state and there was no indication by the documentation accompanying the body that the person was shot or murdered, the district surgeon or doctor would often not do a post-mortem, but would view the body and the cause of death was often notes as undetermined."

Is that what you intended to say?

MS MILLER: That is what was intended.

MR VISSER: And that I obviously heard incorrectly. Now the point here is this, is it not, that if this body which you are convinced was Mrs Kubheka, had a bullet wound when she was on the table before Dr Chetty, what do you think are the chances of him having missed the bullet wound? Just as a - just like me, not a professional in the science. What do you think?

MS MILLER: Well it would depend largely on whether he looked at the top of her head. If the body is brought in and laid out on a table or in whatever format it's put out, and he didn't look at the top of the head, I'm not sure what he would have seen.

MR VISSER: Yes, well I will ask Dr Naidoo if we are entitled to assume that because of the unpleasantness of a post-mortem on a decomposed body that - I'm sure he would have known Dr Chetty, whether Dr Chetty would have shirked from his responsibilities. So I don't think there's going to be much point in us debating that matter any further.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Miller, did you see the body, the head?

MS MILLER: I saw the skull after the second post-mortem, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, but you can't say whether at the time, if there was any hair on the skull or not?

MS MILLER: At the time when I saw the body being disinterred there was a covering over the skull and I don't recall seeing any hair.

CHAIRPERSON: So you can't say whether it had hair or not?

MS MILLER: There might or might not have been.

MR VISSER: And perhaps I should ask you the obvious, the answer would be obvious I suppose, but let me ask you, that cloth was not removed at the grave site where it was exhumed from ...(intervention)

MS MILLER: No, it wasn't.

MR VISSER: And your impression, while we're on the subject of the skull, was that the skull was wrapped in it, is that your impression?

MS MILLER: It certainly - I looked at it from the top looking down, and it was certainly over the top section of the skull. I don't know that it was wrapped, I just saw it over the top section.

MR VISSER: Yes. We have asked, Chairperson, for copies of the colour photographs that were taken of the remains, to be provided not only to ourselves but also to you, because a lot of things appear from that, which you will not observe from the photocopies which you have. I was told that Ms Thabethe was going to attempt to reproduce some copies of those photographs themselves.

You see the point here is that on one of the photographs, and I haven't got a copy of that set of photographs from the docket before me, it appears that the lower jaw quite separate from the skull itself, and I'm going to ask you this, did you notice that at all, that the lower jaw was separate from the skull?

MS MILLER: What I saw was the entire skeletal remains in a body bag, covered by fabric on the top and fabric over the skull. All the parts of the body were as they had been placed at the time of interment, so I would imagine that was only visible once the wrappings were taken off and the post-mortem was being done. I did not see any separation of the lower jaw.

MR VISSER: Now this gives rise to another question ...(intervention)

MS THABETHE: Sorry Mr Chair, I've got the photo, perhaps, I don't know whether Mr Visser wants a number to refer to.

MR VISSER: No, I'll deal with Dr Naidoo with the photographs, I was just alerting the Committee. Thank you, Ms Thabethe.

This gives rise to another issue. You see, and again I don't want to go into the photographs, but when the photographs were taken the remains seem to have been bundled up. If you wish to you can look at the photographs now. I don't want to go in too deep a scientific discussion about this, but you just said that when you saw the body it was as it was interred.

MS MILLER: These photographs were not taken at the grave site.

MR VISSER: They were taken elsewhere.

MS MILLER: That's correct.

MR VISSER: That's right. And while we're - so, what may have happened is, they may have been juggled around a little bit one must imagine then, from the time you saw the remains in the grave until the photographs were taken.

MS MILLER: What do you mean by "juggled around"?

MR VISSER: Well just look at the photographs.

MS MILLER: I have a photograph of the skull, with the ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: No, forget about the skull, look at the bag with the remains in it. It's the one at page 49 of your bundle 2, Chairperson, but you will not be able to make out anything from that.

MR LAX: It's figure 2. I would think that's what it would be marked as in yours, figure 2, because you're is not numbered like ours.

MR VISSER: Can you just hold it up so that we can just see which one it is? That's the one. Is that how you saw the remains in the grave, Mrs Miller?

MS MILLER: No, no.

MR VISSER: So what would you say had happened?

MS MILLER: I can't answer that, I was not ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: They were juggled around a bit in transportation, surely?

MS MILLER: I have no idea, I don't know that. I have no idea at which stage this photograph was taken.

MR VISSER: My sound is cutting out all the time, I don't know whether it's only mine.

CHAIRPERSON: Mine is not.

MR VISSER: Is not, well then it may be my system, thank you Chairperson.

MR LAX: Cecil, could you provide another headset please.

MR VISSER: I've got one, thank you.

MR LAX: It's okay, we've got one, thank you. How's that, Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: I can't hear you.

MR LAX: How's that? Have you got the volume on and ...?

MR VISSER: Mine keeps on cutting out.

MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, it's almost quarter past.

MR VISSER: Do you want to take the adjournment now, Chairperson, it's two minutes to go?

MS MILLER: Can I reply? If I could reply to Mr Visser?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly.

MS MILLER: What I'd like to say is I can only speak to that which I saw and that which I know, or that which I investigated, as far as the pictures are concerned you're going to have to speak to Dr Naidoo in this regard.

MR VISSER: Yes, that's what I suggested I do. The only point is you seemed to have been surprised when I suggested to you that the bones were not in the same position as you saw them in the grave when the photographs were taken and that's the only reason why I, it's the only reason why I say to you, it you look at that photograph, it's probably not how you saw the remains in the grave.

MS MILLER: It wasn't how I saw the remains in the grave.

MR VISSER: Thank you, that's the only thing.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll take the tea adjournment now, I don't know if tea's only going to be ready at half past eleven, but as I mentioned earlier I got this note not to stop before eleven thirty but we are in fact stopping now because I'd like to have a quick discussion with the legal representatives before we have our tea. Thank you.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

STEPHANIE MILLER: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: (cont)

Thank you, Chairperson.

Mrs Miller, earlier you gave evidence that you were explained or directed to the place where the body which you say Dr Naidoo examined was found, do you remember that?

MS MILLER: Yes.

MR VISSER: Who told you where that body was found?

MS MILLER: The report from the police before the body was taken to the mortuary, indicates where the report originated.

MR VISSER: So did nobody give you directions as to where precisely the body was found?

MS MILLER: Nobody gave me directions.

MR VISSER: You then mentioned that you went to a house which is now being relocated, but at the time you went to a house near this spot where this body was apparently found, is that correct?

MS MILLER: No, that's not correct.

MR VISSER: Not correct.

MS MILLER: I went to the place where the house had originally been, the house had already been moved by 1997.

MR VISSER: Oh I see.

MS MILLER: I went to the locality where the house had been and in the general vicinity had a look at the area where the body was alleged to have been found.

MR VISSER: What was the purpose of going to that house?

MS MILLER: To the site where the deceased had been collected, it was important for me to familiarise myself with where it had happened.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I think Mr Visser wants to know what in the first instance made you go to the house? There was a report in the police records that the body was found and a house number mentioned, is that correct?

MS MILLER: The police records indicated that the report of the body lying in the veld had been reported by a person living at a specific house number in the locality.

CHAIRPERSON: So you went to the place where that house number ...(intervention)

MS MILLER: Had previously been.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Visser, if I could just ask one question.

You were on that inspection in loco that we went on?

MS MILLER: I was.

CHAIRPERSON: The place that you went to, where that house had been, where was in relation to where we went where it was pointed out, although things had changed because the road had been built up there, but where we were where the applicants pointed out, some of the applicants pointed out that the body was...

MS MILLER: As the crow flies it's very close. I can't give you an exact distance, but it's fairly close as the crow flies, but by road it's two kilometres.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but as the crow flies ...(intervention)

MS MILLER: It's directly west, what I would term ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Directly west, inland?

MS MILLER: Inland.

CHAIRPERSON: Away from the sea?

MS MILLER: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So a bit further along the road as it were?

MS MILLER: No, if you remember the vicinity where we were standing, if you were standing with your back to the road pointing at Bambai, facing the Ghandi settlement, it would have been directly behind you and slightly off to the right, but very slightly.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MS MILLER: It was over the hill behind us.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you. Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.

At the time when we went on the inspection, I take it you knew, you'd already been to this place and you familiarised yourself with where you thought the body was found?

MS MILLER: Yes.

MR VISSER: I'm just surprised that you didn't tell us at the time that the body wasn't found here where Wasserman and du Preez stated it was, it ...(intervention)

MS MILLER: I did dispute it with both Mr Wasserman and Mr du Preez, yes.

MR VISSER: I see, okay. Again, I can't argue with you because we didn't make notes and I have a notoriously bad memory, so I will have to accept what you say.

MR LAX: Can I just for the record say, Mrs Miller wasn't working for the Truth Commission at that time we did the inspection in loco at all.

MR VISSER: Yes, accept I believe she was present.

MS MILLER: I was present.

MR LAX: Yes, no, but I'm just saying she wasn't officially there, she wasn't there in an official capacity anyway.

MR VISSER: Yes, alright. No, I'm not making anything of it, Mr Chairman.

Please turn to page 66A, Mrs Miller, of bundle 2. 66A, Chairperson. This appears to be an extract from an occurrence book, would you agree with me if you look at 66B?

MS MILLER: Yes, it does seem to be.

MR VISSER: Yes. Would this be the entry that you are referring to which came from the police docket, or are you referring to another entry regarding to where the deceased, or that body was found?

MS MILLER: Unfortunately mine is very ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: If you look at the entry that's time 11H50, I think that is the relevant ...

MS MILLER: Well mine is a very bad copy, but this looks to be the same.

MR VISSER: Yes, yes. As far as we could decipher it, it reads

"Female TG ..."

and then it can be anything - Gwala.

MR LAX: It's BM in fact, black male. That would have been the police shorthand.

MR VISSER: Oh I see, I read FM. Okay, BM, black male.

"... Gwala of 514 B Extension in ..."

...(intervention)

MS MILLER: Inanda.

CHAIRPERSON: It does look like Inango.

MR VISSER

"... Inango, reports at charge office that there is a decomposed body lying near Inanda block yard D ..."

I don't know D block, D or, I'm not quite sure what that word is, the best I can do is block, but it doesn't make sense.

MR LAX: It does make sense.

MR VISSER: Does it?

MR LAX: It would have been a place where they made blocks for building works.

MR VISSER: Blocks, ja, not a brickyard for example? I don't know.

MR LAX: Well the same as a brickyard.

MR VISSER: Alright, thank you.

"... yard in Inanda"

then it says:

"Newtown"

and then I'm afraid I can't read the next two words.

CHAIRPERSON: I can't either, it's something

"I sent out ..."

or

"I sent (something) Detective Sgt Mthembu was informed."

or something like that.

MR VISSER: Yes, that would make sense, Chairperson.

"... gone to Sgt Mthembu"

Yes.

CHAIRPERSON

"... was informed."

MR VISSER: Yes.

You say that's probably the one that you're referring to?

MS MILLER: Yes, that is the one I'm referring to.

MR VISSER: Alright. Now in that vicinity which you went to familiarise yourself with, were there other houses?

MS MILLER: If I can explain what the area is like, there's a river running through at the base of a valley, so the river is on the side closest - there's a river in the valley and then there would have been a brickyard next to the river, then there would have been those houses that were there in 1987. What is there today is a river and a school and the houses that were in that vicinity had been rebuilt further up the hill.

MR VISSER: Yes, can we confine ourselves to what the position in 1987 was.

MS MILLER: In 1987 there's a river running through it with a brickyard and the houses would have been in fairly close proximity to the brickyard, but not directly next to the brickyard.

MR VISSER: Not directly adjoining but fairly close?

MS MILLER: Fairly close.

MR VISSER: Alright, well perhaps we'll have to go out and look again. And you assumed that a body having been found there, would have been taken to Verulam?

MS MILLER: I didn't assume anything, I noted that this record matched the other record. They cross-matched.

MR VISSER: Yes, but you see ...(intervention)

MS MILLER: The one is referred to by the other.

MR VISSER: ... we come back to the question that Commissioner Lax asked you, as to why only the records of Verulam ...(indistinct) and not for example, of Gale Street? You would not have expected a body found there to have been taken to Gale Street, or was it ...(intervention)

MS MILLER: That's correct, I would not.

MR VISSER: ... was it possible?

MS MILLER: To the best of my knowledge it wasn't possible, it was out of the area. The areas were defined - the jurisdiction of this mortuary was defined.

MR VISSER: You see I've heard in many, or at least in some criminal cases that sometimes mortuaries are full and bodies are referred to other mortuaries. That's a possibility, isn't it?

MS MILLER: If the mortuary was full I supposed it would have been a possibility.

MR VISSER: Yes, so that's the point, it's possible that a body found there could have been referred to another mortuary. I'm not talking about this particular one, any body. It's possible.

MS MILLER: I have no experience of that, but it's possible.

MR VISSER: Let us just come to the exhumation then, you stated that you motivated an exhumation, I'm not sure whether I understood that evidence correctly, but wasn't it Mr Lister who actually motivated the exhumation? If you look at page 82B of bundle 2.

MS MILLER: I had to motivate to my departmental head, who in turn referred me to Mr Lister and I would have to motivate my case strongly enough to Mr Lister, for him to have done what he did.

MR VISSER: I see. So what he said at page 82B, was really what he heard from you, or did he make his own investigations and enquiries?

MS MILLER: I was the Investigator, I had to present the findings of my investigation and on which he would base his decision.

MR VISSER: Did he inspect records at the mortuary at Phoenix?

MS MILLER: No.

CHAIRPERSON: This affidavit that appears on page 82B and C, the contents of that he would have got from you?

MS MILLER: He would have. I would have examined the mortuary records, I would have taken a copy, presented them to him, motivated towards the justification of this specific body being the right body in order for him to support me in the exhumation.

MR VISSER: Yes. You see I'm not sure whether your recollection is correct, because in paragraph 3 Mr Lister is recorded here to have said

"I have ascertained from the mortuary records of Phoenix, that the body of Ms Kubheka was picked up by the Inanda SAP on the 15th of July 1987."

MS MILLER: Mr Visser, there's no conflict, I presented him with the evidence for him to draw that conclusion.

MR VISSER: I asked you whether he looked at the records and you said no.

MS MILLER: No, he did not go to Phoenix to look at the mortuary records.

MR VISSER: No, no, I didn't ask you that, I asked you whether he looked at the records.

MS MILLER: Oh he looked at the records. I presented the records to him.

MR VISSER: I see, alright. Once you had isolated this particular person that we are referring to now, or the remains of this particular person, did you then - and I'm talking from the records, did you then draw the post-mortem reports?

MS MILLER: Yes.

MR VISSER: Can you please tell this Committee how many post-mortem reports did you in fact draw in order to narrow it down to Case 580?

MS MILLER: I cannot recall how many I drew.

MR VISSER: Can you identify on your Exhibit K1, in which cases - or, let me make it simple, can you at least tell us whether you drew post-mortem reports in other case numbers, other than the ones that you mention on K1?

MS MILLER: Yes, I did.

MR VISSER: And you found all of them to be compatible?

MS MILLER: Exactly.

MR VISSER: Then at some stage you discovered that the body which was referred to in the police docket to have been found where you told us, was buried in a pauper's grave, what is the process that you followed to establish that fact and in indeed, which pauper's grave?

MS MILLER: I recall contacting Tongaat Funeral Services who were listed in the mortuary records, and discovering that they had now changed to an ambulance service, they were no longer a hearse service. They advised me that they did not have records that would go back far enough, but that these were held, that they had a contract with the hospital in Stanger to use Charlottedale cemetery in Groutville, and that they would retain the records. I contacted Stanger hospital and ascertained that they did in fact have the records and they gave us access to them.

MR VISSER: And that record isn't here either?

MS MILLER: I don't know if they're here, I have not got them.

MR VISSER: Yes, neither do I.

MS MILLER: However, I do note that in the bundle there's some ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Can I just ask a question? There are some documents in the bundle, 85A, 86, registers of burials, 87, are those not ...?

MS MILLER: Those are the registers that I photocopied.

MR VISSER: Oh well I'm sorry, then I misunderstood completely, I'm looking for something entirely different. Thank you.

So these are the records which you then ...(intervention)

MS MILLER: We went through at Stanger, yes.

MR VISSER: Okay, thank you. I beg your pardon for having confused myself with this. But the point is, the original of these aren't here, the full record isn't here, this is an extract of a record of which we don't have the full record here, that would be correct?

MS MILLER: I think that is ...(indistinct)

MR VISSER: You see, and I'm going to tell you why I'm asking you these questions, it's because I'm going to suggest other possibilities to you other than number 580, and I already foresee the problem we're going to run into, because the first problem is, did you ever draw post-mortem reports on those cases? That's the first question. And the second question is, do we know in which graves they were buried, you see. So that's why I keep on harping about the records, okay. And I'll come to that.

MS MILLER: Mr Visser, I can only speak to the case that I did.

MR VISSER: Yes, yes. Well, you're going to have to speak to more than that because you say this was the only possible case, and I'm going to mention some others to you, two others in fact. Now you arranged for this exhumation to take place, as I understand the position.

MS MILLER: That's correct.

MR VISSER: At that stage, had you attended other exhumations which you also had arranged before?

MS MILLER: I had attended other exhumations, not that I had arranged.

MR VISSER: You hadn't arranged them?

MS MILLER: No.

MR VISSER: But may we assume that you knew how to go about arranging such an exhumation from your previous experience of how you saw it was done?

MS MILLER: No, I had no experience of arranging an exhumation, I had never done one before, I had seen it done twice previously.

MR VISSER: Right. Where did you see it done twice previously?

MS MILLER: At Elandskop and at Tongaat.

MR VISSER: Did it - well, were there photographers at Elandskop and Tongaat, when those exhumations were done?

MS MILLER: There - to the best of my knowledge there was a video, I do recall a police video unit being present and at Tongaat I do recall a huge press core being present, so yes, there were a lot.

MR VISSER: What I find striking is the fact that a body is exhumed and there isn't a single photographer in sight, can you explain that?

MS MILLER: I didn't arrange for one.

MR VISSER: Why not?

MS MILLER: I had never done an exhumation before and I had not been advised by my superiors to get one present, so I did not do that.

MR VISSER: What do you think were the photographers doing at Elandskop and Tongaat then?

MS MILLER: Oh I knew what the photographers were doing, in Tongaat certainly, the photographers I saw were putting it in the newspapers and on the SABC and the video camera, I wasn't sure at Elandskop who had arranged the video unit in fact, I didn't know whether the amnesty applicants had done so, or we had done so. I subsequently found we had done so, but at that time I was not aware.

MR VISSER: Yes.

MS MILLER: An explanation, Mr Visser, I think I have to explain at this point that I was part of the civilian component of the Truth Commission, and therefore possibly might not have known all the correct procedures in a legal proceedings such as this. Had I obviously been aware, I would have arranged suitably.

MR VISSER: Yes. I accept that you're not a legal expert, nor are you a medical or a pathological expert, nor are you a ballistics expert, do I assume correctly?

MS MILLER: You assume correctly.

MR VISSER: Yes, well we'll deal with your evidence on that basis, that you went as a civilian and you did what you thought was the right thing to do. Alright. But I just have to place this on record, because it does create problems for us in trying to come to the truth of what the situation is.

Now you said, and I wrote down what you said, you said:

"The body bag with the remains was handed to the SAP and the SAP handed it to Dr Naidoo", (then you said) "For the second post-mortem to be done."

MS MILLER: Yes.

MR VISSER: Now I take it that is assuming that it is Ms Kubheka and it's assuming that it's a body on which a previous post-mortem had been done.

MS MILLER: Well if the paper trail was correct and it was the correct number, then a post-mortem allegedly had been done.

MR VISSER: So it's on that assumption, certainly. Thank you. You say just thereafter that you then contacted the D'Oliviera team and you were able to meet Capt Holmes and you also obtained Vlakplaas records, and then you said you went to see them, and I just want to ask you who precisely are you referring to when you say

"I went to see them"

did you refer to Vlakplaas, or to the D'Oliviera team?

MS MILLER: I went to Pretoria to meet with Mike Holmes and Insp Pietersen(?)

MR VISSER: Thank you. Now again, accepting that you're not a ballistics expert, you say that

"...was of particular interest"

was the words that you used.

"On the other bodies which were found at Elandskop, all three had bullet holes on the top of their heads."

Is that a correct reflection of your evidence?

MS MILLER: That's what my memory is, yes.

MR VISSER: Yes. Well you also referred to Verulam and bodies exhumed there.

MS MILLER: A single body exhumed there.

MR VISSER: A body?

MS MILLER: A single body.

MR VISSER: Is your recollection all of them had bullet wounds in the top of the head?

MS MILLER: Yes, or in the head. Maybe not specifically on the top of the head, but in the head.

MR VISSER: Well this body which we are now dealing with, had a bullet wound on the top of its head.

MS MILLER: That's correct.

MR VISSER: I just read to you my note of what you said, that

"The other bodies found at Elandskop (and as I have it), at Verulam, all had bullet holes on the top of the head."

You say you want to amend that slightly by saying "in the head"?

MS MILLER: I don't want to amend it insofar as - as my memory serves me, I think they were all shot in the top of the head, but I don't specifically recall the Verulam specifically, as being in the top of the head, but being shot in the head.

MR VISSER: Well, you would have been correct to take the amendment, because they were not all shot on the top of the head.

MS MILLER: But they were all shot in the head?

MR VISSER: They were all shot in the head. Mrs Miller, on the issue of photographs, you were here in September when this matter was first heard, can you remember, last year?

MS MILLER: Yes.

MR VISSER: And will you also recall that on quite a few occasions we expressed our keenness and anxiety, anxiousness, to get hold of photographs, were you at that stage making enquiries as to whether there were photographs available of Mrs Kubheka?

MS MILLER: At that time?

MR VISSER: At that time, yes. We know what happened before, I'm talking about at that time.

MS MILLER: I can't recall that at that time I was doing it.

MR VISSER: You see because we asked specifically for two types of photos, the one is showing her teeth and the other was a group photo showing herself standing among other peoples, if such photos were available. You didn't make any enquiries as far as that is concerned?

MS MILLER: No.

MR VISSER: Thank you. You see because we were told that photos were available but they were in Pretoria, do you know anything about that?

MS MILLER: Yes.

MR VISSER: Oh you do?

MS MILLER: Yes.

MR VISSER: And which photos are the ones that were available in Pretoria?

MS MILLER: Well I know of a photo that was in the possession of the D'Oliviera Unit.

MR VISSER: Yes, I see.

MS MILLER: And that is the one in Pretoria that I presume that you are referring to.

MR VISSER: No, no, no, it's not that one, it's the one - we were told on the 2nd of September last year by Mr Wills, that the sister of Mrs Kubheka lived in Pretoria, if it was the sister, I'm not sure, but one of her relations, and that she had photographs. You don't know anything about that?

MS MILLER: Mr Visser, I think you should take it up with Mr Wills, I don't know of that.

MR VISSER: I'm just asking you a simple question, do you know anything about it?

MS MILLER: I don't know of that, I know nothing of it.

MR VISSER: Then you also stated in your evidence that you obtained blood samples.

MS MILLER: That's correct.

MR VISSER: But you didn't tell us from whom, will you please do so now.

MS MILLER: I contacted Sibongile and Lyn, Sibongile Kubheka and Lyn Masetla ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: Is that Gugu, or Gugu Sibongile? Is that the person?

MS MILLER: They are the two surviving sisters of Ms Kubheka.

MR VISSER: The two sisters. And was blood drawn from both of them?

MS MILLER: Blood was drawn from both of them in Pretoria.

MR VISSER: Yes. Are they the only ones?

MS MILLER: They're the only ones I was involved in, if other samples were taken, I was not present.

MR VISSER: Okay. Would I be correct in saying that in the grave a clump of hair was found in the body bag?

MS MILLER: I did not see a clump of hair, my only knowledge of it is in the photographic record given by Dr Naidoo.

MR VISSER: When did you first become aware of those photographs?

MS MILLER: Immediately after Dr Naidoo reported back to us on his findings.

MR VISSER: Yes. Did it ever occur to anyone, as far as your knowledge goes, to have those hairs DNA tested?

MS MILLER: The discussion we had and the reason that we drew blood was in order to have DNA testing done, this was done I understand, through the forensic laboratories.

MR VISSER: Not on the hair though?

MS MILLER: I have no knowledge of whether it was done on the hair or not.

MR VISSER: My question to you is, do you know whether that was ever discussed or considered at all by anyone that you know of, that the hair should be sent for DNA testing?

MS MILLER: I don't know whether any discussion like that was ever held.

MR VISSER: You see you start your statement, Exhibit L, is it L, K, sorry, K, I beg your pardon, by telling the Committee what your mandate was, and do you remember what you said? You said part of your mandate of the Investigation Unit, was to corroborate the veracity of amnesty applicants, probably meaning amnesty applications of the applicants. Now can I ask you, what effort did you make, if at all, to corroborate the contents of the amnesty application of any of the applicants before the Committee?

MS MILLER: What do you mean exactly, Mr Visser, do you mean did I consult with the applicants?

MR VISSER: No, corroborate means to support, to find out whether there is evidence in support of, that is what corroborate means.

MS MILLER: Well certainly.

MR VISSER: What did you find ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: Certainly by trying to find the body in the, if the mortuary records had shown that it had been disposed of in the area where it was pointed out, that would have corroborated the applicants.

MR VISSER: Yes, anything else?

MS MILLER: Well, a whole host of things, I would consult with the family ...

MR VISSER: How would the family corroborate the evidence of the ...(intervention)

MS MILLER: Well they'd be able to determine when the deceased disappeared ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: Oh, on the date?

MS MILLER: Yes.

MR VISSER: Right. The applicants said in 1987.

MS MILLER: Yes. I had several discussions with the applicants at different times over different issues, I spoke to some of the other people who were involved in name, such as Jimmy Mbane, Simon Radebe.

MR VISSER: Yes, yes. And did you speak to Mr Eugene de Kock?

MS MILLER: I didn't speak to Eugene de Kock, one of my colleagues did.

MR VISSER: Who was the other Investigator that you keep on referring to without mentioning his name?

MS MILLER: It's her name, I worked very closely with Gail Wannenberg, who was also a civilian Investigator in the same unit as I was, between us we did most of the special investigations involved with the Port Natal Security Branch.

MR VISSER: You referred to a case which you were asked to do the investigation and I think you referred to it as the, if I'm not mistaken, the Phoenix case, I'm not sure ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: The Phoenix 3.

MR VISSER: The Phoenix 3. There was an amnesty application which served before the Amnesty Committee, in which there was amnesty asked for the murder of what was referred to as the KwaMashu 3.

MS MILLER: Correct.

MR VISSER: Would that have been the same three?

MS MILLER: Exactly.

MR VISSER: Did you know any of those persons that were killed, personally, beforehand?

MS MILLER: Yes, I did, I knew two of them beforehand. I knew two of them when they were alive.

MR VISSER: And who would they have been?

MS MILLER: Vusi Mtjali and his friend who lived around the corner in D Section, whose name at this precise moment escapes me.

MR VISSER: Vilakazi?

MS MILLER: No, Vilakazi lived with Vusi in Vusi's home.

MR VISSER: Ndlovu is the other one.

MS MILLER: Ndlovu is the other party. I knew the Ndlovu family and I knew the Mtjali family, I did not know the Vilakazi family.

MR VISSER: And I take it you were shocked and taken aback at the fact that they were killed and the way in which their bodies were disposed.

MS MILLER: I was very distressed by it, yes. Until that time there was a belief that they were blown up whilst

planting a limpet mine on a railway station.

MR VISSER: Yes. And when you investigated that matter, you discovered that there were applicants applying for amnesty, who said that they were shot through the head twice, each of the them, and their bodies were blown up.

MS MILLER: I'm not sure if they said they were shot twice, but certainly they were shot in the head, yes.

MR VISSER: Well, it doesn't matter. And how did that make you feel about these applicants?

MS MILLER: I already knew ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: When you say these applicants ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: Applying for that.

CHAIRPERSON: In that matter?

MR VISSER: Perhaps I should indicate to you, to bring it more to bear on the present case. The applicants were inter alia, Hentie Botha, du Preez and Wasserman.

MS MILLER: That's correct.

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

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

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

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

MR VISSER: Yes.

MS MILLER: I was somewhat horrified by their actions.

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

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

MR VISSER: Alright. You see, you use words in yours statement and I want to draw your attention to them, and I'm going to suggest to you that you use those words purposely to create an impression with the reader of your statement. You use words like in paragraph 4

"There was an amazing similarity in their applications"

Now what do you mean by that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS MILLER: They were almost identical.

CHAIRPERSON: Almost identical.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Which paragraph are you looking at now?

MR VISSER: I'll refer you to it in a moment, Chairperson, it's paragraph 8.

"Sam du Preez indicated that the body of the deceased was 'dumped' in the Bambai area of Inanda, as it would be found and identified."

What did you intent to convey by your paragraph 8, the first sentence, by placing "dumped" in inverted commas?

MS MILLER: I think it stands for itself.

MR VISSER: Yes, what is that?

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

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Which page?

MR VISSER: 34, Chairperson.

Loosely translated:

"Col Taylor asked Sgt Wasserman and myself to take the body of Kubheka to the KwaMashu vicinity and to leave it there where it can be found."

and the next paragraph:

"We complied with the order (and I'm going to read to you) and dropped her off in the grass next to the Inanda road near Bambai."

Where do you read dumped?

MS MILLER: I never said anything about read?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR VISSER: Well Chairperson, let's go on.

At paragraph 8 at page 2 of Exhibit K, the last sentence, you say:

"It appeared that the applicants went to some pains to hide her death and to discourage the family from looking for her body."

How did they go to some pains to hid her death and to discourage the family from looking - well, let's just take the last part of that sentence, how did they discourage the family from looking for her body?

MS MILLER: From the information that we had available to us and the statements that were on file at that time, my understanding was that subsequent to Ms Kubheka's death, the family were contacted to find out if there was any suspicion, the mother was ...(indistinct), and some effort was made by Mr Mbane, I'm not sure with or without any of the other Vlakplaas operatives, to encourage the family to believe that she was elsewhere. I can't recall exactly where, in which statement I saw it, but there was a statement, or there was an allegation that they tried to indicate that she had gone elsewhere.

MR VISSER: And that made you to conclude that it appeared that the applicants, Botha, Wasserman, Taylor and du Preez ...(intervention)

MS MILLER: Mbane.

MR VISSER: He's not an applicant. ... went to some pains to hide her death and to discourage the family from looking for her body. You base that on those facts that you just told us.

MS MILLER: I base it on the fact that junior officers, or junior members of the Police Force and askaris specifically, tend to act under instruction from their superiors and I understand that is, they were trying to mislead the family.

MR VISSER: Yes. Now did you hear Jimmy Mbane's evidence here?

MS MILLER: Yes, I did.

MR VISSER: Yes, right. Can we go on. Then you discard the possibility that Wasserman and du Preez might be speaking the truth about where they placed the body and you come up with an argument that if they had done that, the probabilities are, so I understand your statement in paragraph 10, that guards of the SDUs and SPUs would probably have seen them, have I got this right?

MS MILLER: I think it's possible that two white policemen even in plain clothes, would probably be visible in a black township in a time of violence, I think it's very possible, yes.

MR VISSER: Possible, not probable?

MS MILLER: I think it's probable.

MR VISSER: Now it's probable.

MS MILLER: I think it's probable.

MR VISSER: Alright. So if they did not as you say, dump Kubheka in that vicinity, and if that is the point that you're making, then it cannot possibly be body 580, because that was found in that vicinity.

MS MILLER: It wasn't found in that vicinity, it was found some kilometres away. But if you would like me to construct a thesis I can give you an opinion about what I think happened that night, but an opinion isn't what we're about.

MR VISSER: I'm not asking you for an opinion, I'm asking you on the facts of your speculation here that they would have been seen by guards, which means that they are lying when they say the dumped the body, which means that the body couldn't have been found that you thought is Kubheka in the present case.

MS MILLER: That is not what I'm saying, Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: That's what I'm saying to you.

MS MILLER: But I'm not agreeing with you, Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Alright. Do you want to add something?

MS MILLER: I would like to disagree with you.

MR VISSER: Alright. Now in paragraph 11 you then speak of the applications for amnesty being "sufficiently vague", what did you intend to convey by that?

MS MILLER: I didn't intend to convey anything, I was stating what I believed.

MR VISSER: Have you read Botha's amnesty application?

MS MILLER: Yes, I have.

MR VISSER: And you ...(intervention)

MS MILLER: No, his is quite specific in many instances.

MR VISSER: But you include him here, you say - well, let's look what you say

"The amnesty applications were sufficiently vague in their initial applications that the body could have been disposed anywhere within a fairly large area."

CHAIRPERSON: I think it's quite clear from that first sentence that the third word should be applicants rather than applications.

MR VISSER: Yes, in fact I already ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think it's

"The amnesty applicants were sufficiently vague in their initial applications"

otherwise it doesn't make sense.

MR VISSER: Yes. I'm trying to be fair to you, Mrs Miller, are you restricting that vagueness only to the question of where the body was left, or are you saying they were sufficiently vague in general respects?

MS MILLER: Mr Botha was not present when the body was disposed of, to the best of my intentions. - to the best of my understanding, I'm sorry.

MR VISSER: How's that an answer to my question?

MS MILLER: Well, he did not specify, he would - all of them were saying in the general area, it was only ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think in the applications they said the body was taken to Bambai, not next to a brickyard or next to a house or next to the river or behind the bush, but just to Bambai, which I presume Mrs Miller, Bambai is that ...(intervention)

MS MILLER: It's a whole area, it's a very extensive area.

MR VISSER: So you're restricting your comment about the sufficiently vagueness to the issue of where the body was left, or are you saying that that is in general as far as the applications are concerned?

MS MILLER: I'm saying we had difficulty with it because they weren't specific about where the body was.

MR VISSER: Where the body was ...(indistinct). Are you restricting it to that issue?

CHAIRPERSON: What other interpretation could be give to that sentence, Mr Visser? It says

"The applicants applications were sufficiently vague in their initial applications that the body could have been disposed anywhere within a fairly large area."

I mean surely that doesn't include what they did in the room before she was dead or what they did at Battery Beach?

MR VISSER: I'm giving her an opportunity that if she means that it meant other things as well, that she can say now.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well does that sentence mean anything else?

MS MILLER: I think it's very specific.

MR VISSER: Alright.

MR WILLS: It's clear to me, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: I'm sorry?

MR WILLS: I just put on record that it's clear to me.

MR VISSER: Well Mr Chairman, is Mr Wills acting for Mrs Miller here? We've heard an objection from him and now we have a comment from him. In any event, I take note that it's clear to Mr Wills.

MR WILLS: I appreciate it, thank you Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: The last issue which I want to ask you about is, did you actually examine the skull at any stage, of this body 580?

MS MILLER: I have seen the skull, what do you mean "examine"?

MR VISSER: Well, look at it.

MS MILLER: I looked at the skull, yes.

MR VISSER: Did you have it in front of you and look at the bullet hole?

MS MILLER: Not like that, no.

MR VISSER: Like what did you look at it?

MS MILLER: It was shown to me at an angle, it was - we had a meeting and it was explained to me how the bullet hole, the entry wound where the bullet had gone in, it was shown how the bullet came out of the skull cavity and I was shown the skull. I can't say that I have a skill to examine the skull.

MR VISSER: Well this is the point I'm coming to. How many skulls have you seen with bullet holes?

MS MILLER: More than I'm happy about, but certainly in the last few years, a few.

MR VISSER: Yes. And you see then you make, in paragraph 20, the remark that

"The bullet hole in this skull was remarkably similar to the ones of three other bodies exhumed at Elandskop."

and you repeated that here today.

MS MILLER: I have a specific recollection about another woman who we exhumed and I seem to believe and I can't be absolutely certain, that she was also shot in the head with a 30 ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: Ndwandwe.

MS MILLER: Phila Portia Ndwandwe. And I seem to think that she was also shot, if my memory serves me correctly, with a 32 bullet and it seemed to me, seeing that there were twelve cases that were in the specific amnesty applications that I dealt with, that five - let's exclude Ntombi for this specific answer, that the three from Elandskop were shot in the head, that the Nxweni body that was exhumed was shot in the head ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: That's at Verulam?

MS MILLER: At Tongaat.

MR VISSER: Tongaat.

MS MILLER: ... and that by admission in other amnesty applications ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: Ndaba and Tshabalala. Let me help you.

MS MILLER: ... Ndaba and Tshabalala were shot in the head.

MR VISSER: Yes.

MS MILLER: That the three at Phoenix were shot in the head.

MR VISSER: Shot in the head, yes.

MS MILLER: We never recovered Stanley Biela's body, so I'm not sure about him. We haven't recovered ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: Well he was shot in the head as well.

MS MILLER: Spo Phewa, I don't know how he was killed.

MR VISSER: I don't even know who that is.

MR LAX: Sorry, just for the record, Spo Phewa is the Sbu that's referred to in this case.

MR VISSER: Oh, Sbu.

MS MILLER: So given that there were twelve cases and we now have, I'm not sure how Blessing Ninela was killed, your client ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: Shot in the head.

MS MILLER: ... he was shot in the head. It is amazing.

MR VISSER: Yes. Well let me tell you ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Just on that, when you say they were remarkably similar

"The bullet wound sustained by the deceased was remarkably similar to the bullet wounds found in the other bodies."

you're actually talking about the fact that they were shot in the head?

MS MILLER: They were all shot in the head and if I'm correct, and I can't swear to this because I don't have the information in front of me, I think they were all shot with a 32.

MR VISSER: How could you ascertain that fact from just looking at, or are you referring to the ballistics report that came back to say it was a 32 bullet? Is that what you're referring to?

MS MILLER: I'm referring to what the forensic pathologist advised.

MR VISSER: And did he say this is a 32 bullet entry wound?

MS MILLER: Well he would have sent it for ballistic testing and done whatever he needed to do.

MR VISSER: Yes, yes. You see I was going to suggest to you, I don't know of any expert that will give you an opinion just on looking at an entry wound in a skull, as to the size of the bullet that ...(intervention)

MS MILLER: I'm certainly not in a position to ...

MR VISSER: That's not what you're doing here?

MS MILLER: That's not what I'm doing here.

MR VISSER: Alright. Chairperson, the bell is tolling at 1 o'clock on my watch here.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I see that it is 1 o'clock and unfortunately we'll have to adjourn for the day as some people have aeroplanes to catch. We'll resume with your evidence, Mrs Miller, on Monday morning. What time will we be able to start on Monday?

MR LAX: I understand Mr ...(indistinct) is only coming in at half past nine, so ten is ...

CHAIRPERSON: We come further, Chairperson, but we will be here earlier than my learned friend.

MR VAN DER MERWE: I'm trying to cut down to have to listen to Mr Visser all the time. Thanks, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: So what time should we start, at 10 o'clock?

MS THABETHE: Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MS THABETHE: Can I then assume that I mustn't phone Dr Steve Naidoo to come in on Monday, because it's not likely that we'll be able to hear his evidence on Monday?

CHAIRPERSON: Well I don't know how long we will be, but we're all aware, well I don't know if you people here are aware that on Monday afternoon we will be moving away from here to listen to some evidence in this matter in town, which is going to be a video conference relating to some evidence relating to the skull. I don't know if Dr Naidoo would be attending that matter, in which event he should come, he shouldn't be told not to come.

So we will then adjourn now until 10 o'clock on Monday morning, but here. We will be here at ten in the morning and then we'll move across. We'll probably have to adjourn, I don't know, maybe at half past twelve or something to get across there and get ready for the other ... Thank you, we'll adjourn.

MS THABETHE: Can I also place it on record that I've got the colour photocopies of the photos for anyone who wants to have them.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh thank you very much. The colour photocopies of the photographs are available, Ms Thabethe has said. Thank you very much for arranging that, Ms Thabethe.

Thank you, we'll now adjourn until 10 o'clock Monday morning, same place.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

CHAIRPERSON: ... while we're looking at it, but we will be looking at it very shortly because we haven't seen it at all. Thank you. But anybody who wishes to watch it with us, probably in the press room downstairs, I'm not sure exactly where, are invited to do so. Thanks.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS