Special Report Transcript Episode 77, Section 2, Time 09:16

The Truth Commissioners clearly had problems accepting Madikizela-Mandela’s statement that she had no knowledge of any of this. // Stompie has become almost a symbol in South Africa. Richardson says and many of them concur that he was beaten far more viciously than anyone else and the allegation was that it was because he was thought to be an informer and we all know now that he died a very cruel death and you yourself have acknowledged your own sorrow about that. Again, how is it possible for this youngster to be so badly assaulted and then finally killed within your own property and then taken from your property, according to Richardson, and killed without you knowing it? // Well I have stated here sir that I did not believe that Stompie was an informer in the first place. And I do not believe that was the reason Richardson killed that boy. // The death of Stompie. We have two versions and I want to tell you now that my impressions, which are prima facie impressions, are that when you look at the evidence of Katiza Cebekhulu, when it stands alone it suffers from a number of deficiencies. I wouldn’t go so far as to call it lunatic statements, but then you hold that view. But just on the quality level one is able to say it has certain deficiencies. He is the only witness who claims to have been an eyewitness to the stabbing of Stompie as he puts it. There’s of course the evidence of Jerry Richardson. Katiza Cebekhulu’s evidence stands alongside the evidence of John Morgan and his evidence seems to suggest that there was a time when he was ordered to beat this dog and go dispose of it. And of course he says this dog was Stompie and where he saw the dog to be lying he seems to suggest that it was bleeding from the neck. There is then the pathologist’s evidence which seems to say his findings are inconsistent with the slaughtering of a sheep, which would then lead me, were I to conclude, that there is a consistency between what Cebekhulu says and Morgan says and the suggestion by the pathologist. Now that’s an impression that I want to take into account. I also take into account Richardson’s evidence. If I said to you, look I want to believe you that you didn’t do this, but I am confronted by these three aspects. I’m confronted by Cebekhulu’s evidence, by Morgan’s evidence and by the pathologist’s evidence. What can you say to me in order that I should reject that evidence and accept a) the fact that you say you didn’t do it and b) the fact that Richardson says he did it. // I honestly would imagine that if Richardson confesses to that murder, I wouldn’t understand why he would confess to that if he did not do it. I personally believe that he committed that heinous crime and I personally believe the circumstances which led to that child’s death as told by Richardson are true.

Notes: Alex Boraine (Truth Commissioner); Madikizela-Mandela; Dumisa Ntsebeza (TC); Madikizela-Mandela

References: there are no references for this transcript