Amnesty Hearings

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: AM 2880/96

CHAIRPERSON: For the record, it's Friday the 16th of April 1999. It is the continuation of the amnesty application of Mr Michael Bellingan. Mrs Judy White was still under cross-examination, on behalf of the family of the deceased.

Mrs White, I remind you that you are still under oath.

COLLEEN JUDY WHITE: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rautenbach?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RAUTENBACH: (Cont)

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mrs White, am I correct or do I understand you correctly, that you said that it was because of the January meeting with Mr Steyn that your brother told you not to mention anything about the Security Police?

MS WHITE: Well I'm sure it was the first meeting that I had when Detective Steyn was, when he came down to ask me questions and things like that.

MR RAUTENBACH: It seems to me from our discussion yesterday, that that must been during January because in December I think you told me that it was Beyleveld who took the statement from you.

MS WHITE: Yes, it was only Detective Beyleveld that came down the first time.

MR RAUTENBACH: So when Beyleveld came to see you, you did not yet have that instruction from your brother not to mention anything about the Security Police, correct?

MS WHITE: I would imagine I hadn't had it by that stage.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mrs White, do you recall that you - well you recall of course that you made this statement to Beyleveld. I just want to show it to you, this statement, but before I show it to you, just one thing, you told me yesterday - just confirm it, that one of the reasons that the conversations, the telephone conversations were not mentioned you said is that you were not asked about it, correct?

MS WHITE: Well it was. Yes, I wasn't asked about anything like that, I was only asked about the events of the morning of collecting my brother.

MR RAUTENBACH: I would like to show to you the statement and ask you to just confirm that this is in fact the statement that you made, whether you - the first thing you've got to look at is whether you signed the statement. I believe, Mr Chairman, Mr Chaskalson's just indicated to me that he thinks that it should be Exhibit R or Annexure R, I'm not sure.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS WHITE: This is the statement that I signed, yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now Mrs White, in this statement - you told us yesterday that your brother was a member of the Security Police, I think that's common cause. I just want to immediately refer you to the second paragraph of that statement where you say

"Michael Bellingan is my brother and he is a member of the South African Police, stationed in Pretoria. I'm unable to say in which department."

Do you see that?

MS WHITE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Why did you say to the Security Police, ag to the investigating officer, Mr Steyn, that you did not know in which department your brother worked?

MS WHITE: Well I didn't know in which department he worked in because there were lots of different places. I knew he was a security policeman but I didn't know which department of which division or whatever. I'm not familiar, or at that stage I wasn't familiar on departments and things like that.

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes, but Mrs White, the obvious thing to have said was he's a security policeman. At least that says something about him, something about - I mean at least you knew at that stage that he was a security policeman, correct?

MS WHITE: Well he was a policeman working in the Security Branch, that's what I knew, yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes, but why didn't you say that?

MS WHITE: Sorry, what did I say?

MR RAUTENBACH: Why didn't you say to Steyn; he's a security policeman? You say

"I'm not aware in which department he works".

Why not say; well all I know is he's a security policeman?

MS WHITE: Well I don't know, I didn't think it was relevant. He was a policeman and he was stationed in Pretoria, and I really did not know what branch he was stationed at. I still to this day don't know what branch he was stationed at. I know he worked in Pretoria. I don't know exactly where he worked in Pretoria.

MR RAUTENBACH: Didn't you think it was important just to say that; at least I know he's a security policeman?

MS WHITE: Sorry, I didn't think it was that important. I mean it seemed to be common knowledge that my brother worked for the Security Branch.

MR RAUTENBACH: It seems to me, Mrs White, from this statement - I mean you didn't even have the instruction from him not to say anything about the security department, that you weren't prepared to mention anything about the security police.

MS WHITE: Sorry no, I don't agree with that at all. Can I just go through my statement because I don't know, I think I mention the Security Branch in here or that he worked for it.

MR RAUTENBACH: Then on the same ...(intervention)

MS WHITE: No, I'm just looking. You know I had no motive not to say that, I mean he worked for the - I can't explain that.

MR RAUTENBACH: You can't explain that. Mrs White, we talked yesterday about the whole, we had a long discussion about the suspect, when you became aware that he was in fact a suspect, remember that?

MS WHITE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now you told us in evidence that it was quite a shock to your system when he informed you, when he wanted to take the statement, you asked him but why does he want to take a statement and he then told you that he's a suspect, correct?

MS WHITE: That's right, yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: And that was the first time that you realised that your brother was in fact a suspect and it was a shock to your system, correct?

MS WHITE: That's correct, yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: And you said he was investigating other avenues and in the light of that information that your brother was a suspect, you made a statement, correct?

MS WHITE: That's correct, yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: You also told us that shortly after the, well since the Saturday, the day that you realised that Janine was murdered, you spent about two weeks there at your brother's house.

MS WHITE: That's correct, yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: At that stage when you went up there, did you, was Lydia at the house?

MS WHITE: She was at the house the evening that I arrived back from the airport, yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes. Since when did Lydia stay at the house, or how long did she stay there before she left, because there's some indications that she left?

MS WHITE: I don't know, but when we went to go and fetch the children, by the time we came back Lydia wasn't at the house anymore.

MR RAUTENBACH: You said - in the light of what you said - I just want to take you to something in your statement, that's your statement of the, the December statement. I see this statement, just for the record, was dated the 12th of December and this is the statement that you referred to, the one that Beyleveld came to see you about.

MS WHITE: That's correct, yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now if you look at the third page of this statement you will notice - let me just take you first to the second page of the statement, just look at the second page to confirm that you told Beyleveld, the second line thereof

"On Saturday, the 21st of September 1991 ...(indistinct) at about 9 o'clock I collected my brother."

Is that correct?

MS WHITE: Yes, that's right.

MR RAUTENBACH: And you say

"... the corner of"

Is that right? And that was - yes on the third page you said the following. Look at what is about the third paragraph thereof. Do you see:

"We left the same day ..."

Just beneath the word "Johannesburg ...

"We left the same day ..."

MS WHITE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH

"We left the same day for Johannesburg. At this stage I feel angry about certain remarks made by the maid concerning the death of Janine."

MS WHITE: That's correct, yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: What remarks are you referring to?

MS WHITE: Well can I give you the story of that evening ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes, give me the story.

MS WHITE: ... then it will all make sense. When I was collected at the airport, a friend of ours was there and I went to the house with him and when we got into the house it was the maid, her husband and another chap over there, which I later found out to be a Harris, were sitting in the lounge and they were totally drunk. They had the total control of the house that evening. Detective Steyn, and there was another chap with him called Ronnie, I don't know his surname, were sitting around in the dining-room are, a darkened part of the dining-room area by the telephone. When I walked in Lydia who was, as I say, totally drunk was ranting and raving and saying my brother was in Pretoria and he was the one that killed Janine and - this is the gist of the conversation, and she was going on like that and I was very angry about that. I was angry about the fact that the servants of the house were allowed to just have total control of the house and that they were sitting over there consuming the alcohol and everything and nothing was being done to stop these people. And she was just throwing certain allegations around. Now that made me very angry, that.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mrs White, her sitting there in the house being drunk, looks as if she was in control of the house, yes. Let's accept that made you angry. But what's more important is that on the first day, that's Saturday, there were people, well there was a person, at least Lydia pointing fingers at your brother, accusing him, correct?

MS WHITE: Well yes, she was, but I thought it was absolutely ridiculous and I couldn't believe that somebody wasn't stopping her with her ranting and raving.

MR RAUTENBACH: So you were aware that on the first day that there were already, at least from Lydia's point of view, fingers pointed at your brother.

MS WHITE: I didn't take that seriously, she wasn't exactly sober, to be saying things like that.

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes, you told us that, you told us that. So at that early stage you knew that there were some accusations against your brother, correct?

MS WHITE: I never took it seriously.

MR RAUTENBACH: And then shortly after that, Mrs White, you realised that the investigating officer didn't want your brother to identify the body, correct?

MS WHITE: Well yes, I found out about that and I thought that was very ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: Yesterday you said that that was quite bizarre.

MS WHITE: Well yes, I definitely think so.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mrs White, at that stage because of Lydia's accusations, because of the investigating officer not wanting your brother to identify the body, you must have been aware of the fact that he was a suspect?

MS WHITE: Not at all. There was a lot of animosity between the two families and I thought it purely had to do with that.

MR RAUTENBACH: What does a family thing come in here, tell us a bit more. We have two factors now, Lydia, we have the body, what about the family? Tell us about that factor.

MS WHITE: Well I can go into a little story about it. I mean, over that whole period of time - I arrived there with my brother, I go into this house with this situation where the maid is ranting and raving, by the time we went and fetched the children and came back, the maid wasn't there. My parents then arrived up on the Sunday. My dad then made all the funeral arrangements. The Potters wanted nothing to do with it. There was all this kind of animosity. We tried to sort out things amicably over there. They already, they were hostile, they were hostile towards my brother before that. So obviously they're going to have their own opinions and we would have our own opinions about things. I never took those things seriously, I thought it was purely animosity between the two families.

MR RAUTENBACH: Why did you think, tell us. Why did you think at that stage would the family of Janine be so hostile? What did you think, what did they think? Why did you think they reacted like that, tell us.

MS WHITE: Well I don't know why they reacted like that.

MR RAUTENBACH: You don't know, Mrs White.

MS WHITE: On the Saturday when I phoned - I even phoned Keith Potter to find out what had happened and what happened to the children, he didn't want to speak to me, so immediately there was that sort of reaction. Eventually, it was very late that Saturday night, possibly early the Sunday morning hours, when we finally got the children. Nobody wanted to talk to me. I had nothing to do with anything. I had nothing - I wasn't in-between this and yet they didn't want to talk to me, so there was this animosity.

MR RAUTENBACH: What did you think, Mrs White, why was there this extreme, it seems to me, animosity on the day of the murder and the days following the murder?

MS WHITE: I don't know.

MR RAUTENBACH: What did you think?

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

MR RAUTENBACH: Are you saying, Mrs White, that you did not think that they suspected Michael Bellingan of killing his wife?

MS WHITE: Well not at that stage, no, not at all.

MR RAUTENBACH: Not at all?

MS WHITE: No, not at all.

MR RAUTENBACH: But why this extreme animosity?

MS WHITE: That is something I think you'll have to sort of clear up with Michael. I don't know why there was animosity between them.

MR RAUTENBACH: Right. I've already pointed out to you in this statement of yours that you said that you're unable to say in which department he works. Let's just take it a little bit further. In your statement you will notice that you actually make the, you actually made mention of the telephone discussion that you had with Michael shortly before the murder. That is while he was in Durban. Can you recall?

MS WHITE: Well that was to finalise our arrangements for the ...(indistinct) morning, yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes, the braai arrangements. The last paragraph of the first page: "During ..."

It's just beneath that date, the 18th of September 1991. You said:

"During this period he phoned to confirm about arrangements that I had to collect him in Pietermaritzburg for ..."

... it seems to be:

"... the braai at our parents' place, who was due on the Saturday the 21st of September 1991"

Do you see that?

MS WHITE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now once again, you told Steyn about a discussion that you had with your brother, you know that the discussion with Janine was mentioned, or your conversation with Janine was mentioned during that conversation, correct? Why didn't you mention it here? - let's get to the point.

MS WHITE: But that wasn't what this was all about, this was to do with the arrangements for the Saturday.

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes.

MS WHITE: That's what it was about. He wanted to know had I seen my brother at all in Natal before the Saturday morning, he was trying to establish whether I'd seen my brother the Friday night, and the arrangements for the Saturday morning. That is purely, that is the only reason that he came to take a statement from me. He was trying to establish the events of the day of the Saturday and whether I'd seen my brother the night before, it had nothing whatsoever to do with the telephone call that I had had with Janine.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mrs White ...(intervention)

MS WHITE: And at that stage that was not at all important.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mrs White, he didn't know about the telephone conversation you had with Janine, am I correct?

MS WHITE: No, he didn't.

MR RAUTENBACH: Of course he didn't know that, and he was the investigating officer. I'm saying to you the following; I'm astounded that you didn't tell him at the time when he asked, or when you told him about the conversation, that you did not say to him; you know, I discussed a braai arrangement with him, but that's not all, a murder took place, Janine was murdered, do you know what else was said? I actually said to him that she phoned me and she was going to bring down or was going to sink the Security Branch - why not?

MS WHITE: Because this meeting when Beyleveld came down, had nothing to do with that, he purely came down, he came to my place of work, he sat down and he needed a few minutes of my time and he wanted me to go over the events of the Saturday. It had nothing else - he didn't want to know anything else from me, he purely asked me about the events of that Saturday. He said it's preliminary investigations, whatever they called it, and that is all that he came down to speak to me about.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mrs White, why did he come down to see you, why, for what reason on earth?

MS WHITE: Purely to ask me about the events of that Saturday.

MR RAUTENBACH: Let's get back to the basic, to the real issue. Why did he come down to see you, because of what?

MS WHITE: Purely - as I've explained to you, purely ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: Don't, Mrs White, it's a very easy, easy question, it's because Janine was murdered. If she wasn't murdered he wouldn't have come to see you, am I correct?

MS WHITE: Yes, you are correct with that.

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes. That is why he came down. And you had a conversation where the security police were mentioned, number one, with Janine, you had a conversation with your brother where once again Janine's conversation was mentioned, whether he was going to leave the Security Branch, you knew she was murdered, why not mention it?

MS WHITE: Because it was not at that stage even a relevant conversation to me.

MR RAUTENBACH: But Mrs White, you told us yesterday that at that stage you already suspected the Security Police of this murder.

MS WHITE: I didn't say I suspected them at that stage.

MR RAUTENBACH: You did say that.

MS WHITE: You wanted a time period from me and I gave you a time period.

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes.

MS WHITE: I had no idea how that formulated and over what period it formulated. And with more and more things happening and more and more that I saw, I then started to formulate my opinion about the Security Branch.

MR RAUTENBACH: You see Mrs White, it actually goes further than this, because this time you can't use the excuse that you were not supposed, or you were told by your brother not to mention anything about the Security Police because he, at that stage he didn't tell you yet that you shouldn't mention it. So the question is, why did you not mention it?

MS WHITE: Because I've explained to you this was not about that at all, he purely wanted me to cover the events of the Saturday and make sure that I hadn't seen my brother the night before. That was purely what this was all about and that was exactly what I was told it was about. I wasn't asked for anything else, I wasn't asked any other questions. This was purely to cover the events of that Saturday.

MR RAUTENBACH: At that stage, the way I understand your evidence, you thought it wasn't necessary to mention that, correct?

MS WHITE: No, it was not at all.

MR RAUTENBACH: Well I just want to put it to you that that was at the crux, that was the crux of the matter, you should have mentioned it.

CHAIRPERSON: Mrs White, not even in the conversation with Mr Beyleveld did you mention that you had actually spoken to the deceased.

MS WHITE: No, I didn't.

CHAIRPERSON: Just a day or two previously.

MS WHITE: No, I didn't.

CHAIRPERSON: Apart from the statement, I'm not talking about the statement, ...

MS WHITE: Sorry?

CHAIRPERSON: I'm not talking about the statement, I'm talking about the discussion with Mr Beyleveld.

MS WHITE: No, I didn't. Mr Beyleveld actually came to my place of work and he was only there for a very short while. He came in and asked me to purely give a statement. If you have a look at this you will see it's purely about the events of that day. He didn't really ask me other questions, he didn't want to know anything else from me at that stage. He purely wanted me to give times and the actual events of that Saturday. That was the whole reason he came. I think he was about 15, maybe 20 minutes, I don't think he was longer than that at the place where I was working at that time. He didn't ask me other questions, he didn't insinuate at other things to me. His sole reason for coming that day was for me to give a statement about the events of that Saturday.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You never thought of telling him that you had actually had a telephonic conversation with the deceased a few days before the murder?

MS WHITE: No, I didn't. I really didn't think any of that was going to be important.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rautenbach?

MR RAUTENBACH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Now you told us that on the day - well, you were there for the first, well for approximately two weeks after the murder, correct.

MS WHITE: That's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Were you present, Mrs White, during the first couple of days when a discussion, when your brother had a telephonic discussion with the investigating officer about things that were missing in the house?

MS WHITE: No, I doubt that very much.

MR RAUTENBACH: You doubt that?

MS WHITE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Well I just want to put to you the following - and I will deal with that when the investigating officer, Mr Steyn is called, he in his investigating diary deals with a discussion that took place on the 23rd of September 1991 and in this discussion he says that he was phoned, the time that he gave was about half past two on the 23rd of September 1991, he said your brother phoned him and he told him that certain things were missing from the house. Can you recall such a conversation?

MS WHITE: No, I don't.

MR RAUTENBACH: But you know he goes further than that, he says that that was the discussion when he actually told your brother that your brother, he doesn't want your brother to identify the body. He then goes on and he says he then spoke to you, from what I understand this was the same telephonic discussion, and then you volunteered to identify the body and he declined. Can you recall that?

MS WHITE: No, I don't. I would never have offered to identify a body. I can't even look at a cut, never mind identify a body. I would never have offered to do something like that.

MR RAUTENBACH: But you know he actually goes further, he says while speaking to you he heard the voice of your brother in the background and that he complained that the curtain, that there's also a curtain that's missing, and that he told you, well he told you that he actually took that curtain as an exhibit. Do you recall that?

MS WHITE: No, I don't recall speaking to ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: So are you saying, are you saying, Mrs White, because what is very important in this discussion - from the investigating diary it's clear that he talked Mr Bellingan, he then talked to you, this was about the, to identify the body and the discussion started with missing items from the house.

MS WHITE: I don't recall that conversation at all.

MR RAUTENBACH: Because you see, Mrs White, what is quite important is that during this discussion your brother told Mr Steyn that, he told him about items that were missing, and during this discussion he told him about the dark blue shoes that went missing. Are you saying that you didn't hear that?

MS WHITE: No, I know that, from the Saturday night already I knew the shoes were missing.

MR RAUTENBACH: You knew the shoes were missing from the Saturday night?

MS WHITE: That's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now can you just tell us, how did you know that the shoes were missing?

MS WHITE: During Lydia's conversation and her ranting and raving she was going on about the shoes.

MR RAUTENBACH: What did she say about the shoes?

MS WHITE: I don't recall exactly, but she said the shoes were in the lounge, now the police have taken the shoes and the shoes are missing, words to that effect. I can't remember exactly. So from the Saturday night already I knew those shoes were missing.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did you ask you brother what's this about the shoes? Did you discuss it with him?

MS WHITE: I don't really recall whether I did or didn't, but I ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: Why not?

MS WHITE: ... I probably would have mentioned it to him, yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Well that's quite important. I mean here's - I don't care whether she was drunk or not, but here's a person saying that there were shoes in the lounge, surely you would have discussed it with your brother; what's this about shoes?

MS WHITE: I more than likely did. As I say I can't recall all the events and exactly all the conversations, but yes, I probably would have discussed it with him.

MR RAUTENBACH: What did your brother say about the shoes?

MS WHITE: I don't recall what my brother said.

MR RAUTENBACH: You don't recall?

MS WHITE: No, I don't recall what he said.

MR RAUTENBACH: His shoes were found in the lounge and you don't recall what he said, what explanation he gave, what did he say ...(indistinct) shoes?

MS WHITE: I don't know, he might have told me that the girl polishes them or Janine puts them by the door. I don't know, I don't recall you know. It's a case of his shoes were in the house and I didn't think anything funny about his shoes being in his own home.

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes. And did you know that the shoes were in fact in the possession of the South African Police, of Mr Steyn the investigating officer?

MS WHITE: I think Lydia had mentioned that. I wasn't 100% sure of it, but yes, I probably would have thought they took them.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mm. And you stayed there for, as you already pointed out, approximately two weeks, correct?

MS WHITE: That's correct, yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: On the 9th of October there's an entry in the investigating diary which says that Mr Steyn then noticed that Mr Bellingan had a new pair of Salvatore shoes, correct?

MS WHITE: On the 9th of when, sorry?

MR RAUTENBACH: October, 9th of October.

MS WHITE: Yes, that's correct, ja.

MR RAUTENBACH: And you also must have heard the evidence by your brother in these proceedings regarding those shoes.

MS WHITE: I don't recall exactly, but yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: You don't recall it?

MS WHITE: Well I don't recall all the proceedings ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: Well Mrs White, let's just get to the point. You went and you bought him Salvatore shoes, correct?

MS WHITE: That's correct, yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: No, please let's start at the beginning. Why did you do that?

MS WHITE: Well once again, my brother was very down and depressed, he didn't do any of his own arrangements. And then after the funeral of Janine, myself, a couple of his friends, specifically I can remember Diane Boiley because she was very helpful at the time and came around and helped with food and preparations and things, we were trying to get my brother back into work again. He was also going to be doing a Major's course and we were trying to get him involved in that again. And with the shoes having gone missing I decided I'd go out and buy him another pair of shoes, and it was a simple as that. There was no funny business about it. I went to Sandton City and I bought the shoes over there.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mrs White, the shoes didn't go missing, the shoes were in the possession of the South African Police.

MS WHITE: Yes, well they went missing, they were taken away.

MR RAUTENBACH: Well they were in the possession of the South African Police.

MS WHITE: That's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: And if you at that stage, believe 100% I understood from yesterday, that he was not guilty, that he was innocent, correct?

MS WHITE: That is correct, yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: So in other words, the only thing that could have happened in your mind was that there would be no prosecution against him and the shoes would be returned, is that not right?

MS WHITE: Well I didn't know how long - I mean those kinds of things didn't cross my mind, but how long before he got his shoes back, how long before he could start getting back into his work stream again?

MR RAUTENBACH: But Mrs White he had other shoes.

MS WHITE: Yes, but he didn't have other blue shoes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Oh so what you're saying to us is that it was almost a necessity at that stage that he needed blue shoes, dark blue shoes? - let's be specific.

MS WHITE: No, I wouldn't say it was a necessity, but it was a favour I did for him, I went out and I got the shoes for him.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mrs White, why dark blue shoes?

MS WHITE: Because he wears a lot of dark blue suits and things like that.

MR RAUTENBACH: Why Salvatore shoes?

MS WHITE: Because that's the kind of shoe my brother wears.

MR RAUTENBACH: Why the similar, almost an identical shoe, why?

MS WHITE: Well I don't know. Have you looked at the other Salvatore shoes, they probably all look identical.

MR RAUTENBACH: How did you know that those shoes were Salvatore shoes?

MS WHITE: Sorry?

MR RAUTENBACH: How did you know that they were Salvatore shoes?

MS WHITE: I had no idea that they were Salvatore shoes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Oh, so it was pure coincidence that you stepped into a shop and you found dark blue shoes and they happened to be Salvatore, the same make. Is that what you're telling us?

MS WHITE: No, I'm telling you that I went and I bought a good make of shoe for my brother and they were Salvatore shoes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Are you saying - you don't answer my question, Mrs White, are you saying to me that you wanted to find a pair of dark blue shoes, you actually found a pair of dark blue shoes and they happened to be Salvatore shoes, is that your evidence?

MS WHITE: That's correct, yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Pure coincidence.

MS WHITE: Well I don't know if it's pure coincidence or not.

MR RAUTENBACH: You don't know.

MS WHITE: My brother wears good makes of shoes and I bought him a good make of shoe.

MR RAUTENBACH: And Mrs White, you thought to cheer your brother up you would buy a set of dark blue shoes and then also coincidentally he used those very shoes in the inquest to say that he did not, that he had those shoes at the time of the murder, correct? Are you aware of that?

MS WHITE: Well I wasn't at the inquest the whole time, MR RAUTENBACH: Oh, I see.

MS WHITE: ... so I cannot talk about that. And if my brother used those shoes, whether it was to his knowledge or not, that is something that my brother did and you're going to have to speak to my brother about that.

MR RAUTENBACH: Ja, you know what your brother said, he said

"You should ask Judy about that"

Now we're asking you right now about that.

MS WHITE: What, about what he said at the inquest?

MR RAUTENBACH: Are you saying it is coincidence that he used those shoes in the inquest to justify his alibi?

MS WHITE: I can't answer for my brother, I have no have no reason - I can't give you reason for what my brother did.

MR RAUTENBACH: So what I understand from your evidence, Mrs White, is that you said to him you, you decided on your own, I'm going to buy him a pair of dark blue shoes to cheer him up, correct?

MS WHITE: I'm not 100% sure it was only to cheer him up, I went to go and buy him a dark ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: Well you said he was depressed.

MS WHITE: ... another pair of dark shoes.

MR RAUTENBACH: You said he was depressed, so don't evade the question.

MS WHITE: Yes, he was, he was.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I think I just have to come in at this stage. I think Mr Rautenbach just give the witness a fair chance to answer the questions. I think it's clear that Mr Rautenbach does interrupt rather frequently. I think it's important that he just get to a point where she's given a chance to give complete answers.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, bear that in mind.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, I will definitely let the witness do so. I must just also put on record that I think I've been extremely patient up to now in listening to her longwinded answers. But I will definitely make sure that I'll give her that opportunity.

To cheer him up, Mrs White.

MS WHITE: Well not only to cheer him up. Like I said, he needed to get back into work again and he needed another pair of shoes that fitted his clothes that he had, and that was the reason that I bought those shoes for him.

MR RAUTENBACH: I don't want to labour this point, but are you're saying he needed another set of dark blue shoes?

MS WHITE: Well he needed a pair of dark blue shoes. He didn't have one at that stage and I bought him a pair.

MR RAUTENBACH: Why not a pair of brown shoes?

MS WHITE: Because he had brown shoes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Oh so you thought that he needed dark blue shoes?

MS WHITE: That's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: And you say to us that you didn't discuss this with him, didn't know that they were Salvatore shoes, it was coincidence that you bought the Salvatore shoes, correct?

MS WHITE: No, I did not discuss it with him. I can't remember the exact date, but it was in the first couple of days after I was up in Johannesburg that I did that.

MR RAUTENBACH: I want to put it to you, Mrs White, that your evidence regarding the buying of these shoes at that time, dark blue Salvatore shoes, I want to put it to you and I'm going to put it to you directly, that your evidence is ridiculous, your explanation for buying these shoes is ridiculous.

MS WHITE: No, it's not, not at all.

MR RAUTENBACH: Not at all.

MS WHITE: No, not at all.

MR RAUTENBACH: Is that your best answer?

MS WHITE: I don't think it's ridiculous. With the circumstances and everything that was happening at the house at the time, I don't think that was ridiculous at all. I was doing shopping for the children, I was taking the children out, I was buying expensive gifts for the kids, trying to cheer them up. Katie was also very depressed at that time. I didn't only buy an expensive gift for my brother. I use to go out in the daytime and go with Katie and buy things for her as well. That isn't the only gift that I bought that week.

MR RAUTENBACH: It actually goes further. I mean the shoes is one aspect, Security Police is another aspect, the fact that you did not mention to the investigating officer your bank account at Cascades, that's another aspect. But let's just look at your evidence in the inquest.

MS GCABASHE: Mr Rautenbach, can I just interrupt for a minute.

Mrs White, what else did you buy your brother to cheer him up, apart from the blue shoes?

MS WHITE: If I'm not mistaken I think the blue shoes were the only thing besides groceries. I don't know, I might have bought socks for him. I can't exactly remember, but I did quite a bit of shopping that week. The kids went back with my parents, I think it was the Thursday, but I used to take Katie with me when I went shopping and we bought quite a few things. I might very well have bought socks, but the shoes became an issue, so that is one of the things that I had to remember very clearly.

MS GCABASHE: Who made the shoes an issue?

MS WHITE: Eventually at the - I think it was just before the trial, I hadn't been able to see my brother for quite a while because his bail conditions wouldn't let him see me, and at the trial apparently it became an issue, and then after the cross-examination at the trial when my brother was free to see me gain, he came to me and said apparently the shoes are a big issue. I actually did a statement about the shoes at the time. So that was when the shoes became a big issue, after his cross-examination at the trial.

MS GCABASHE: And it's only then that you went out to buy them?

MS WHITE: No, no, no, I bought the shoes the week when I went up to Johannesburg after the death of Janine.

MS GCABASHE: I thought that. Did the shoes lift the depression?

MS WHITE: No, no, the shoes didn't lift the depression, it was just one method of helping him get back into the work stream. And most of his clothing was blue, his suits, most of the stuff was blue. If I'm not mistaken he had very little brown stuff, so I thought it would be important for him to have blue shoes to match the blue suits and that again.

MS GCABASHE: Thank you.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, if I may just interrupt at this stage. I'm being advised by my client that some of the things that are being put by Mr Rautenbach to the witness are not quite correct. I'm not in a position to be so alert to those issues so as to make the necessary remarks or object to that, however if possible, and I'm perhaps just asking a favour from Mr Rautenbach, that if possible if a thing is put to the witness with reference to what was said at a certain stage, if he could just perhaps then refer to the record or a document so that we can just make sure that that is in fact correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: I think the best way of addressing that problem is to make the inquest record available to the Committee. That will enable the Committee to have an insight into that record. I don't think any party here can have a serious objection against that. Secondly, I'm not going to respond to Mr Bellingan's vague opinions, not at all. So what I'm saying is if there is any question then, if there's any doubt from my learned friend, let's make available the inquest record to the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You would be able to of course clarify whatever you need to in re-examination and it appears that the inquest record is available. The Panel is not minded at this stage to respond to the invitation to receive that record as yet, but certainly you can have a look at it if it's necessary, to clarify things.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rautenbach?

MR RAUTENBACH: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mrs White, you just answered to a question by one of the Committee Members, a question relating to the issue, the shoes becoming an issue. You, on the Saturday you became aware of the shoes, Lydia mentioned it, correct?

MS WHITE: That's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: And the police actually took those shoes, it was at that stage they took it with them.

MS WHITE: Well I don't know for sure that they actually took them with them, because Detective Steyn never said that, he wasn't discussing anything of the case with us, Lydia was the one that mentioned that to us.

MR RAUTENBACH: Are you saying to me, Mrs White, that despite the fact that the shoes were mentioned by Lydia, despite the fact that there were conversations between your brother and Steyn, that you didn't become aware that the shoes were in fact in the possession of the police?

MS WHITE: Yes, I made that assumption myself as well.

MR RAUTENBACH: You must have done.

MS WHITE: Yes, I did.

MR RAUTENBACH: Because I mean you replaced those shoes.

MS WHITE: Yes, I did.

MR RAUTENBACH: Why would the police take the shoes?

MS WHITE: I have no idea.

MR RAUTENBACH: Ag Mrs White, surely they won't take - why would they not have taken the chairs in the lounge?

MS WHITE: I know now why they took the shoes, but at that time ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: But why did you think then?

MS WHITE: ... at that time I had no idea why they were doing it.

MR RAUTENBACH: Why did you think they would take it with them? - they were interested in the shoes.

MS WHITE: I thought they were being silly. It's my brother's house and obviously his shoes, it would be normal for my brother's shoes to be in his house. I saw nothing wrong, I couldn't understand why they had taken it at the time. Now I understand it. Then at that particular time, it didn't make any sense to me.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mrs White, the fact that they took the shoes with them must have made the shoes an issue at that stage. Lydia mentioned the shoes and the police took the shoes, it was an issue, wasn't it?

MS WHITE: I thought it was being very silly on their part. As I've said, it's my brother's house, his shoes would obviously be in his house.

MR RAUTENBACH: The attorney of Mr Bellingan at the inquest, I think his name was, I thought Liescher, but I think they pronounce Leischer. Can you tell me is it Liescher or Leischer?

MS WHITE: It's Leischer.

MR RAUTENBACH: Leischer. He asked you a question, well he examined you in the inquest, is that correct?

MS WHITE: Yes, he did.

MR RAUTENBACH: He says too at some stage, page 335 of the inquest

"Do you know whether your brother is home proud, house proud, proud of his house?"

And you answered:

"Very much so."

Can you recall that answer?

MS WHITE: Yes

MR RAUTENBACH: And he said to you

"Did he always do things to improve them?"

It seems that you didn't give him the answer that you wanted yet, you said:

"Yes, he did."

And then he asks you:

"Did he work in the garden a lot?"

And your answer was:

"Most of the time. I saw him on weekends when we used to visit he was in the garden."

MS WHITE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: What does that mean, tell us what does that mean? - that answer. What did you try to tell the inquest Court?

MS WHITE: That my brother is very house proud and he spent a lot of time in his garden. When I used to visit on a Sunday, we'd normally sit outside and my brother would be working in the garden, he's be either mowing or he'd be digging a new flower bed or he'd be putting plants in. That's what my brother would do.

MR RAUTENBACH: Oh so what you were saying is most of the time I saw him on weekends. When we used to visit he was in the garden. He spent most of his time in the garden. Was that your evidence at the inquest?

MS WHITE: No, my evidence was that my brother used to work in his garden and when we used to visit we'd be sitting outside, we'd have a braai or something at the pool area and my brother would be pottering around the garden.

MR RAUTENBACH: So he's a keen gardener, Mrs White? That's the impression ...(intervention)

MS WHITE: I didn't say he's a keen gardener, I said my brother words in his garden, he's house proud. His garden was neat and tidy.

MR RAUTENBACH: I'm just amazed by this, by your answer that you say. You don't say well you know, I have seen him in the garden, the answer was

"Most of the time. I saw him on weekends when we used to visit he was in the garden."

That answer tells us about a person who is a keen gardener, am I not correct?

MS WHITE: I don't know where you're going with this, but my brother did work in the garden. I don't know what you're trying to make out of that. That was an answer that I gave. My brother does work in the garden. And yes, most Sundays we used to go for a braai, my brother was working in the garden. He was pottering around the garden.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mrs White tell us, you must have been aware at that stage, at the inquest stage at least, that the steps, footsteps that were found in the garden was one of the major issues during the inquest and during the trial. Is that so?

MS WHITE: I heard about it yes. I couldn't ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: When did you hear about it?

MS WHITE: I don't remember. I don't remember if I read it in the newspaper or if I actually heard about it or if after the inquest my brother spoke to me about it, I don't actually remember.

MR RAUTENBACH: Didn't you know ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, if I might just object at this stage. I'm advised by the applicant that the record is to the effect that the prints were found on the side of the neighbour's, in their garden. And I'm not quite clear at this stage, are we referring to the neighbour's garden or the garden of Mr Bellingan's place. And if so, if we could just then refer to the record and make sure about that.

MR RAUTENBACH: Let me confine myself to spending time in the garden because that is what I was doing, I never actually made a statement as to where the footsteps were found.

Do you - did you know at that stage - as my learned friend puts it, that the footsteps in the neighbour's garden on the other side of the wall was an issue?

MS WHITE: I probably did.

MR RAUTENBACH: Do you know the gardening thing, let me just put this to you. In the inquest specifically, it was asked by, it was put to you ...

... (end of side A of tape)

MR RAUTENBACH: ... the neighbour of Mr Bellingan actually said that he's been living four years next to Mr Bellingan and he never saw him once in the garden and that Mrs Smith who lived on the premises described the garden as being very neglected, and that Lydia never saw him in the garden. - a completely different picture. What do you say about that?

MS WHITE: Exactly what I said at the inquest - I can't help what other people are saying, my brother's house was neat and tidy. His garden was actually at the back of his house. The front of his house was mainly driveway. On the side of it there was building sand, building because obviously he'd been doing building, but the back part of the garden where the pool was, nobody can ever tell you that that side of his garden was in a mess or neglected. That side of the garden where the actual garden was, was always very neat and tidy.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mrs White, I put it to you that you knew that the garden was an issue and the fact that the footsteps were discovered in the neighbour's garden was an issue and that is why you made him a gardener.

MS WHITE: I don't see the connection. I was asked if my brother kept his place neat and tidy, yes my brother did keep his place neat and tidy.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did you notice that his hands, on the Saturday, that his hands were red?

MS WHITE: No, I did not notice that.

MR RAUTENBACH: You didn't notice that.

MS WHITE: No, I didn't.

MR RAUTENBACH: Am I also correct that you did not - you were asked during the inquest whether he, on the day, on the Saturday, whether he wore his spectacles and you said you were not sure.

MS WHITE: I'm not sure.

MR RAUTENBACH: You were asked as to whether he had a beard at that stage, what was your answer, can you recall?

MS WHITE: Also not sure.

MR RAUTENBACH: Not sure. You didn't see the red hands, didn't see whether he wore spectacles or whether he had a beard at that stage, correct?

MS WHITE: That's correct. Sorry, can I say something further on that?

MR RAUTENBACH: Sure.

MS WHITE: To do with the glasses and to do with the beard. My brother very often changed that. Sometimes he wore a bear and sometimes he wore his contact lenses. That is why I could not recall whether he had a beard or had his glasses on at that stage. As I say he didn't always have the beard and he didn't always wear his glasses.

MR RAUTENBACH: One aspect that I would just like to get an answer on that I don't think is clear yet. I just want to know, when you heard that Janine was murdered you told us that your brother, your husband drove out to your parents to tell them.

MS WHITE: That's correct, yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Nothing may turn on it, but didn't you think - I'm just curious actually to say, why wasn't a phone call made, why weren't they phoned?

MS WHITE: There wasn't ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: Was there a problem with the phone?

MS WHITE: There wasn't a telephone at the farm in Boston.

MR RAUTENBACH: As far as the money is concerned, at that stage your monthly earnings was something between R2 000 and R3 000, is that correct?

MS WHITE: If I - I really don't know, but if the record says that, yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Well that sounds to be accurate, is that not right? We had the evidence here where we know that the nett income, I know Mr Bellingan qualified that in his re-examination, was about R1 700, correct? Did you hear that evidence?

MS WHITE: You're talking about my brother's income?

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes, that's right.

MS WHITE: Yes, I heard that evidence.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now we're talking here about an amount, we're talking about 1991, which is eight years ago at least, well almost eight years, and we're also talking about an amount of, you mentioned R500 to R1 000. Now if you look at those incomes, if you look at the fact that it's 1991, it was actually a substantial amount of money, the R500 to R1 000, if you compare that to your monthly income and to his monthly income, is that correct?

MS WHITE: Probably right, yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes. He gave you you said, something between R500 and R1 000, correct?

MS WHITE: That's correct, yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: How much did he give to you?

MS WHITE: I don't know, I never counted it at the time.

MR RAUTENBACH: Why not? It's a debt, it's quite a substantial debt at that stage.

MS WHITE: Yes, it didn't seem necessary, my brother giving me some money. I didn't think it necessary to count it.

MR RAUTENBACH: But you know, apart from counting I can understand it if you say to me you know, it's a brother/sister, a good relationship, and the brother will say to the sister; here is R600, and she takes the R600 and she puts it in her purse and she accepts I've got R600, I'm not going to count it, why will I count it, I trust him. Didn't he say to you; here is R600, here is R700 to my debt? Why something between R500 and R1 000? I don't understand that.

MS WHITE: He didn't say that to me at all, he said: "Here's part of the money that I owe you ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: Did he say it to you? Did he say to you: "Here is something between R500 and R1 000?

MS WHITE: No, he didn't say that at all to me, he said: "Here is part of the money that I owe you." We then carried on whatever, put it into my purse and with the rest of the events of the day and the rest of the events that were happening, I never ever counted that money. I needed to draw a lot of money, I needed to use a lot of money and therefore that is why I have no idea how much it was.

MR RAUTENBACH: And you never counted it?

MS WHITE: No, I didn't.

MR RAUTENBACH: Well how do you know it was something between R500 and R1 000?

MS WHITE: Because it was a fair bundle of money that he gave to me.

MR RAUTENBACH: But why between R500 and R1 000?

MS WHITE: Because that is what I, the amount that I sort of expected, I don't know.

MR RAUTENBACH: I see, I see.

MS WHITE: It was a fair bundle of money that he gave me. That is why I couldn't answer that question at the time.

MR RAUTENBACH: Cause you see ...(intervention)

MS WHITE: I still cannot answer that question.

MR RAUTENBACH: You see Mrs White, that was also an issue at the inquest, the money that he drew, as to whether he could have bought an air ticket. And you are now in a position where you have to stick to that answer, something between R500 and R1 000, but you can't tell us why.

MS WHITE: He did give me the money, he owed me money.

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes, Mrs White. I'm not going to take that further, your answers are with respect, nonsensical.

Mr Chairman, there's only one issue and I think we mentioned it right. I would just like to know before we conclude the evidence, the inquest evidence I've mentioned that and I would like to know what the parties' attitude is, should the inquest evidence be handed up as an exhibit? The reason why I'm saying it, there's been - and it's not only myself, but there's been a lot of reference to the inquest evidence and especially due to the fact that there was, well doubt expressed by my learned friend on instructions of his client, about the correctness of certain things I put. I think it's important at this stage that the inquest evidence be made available, especially as far as the witnesses that have given evidence here and that has given evidence there.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, some of it seems to be part of the papers before us. There was no fundamental sort of reason for not having sort of positively responded to your suggestion earlier, it's just a question of logistics. I don't know how big this thing is. There can't really be any objection to it being handed in, so subject to what the people are saying, if you think that it will be of assistance then there can't be a difficulty in that.

Ja, I'm just reminded again, Mr Rautenbach, that it is really just a logistical and practical matter. We don't want to let this record go into something that will be very, very expensive to duplicate and things like that. That is why we got these extracts.

MR RAUTENBACH: May I suggest the following, Mr Chairman, that we will from our side get the relevant parts of the inquest record together, show it to the other parties, if they're happy with it we will present it to you like that, in other words not the whole of the inquest record. If they feel that they want to supplement it with a specific, then they'll be free to do so.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that's a sensible suggestion.

MR RAUTENBACH: May I just take instructions?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: I have no further questions, Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RAUTENBACH

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Rautenbach. Mr Lengane?

MR LENGANE: I have no questions for this witness.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR LENGANE

CHAIRPERSON: I'm not sure, but I'll start with Mr Wagener.

MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, thank you. On behalf of the individuals that I represent, I have no questions for this witness.

Regarding the suggestion by Mr Rautenbach, I'm not exactly sure, I see there are parts of the inquest record in the bundles presently before us. I have no real need to read the rest, except if he decides that some other portions should be put before you, then we'll have to have a look at it, but I've no real interest in that.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR WAGENER

CHAIRPERSON: I think what is before us at this stage has actually been produced by the family. So you know, we'll see. They will have a look at it and we'll see what else they want to place before us.

Mr Cornelius?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I have a couple of questions as far as my clients are concerned, obviously the credibility of the applicant is in question.

Mrs White, I'm still bothered about this shoe issue. When the police attached the shoes, did you ask yourself the question why?

MS WHITE: No, I didn't. I didn't actually really know that the police had taken them, Lydia Kubeka had actually just said that they were there and the police had taken them. Detective Steyn didn't officially tell me that himself, so I assumed that the police had taken them.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, yes.

MS WHITE: And no, I was confused about that. I didn't know why they had taken it and I thought it was a silly thing to do considering it was my brother's own house.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, it's a very elaborate answer, but they knew they took the shoes?

MS WHITE: Yes, they did take the shoes. Well I presume they ...(intervention)

MR CORNELIUS: Why, why?

MS WHITE: I don't know why.

MR CORNELIUS: Because it's an exhibit, it's as clear as daylight. Don't you agree?

MS WHITE: No, I didn't agree at the time, I didn't think it had anything to do with anything.

MR CORNELIUS: And if they took the TV?

MS WHITE: I would have thought the same thing.

MR CORNELIUS: It's an exhibit, or are ...(intervention)

MS WHITE: No.

MR CORNELIUS: ... or are the police busy stealing articles out of a crime scene.

MS WHITE: No, I thought it was a ridiculous thing to do.

MR CORNELIUS: No, but normally don't you agree if there was a murder committed, they would have looked for fingerprints and footprints in the area of the scene of the crime, don't you think so?

MS WHITE: Yes, that I would have expected.

MR CORNELIUS: Now didn't it dawn on you that there's a possibility that the shoes might have affected prints somewhere?

MS WHITE: I don't know, I didn't think about all those things at the time.

MR CORNELIUS: But it's a logical question. Here lies, your deceased sister-in-law was murdered at the scene, didn't you ask yourself the question were there footprints, fingerprints, did you speak to the cops and say did you take fingerprints, did you look for footprints, the window?

MS WHITE: It's very difficult to answer that because at the time the detectives involved were not speaking to us and weren't telling me anything, so when I heard the shoes were gone I thought it was a crazy thing to do, especially when the maid said they were my brother's shoes and the police had taken my brother's shoes. I didn't put any other relevance to it.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes. But it's a normal thing any normal person would do, he would ask the police if they looked for fingerprints and footprints.

MS WHITE: No, as I say to you they were not discussing any matters of the case with ... That night when we got there they didn't want to discuss anything, they were actually highly annoyed at me for even mentioning one of the police officers in Michael's division to help find the children or ascertain where the children were ...(intervention)

MR CORNELIUS: Please Mrs White, just give me my direct answers. I don't want an elaborate repertoire every time. Did you ask them about fingerprints and footprints?

MS WHITE: No, I didn't.

MR CORNELIUS: Why not?

MS WHITE: Because as I say, there was no conversation going on between them and ...(intervention)

MR CORNELIUS: But why didn't you ask them?

MS WHITE: They were refusing to discuss anything with myself and Tony ...(indistinct) that evening.

MR CORNELIUS: But you at one stage wanted to report the investigating officers, isn't that so?

MS WHITE: Report the investigating officers?

MR CORNELIUS: Yes.

MS WHITE: Yes, at a later in the investigation I did.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes. And why didn't you say, but I can't even ask them a question about footprints or fingerprints?

MS WHITE: I didn't go that far back, it didn't seem that important to me.

MR CORNELIUS: Can you recall that Lydia Kubeka that night when she had this drunken ranting and raving, according to you, innocently accusing your brother, that she said that there were paint marks on the shoes?

MS WHITE: No, that I don't recall.

MR CORNELIUS: I understand so and it came out in the inquest and it is quite apparent that Lydia Kubeka said that at the time that the police were at the scene.

MS WHITE: Maybe it did come out afterwards, but at that particular time of that night, I don't recall her saying that to me at all.

MR CORNELIUS: But if she said it you would have heard it?

MS WHITE: Probably, but she was ranting and raving a lot things. I think there were a lot of things that she said that I didn't hear either.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, Mrs White, but she was ranting and raving about the truth and that we know today.

MS WHITE: Maybe today we know it, but at the time I didn't think so.

MR CORNELIUS: And if it wasn't for Lydia Kubeka this man would never have been convicted, isn't that so?

MS WHITE: I don't think it was only on Lydia Kubeka's evidence, I'm not sure.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes. But this ranting and raving of the servant of the house led to his conviction, Mrs White. Isn't that so?

MS WHITE: I think so.

MR CORNELIUS: Not you think so, it's a fact.

MS WHITE: I think part, I think some of her evidence, yes.

MR CORNELIUS: And the issue of the shoes, if it wasn't for Lydia Kubeka, would not have arisen at all.

MS WHITE: Yes, at this stage now we can see that, but at that time I didn't think that at all.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes. And if she didn't rant and rave about the fact that the applicant left with those shoes to Durban, nobody would have raised an eyebrow, isn't that so?

MS WHITE: I don't know. I didn't sit in the whole time at the trial ...(intervention)

MR CORNELIUS: Not "don't know", isn't that so, Mrs White?

MS WHITE: No, I don't know.

MR CORNELIUS: If she didn't rant and rave a conviction wouldn't have followed.

MS WHITE: Well I don't know what was said that morning. I'm talking about her rantings and ravings under the influence ...(intervention)

MR CORNELIUS: I'm saying today.

MS WHITE: ... of alcohol that evening.

MR CORNELIUS: I am saying her alcoholic rantings and ravings led to the conviction of the applicant, isn't that so?

MS WHITE: No, I don't think her alcoholic ranting and ravings. Maybe her prior discussions with the police, but I don't think the alcoholic ranting and ravings led to my brother's conviction.

MR CORNELIUS: Fine. But if it wasn't for the fact that Lydia Kubeka had the guts to come forward, go to the police and say this is what I think, this is what I'm ranting and raving about, this man would not have come to task.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, at this stage the basis was laid but the questioning will be with regard to the credibility of the applicant as well. Now I think at this stage the questioning may not be so relevant towards that end, and my objection is that the witness is now questioned on an issue which is not relevant.

MR CORNELIUS: Mr Chairman, this really with respect, is a most unfounded objection. This is a witness called by the applicant. I've got full rights to cross-examine her. I'm not bound to the credibility of the applicant. I can't be bound in cross-examination to be said that I am now bound in areas, that I cannot proceed when it's witness. I am entitled obviously to cross-examine this witness on her own credibility as well. I ask that this objection be rejected.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. The question of the contribution of Lydia Kubeka to the solution to the murder is obviously a relevant matter. However, it appears that the witness has also already conceded that her contribution has led to the eventual downfall of the applicant. So I ...(indistinct).

MR HATTINGH: I agree, Mr Chairman. Thank you so much.

MR CORNELIUS: Now you would agree, Mrs White, that this pair of blue, navy blue Salvatore shoes had quite a morbid connection, don't you agree?

MS WHITE: Well eventually yes, it did come out.

MR CORNELIUS: Not eventually, right after the scene of the crime. The police go there, attach this pair of shoes, we have a servant in the house ranting and raving about the shoes, this is a morbid connection. The police have removed the shoes from the bloodied scene of the crime while they were standing in the lounge or wherever. It's a morbid connection, the blue Salvatore shoes, isn't that so?

MS WHITE: I suppose so, yes.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes. And then you go shortly after this murder and you go and buy your brother another paid of morbid shoes.

MS WHITE: No, I don't think they were morbid shoes. I bought my brother a pair of new shoes.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes. But with a very morbid connection.

MS WHITE: No, my brother needed another pair of navy blue shoes and I bought him a pair of navy blue shoes.

MR CORNELIUS: He needed another pair of navy blue shoes, that's for sure, Mrs White because the navy blue shoes were quite a massive problem for him. Now what size shoe does your brother wear?

MS WHITE: He takes a 92.

MR CORNELIUS: And when previous to that did you ever buy your brother shoes?

MS WHITE: Gee, I can't remember.

MR CORNELIUS: Do you normally buy your brother shoes, your brother an adult man who works for the so-called Gestapo, do you buy him his shoes?

MS WHITE: I probably on previous occasions bought my brother clothing and shoes. It was my favourite gift to my family for birthdays and Xmas's. I normally do buy clothing and shoes for my family.

MR CORNELIUS: And you purchase your goods at places like AD Spitz?

MS WHITE: Yes, I do, Edgars, different places like that as well.

MR CORNELIUS: Well there's a difference between AD Spitz and Edgars.

MS WHITE: Not necessarily.

MR CORNELIUS: In prices for sure.

MS WHITE: Not necessarily. The shoes at Edgars are just as expensive.

MR CORNELIUS: Now the day you went to buy the shoes, did you take your brother with?

MS WHITE: No, I did not.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you go on your own?

MS WHITE: Yes, I did. I actually went with Katie.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you giftwrap the shoes for him?

MS WHITE: No, I didn't.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you just walk in the house and give him that pair of shoes in the box?

MS WHITE: Well I don't even think he was at the house at the time that I did that. I probably put it on the bed for him and when he came home I told him I bought a pair of shoes for him.

MR CORNELIUS: And?

MS WHITE: He wasn't even thankful about it. I was actually quite angry about it at the time.

MR CORNELIUS: Why?

MS WHITE: He sort of dismissed it as though it wasn't important.

MR CORNELIUS: Did he go look at his shoes?

MS WHITE: I'm not sure if I presented it to him or left it on the bed, told him the shoes were there, but I was actually pretty upset about it because I'd just spent a lot of money and he brushed it off and carried on doing what whatever he was doing, he wasn't even that excited about it.

MR CORNELIUS: Did he ever thank you for the shoes?

MS WHITE: Yes, he did eventually thank me for them.

MR CORNELIUS: Did he kiss you?

MS WHITE: I don't remember if he kissed me.

MR CORNELIUS: What did he say?

MS WHITE: I don't remember exactly what he said.

MR CORNELIUS: No, start remembering Mrs White. Please, we are talking here about a Truth and Reconciliation Commission established to establish the truth, now please remember. Did he ever talk to you about the shoes?

MS WHITE: That particular day that I bought them?

MR CORNELIUS: Of course I'm talking about that day, Mrs White.

MS WHITE: I can't remember the exact conversation.

MR CORNELIUS: On which bed did you put it, the bed where the murder was committed or another bed?

MS WHITE: Yes. No, it would have been the bed where the murder was committed.

MR CORNELIUS: And did he sleep in that bed?

MS WHITE: Yes, he did.

MR CORNELIUS: And when he went to bed that night did he stumble over the shoes or did he pick up the shoes and look at them?

MS WHITE: No, I can't remember exactly. I told him that I bought him a pair of shoes, they're in the bedroom or in a box, I actually don't even remember if I put them in the bedroom or if they were in the lounge but I would have presumed I would have put them over there.

MR CORNELIUS: Fine.

MS WHITE: And ...

MR CORNELIUS: And did he fit the shoes that night? How did he know ...(intervention)

MS WHITE: Yes, he did fit the shoes and the shoes were fine for him ...(intervention)

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, and you were present.

MS WHITE: ... because I didn't need to take them back to change them again.

MR CORNELIUS: Excellent. And you were present when he fitted the shoes?

MS WHITE: No, I don't think I was present.

MR CORNELIUS: Now how do you know he fitted the shoes?

MS WHITE: Well he must have fitted them because he didn't ask me to return them.

MR CORNELIUS: We are not working on speculations, I'm asking you facts. Did he fit the shoes on?

MS WHITE: Not in my presence, no he didn't.

MR CORNELIUS: Now when, did he ever come back to you and say the shoes fit fine.

MS WHITE: He thanked me for the shoes but he wasn't overly excited about it.

MR CORNELIUS: Did he say the shoes fit or don't fit?

MS WHITE: I can't recall that, he ...(intervention)

MR CORNELIUS: I can't hear you.

MS WHITE: They must have fit because I didn't have to return the shoes.

MR CORNELIUS: Please decide what you're trying to tell me, Mrs White. Did he fit the shoes, didn't he fit the shoes, did the shoes fit, what is the position?

MS WHITE: He didn't fit the shoes in my presence, so I presumed ...(intervention)

MR CORNELIUS: Did he say to you that they fit?

MS WHITE: ... I presumed they must have fit him. He wore the shoes ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I have to object at this stage, I think the answer has been given.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, perhaps Mr Cornelius, just give the witness an opportunity just to answer and let's just hear what her response is.

MR CORNELIUS: I will do so, Mr Chairman. What is your answer, Mrs White?

MS WHITE: To the question of my brother fitting the shoes?

MR CORNELIUS: Well that's what I was asking you all along.

MS WHITE: He didn't fit the shoes in my presence, therefore I assumed that the shoes fitted him because I didn't have to take them back to exchange them. He even wore those shoes that same week.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes. The next day?

MS WHITE: I can't recall exactly if it was the next day. I don't even know - the day that I bought them, I don't know that I bought them before the funeral and he needed them for the funeral or if I bought them after the funeral. I know that he was wearing those shoes. He wore those shoes quite often that week.

MR CORNELIUS: So you felt it was necessary if he goes to the funeral to wear a morbid connection to the murder?

MS WHITE: No, I did not think that at all, I didn't find any morbid connection to the murder with the shoes at all.

MR CORNELIUS: But it's found at the scene of the crime, attached by the police, taken away ...(intervention)

MS WHITE: No, those are different shoes. I went out and I bought my brother a pair of shoes because he didn't have navy blue shoes at the time.

MR CORNELIUS: Fine.

MS WHITE: I made no connection to the murder with those shoes at all.

MR CORNELIUS: And what did your brother say about the fact that he was presented with a pair of navy blue shoes?

MS WHITE: My brother didn't make any connection to it. He needed that pair of shoes, he thanked me for it, he wasn't over thankful. I was surprised that he wasn't more boisterous about the shoes, but considering his state of mind at the time I let it go. Later on my brother thanked me more for the shoes and was more appreciative of the shoes, but not at the time that I actually bought them for him, even months later.

MR CORNELIUS: I see. When did he become appreciative of the shoes?

MS WHITE: Months later, when he went to ...(intervention)

MR CORNELIUS: Prior to the inquest?

MS WHITE: No, it was probably round about the Xmas time when he came down and we all spent Xmas together.

MR CORNELIUS: And did he then say to at Xmas time; dear sister, I now appreciate these blue shoes?

MS WHITE: No, he didn't specifically mention that only. We were sitting around, he was thanking my parents for all the help they'd given, he was thanking me for the help that I'd given and amongst it came the shoes and the help with clearing up the documents. My brother had also sold his house, my father had helped him move out the house and fix up things at the house. So yes, it would have been round the Xmas time when he came and spent time with us.

MR CORNELIUS: And what did he say then about the shoes?

MS WHITE: As I said, he didn't specifically thank about the shoes, but he was more appreciative at the time for all the stuff we'd helped with and done for him round about the time of the ...(intervention)

MR CORNELIUS: Yes. He was probably very appreciative about the shoes prior to the inquest.

MS WHITE: No, that I don't know.

MR CORNELIUS: And following the judgment of the inquest I think he probably didn't thank you for the shoes.

MS WHITE: No, I didn't see my brother much. He left for New Zealand and I didn't see him again.

MR CORNELIUS: But you would agree, Mrs White, if you'd listened to what Lydia Kubeka was saying that night, if there was a second pair of blue shoes it could easily be said that Lydia Kubeka made a mistake.

MS WHITE: No, it was obvious that those shoes had been taken away. It was - there was nothing sinister. Why would there be something - if the police have taken something, why would I then go out and try and replace the exact same things that the police had taken? I mean it was obvious, I bought my brother a gift and there was nothing sinister, nothing strange about the fact that I did it.

MR CORNELIUS: It is so sinister, Mrs White, because if there was a second pair of blue shoes it could be said to Lydia; Lydia you made a mistake, he left with the ...(intervention)

MS WHITE: They were brand new shoes.

MR CORNELIUS: Let me finish. I had to bear an objection from your counsel because I interrupted, now please would you just give me the same courtesy.

MS WHITE: I'm sorry.

MR CORNELIUS: Lydia Kubeka could then be said to; you made a mistake.

MS WHITE: But how could that happen, when you're talking about a second-hand pair of shoes and a brand, brand new pair of shoes? How could the police possibly then even have thought that you can take a brand new pair of shoes and my brother could use a brand new pair of shoes and say; oh no, you know ... it doesn't make sense to me.

MR CORNELIUS: Fine. Let me read to you from page 561 of the judgment of bundle 2 of the exhibits before this tribunal, and it's in line 16 of the judgment

"From as early as Sunday the 23rd of September 1991, the accused knew that the police were placing much tore by what Lydia Kubeka had told them about a pair of shoes with paint marks on them."

23rd of September 1991, surely after the murder.

MS WHITE: Sorry, who said that?

MR CORNELIUS: It's in the judgment.

MS WHITE: Yes, but I'm just saying who said that.

MR CORNELIUS: The judge.

MS WHITE: Oh okay, ja.

MR CORNELIUS: Now the 23rd of September 1991, shortly after the murder. It is clear that the accused knew exactly what the issue of the shoes was. Why the silence?

MS WHITE: Sorry, were you asking me a question?

MR CORNELIUS: Yes. I'm saying on the 23rd of September 1991, the shoes were a paramount issue and shortly after that you purchase him this article which is the focus point of disputes.

MS WHITE: See I don't understand it, I had no idea that the shoes were a big issue. They were an old pair of shoes, and I buy a brand new pair of shoes, how can you compare an old pair of shoes with a brand new pair of shoes? It wasn't a hidden fact, I went out, I bought the shoes, a brand new pair of shoes for my brother.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, Mrs White, because ...(intervention)

MS WHITE: So how could the police even think, compare the two pairs of shoes? I don't understand it.

MR CORNELIUS: Because you can't buy second-hand pairs of old shoes you were compelled to buy a new pair of the same make. Now what I'm saying, I'll put it directly to you Mrs White, you assisted your brother after the fact, trying to fabricate and build his defence.

MS WHITE: In absolutely no way at all.

MR CORNELIUS: Nobody up until now ever said that to you and I'm saying it to you.

MS WHITE: Not at all. Right up until the time when my brother applied for amnesty I was firmly under the belief that my brother was innocent of the crime.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes. And per chance your brother comes then, the applicant, and he then at the inquest - and I quote from the judgment again, 562, paragraph 20, Mr Leischer puts this question to Lydia

"That is right. So you cannot dispute if Mr Bellingan says he had those shoes at the same time as he had the other shoes that were exhibited in Court."

Why would he go and say that now?

MS WHITE: I cannot help what my brother did with those shoes and I cannot help all the different inferences made about those shoes. I had nothing whatsoever to do with buying shoes to try and make a cover-up for my brother. And as I've said it was a brand new pair of shoes as against a second-hand old pair of shoes. How they used those shoes afterwards is certainly nothing to do with me.

MR CORNELIUS: But you agree Mrs White, that your brother used that pair of shoes to bolster his fabricated version.

MS WHITE: I have no idea if my brother did that on purpose.

MR CORNELIUS: But you know today. Would you say to this tribunal today; but my brother lied.

MS WHITE: Well I don't know, I don't know exactly what went on at the inquest. I haven't read those papers from the inquest, so I cannot give you answers to that.

MR CORNELIUS: Mrs White, today you are still covering for him. Today you will agree that your brother lied.

MS WHITE: Well yes, he must have lied at the trial. ...(intervention)

MR CORNELIUS: Not must have, Mrs White, it's clear, he lied.

MS WHITE: Yes, he must have at the trial.

MR CORNELIUS: Not must have at the trial.

MS WHITE: Yes, I'm saying he must have lied.

MR CORNELIUS: He lied, Mrs White.

MS WHITE: He's here because he's now admitting to the murder of his wife, therefore he lied at the trial.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes. And he lied when he made this statement through his attorney, is that right?

MS WHITE: I've no idea, he must have made many lies. I cannot tell you how many lies he made. He must have made many lies at the trial.

MR CORNELIUS: Well I'm asking you about this one lie.

MS WHITE: I can't answer for that, I didn't make those lies.

MR CORNELIUS: But it's clear at the time when he said, when this statement was made, it was a lie.

MS WHITE: It possibly was. I don't know what it's all referring to in there.

MR CORNELIUS: It is clear today it was a lie.

MS WHITE: It probably is.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes. And he used the article which you purchased for him to do this lie.

MS WHITE: Yes, and that certainly makes me angry.

MR CORNELIUS: It makes all of us angry, Mrs White. Now one final question. Prior to the inquest you must had a discussion with the applicant regarding the inquest that was coming.

MS WHITE: I don't know, I don't think we were given very much notice about the inquest. I can't remember exactly what the circumstances were, but I don't even think that - I think my brother was away at the time, if I'm not mistaken.

MR CORNELIUS: Almost three years transpired since the murder before the inquest was held.

MS WHITE: That's right, yes.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes. There was a three year period. Did you ever discuss this shoe issue with your brother again?

MS WHITE: No, I don't think so. I don't think it was important to discuss it with him.

MR CORNELIUS: Oh.

MS WHITE: Because it wasn't an issue.

MR CORNELIUS: Although the police still had the shoes in their possession for a period of three years, which apparently they had illegally in their possession because it played no role, it wasn't an issue?

MS WHITE: No, you've got to remember, I was staying in Pietermaritzburg at the time, I didn't have that much contact with my brother, only when he came down to visit the children. I think it was only after he got remarried again that I moved back up to Johannesburg. It was just before the inquest that I moved back to Johannesburg I think.

MR CORNELIUS: Fine. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Chaskalson?

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

Mrs White, it is just you and your brother as the children in your family, is that correct?

MS WHITE: That's correct, yes.

MR CHASKALSON: You don't have to worry about that yet, we'll get there in a little while. And the two of you are close?

MS WHITE: Well I suppose like any brother and sister yes, we have ups and downs, we have arguments, but basically we get on very well.

MR CHASKALSON: How would you describe your relationship with your brother's late wife?

MS WHITE: We didn't see eye to eye on most things, so we had quite a lot of ups and downs. And basically I would say that Janine and I didn't always agree on everything.

MR CHASKALSON: Did you have occasion to visit with Janine often or speak with her on the telephone? Were you in the habit of making social calls to one another?

MS WHITE: It was more a case of me phoning the house and then speaking to Janine, then speaking to Kate, speaking to Michael, yes I did make quite a point of speaking, but it was mainly to phone for the family more, not specifically to Janine. And yes, we did visit and yes, especially when I'd moved down to Natal, when they were on holiday yes, then they would come and visit.

MR CHASKALSON: How would you describe the relationship between the two sets of families? For instance, did you often have communal lunches with your family and parents and Janine's family and parents?

MS WHITE: No, I don't think I was ever present at, maybe at times like the christenings and that kind of thing, maybe then, but not as a rule would all the families get together.

MR CHASKALSON: Now you testified yesterday and again today that on the Saturday you met your brother at a time that you said between nine and possible quarter past nine and you're certain that it definitely wouldn't have been any later than nine thirty.

MS WHITE: Definitely not.

MR CHASKALSON: Could I ask you to look at those papers I handed to you, they are Exhibit D. Now what these are, these are some hand-written notes that your brother had in front of him when he was testifying and there was bit of a hullabaloo about it and eventually the notes were handed in and he stopped reading from them. Now I would like to take you to the fourth page and starting towards the bottom of that page - and here Mr Chairman, I would just say that I've tried to make out all of the details, but if I'm incorrect I would just like the applicant to have a look at what I'm reading and just to correct me and to point out any mistakes.

Mrs White, I don't know if you might find it easier to read your brother's handwriting. If not, I have got an idea. I'm looking from that last paragraph which begins:

"I took the flight ..."

MS WHITE: Yes.

MR CHASKALSON: Should I maybe just read it and you can follow.

MS WHITE: Okay, that's fine.

MR CHASKALSON: It looks like

"I took the first flight back to Durban ..."

And then it's:

"... around ..."

... and I've got a 0 and it's cut off. I'm presuming that it's:

" 06H00"

... because that is what your brother testified to us in his evidence.

"... got a lift from an Indian male from right outside the terminal. All the way back to the N Coast (North Coast) DBN (Durban)/Pietermaritzburg interchange. Here I waited a while to get a lift. After a while a couple in a bakkie gave me a lift to the same exit again in Pietermaritzburg. I walked back to meet my sister after just going upstairs to see that all was well."

And I presume that that is the flat, because again your brother had testified that he had walked back to Selgrove Centre and then he met you. And then the next paragraph I'm not really certain of at all. I'm not certain if you could make it our, or maybe the applicant could help. It says:

"Met Judy ..."

And then I'm lost. Maybe:

"... at counter"

... or something. Can you maybe make that out for me?

MS WHITE: Maybe it's

"... continued"

I don't know.

"... continued"

MR CHASKALSON: I wonder if ...(intervention)

MS WHITE: Sorry, I can't help you with that.

MR CHASKALSON: I wonder if we could maybe just ask the applicant to assist us in the next two lines if he possibly could, Mr Chairman.

Sorry, Mr Bellingan, I'm looking now at page 5 of that document and I'm now towards, it's the last page of it, and I've got you coming upstairs to the flat to see that all was well and then the next bit begins:

"Met Judy ..."

Just by where there's a little bit of crossing out.

CHAIRPERSON: I think read that whole paragraph for us, Mr Bellingan please.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

"Met Judy and continued to be on automatic. Really alienated from myself. Later when the news came through it hit me and I packed up. The worry over the possibility of the kids having gotten hurt by an intruder through the broken window was suddenly an obsession."

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

MR CHASKALSON: Thank you, Mr Bellingan.

Now yesterday when you were testifying about the Saturday and after the news had come in, you had spoken about all the various things you were trying to ascertain and organising everything and you said that eventually you got back on I think it was the 6 o'clock flight, and you mentioned that given the fact that you were in Pietermaritzburg that was about the earliest you could get to the airport.

MS WHITE: No, I think we eventually went back on the 5 I think, ja.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay, correct. As an indication, to get from Pietermaritzburg area to the Durban airport, would you say driving normally would take something in the region of about 45 minutes?

MS WHITE: I would say normal driving it would take roughly in that. Very difficult, but I would say that's about a fair estimate.

MR CHASKALSON: Possibly a little bit less, possibly a little bit more?

MS WHITE: Ja, I suppose so, depending on the person's driving or whatever, ja.

MR CHASKALSON: Now Mrs White, you don't have this annexure in front of you, but I don't think it's very important. It's Annexure E. This is an affidavit that has been handed in by a South African Airways schedule planner and in this affidavit at paragraph 5, he tells us that the first flight from Johannesburg International Airport to Durban International Airport on Saturday 21 September 1991, was SA503, which departed from Johannesburg at 08H00 and arrived in Durban at 09H00. And he then sets out certain sources which confirm it. So I'm going to ask you to accept that the earliest possible flight that your brother could have got on on that Saturday morning was an 8 o'clock flight and that would have arrived in Durban at 9 o'clock. If you accept that and then accept that your brother has told us he then hitchhiked from the Airport to Pietermaritzburg, he was dropped at an off-ramp and from there he would have to have walked to the Selgrove flats and from there he would have had to walk to meet you wherever that was, would you agree with me that it would be absolutely impossible for him to have met you by nine thirty that morning?

MS WHITE: According to that I would say yes.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay. And if we accept that, would you agree with me that it would therefore have been absolutely impossible that your brother flew from Johannesburg to Durban, and he must have got back from Johannesburg in some other manner?

MS WHITE: Well I suppose according to that I'll have to agree with you.

MR CHASKALSON: Thank you, Mrs White, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CHASKALSON

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mr Hattingh, re-examination?

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman. If possible if I may make a request. It's almost teatime, 11 o'clock, if we could just take the break now. I just want to get instructions from the applicant, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll adjourn for tea.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

COLLEEN JUDY WHITE: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, only one issue.

Mrs White, the last part of Mr Chaskalson's cross-examination pertaining to the possibility or the impossibility of a person being on that first flight of that Saturday morning from Johannesburg to Durban, the 8 o'clock flight, the impossibility thereof of such a person being able to be in time to meet you at nine/nine fifteen in Pietermaritzburg. This was said on the hypothesis that the flight in fact arrived at 9 o'clock that morning in Durban.

MS WHITE: Sorry, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Now all I would like to clarify is, did you have a watch with you at the time, that Saturday morning when you were waiting for the applicant?

MS WHITE: No, I didn't have a watch with me that morning.

MR HATTINGH: And when you agreed to it being impossible for someone from that flight to be in time for nine/nine fifteen that morning, on what was that then based?

MS WHITE: Sorry are you saying impossible for him to have met me at nine/nine fifteen?

MR HATTINGH: Yes.

MS WHITE: Well I was basing it on the fact that Mr Chaskalson said that the flight was at 8 o'clock, it came in at 9 o'clock and then obviously the 45, approximately 45 minutes to get to Pietermaritzburg. It was - sorry, ja?

MR HATTINGH: But you did not have a watch with you at the time?

MS WHITE: No, I didn't have a watch and I'm only going on the fact that he said that the plane had left Jo'burg at 8 o'clock, arrived in Durban at 9 o'clock.

MR HATTINGH: Your brother made a statement, ag not your brother, your husband, Peter Allen Christopher White made a statement to the police to the effect that at about nine thirty, maybe 11 o'clock, sorry, at about 10H30, maybe 11 o'clock Judy and my brother-in-law, Michael Bellingan arrived home.

MS WHITE: Yes, that's correct, that is about the time that we did arrive home.

MR HATTINGH: Can you give any indication as to approximately how long you spent on the shopping exercise?

MS WHITE: That's very difficult to say because I fetched my brother, we then went shopping, I went into the shops, I bought a couple of things - I'm not too sure, and then it's about a 20 minute drive back up to the house again. So I'd hate to actually commit myself to how long I actually spent on shopping, but let's say half an hour. It wasn't a long shopping expedition, you know it was basically going to get some necessities to take with to go out to the farm that day. It wasn't going into a big shopping centre and spending the morning shopping basically.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hattingh.

How certain could you be that you met the applicant definitely before nine thirty?

MS WHITE: I can only go by the assumption that I left the house at around about quarter to nine, ten to nine because our arrangement was to meet at 9 o'clock. I then travelled down into Pietermartizburg, and as I say it's approximately a 20 minute drive because the house where we stayed wasn't right in the centre of Maritzburg, it's in a little place called Mount Michael, which is a bit of a drive into Pietermaritzburg. I then arrived over there, he wasn't there at the time, I waited a short while. It wasn't a long while that I waited for him. I presumed it was approximately 15 minutes that I waited for him. It's difficult to say because you know when you sitting on your own, time seems to drag on a little bit. So I seem to think that it's - you know my assumption or my saying that it was between nine/nine fifteen was fairly accurate.

CHAIRPERSON: Well it doesn't seem to be because if you had left your home at about quarter to nine, ten to nine and it takes you about twenty minutes to travel into Pietermaritzburg and you had to wait for your brother to arrive, it appears just on the face of it that it would have been beyond quarter past nine at least.

MS WHITE: Maybe but only by minutes, it couldn't have been a very long while. I didn't sit there and wait a long time for my brother. It wasn't a case of me sitting there waiting for like an hour, it was a while that I waited for him. That's why I said between nine/nine fifteen, it could have maybe been nine twenty, but you know as I say it wasn't a long while that I waited for my brother.

CHAIRPERSON: The shop where you went to buy some of these things that you needed, where is it, is it in Pietermaritzburg?

MS WHITE: Sorry, the shop where we stopped?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS WHITE: It's sort of en route back to the house up in Pietermaritzburg.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you say it was, was it a sort of a Quick Spar type of place, it's not ...(intervention)

MS WHITE: Yes, it's one of those small shopping centres you know, with a Spar and some satellite shops, it's not a big shopping centre.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. So you were not really shopping, you were just picking up a few items that you needed for the farm or for the braai?

MS WHITE: Yes, I went in and - that's correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So that wouldn't have taken you much time?

CHAIRPERSON: No, 15 minutes, half an hour sort of maximum.

CHAIRPERSON: Although I shouldn't be so adamant about that you know, when some people go into shops they lose themselves.

MS WHITE: Sorry?

CHAIRPERSON: No, I don't want to be too adamant about it, how long it takes you know, because I know that sometimes you go for one item and you leave with ten.

MS WHITE: Yes. You know there's a flower shop, I remember getting some flowers to take through to my mother, so it was a little bit of shopping but not a major shopping expedition as such.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And then your husband says that you got there somewhere around 10H30, 11 o'clock. So if one assumes that you arrived home at ten 10H30, you would probably have left the shopping centre just after ten?

MS WHITE: Probably round about that time. As I say I can't be certain of the times, but that's a possibility.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Gcabashe?

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you, Chair. Mrs White, a slightly different aspect. You gave evidence this morning of the animosity between the two families, Janine's family and your family, but it would also be correct to say that there was animosity between yourself and Janine, there's wasn't a comfortable relationship essentially and that could be called the same animosity that you referred to during your evidence.

MS WHITE: Yes, it wasn't on a permanent basis, it was an on-and-off sort of thing. There were times where it was friendly and everything was fine and then there were times where there was a great amount of animosity.

ADV GCABASHE: I mean you did give evidence at the inquest and you refer there to incidents where she would come to your house with the family and stay in the car and just not come into your house at all.

MS WHITE: That is correct, yes.

ADV GCABASHE: Now what I'd like you to help me understand with that background is why she would then confide you to any extent at all? - and by confide I mean why would she tell you what she was going to do to sabotage your brother's career.

MS WHITE: You see it wasn't really a case of confiding with Janine, it was a case of it came out in the conversation. And as I said previously before with conversations, it wasn't only to me, there were other times where this happened as well. It wasn't a case of her phoning me and saying I need to confide in you or in a confiding tone at all. It wasn't a case of that at all.

ADV GCABASHE: What was it, if it wasn't confiding, what was it?

MS WHITE: I don't really know to call it. She didn't specifically, she didn't actually phone me for that reason, the reason she phoned me was to actually try and get hold of my brother, find out from me if I knew where he was staying and also whether I knew if he was coming back on the Friday or the Saturday. That was the main reason for her phone call to me, the rest came along with the conversation that we had.

ADV GCABASHE: Yes, this is precisely the point. She really only wanted to know whether you knew where her husband was and where he'd be spending Saturday essentially?

MS WHITE: That's correct.

ADV GCABASHE: You're in agreement with that. And what I fail to understand, even with the evidence we have heard, is why she would then go on and say to you I have these documents, I am in the next day or two going to tell either the ANC or the white liberal press that these are the things that Michael and his unit have been getting up to, and in that way sabotage his whole career, why at that point in time would she say this to you, you weren't here friend?

MS WHITE: It was a kind of conversation that Janine often would have and it was something that she, especially after I mentioned the fact - I did use to use certain derogatory terms as far as Michael's work was concerned, and after making comments like that, Janine would as you would say open up about it, but it wasn't in a kind of confidential kind of way because she said it to a lot of people.

It wasn't only specifically to me that Janine would say those things to. There were times that if they were angry at each other, she's pick up the phone and phone my father about it and complain to my father about Mike's work situation and the fact that it was interfering with their relationship. So it wasn't necessarily a confiding story, it was more a case of getting something off her chest and telling somebody about how irritated she was about it.

ADV GCABASHE: But your family would be the last family surely that she'd say things like that to ...(intervention)

MS WHITE: No, not at all, no.

ADV GCABASHE: ... because she had her own family, she had her own confidants and she knew that you would report whatever she said to Michael because you were a close-knit family.

MS WHITE: Yes, we did discuss things and she did, she phoned the family a lot about problems and things like that, that was a fairly regular thing Janine used to do.

ADV GCABASHE: A slightly different aspect, you only found out after your brother had submitted his amnesty application, that he had indeed committed the murder. this is what you've said.

MS WHITE: Yes, at the time that he was preparing - I'm not, I'm actually not even too sure, I think I heard it from my father and that was the first time that I was aware that he had committed the murder.

ADV GCABASHE: Did you talk to him about it after that?

MS WHITE: I was very angry about it. I didn't actually go and see my brother in the prison. I was, I basically alienated myself from him for about a year-and-a-half.

ADV GCABASHE: Have you ever talked to him about lying to you, his only sister?

MS WHITE: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE: What did you say to him?

MS WHITE: It was the time where I was invited for a reconciliation meeting with him at the prison and he actually apologised to me for the fact that I'd been intimidated, my house had been broken into, I'd been followed, and basically for the whole getting involved and for helping me and making me believe that he was innocent in this whole thing.

ADV GCABASHE: And when would that have been?

MS WHITE: I think it was round about August or September last year. I'm not sure of the exact date, as I say it was an invitation by the prison for me to have a reconciliation meeting with him.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms White, where do you live now?

MS WHITE: I live in Johannesburg, in Northcliffe.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, something that bothers me, it's not strictly speaking within the ambit of what we are dealing with, but what is the situation with the children and the family of the deceased?

MS WHITE: Previously - I haven't had any dealings with it, but I believe that they haven't seen the children. As far as I'm aware at the moment, if I'm not mistaken, there is a social worker involved in it and I think there have been discussions about them starting, or being able to see the children, but I think that was probably agreed that at the end of this hearing then further discussions would be made for them to see the children. And I for one am very willing and would actually like to be instrumental in them having contact with the children again.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think that's a very good idea. Are you saying that they haven't seen the grandparents ever since this incident?

MS WHITE: No, they have not.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I am ...(intervention)

MS WHITE: Well to my knowledge I believe they have not, ja.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'm encouraged by what you say, what your attitude is.

ADV BOSMAN: No questions thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if you've got anything arising from what we've asked, Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: No thank you, Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

CHAIRPERSON: Mrs White, thank you very much, you're excused.

MS WHITE: Thank you.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH ADDRESSES: Mr Chairman, we will not be leading any further witnesses in the application of the applicant. However, there are a few issues that should just be placed on record. I think the first thing is, it was yesterday requested by Mr Chaskalson that the applicant indicate whether he has any tapes of discussions between himself and the TRC still available,

and I've been instructed that there are no such further tapes available or relevant tapes available. That's the first thing.

The second thing is, there was a discussion during the course of the tea break about the status of certain documentation, and before we in fact then close the case so to speak, for the applicant, I think we should deal with this issue and make sure of what is on record and what is agreed with regard to certain further documentation.

In that regard I refer to the status of such documentation. We have various bundles of documents which were from the outset made available for the purpose of this hearing and without in fact agreeing to the contents thereof or the validity thereof. So at this stage we just have to deal with the documentation that we by agreement would like to place before this Committee and the status thereof.

Now my understanding is, and we are in agreement to the effect that the investigating diary from - we all have copies of this record, I don't think at this stage, not from our side there is any intention of placing the full complete 143 pages of this document before this Committee, however it is agreed that every party would place such extract from this document before this Committee and that we all agree to the status of this document then as being accepted for the correctness thereof and that is not necessary for any investigating officer to come and testify to support or to provide the basis for the submission of this document and we all accept it as being correct. But we are not going to place the full and complete document before you, we are going to put extracts from that document to you.

At this stage, at this point we are about to close the case for the applicant, I'm just going to request that I'm not going to put further parts of this investigating diary before you at this stage, but in the light of the fact that the full investigating diary is agreed upon, it may happen that I may at some later stage then just make copies of particular pages available and which will then be used in final argument and address. That's the first point.

The second point is the, I think Mr Rautenbach wanted some further document with reference to the flights, not the flight record but the passenger lists also to be placed on record and with regard to that we also have no problem. Perhaps we could just deal with the documents before I then finally close my case. Thank you.

Perhaps if you'll allow the other parties just to give their comments and to agree or to disagree.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright. If they disagree then they will be quite vocal I accept.

MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, while we have a slight lull, regarding the investigation diary, can I assume that if any of the legal representatives are going to rely on any specific aspect thereof for purposes of argument, that that at least be made known before evidence has been closed, so that if necessary all the parties can get instructions thereto if necessary.

The way I understand it now is that only two or three pages thereof are included in the present bundle and that's that, so I'm - except if I've understood Mr Hattingh wrong.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I understand him to say that the correctness, accuracy of the investigation diary is not in dispute, it's accepted by all the parties. At this stage as he understands it, there is no need to place the entire document before us, it runs into more than 100 pages I'm told.

And he says that if he intends to rely on any other extracts from the investigation diary which are not already before us, he gives us notice that he might be handing up you know, those extracts. So I assume that at that stage - and I assume it applies to everybody else, at that stage he would make available to you and to whoever else copies and indicate which further sections he wants to place before us.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, may I just come in at this stage. Perhaps - I'm now getting instructions from my instructing attorney with regards to this investigating diary. We don't have to stand down for it, but could I just get proper instructions in this regard. This was discussed during the tea break and I thought I had the proper instructions in this regard. Let me just find out to what extent we need to place on record on what basis this document is placed before the Committee and to the extent of the correctness thereof.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, do that.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, perhaps I should just qualify that. The investigating diary, the basis on which we agree to it is that we accept that it was noted correct, but we do not necessarily agree to the contents of what was noted and to the correctness of the contents. In particular obviously where it differs from testimony that was placed before this Committee on behalf of the applicant.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, may I come in here. Our attitude is the following. We intend not to call Mr Steyn, but in fact to get from him an affidavit and attached to that affidavit the flights on the day, the passenger list, to hand that in, a short explanation about the passenger list as well as attached to that affidavit the part of the investigating diary to which I referred during my cross-examination. We will basically say this is part of the investigating diary and these are the notes I've written down at the time due to discussion I had.

If when we present that affidavit with those annexures, it will be for all other parties here concerned to decide if they want to call the investigating officer, Steyn they're welcome to do so. This is what we intend to do.

We do not think it is necessary in the circumstances to call him and to lead his evidence on all sorts of issues and side issues. We want to confine him to an affidavit to those relevant issues. We know however that is any party wants to call him, they are free to do so. That is as far as Steyn is concerned, that is far as the investigating diary is concerned, and the passenger list.

As far as the second issue is concerned, the inquest evidence, we are going to put together parts of the, not the whole, but parts of the inquest proceedings, evidence for instance by Mr Bellingan, evidence for instance by Mr White and probably evidence by the investigating officer. We'll put that together, show it to the other parties, ask them whether they think any other evidence at the inquest should be added to those portions of the evidence. If they want to add to it they are welcome to do it, if they don't want to, we will just present you with those parts that we think are relevant to the proceedings here. This is basically how we plan to present part of our case.

ADV BOSMAN: Chairperson, can I just make quite sure that I understand correctly.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV BOSMAN: So what is being admitted is the authenticity of the documents, the authenticity of the documents and the correct recording of the documents. No party admits any truth of the contents of the documents?

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes, that is necessarily so. It will be impossible for instance for my learned friend, Mr Hattingh, if I present an affidavit by Mr Steyn and attached parts of the investigating diary that contradicts the evidence of Mrs White, surely he cannot say that I admit it as the truth. It is what it purports to be. It's his affidavit, he says so under oath and these are his notes and that's the value of it. It's no admission of the truth thereof, it has to be at the end of the day, evaluated by this Committee as this Committee will evaluate any other evidence.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Rautenbach, I just wanted to make that quite clear, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, are you now happy that you've presented the position correctly?

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, we are in agreement, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And that's the case for the applicant, is it?

MR HATTINGH: That is the case for the applicant, Mr Chairman.

RECALL OF MICHAEL BELLINGAN

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rautenbach are you ready to proceed?

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, just before we proceed with any of the other parties' cases, you remember yesterday before Mr Bellingan stood down, there was the document that we had to take instructions on and to consider. I would just like to put that document to Mr Bellingan.

I hope it would not take too much time, but just get some answers relating to the document.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well those issues were raised.

Of course if this impacts, Mr Hattingh, of course if this impacts on your case in a way in which you feel you should be adding anything further, then of course you would be at liberty to reopen and to add.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bellingan, in the course of your cross-examination on behalf of the family of the deceased, there was an indication that there was a document which had to be clarified and it appears, as counsel indicates, that has been done.

The document is being distributed at this stage. I'm going

to, as I have already indicated earlier, I'm going to allow counsel an opportunity to deal with this document and for that purpose I'm going to re-administer the oath to you and just remind you, I think at this stage simply remind you that you are under your previous oath.

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rautenbach?

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Bellingan firstly, this document that has been put before you, is that your handwriting, were you the author of this document?

MR BELLINGAN: It's my handwriting, so I must be the author of this document, Mr Chairman.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Bellingan, to whom was this document directed?

MR BELLINGAN: May I just have the opportunity to read it please, Mr Chairman, before I can get the ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Bellingan, have you read the document?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I have, Mr Chairman.

MR RAUTENBACH: To whom was this document directed?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, before I answer that, would it be possible to know how this came into the hands of Advocate Rautenbach?

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Bellingan, I'm not prepared to answer your questions. I'm asking you - you've already identified the document as a document in your own handwriting, and I would like to know who it was directed to.

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, a very personal documentation, somehow taken from my own personal and confidential files, which has been stolen from my personal and confidential files for whatever devious purposes, which is a fiction of my mind pertaining to possible cover, somehow ends up in the hands of Mr Rautenbach.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Bellingan, may I just put to you that apart from being the author of the document, the document deals with the events surrounding the murder and that is the relevance of the document, and that is why I would like to ask you certain questions about this document.

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, very likely this was would have been part of a cover story which I would have discussed in confidence with my legal team at the time. So aside from the fact that there's the item of privilege, it comes from my files. Now surely it can't be in the interest of justice for evidence obtained by any unlawful means suddenly arrives like this at a hearing.

MR RAUTENBACH: Is there anything in this document, Mr Bellingan, that you're not, that you're uncomfortable with?

MR BELLINGAN: It's a fiction, Mr Chairman, the document is a fiction.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, if I might just at this stage, perhaps I missed it. I don't know whether it's been clarified or cleared up as to whom this document was addressed. Clearly, if it was addressed to his legal representatives at the time, then the whole issue of privilege comes into play and then it doesn't really matter how it got into the hands of the other side, the privilege is still the privilege of the applicant.

Now if we just - I haven't seen this document, I think it's just first to find out to whom it was addressed. And if that is something that was addressed to his attorneys, for whatever reason, then it is privileged and we can't deal with it.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, if my learned friend, Mr Hattingh, can put a basis before you that this document is a privileged document because of the law, I will not attempt to go into this document. I understand what the privilege means and I will not attempt to do it. However, from a reading of the document the document does not seem to be a communication between Mr Bellingan and his legal representatives, it's rather, it seems to be a documentation or a communication between Mr Bellingan and his father. That is and his father.

Now I would like to ask Mr Bellingan on this point so that we can immediately deal with the privilege, as him - Mr Bellingan, was this a communication from you to your father?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chairman, this is a fiction of my mind, which may have entered into the possible cover-up for which I've applied for amnesty, for the perjury etc. As it turns out, I never used anything like this in my defence because it was a fiction of my mind. This has never been communicated to my father, he knows absolutely nothing about this, or anyone else for that matter. It's from my own personal documents, Mr Chairman.

You will also see here that there's nothing about the Security Branch in here, for the simple reason that pertaining to the cover-up in my, possibly to be used in my defence ...(no sound) it would be amongst documentation which at a stage were with my attorneys. But most certainly, Mr Chairman, this is the, strangely the only document amongst the documentation which was not returned to me on Sunday.

There's a particular problem which I've been experiencing with regard to threats and certain extortions and things like that, and then strangely enough this is the only document from my personal files which is not returned to me on this past Sunday when I needed my documentation to present before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. So it's been removed from my files to be used for some or other purpose, which is within my personal knowledge, it's confidential, it's privileged information. I'm claiming the privilege, Mr Chairman, and I can tell you that this is a fiction of my mind.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I'm obviously here to look after the interests of the applicant, and I will only be in a position to either object to this document and demand that he is entitled to the privilege which attaches to it if I could have the opportunity of discussing with client whether this is in fact a document which falls under that category.

I don't know, our client is now left on his own to try and find his way around whether there is a privilege or not and it's not going to assist us by Mr Rautenbach asking questions to extricate from that whether it was a privileged document or not.

I think I should be in a position to advise client whether this should be deal altogether, and I will only be in a position to do so if I could have the opportunity of asking him: "What was this document, did you prepare it, which is now back, for what purpose was it sent to the attorneys, what happened to this document, for what was it prepared?"

If there is a privilege then there is a privilege, then we can't deal with this document. But I can't just allow Mr Rautenbach to...

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

MR RAUTENBACH: ... in the end we then argue whether it is a privileged document or not. We have to deal with this at this stage and I have to object to the document being handed in and being dealt with, the contents thereof at this stage and not only later when we've all cross-examined and made aware of the contents of this document.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rautenbach, have you got a response? You had said ...

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, as I said initially, I am not going to go into the contents of this document as long as the privilege argument hasn't been sorted out, because I would think if privilege attaches to the document it would be improper for me to do so. So I will not attempt to go into it. There's only one question that I want to ask at this stage, and I think that can also be considered, should you give my learned friend time to consult with his client, there's only one aspect, and I think that can also be considered whilst we have an adjournment, and that is - I'm not going into the document at all, I just want to put you, Mr Bellingan, that on the second page thereof you'll find the portion which you basically say that you would be together

"Mum, Judy, me and you."

Just take that into account, and that is on the privilege argument, the basis on which I say to you that this was a communication, not between yourself and your attorneys, but a document, a communication between yourself and your father. Please take that into account.

Mr Chairman, as I say I will not even attempt to touch the contents of the document before we haven't come over this, either come over this hurdle or not regarding privilege.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we will take an adjournment. We will stand down just to give Mr Hattingh an opportunity to at least decide how we should be approaching ...

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR CHASKALSON: Sorry. I've got an alternative suggestion which I'd just like to place before you for your consideration. I don't know how the other parties would feel. My suggestion is that instead of taking another break, because time is short, we leave this issue for the moment and we continue with the other witnesses and we can always revert to Mr Bellingan after for instance the lunch break when there has been this consideration and just avoid losing any extra time.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, what is your response to that, and all the other parties?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman no, I don't think so. Firstly, I think this document, if it is admissible in the end, my first and obvious response is that this should have been presented to the applicant at the time when he was under cross-examination. We don't know the reasons why it's only presented now. But it would appear that this document is important and I don't think we can continue with this matter unless we've clarified this issue.

The application of the applicant cannot be concluded unless this has been dealt with. And we cannot carry on with other witnesses and sort of just take one witness here and one witness there and then say we're coming back to the application of the applicant. I think we should just deal with this first.

CHAIRPERSON: No, Mr Chaskalson, I think it's best that we try and clarify this thing and once we move we move, on the basis that either the applicant's case is closed or not.

We'll stand down and you will indicate - bearing in mind that we would like to get the process going, once you're ready to know how to deal with this document.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll stand down.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: ... by the legal representative of the family of the deceased in this matter. It has come to our notice that inadvertently this document had been made available to the media, that steps have been taken to retrieve any copies of this particular document which might have been distributed. Can we just indicate at this stage that until a ruling has been made by the Panel on the status of this particular document, it is not yet a public document and as such the media is not at liberty to deal with that document at this stage. We will make a ruling on the status of the document as soon as the arguments have been completed, but between that time and now we deem it necessary to bring it to the specific attention of the media not to deal with this document.

Advocate Hattingh still needs some time to clarify the matter that he wanted to clarify, so we will stand down in a minute again.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I would just like to place on record that we are extremely dissatisfied with this development, in the sense that this document, the status of which is not yet clear, has been made available to the media by the media liaison officer from the TRC at this stage. And to say that we're not happy is an understatement.

Secondly, we appreciate that a ruling has now been made that the media are not at this stage allowed to publish this document or anything that relates to this document, if I understand you correctly. Although copies were collected back from the people from the press, I just want to place on record that it is also true that the press have already made certain notes of this copy and they are already in possession of the knowledge of this copy, but in any event the ruling stands that the press is not to take it any further pending a further ruling on this document.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We will stand down again to allow counsel to deal with the original issue that he wanted to deal with. We thought it necessary to reconvene just to deal with the question of the document. We'll stand down.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: (s.u.o.)

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman. At this stage I can't say anything further, but that we are still considering the issue and we need to clarify certain aspects thereof before we can in fact indicate whether this document is privileged or not. It's not something that I could just even tell you that that is in fact the position.

I am asking that this matter stand down until Monday. You indicated that we will sit today until 3 o'clock and it's now a quarter to one, so there is one hour and fifty minutes left of this hearing for today. This is an important issue and I cannot just let this matter carry on on other issues and let this stand over till Monday. I would ask that we then stand down until Monday, to enable me to come back and then address the Committee whether this document is privileged and not to be included in the documentation or whether it is to be dealt with under cross-examination.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

CHAIRPERSON: You know that does change the situation. We obviously want to allow you to ascertain exactly what the position is regarding this document, however we keep our eye on the time. I'm not persuaded that we ought to terminate the proceedings at this stage until Monday in order to allow you to deal with this document and not deal with anything else.

Mr Chaskalson, were you going to call any witnesses? - or perhaps I should ask Mr Rautenbach first.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, the situation is the following; as far as our case is concerned we are going to present the Committee, I think probably on Monday, Monday morning, with the affidavit by Steyn. We intend calling a witness. We have arranged for an interpreter to be here at 2 o'clock. The witness will be here at 2 o'clock and we would like to proceed with that witness.

Then, with the handing in of the affidavit, that will conclude the case for the family of the deceased, that's Monday morning. We believe that - I understand from Mr Chaskalson that there may well be a further affidavit forthcoming from their side. I'm not sure what their position is.

It seems to me that if we do it on those lines, the only outstanding issues on Monday, if we are allowed to call this witness this afternoon - and this witness has got nothing to do with this document, if we call this witness and we can finish this witness it will basically mean that the only outstanding issue on Monday will be our affidavit, I believe the evidence of General Erasmus and this issue that we're dealing with now, which I think - I'm just saying it at this stage, should not take a long time to deal with and that we will basically be in a position to finish all the evidence in this matter before lunch on Monday.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that is certainly an appealing prospect. Perhaps I should go this way round. ...(inaudible) Mr Cornelius?

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I'm in this position, I don't know if somebody wants to call my client to testify. I don't really think it's necessary. I don't know what the attitude of the Chairman would be. I'm not available next week, I'm involved in East London in the Duli Transkei issue. But if we can receive during the lunch break an indication from my colleagues it would ease my position, then obviously I can be excused on Monday.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it does make sense. Mr Wagener, what is your situation?

MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, four of my clients are under subpoena, Mr Erasmus, Oosthuizen, Taylor and Els. I've had discussions with all my colleagues here and it seems as if Taylor and Else are not required by anyone. Regarding Erasmus and Oosthuizen, they've been on standby all week and they will still be on standby and available to testify should anyone require their presence here. I myself do not intend presenting their evidence on my own, but they are available. That is my position.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Chaskalson, - oh yes, I'm sorry, Mr Lengane.

MR LENGANE: Thanks, Mr Chairman. We don't have any witness to call on behalf of NUMSA. Our understanding with Mr Wagener was that Mr Erasmus will be available should we need him on Monday. That is our position.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Mr Chaskalson?

MR CHASKALSON: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Two points. The first point is that Mr Erasmus will be testifying on Monday and we have made arrangements as to how his evidence will be led and that he will be here.

As far as Mr Oosthuizen is concerned, I don't think it will be necessary to call him, but if we receive an indication that the panel feel that it might be necessary, we will take the necessary steps.

As far as the TRC case is concerned, what I wish to do is hand in an affidavit on Monday from Mr Kjellberg and if for any reason any of the other parties have problems with the content of that affidavit, we can then put Mr Kjellberg onto the stand.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well under those circumstances Mr Rautenbach's indications appear to have a basis in realism.

Mr Hattingh, you know Mr Rautenbach indicates that his witness doesn't impact on this document at all. We have a duty towards the process, towards your client, towards the other interested parties and so on and we are trying to do our best to be fair to everybody in the circumstances.

In our view you know there can't be any prejudice to your client and the question around this document if we to take the testimony of Mr Rautenbach's witness at 2 o'clock and then see how the rest of the matter will be proceeding. So at this stage we are going to adjourn until 2 o'clock and we will hear the witness of Mr Rautenbach.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman sorry, before we adjourn, I have been naughty in view of an earlier indication that we will adjourn at 3 o'clock this afternoon. I have made other commitments for later in the afternoon. May I just ask from you whether you still intend to continue only up till 3 o'clock? - I'm not sure.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, unfortunately the logistical realities compel us, as much as we would like to spend the entire weekend here, to be packing up at 3 o'clock unfortunately, so you can take it as the position. We're adjourned until two.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rautenbach?

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, I call Eunice Mangqawa - oh, Eugenia Mangqawa.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rautenbach, can you just give us an indication of the surname again please?

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, it's Eugenia and the surname is M-A-N-G-Q-A-W-A.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr Rautenbach. Ms Mangqawa, can you hear me on the headphones?

MS MANGQAWA: Yes, I can hear you.

CHAIRPERSON: I want you to please stand to take the oath. Are you full names Eugenia Mangqawa?

EUGENIA MANGQAWA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Please sit down. Mr Rautenbach?

EXAMINATION BY MR RAUTENBACH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Do you know Mr Bellingan that is sitting across you at the other table there?

MS MANGQAWA: Yes, I do know him.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did you work for Mr Bellingan at some stage?

MS MANGQAWA: Yes, I worked for him.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you tell us what this period was? When did you work for him, from when to when?

MS MANGQAWA: From 1988 to 1990.

MR RAUTENBACH: When in 1988, can you just give us the month when you started to work there and the month when you left?

MS MANGQAWA: I started on the 16th of December 1988 until 26 of October 1990.

MR RAUTENBACH: Will tell us what your duties were when you were working for him?

MS MANGQAWA: I was cleaning the house and cooking and washing and ironing the clothes and I was looking after the child.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now Mr Bellingan's wife, did you know her well?

MS MANGQAWA: Yes, I knew her well.

MR RAUTENBACH: This was Janine, is that correct?

MS MANGQAWA: Yes, that is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: I'd like you to tell this forum, from your observations how did you, how would you describe the relationship between Mr Bellingan and his wife, Janine?

MS MANGQAWA: It was Mrs Bellingan who told me that she was not happy in her marriage. She told me that some days she would speak to her husband, the other days they wouldn't speak. So she told me that I must not think that she was angry at me.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you tell us about specific incidents that you observed where there were problems between then?

MS MANGQAWA: One day, it was Saturday morning, I arrived there and the chips that I made for supper on Friday night were on the floor. I then asked her when Mr Bellingan left, I ask her what was happening and she then told me that he ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I just want to - at this stage there is an objection. If this evidence or this witness is going to testify only to the effect to hearsay evidence, I think a basis should be made for that kind of evidence to be led exclusively.

If this witness is going to testify about incidents and factual matters of which an eye witness to at the time, fine, but if the whole testimony is going to centre around hearsay evidence, I think then the basis should be made that this is then admissible, at this stage already.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman with respect, it's much more complicated than just being hearsay. You have listened and your Committee have listened to a lot of hearsay evidence in the applicant's case, about discussions with Janine that people had with her. One of the most important issues before you is the motive. Now it was suggested in cross-examination to Mr Bellingan, both by Mr Trengrove and actually more particularly by Mr Chaskalson, as to what this relationship was. And to show - it's part of the opposition of this amnesty application to show that the motive probably lies rather in a personal relationship between the deceased, Janine, and Mr Bellingan, that there was a pattern, that there were problems in that marriage, that there was a pattern of incidents, that there were allegations of assaults, there were allegations of serious trouble between Mr Bellingan and his wife. And that we will argue was at the end of the day the motivation for the murder. That together with of course as we suggested, the problems regarding a divorce and demands that she made regarding that divorce.

Apart from that, the evidence that she's been giving now when the objection came, was actually evidence where she said what she saw; she saw it on the floor. And then that observation of course will be backed up as to what she was told about what she saw. So to say that the evidence is hearsay, that probably affects the value of the truth of what she conveyed, but it does not, it's of the utmost importance for you as the Committee to understand and to get if possible, more insight into this relationship. And this is why this evidence is being tendered. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman yes, I think it's clear why I made the objection at the time that I did. She testified that she saw the chips on the floor on the Saturday morning and that, we accept that that is something she saw herself, but then she continued and said

"The missus told her ..."

... and that is when I stopped her.

Now the problem is that Mr Rautenbach has explained to this Committee that the reason why this witness is called is in fact to show this tendency over period, of serious problems and allegations of assault.

Now at this stage the allegation of assault is denied. That allegation is denied. It is a this stage we haven't heard a single piece of evidence in this hearing - and I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong, about any assaults. We have knowledge, or allegations were made, it was put to the applicant that there were assaults, all based on the diary. Now the diaries are obviously, from the nature thereof, hearsay evidence.

However, I'm not arguing the validity or the basis on which the hearsay evidence of the diaries may or my not be permissible or admissible in this hearing for the truth thereof or whatever, but what I say is we are already only confronted with hearsay evidence in essence. That is it, hearsay evidence.

Now to what extent we are going to pursue this hearsay evidence and support it with further hearsay evidence without any basis, I really can't see. Clearly this evidence of what the missus told her each and every time will amount to hearsay evidence.

Now if this hearing says that well we are going to accept hearsay evidence, don't worry we're going to accept it all along, then so be it. However, I think my reasoning would be that everyone may submit documentation, and various documents were made part of the bundles, not all of those documents have been proved and are in the end for this Committee to take into consideration when coming to a final conclusion and a judgment in this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. At this stage let me just indicate that obviously this in an inquiry, we're not confined entirely to the technicalities of the laws of evidence and everything else, although we have to be fair and just in the way in which we handle the inquiry.

We are alive to the difficulty around hearsay evidence. We are aware of the fact that eventually what we have to do is to decide on the weight of the material that has been placed before us. Under those circumstances we are going to allow Mr Rautenbach to continue to present whatever he wants to present to us. We will, if it is necessary, we will deal with this question of the hearsay nature or not of what has been tendered to us. But at this stage we will allow him to carry on and we will deal with the question of hearsay and admissibility and weight when it's necessary.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

CHAIRPERSON: May I just add, Mr Rautenbach, you have taken note of the point that was raised by Mr Hattingh, which is, of course it's a point with merit, with some merit in it, would you if it's possible try and get to whatever factual aspects there are to the testimony, try and get to that as soon as you can. We understand the difficulties that are perhaps involved in the process, but do that.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, may I just add something - and I'm not asking you to reconsider your ruling at this stage, I was just not quite finished. All I wanted to add to this is that the evidence that is now being presented, the hearsay evidence, for the truth thereof, not, if it is presented for what was said, fine, but if it's presented for the truth thereof, then there's a difference to that.

Secondly, all I wanted to say is that Section 30 of the Act makes provision for this Committee to make its own rules with regard to procedure. I doubt however whether that would include the Law of Evidence as well. Those are the only two issues that I would like to raise at this stage, but I accept your ruling at this stage. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, of course the ruling as I've indicated is of an interlocutory nature, it's not final in any way, it is simply done in order to facilitate the process. So it's more a procedural ruling than a ruling on substantive questions at this stage.

But having said all of that, Mr Rautenbach won't you proceed and then try and focus on the factual matters if it's possible.

MR RAUTENBACH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

You told us that you saw the chips on the floor, what happened then, did you make enquiries or what happened?

MS MANGQAWA: I asked her why the food was lying on the floor. She told me that Michael came back at night and she(sic) was drunk and she told me that he was hitting her with the chips and he was insulting her.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can I just have clarity, that hitting with the chips, was it thrown? Can you just clarify that, did he throw her with the chips, what did he exactly do with the chips? What did she tell you?

MS MANGQAWA: She told me that she would take a chip and hit it with her and she would run around the kitchen.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did you ever see or notice, observe any marks on her body or any injuries?

MS MANGQAWA: In her hands, in her arm there were marks and she told me that he would push her towards the wall. So she had marks on her arms.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did you ask her what happened when you noticed the marks, is that how you discussed the issue with her?

MS MANGQAWA: She told me. She showed me the marks and she told me that he was pushing her towards the wall, that's why there were marks on her body.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you recall an incident separately, a separate incident where her clothes were taken out of the house?

MS MANGQAWA: Yes, it was another Saturday morning and the clothes were outside and other clothes were at the boot car and she told me that her clothes were outside and she told me that she was waiting for the police. And Mr Bellingan was standing at the door at the door at the time, and he went to the car and took the clothes back to the house and the clothes were lying on the floor, and then he left.

MR RAUTENBACH: On this occasion did you hear any conversation between them?

MS MANGQAWA: I didn't hear the conversation between them. When I arrived in the morning I saw the clothes lying outside. She then told me what happened after Mr Bellingan had left.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you recall an incident surrounding a broken staircase?

MS MANGQAWA: Can you please repeat that question, Sir?

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you recall an incident about a staircase that was broken?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, at this stage I would just like to object again. I don't know to what extent Mr Rautenbach is intending leading this witness, perhaps he should just allow this witness to tell this Committee of all problems and not to lead this witness too much in providing a chain between certain damages and the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: That might be difficult, Mr Hattingh. I think that - I've already indicated that our attitude towards this process and the spirit of this process is not to turn it into a technical sort of proceeding. I'm going to allow you, Mr Rautenbach. Try obviously not to lead too badly, but I mean I understand that. Otherwise we'll be sitting here till Kingdom comes. Go ahead.

MR RAUTENBACH: I will also not attempt not to suggest any answers to her, I will rather, as I did, was to mention a specific incident and let her then elaborate. So I'm just going to repeat that question.

Can you recall an incident about a broken staircase?

MS MANGQAWA: Yes. I arrived that morning when the clothes were lying down and the staircase was broken. It was that particular day when the clothes were outside.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you recall where the children, or where the child was on that morning?

MS MANGQAWA: The child was there.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Bellingan, did he have a briefcase?

MS MANGQAWA: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now this briefcase of Mr Bellingan, was this something that people had access to, that he left at home or that he left behind when he left the house or what were his movements with his briefcase about?

MS MANGQAWA: He used to take the briefcase with him.

MR RAUTENBACH: Was there ever an incident where the briefcase was opened by yourself or by Janine?

MS MANGQAWA: One day he left the briefcase at home. He went to play golf. And his wife called me, she wanted to open the briefcase because she wanted to see what was inside. Mr Bellingan was not there.

MR RAUTENBACH: Why did she call you?

MS MANGQAWA: Because she wanted me to look out for the gate. If the gate was opened I would know that it was him, she would then close the briefcase and take it back.

MR RAUTENBACH: Do you know perhaps why she wanted to look into this briefcase?

MS MANGQAWA: She told me that the reason was that Mr Bellingan bought clothes for the child and he bought a gazebo and Mrs Bellingan said that she knew that he didn't have money, she was wondering why he was doing all this. She thought that there was something bad that was happening. She knew that he did not have enough money to buy all those stuff.

MR RAUTENBACH: I just want you to be more clear on that, what things are you talking about? You said something about a gazebo, what things was she talking about that she wondered where the money was coming from? What did she say?

MS MANGQAWA: She said that he did not buy any clothes for the child, it was the first time that he bought clothes and he also bought the gazebo and all those things were expensive. She that Mr Bellingan was not contributing financially at home, she was the one who was buying clothes, so she was wondering where this money was coming from.

MR RAUTENBACH: This gazebo that you're talking about - in case there's a bit of a misunderstanding, describe this gazebo, what is it, where was it, was it built or what was it?

MS MANGQAWA: It was something that was like an umbrella. It was next to the pool, it was put next to the pool.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rautenbach, just give me a minute please.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rautenbach, can I possible just repeat that request that I have made earlier. One of my colleagues has drawn my attention to some matters in regard to the nature of this evidence and so on. Is it possible to focus the witness on incidents which on a factual manner will contribute towards us to be able to decide the matter?

MR RAUTENBACH: One of the difficulties, Mr Chairman, is when you describe a specific incident that happened these incidents are coupled with conversations that forms part of the incident, so it's very difficult. If I say to you for instance that she arrived in the house and there was, the first incident, there were chips on the floor and this type of thing, I mean the conversation forms part of the incident.

Now I know at the end of the day it will be for the Committee to decide what the value of that evidence is. You will for instance - I will during argument for instance, show to you that some of these incidents are documented in the diaries for instance and that's also an important factor, where they are actually documented. But I will do my best to focus on what the witness observed.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we haven't shifted on the approach that at this stage we are not going to rule the evidence inadmissible, but we are alerting you of course to the fact that we've already raised that, that when it comes to the weight of it we'll have to weigh it up and if it appears even at this early stage that it wouldn't help us very much, then it's no sense to read it, and that is why we're asking you to try and focus on those things which would, which there is a reasonable basis will assist us in deciding the matter.

MR RAUTENBACH: Will you please tell us, when this briefcase was opened what did, tell us what you saw, what was found and what she did, what you noticed her doing when she opened the briefcase.

MS MANGQAWA: She opened the briefcase when I was there and she took out the cheques from the briefcase. She told me that she was scared and she told me to look through the window because if he would arrive he would do something to us. She told me that there was a cheque from NUMSA and there was another cheque. She told me that he was stealing money, that is why he didn't leave the briefcase in the house, he used to take it with him.

MR RAUTENBACH: Let me ask you this way. Did you see the cheques or didn't you see the cheques?

MS MANGQAWA: She showed me the cheques.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you describe the cheques, can you tell us more about, can you remember what you saw on the cheques and what the cheques were about?

MS MANGQAWA: There was a small cheque and a big one, they were not the same size.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you remember what was written on these cheques and could you read what was written what was on the cheques, could you make out anything on the cheques?

MS MANGQAWA: In the big cheque it was written 49 000 and the small one R4 000. The small one was addressed to Ms Judy White.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you recall to whom the big cheque was made out to, to whom that was addressed to? - if I can use that terminology.

MS MANGQAWA: The big was written N NUMSA.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you just repeat that, it was addressed to whom?

MS MANGQAWA: NUMSA.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did Janine discuss, ever discuss with you the possibility of divorce?

MS MANGQAWA: Yes. She discussed this before we found this briefcase. She told me that she was not happy in her marriage so she wanted a divorce.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did she ever indicate to you why she wasn't getting divorced?

MS MANGQAWA: She said that she was afraid because she didn't know where she would stay and she said that she was scared that her husband would kill her and she would not report this to the police because she didn't trust them.

MR RAUTENBACH: When she opened the briefcase and she looked at the contents of the briefcase, you told us about the cheques, what did she do, did she take some of the stuff, did she put it back, what did she do?

MS MANGQAWA: She wanted a paper and then she said that she would write down some of things, but she wouldn't finish writing down because he might come back when realising that he left the briefcase behind. She then wrote down and then she closed the briefcase.

MR RAUTENBACH: So what you're telling me is she made certain notes on a piece of paper. What did she do with that piece of paper?

MS MANGQAWA: She wrote down and then she put that paper in a plastic bag. She told me to hide it in the room and she would take it when she was going to work and she would rewrite it at work.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did you ever become aware of the - did she ever discuss a taping of the telephone conversations with you and did you observe anything regarding a taping of telephone conversations?

MS MANGQAWA: Mr Bellingan came back, it was at night, he had a tape with him. He then opened the telephone, he opened the hole on the roof and he went in that hole with a tape recorder. That night he was not going to spend the night at home, he was leaving.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can I just get clarity. Did you see him getting into the ceiling, putting the tape in?

MS MANGQAWA: Yes, I saw him because I was inside the house.

MR RAUTENBACH: Where was his wife, did she see him?

MS MANGQAWA: No, she was still at work.

MR RAUTENBACH: Tell me, did you ever, was there ever an incident where documents were burnt?

MS MANGQAWA: After finding that briefcase I saw fire and her wife told me that she burnt the papers. Mr Bellingan burnt the papers.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did you know who the, who Mrs Bellingan's boss was, in his working environment?

MS MANGQAWA: No, I don't know.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did you understand my question correctly, I'm talking about Mr Bellingan, who Mr Bellingan's boss was.

MS MANGQAWA: Mrs Bellingan told me that it was Mr Erasmus.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

MR RAUTENBACH: Now after she found, you saw her finding this documentation in the briefcase, did she ever tell you what she did about it, what she did about the information that she obtained from the briefcase?

MS MANGQAWA: She told me that she would take the papers to work and she would try to ask him where this money was coming from. She would ask her husband.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you recall if she said anything about Erasmus in this regard?

MS MANGQAWA: She said that she asked him what was that money all about and she said Mr Bellingan said that money belonged to the police. She then said she would call his boss and ask him about this money.

MR RAUTENBACH: I have no further questions, Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RAUTENBACH

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Rautenbach. Mr Hattingh, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I'll be with you. If I could just summarise. The incidents that you refer to was the one incident on the Saturday morning with the chips, the second incident about the clothes that were outside the house, the third incident when the briefcase was opened and then you talked about the taping of the, or the tapping of the telephone. Is that correct?

MR RAUTENBACH: I don't want to be obstructive, but it might take us a long time if my learned friend, I must just draw my learned friend's attention to the fact that the fourth one was the marks on the body. She didn't leave it out.

MR HATTINGH: Sorry, the marks on the body or the hands, was that not part of the Saturday incident with the chips? Was that a separate incident?

MS MANGQAWA: The marks on the body was on the same day with the chips incident.

MR HATTINGH: You told this Committee that Mrs Bellingan told you that she was not happy in the marriage ...

...(end of tape 10)

... four incidents, the one with the chips where she was also injured. The second one is the incident of the clothes outside the house and the broken staircase at the same time. The third incident being the incident where Mrs Bellingan went through the briefcase of Mr Bellingan and the fourth incident being the night that Mr Bellingan went into the ceiling and put something on the telephone, is that correct?

MS MANGQAWA: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Turning to the first incident with the chips on that Saturday morning, can you recall when that was approximately?

MS MANGQAWA: Because this happened a long time ago I can't remember when it was.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

MR HATTINGH: You said that Mr Bellingan - sorry, I just want to repeat. You said that Mrs Bellingan told you that Mr Bellingan came back late that night, I just want you to repeat the balance, I didn't quite hear the rest you said at the time.

MS MANGQAWA: Mrs Bellingan said Michael came back late at night, he was drunk, she gave him food and he would take one chip and hit it, and hit her with it and she would run around the whole house.

MR HATTINGH: What else did Mrs Bellingan tell you about that incident?

MS MANGQAWA: She showed me the marks in her body. She showed me the marks on her body and she told me that he was pushing her towards the wall.

MR HATTINGH: Can you remember where on her body she had the marks?

MS MANGQAWA: In her shoulders and the neck.

MR HATTINGH: Only on the shoulders and the neck?

MS MANGQAWA: Yes, it was the shoulders and the neck.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know whether she did anything about this incident?

MS MANGQAWA: She told me that is why she wanted a divorce. She told me that she would go to a lawyer and tell the lawyer the way that she was living there.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, I don't want to unnecessarily interrupt my learned friend, but I think maybe the sooner it is said the better. During evidence-in-chief my attention was drawn to something and I was busy and I waited a bit. It was now specifically told to me that in evidence-in-chief the interpreter wrongly described the so-called as "marks to the arm" during chief. I just wanted to say that before it may well become an issue. I may just take an instruction just as to exactly who picked that up and who tried to convey it me, that the interpreter was in fact interpreting it wrongly.

MS MANGQAWA: ...(no English interpretation)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. The witness said something now and I don't think that it was interpreted, but you were ...(inaudible)

MICROPHONE SWITCHED OFF

INTERPRETER: Yes, she just said the marks were on the shoulders and the neck.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright. Mr Rautenbach, you were still busy with the point that you've raised about the interpretation.

MR RAUTENBACH: The only point I wanted to make before we go further with cross-examination is that in chief the interpreter indicated that the marks were on the arm, and from what I understand it was not what the witness indicated and I think the interpreter may well be aware of that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well I'm just trying to see whether I have a note of that in particular. Yes, in fact ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: Chairperson, the first time she said the arm.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, alright. Well the notes that my colleagues have made, I haven't got a specific one or I can't reach my one now immediately, but the notes that were made was to the effect that the marks were on the arms. The interpreter herself has now raised a question and she says that that is what the witness said initially. But this shouldn't really be such a major issue, these things are all recorded and if it's necessary we can always just go back to it. So I think we can proceed in the meantime and we can deal with this if it ...

MR RAUTENBACH: I believe someone actually approached Mr Chaskalson at the time to ... I think Mr Chaskalson asked her, but I leave it there, I'm not going to take this issue further. I have pointed out the probable difficulty that will arise. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, please proceed.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mrs Mangqawa, my note read and I at that stage I must tell you that my earphone was not working properly and I couldn't quite hear what you were saying, but I also had a note about hands and I don't know what that meant, whether there were injuries to the hands or anything else with regard to the hands. Could you just explain the incident and the injuries again?

MS MANGQAWA: She had dark marks, black marks in the shoulders and in the neck and here in the arms she was dark also.

MR HATTINGH: Sorry Mr Chairman, my earphone with the translation is very feint, I possibly have to adjust it to get something of the translation through.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR HATTINGH: I was having trouble again with the earphone, could you just indicate to me where on the body did you see the injuries?

MS MANGQAWA: In her shoulders and in her neck and here in here wrists because she told me that he would grab her and push her. She had dark marks in those places.

MR HATTINGH: She didn't go to the doctor with these injuries that she sustained?

MS MANGQAWA: No, she didn't.

MR HATTINGH: Neither did she report it to the police?

MS MANGQAWA: She told me that she was not getting any help from the police, that is why she did not report this matter to them. They were not helping her.

MR HATTINGH: Was it with reference to this incident that she said that she didn't get any help from the police?

MS MANGQAWA: She told me that even before I arrived in that house, Mr Bellingan arrived drunk and he took her child with him. It was during the night. Mrs Bellingan phoned the police because he locked her inside the house and he left with the keys, so the police couldn't give her assistance.

MR HATTINGH: When you got there the Saturday morning, was Mr Bellingan and all the children at home?

MS MANGQAWA: Yes, Kate was there, Steven was not.

MR HATTINGH: Was Steven born at the time?

MS MANGQAWA: No, when I left there Steven was not born.

MR HATTINGH: Was Mr Bellingan there on that Saturday morning, was he present at the house?

MS MANGQAWA: He used to go out of the house on Saturdays.

MR HATTINGH: The question is, did you see Mr Bellingan that morning at the house when you saw the chips on the kitchen floor?

MS MANGQAWA: Yes, he was there, but when I arrived he was preparing to leave, so he didn't stay for long, he left.

MR HATTINGH: Mrs Mangqawa, with regard to this incident, the first incident, you did not personally see anything wrong done by Mr Bellingan, is that correct? -all that you know of is what Mrs Bellingan told you about the incident.

MS MANGQAWA: Yes, she told me and she also showed me her body and I also saw the chips lying on the floor.

MR HATTINGH: Sorry Mr Chairman, my earphones are not working.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there no other headphone for counsel?

MR HATTINGH: My earphones.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, apparently all of them have the same problem. I can't hear what the evidence was.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well try the one Mr Cornelius has been ... alright.

MR HATTINGH: Sorry Mr Chairman, it's making the same ...

MR RAUTENBACH: I think my learned friend may be overly concerned, I actually had the same type of sound on my earphone and I also didn't - I think it's maybe not only that specific earphone, it's another problem, so if we can just carry on and see whether it gets better.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, there's a sort of a disturbance from time to time that comes over the headphones. So perhaps you should suffer like the rest of us.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, it's now 3 o'clock. I did not hear the answer. I cannot continue without hearing the answers from the witness, that's as easy as that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: I cannot continue. So if I can't hear the answers it's impossible.

CHAIRPERSON: No, try again. What answer didn't you hear, which one, which answer, the last one?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, you will remember that when I commenced my cross-examination I said that I couldn't hear some of the stuff.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: But I said wait let me clarify it in cross-examination. The answer to the last question I did not hear.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, let's get that on the record for you again before we adjourn, then you're up to date like the rest of us. I'm just going to recap. The proposition that was made to you by the advocate, he said that you didn't personally see Mr Bellingan doing anything wrong to his wife on the Saturday morning that you are talking about. Do you want to respond to that?

MS MANGQAWA: I can't hear properly, I just hear some noise.

CHAIRPERSON: What does the witness say?

INTERPRETER: She can't hear anything.

MS MANGQAWA: I can't hear anything, it's just noises in my ear.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright. No, we tried to help you, Mr Hattingh, but we can't. Perhaps it is a convenient point. I assume you have more cross-examination that you want to deal with?

MR HATTINGH: I do, Mr Chairman, yes.

MR CORNELIUS: Mr Chairman, there's just one outstanding issue. If we adjourn today, I've discussed it with most of my colleagues and as well with possible witnesses that might be called, I don't think there's a necessity for us to attend as far - I've represented Vic McPherson and Dave Walkley and I understand from everybody they won't be called as witnesses. I have no interest in the evidence of Willie Steyn, the investigating officer, I also have no interest in the evidence of General Erasmus or this witness. Is it possible that I can bring an application that me and my clients as witnesses may be excused from further attendance?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well let's hear what the response of the other interested parties are. If you are not going to and your clients are not going to feature materially in these proceedings, then of course it would be I would imagine, unnecessary to compel you to be here, but let me hear what the parties say. Mr Chaskalson?

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Chairman, the indication that I've got from all of the parties present is that they do not require his client to testify and so I see no reason why he should not be excused. I do have another point, but maybe I can hold that for a moment.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there anybody with a contrary view to the one that's been expressed by Mr Chaskalson? Not.

MR LENGANE: Mr Chairman, maybe I could come in here. We do expect that on Monday we may make reference to the statement signed by Mr Walkley under oath, when we question Mr Erasmus, but I don't think it will be a question of such a nature as to require Mr Walkley to be here, but just in case that might then create problems I thought let me raise it now.

CHAIRPERSON: You are referring to the testimony of Mr Erasmus?

MR LENGANE: Ja, on Monday, Mr Chairman, we are intending to refer albeit just briefly, to the statement signed under oath by Mr Walkley, Mr Cornelius' client.

CHAIRPERSON: Well if Mr Cornelius and his clients are satisfied that they are not likely to suffer any prejudice, and I think it's something that we as a Panel will have to leave to his good judgement.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I probably can't address you on costs.

CHAIRPERSON: Well subject to what you have said there doesn't seem to be any sort of contrary position adopted by any of the parties, Mr Cornelius. Under those circumstances then we are certainly not going to compel you to continue participating in the proceedings.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Chaskalson, you had some other point?

MR CHASKALSON: Yes please, Mr Chairman. It seems likely that we will conclude this witness first thing on Monday and then hear the testimony of General Erasmus and then possibly shortly on the issue of the document that we discussed today. I think that there's a pretty reasonable prospect that we will have completed all of that by lunch time if all goes well. I was just thinking in terms of, for the purposes of reparation, if possibly you could give us an indication as to whether you would expect us to proceed with argument immediately or whether you think it's more likely that we would then adjourn and argument would begin on Tuesday, just so that people have the opportunity of utilising the weekend if needs be.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we haven't shifted from our position that we would want the parties to address us once the evidence has been concluded. If the evidence is concluded at a reasonably earlier hour on Monday, then unless anybody persuades us otherwise on good grounds, we would want you to proceed to address us. If we're close to the end of the day then we will more than likely take the argument for Tuesday, but I think perhaps you should prepare for the worst scenario and be ready to address us once the testimony is concluded, which seems to be likely, all things being equal, sometime on Monday.

So can I please ask for your co-operation in that regard. Was that the other point?

MR CHASKALSON: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, nothing to do with the proceedings, it's just that I've noticed the last half an hour, twenty minutes, this microphone system really isn't working well and I don't know whether this should be attended to before Monday.

It's really not working well right now, it would have been almost impossible to proceed. I just want to point that out so that something gets done about it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Hopefully we will be able to address the matter. They are normally fairly reliable, it might just be that it's a Friday afternoon.

So let's hope that things go better on Monday. Is there nothing else that the parties want to raise? If not, then we will have to adjourn at this stage the cross-examination of the witness and it seems that the overall evidence of the witness would in any case not be able to be completed before the end of the day today. Under those circumstances we are compelled to adjourn the matter until Monday morning when we will reconvene in the same venue at 10 o'clock in the morning. We are adjourned.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS