auret denis van heerden yes. now i say you will be giving
TRANSCRIPT
A u r e t Denis van H e e r d e n
Yes. Now I say you will be g i v i n g e v i d e n c e , you will be
g i v i n g e v i d e n c e for the St a t e ? --- That is c o r r e c t .
And I s u p p o s e th a t is also an e m b a r r a s s m e n t to you is it
not? --- That is c o r r e c t .
Now we w o uld s u b m i t to you w i t h o u t m o r e Mr. van H e e r d e n ,
th a t yo u r e v i d e n c e in t h e s e p r o c e e d i n g s is very l a r g e l y a sure
a t t e m p t to slur the South A F r i c a n P o l i c e and to o b t a i n in the
eyes of the world, of the p e o p l e t h a t you ca r e for, to r e h a b i l i
t a t e y o u r own name, an im a g e ? You are f r e e to c o m m e n t on t h a t
___ Well my c o m m e n t is s i m p l y t h a t my m o t i v a t i o n in c o m i n g to
this Court was not an e a s y one. You are p e r f e c t l y r i g h t Mr.
S c h a b o r t in sa y i n g th a t the last c o u p l e of y e a r s ha v e not been
e a s y - The c o n d u c t of t h e S outh A F r i c a n P o l i c e t o w a r d s me and
o t h e r d e t a i n e e s has not l i g h t e n e d t h a t load in any way. The
t h r e a t s th a t w e r e m a d e a g a i n s t me w e r e v e r y ve r y e x p l i c i t .
The v i c t i m i z a t i o n c o n t i n u e s still. It was not an e a s y t h i n g
to co m e to this Court. I w o u l d not c o m e here likely, I w o u l d
not p l a c e m y s e l f at th a t r i s k if I did not feel d u t y - b o u n d or
m o r a l l y b o und to say w h a t I said to this Court and if y o u feel
t h a t I am here s i m p l y to sl u r t h e S o u t h A f r i c a n P o l ice, all I
can say is t h a t the t r u t h is o f t e n an e m b a r r a s s i n g t h i n g .
Yes, t h a n k you, Your W o r s h i p .
NO F U R T H E R Q U E S T I O N S BY MR. S C H A B O R T .
MR. B I Z O S : Your W o r s h i p , sir, I do not w a n t to do th i s wi t h
out Your W o r s h i p ' s leave but in v i e w of w h a t has j u s t been put
to the w i t n e s s I w o u l d like to r e f e r you, sir, to pa g e 2, para
g r a p h 7 and pa g e 3, p a r a g r a p g h 8 of the a f f i d a v i t of Ruth
Es t e l l e B e c k e r f r o m w h i c h it a p p e a r s , Your W o r s h i p , t h a t i n for
m a t i o n was g i v e n to her on t h e 1st F e b r u a r y 1982.
B Y THE C O U R T : I ha v e read the d o c u m e n t s Mr. Bizos.
MR. BIZOS: Well Your W o r s h i p , m a y I put one q u e s t i o n to the
w i t n e s s / .
w i t n e s s b e c a u s e t h e r e is a s u g g e s t i o n sir, of r e c e n t f a b r i c a
tion ma d e to the w i t n e s s to tell an u n t r u t h , the f a c t t h a t he
said t h i n g s a bout Dr. A g g e t t on the 1st F e b r u a r y and my s u b
m i s s i o n sir, is a r e l e v a n t f a c t to his c r e d i b i l i t y and I w o u l d
ask Your W o r s h i p p e r m i s s i o n to put t h a t to him? That he was
c o n s i s t e n t with h i m s e l f , sir, f r o m t h e 1st F e b r u a r y a c c o r d i n g
to an a f f i d a v i t e x e c u t e d sir, on the 24th F e b r u a r y , sir.
BY THE C O U R T : Wh a t is t h e q u e s t i o n you w a n t to ask Mr.
Bi zos?
C R O S S - E X A M I N A T I O N BY MR. B I Z O S : This sir, t h a t Mr. van H e e r - 1 0
den it has been put to you t h a t you ha v e g i v e n e v i d e n c e in r e l a
ti o n to the c o n d i t i o n of Dr. A g g e t t for the m o t i v e s th a t have
been s u g g e s t e d , did you w h i l s t you w e r e in d e t e n t i o n r e p o r t it
to a n y o n e t h a t you had i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t the m a n n e r in w h i c h
Dr. A g g e t t had been t r e a t e d ? — I did.
To w h o m ? --- To Ruth B e c k e r .
MR. B I Z O S : Thas it all I w a n t e d to ask wi t h Your W o r s h i p ' s
leave.
MR. B I Z O S : ( c o n t .) When did you do t hat, do y o u r e c a l l ? ---
Du r i n g a v i s i t w h i c h I r e c e i v e d f r o m her as I r e c a l l e d on t h e 20
1st F e b r u a r y .
Now t h e s e a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t w e r e m a d e a g a i n s t you of a
s e l l o u t or a p o l i c e spy, w i t h o u t g i v i n g His W o r s h i p any d e t a i l ,
was t h e r e any p e r s o n a l e l e m e n t i n v o l v e d by any p e r s o n w h o was
s a y i n g t h e s e t h i n g s a b o u t you Mr. van H e e r d e n ? --- I b e l i e v e
t h a t t h e r e was.
Yes. Now we ha v e i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t a l t h o u g h you to l d
A d v o c a t e S w a n e p o e l a b o u t the f a c t t h a t you had i n f o r m a t i o n
a b o u t the c i r c u m s t a n c e s r e l a t i n g to the c o n d i t i o n s of d e t e n t i o n
of Dr. A g g ett, t h a t you w e r e not p r e p a r e d to m a k e a s t a t e m e n t 30
w i t h o u legal a d v i c e and w h i l s t you we r e in d e t e n t i o n , is t h a t
i n f o r m a t i o n / . ...
dya'i.A u r e t Denis van H e e r d e n
i n f o r m a t i o n b e f o r e His W o r s h i p c o r r e c t ? --- That is c o r r e c t .
Now is t h e r e any p a r t i c u l a r r e a s o n why you a d o p t e d t h a t
a t t i t u d e w h i l s t you we r e in d e t e n t i o n ? — T h e r e is.
What is th a t r e a s o n ? --- T h r e a t s w e r e m a d e a g a i n s t me by
v a r i o u s m e m b e r s of the S e c u r i t y P o l ice, t h a t if I w e r e to
r eveal to A d v o c a t e S w a n e p o e l or the C ourt w h a t I k n e w a b o u t the
c i r c u m s t a n c e s s u r r o u n d i n g Ne i l ' s de a t h , I w o u l d h a v e to s u f f e r
s e v e r e c o n s e q u e n c e s .
Oh, who m a d e t h o s e t h r e a t s to yo u ? — S p e c i f i c a l l y on the
m o r n i n g b e f o r e I was i n t e r v i e w e d by A d v o c a t e S w a n e p o e l , M a j o r
C r o n w r i g h t , M a j o r Abrie, C A p t a i n S t r u w i g and L i e u t e n a n t P i t o u t .
Now the c o n v e r s a t i o n t h a t you had w i t h A d v o c a t e S w a n e p o e l
you told His W o r s h i p was in Mr. S w a n e p o e l ' s c h a m b e r s in the
S u p r e m e C o u r t b u i l d i n g ? — That is c o r r e c t .
W h e r e t h e r e any S e c u r i t y O f f i c e r s p r e s e n t w h i l s t you w e r e
t a l k i n g to A d v o c a t e S w a n e p o e l ? --- No, t h e r e w e r e not.
Did you h a v e any r e a s o n to b e l i e v e t h a t w h a t you m a y ha v e
told A d v o c a t e S w a n e p o e l m a y go ba c k to t h e S E c u r i t y P o l i c e ? ---
I did.
W h a t r e a s o n did you h a v e f o r t h a t b e l i e f ? --- A f t e r I had
t h r e a t e n e d by the m e m b e r s of t h e S e c u r i t y Police, I was t a k e n
into a g e n e r a l o f f i c e w h i l e t w o m e m b e r s of t h e CID w e r e
s u m m o n s e d or b r o u g h t up to t a k e me to A d v o c a t e S w a n e p o e l ' s
c h a m b e r s , and one of-.the m e m b e r s of t h e S e c u r i t y P o l i c e , a
S e r g e a n t van A s w e g e n , w a r n e d me t h a t I s h o u l d not t h i n k ! t h a t
I c o u l d tell A d v o c a t e S w a n e p o e l t h i n g s and get aw a y w i t h it
b e c a u s e the c o n v e r s t i o n w o u l d be t a p e d .
We kn o w f r o m t h e i n f o r m a t i o n p l a c e d b e f o r e His W o r s h i p
t h a t t h a t c o n v e r s a t i o n was in f a c t t a p e d and t h a t t h e t a p e
r e c o r d i n g was h a n d e d o v e r to M a j o r C r o n w r i g h t . Did you k n o w
t h a t ? --- I did not know t h a t the t a p e r e c o r d i n g had been
h a n d e d / . . .
A u r e t Denis van H e e r d e n
h a n d e d to M a j o r C r o n w r i g h t but I did not k n o w f r o m the c o n f r o n t a
tion we had when I r e t u r n e d to John V o r s t e r S q u are, t h a t he was
f u l l y i n f o r m e d of the d e t a i l s of our c o n v e r s a t i o n .
W h a t was the c o n f r o n t a t i o n wh e n you r e t u r n e d f r o m A d v o c a t e
S w a n e p o e l ? --- He was a n g r y th a t I had t o l d A d v o c a t e S w a n e p o e l
w h a t I k n e w a b out Ne i l ' s c o n d i t i o n and a b o u t the f a c t t h a t I
had m e n t i o n e d the e x i s t e n c e of my p r e v i o u s s t a t e m e n t .
Could you g i v e us some d e t a i l s as to w h e t h e r M a j o r C r o n
w r i g h t was a l o n e and when it was and the c i r c u m s t a n c e s u n d e r
w h i c h this c o n v e r s a t i o n t o o k p l a c e b e t w e e n you and M a j o r C r o n - 10
w r i g h t ? — It was in his o f f i c e and to t h e be s t of my r e
c o l l e c t i o n S e r g e a n t van A s w e g e n was in the o f f i c e at the same
time.f
S e r g e a n t van A s w e g e n , wh6n he told you th a t it w o u l d be
r e c o r d e d , was it a w a r n i n g or f r i e n d l y a d v i c e or c o u l d you not
m a k e up yo u r m i n d w h i c h of the t w o ? It was a c o m b i n a t i o n
but it was - t h e r e was a d i s t i n c t u n d e r t o n e of w a r n i n g , an
e l e m e n t of w a r n i n g .
Now you to l d His W o r s h i p t h a t Dr. A g g e t t had t o l d you t h a t
the p e o p l e u p s t a i r s , m e a n i n g the S e c u r i t y P o l i c e on t h e 10th 20
f l o o r p r e s u m a b l y , k n e w t h a t you we r e c o m m u n i c a t i n g w i t h him,
Dr. A g g e t t ? --- T h a t is c o r r e c t .
Was t h a t m a t t e r e v e r r a i s e d w i t h y o u ? — It was on t h a t
M o n d a y in f a c t b e f o r e I had s p o k e n to Dr. A g g e t t , L i e t u e n a n t
P i t o u t m a d e some n u m e r o u s r e f e r e n c e s to c o n t a c t b e t w e e n d e
t a i n e e s but I was d i r e c t l y a s ked a b o u t it at lunch on t h a t day
wh e n S e r g e a n t H e r b e r t c o n f r o n t e d me and a s k e d me w h a t I had
been s a y i n g to Neil, and a few da y s later, p r o b a b l y on t h e
T u e s d a y or W e d n e s d a y of t h a t w e e k but b e f o r e Neil day, M a j o r
C r o n w r i g h t c a m e into the o f f i c e w h e r e I was s t u d y i n g and said 30
t h a t he was well a w a r e t h a t I had been s p e a k i n g to Neil and
t h a t / ....
A u r e t D enis van H e e r d e n
t h a t in fa c t was a w are of the d e t a i l s of our c o n v e r s a t i o n b e
c a u s e th e y had b u g g e d the o f f i c e s and he a sked - .
The o f f i c e s ? — Sorry, b u g g e d the cells. And he a s k e d
me if I was so s t u p i d as to b e l i e v e t h a t the S e c u r i t y P o l i c e
w o u l d not t a k e such a b a s i c p r e c a u t i o n as to bug the ce l l s .
Did you b e l i e v e that the c e l l s had in fa c t been b u g g e d as
you say? --- No, I f e l t t h a t if t h e y we r e g e n u i n e l y b u g g e d ,
M a j o r C r o n w r i g h t w o u l d not ha v e to l d me.
I see and did you c o n t i n u e wi t h y o u r c o m m u n i c a t i o n in t h e
m a n n e r in w h i c h you h a v e t o l d His W o r s h i p ? — That is c o r r e c t .
W h i l s t we are on this q u e s t i o n of c o m m u n i c a t i o n Mr. van
H e e r d e n , a l t h o u g h it was not put to you t h a t t h e r e was no
c o m m u n i c a t i o n b e t w e e n Dr. A g g e t t and y o u r s e l f , I w o u l d j u s t
like you to p l e a s e e x p l a i n for His W o r s h i p and the l e a r n e d
a s s e s s o r s ' b e n e f i t , w h e t h e r you f e l t f r e e to c o m m u n i c a t e or
w h e t h e r you f e l t t h a t you had to be g u a r d e d a b o u t it? — No,
we w e r e a l w a y s g u a r d e d a b o u t it, if we h e a r d s o m e o n e c o m i n g
do w n the p a s s a g e or if the g u a r d in the i m m e d i a t e v i c i n i t y , we
w o u l d not speak.
C o uld you p l e a s e tell His W o r s h i p , w h a t p r o c e d u r e was
a d o p t e d in d i s h i n g out t h e food w h i c h m a d e it p o s s i b l e f o r y o u
to s t a n d at y o u r cell d o o r and s p e a k to Dr. A g g e t t a c r o s s the
p a s s a g e ? — Yes, wh e n t h e m e a l s come, t h e r e is n o r m a l l y o n l y
one g u a r d on d u t y but o c c a s i o n a l l y t w o g u a r d s and he w o u l d
n o r m a l l y open all of the cell d o o r s , so he w o u l d w a l k do w n t h e
p a s s a g e o p e n i n g all the cells. He w o u l d t h e n go ba c k and
c o l l e c t the large t r a y in w h i c h t h e f o o d c o m e s and he w o u l d
e i t h e r drag t h a t a l o n g t h e g r o u n d or p l a c e it on a c h a i r and
p u s h the c h a i r and g i v e f o o d to all of t h e d e t a i n e e s and w h e n
he had c o m p l e t e d t h a t he w o u l d go ba c k and lock all of the
c e l l s again .
' * A u r e t Denis van H e e r d e n
I see and when you say he w o u l d open all the c e l l s and then
drag this c h a i r along wi t h the t r a y - the large t r a y on, t h e r e
is no t r o l l e y is t h e r e ? — No.
W o u l d he open both d o o r s or just one d o o r ? --- No, he only
had a key f o r the o u t e r solid door, the g u a r d on d u t y did not
have a key for the inner door.
I see, so the o u t e r d o o r w o u l d be o p e n e d , the g r ill w o u l d
be l o c k e d ? --- That is c o r r e c t .
But you w o u l d be able to see each o t h e r and t a l k to ea c h
o t h e r t h r o u g h the g r i l l e d d o o r ? — Tha t is c o r r e c t . 10
Wh a t is the w i d t h of this p a s s a g e m o r e or less? — It is
d i f f i c u l t to e s t i m a t e but it is not a p a r t i c u l a r l y w i d e p a s s a g e ,
I w o u l d say Neil w o u l d ha v e been a b o u t w h e r e the A d v o c a t e
S c h a b o r t is s i t t i n g .
A b o u t t h r e e p a c e s ? — S o m e t h i n g like that.
T h r e e or f o u r p a c e s ?
BY THE C O U R T : Long p a c e s ? --- Well I will s e t t l e for f o u r
paces.
I t h i n g t h r e e to f o ur. — Th a t is t a k i n g into a c c o u n t the
g r ill as well w h i c h is i nset a l i t t l e bit. 20
MR. B I Z O S : ( c o n t .) The g rill w h i c h is inset a bit, yes v e r y
well, yes t h a n k you. Now in v i e w of w h a t you had been t o l d
a b o u t the c e l l s b e i n g b u g g e d and the o t h e r e x p e r i e n c e and p l e a s e
Mr. van H e e r d e n I kn o w how s t r o n g l y you m a y feel a b o u t y o u r own
t r e a t m e n t but in v i e w of His W o r s h i p ' s r u l i n g p l e a s e try to
g i v e y o u r e v i d e n c e w i t h o u t r e f e r e n c e to it, h o w e v e r g r e a t a
t e m p t a t i o n b e c a u s e of a s t e n g t h of f e e l i n g w h i c h I u n d e r s t a n d ,
try to g i v e y o u r a n s w e r s w i t h o u t r e f e r e n c e to y o u r p r e v i o u s
to y o u r own t r e a t m e n t but a b o u t t h e f a c t t h a t you had been t o l d
t h a t the cell was b e i n g b u g g e d and t h a t t h e y k n e w a b o u t it, and 30
g e n e r a l l y of y o u r c o n d i t i o n s of d e t e n t i o n , how did you feel
a b o u t /....
2785 .
a b o u t i n t e r v e n i n g on b e h a l f of a n o t h e r d e t a i n e e ? --- I was
f r i g h t e n e d to.
Is the sort of i n t e r f e r e n c e w e l c o m e d or e n c o u r a g e d by the
S e c u r i t y P o l i c e d u r i n g y o u r d e t e n t i o n ? — Not at all.
Now I t h i n k t h a t you have t o l d us t h a t wh e n S e r g e a n t
A g g e n b a c h came, you w e r e a c t u a l l y s l e e p i n g ? — Tha t is c o r r e c t .
Do you r e m e m b e r w h e t h e r you w e r e q u i t e a w a k e w h e n you g a v e
him t h e e q u i v a l e n t of the t h u m b s - u p s i g n ? --- No, I was still
p a r t i a l l y a s l e e p and he i m m e d i a t e l y c l o s e d the d o o r and m o v e d
o n .
It was put to you by my l e a r n e d f r i e n d t h a t you had
e s t a b l i s h e d a r e l a x e d a s s o c i a t i o n wi t h the p o l i c e , you w e r e
t a k e n s w i m m i n g , you w e r e t a k e n j o g g i n g and you f e a r e d a c h a n g e
in yo u r p o s i t i o n ? W h a t did you f e a r t h a t it may c h a n g e to?
— I m m e d i a t e l y t h a t my p r i v i l e g e s w o u l d be w i t h d r a w n but I had
the e x p l i c i t t h r e a t h a n g i n g o v e r my he a d for m o s t of my d e t e n
tion, t h a t o t h e r d e t a i n e e s had i n c r i m i n a t e d me and t h a t s h o u l d
my a t t i t u d e to the S e c u r i t y P o l i c e be an a n t a g o n i s t i c one, t h a t
my i n t e r r o g a t i o n w o u l d r e s t a r t and the p o s s i b l e d i s c r e p a n c i e s
c 1 e a r e d up; .
I see and had you sort of m a d e a b a r g a i n w i t h y o u r s e l f t o - ?
— I had, yes.
Is t h e r e any s p e c i a l r e a s o n w i t h o u t g i v i n g us any d e t a i l s
— was t h e r e any s p e c i a l r e a s o n why you w e r e g e t t i n g so m u c h
e x e r c i s e , s w i m m i n g and j o g g i n g and e v e r y t h i n g e l s e ? Was t h e r e
any s p e cial r e a s o n for it? — I t h i n k t h e r e w e r e two, t h e one
was a fa c t t h a t at a c e r t a i n s t a g e I c o u l d not w a l k p r o p e r l y
and C a p t a i n V i s s e r a s s u r e d me t h a t w h e n I was t r a n s f e r r e d ba c k
to John V o r s t e r Squa r e , he w o u l d t a k e me to the gym and g i v e me
e x e r c i s e s w h i c h w o u l d h a s t e n my r e c u p e r a t i o n . The o t h e r was
t h a t for a large p e r i o d of the t i m e p r i v i l e g e s w e r e c o n t i n g e n t ,
t h e / . . .
278b .A u r e t D e n i s van H e e r d e n
the s t udy p r i v i l e g e s and the j o g g i n g and the gym w e r e c o n t i n
g e n t on L i e u t e n a n t P i t o u t in the p e r i o d s when he was away on
leave or an O f f i c e r ' s c o u r s e , t h o s e p r i v i l e g e s fell away.
Now this a t t a m p t at k e e p i n g a d i a r y on the o n l y p a p e r
a v a i l a b l e to you f r o m the 3rd to the 5th day of y o u r d e t e n t i o n
- had it been h a n d e d to Your W o r s h i p , sir?
BY THE COURT: Not yet, Mr. Bizos.
MR. S C H A B O R T : It is an a d m i s s i o n on my part, sir, if we c o u l d
m a k e t h a t an e x h i b i t and hand it up to you, sir?:
BY THE COURT: Mr. de Vries.
MR. DE VRIES: The n u m b e r t h e r e o f w o u l d h a v e to be JJJ 1 ,
Your W o r s h i p .
MR. BIZOS: Have you h a n d e d it to t h e C o u r t ? Has the
C o u r t got one now? Has t h e C o u r t still not got one? Can we
not ha v e a n o t h e r one for t h e a s s e s s o r ? .
MR. B I Z O S :(c o n t .) Now you say he r e on the t h i r d day of y o u r
d e t e n t i o n , " i n t e r r o g a t e d f o r t w e l v e ho u r s , 7 to 12, n o t h i n g
h e a v y but it w o u l d t a k e a long t i m e to c o n v i n c e t h e m , m a y h a v e
to go to C o u r t to do it." W h a t did you m e a n by t h a t Mr. van
H e e r d e n ? ___ I was b e i n g c o n f r o n t e d w i t h t h e a l l e g a t i o n t h a t I 20
was a m e m b e r of t h e ANC. I c o n t i n u e d to a s s e r t t h a t I had n e v e r
j o i n e d the ANC or w o r k e d for the ANC but my i n t e r r o g a t o r s
s i m p l y w o u l d not b e l i e v e me, and I even w e n t so f a r as to b e
lieve t h a t - or to f e a r t h a t I m a y at so m e s t a g e be c h a r g e d but
t h a t I w o u l d be ab l e to e s t a b l i s h my i n n o c e n c e in a C o u r t of
L a w .
Yes and w i t h o u t w i s h i n g to g i v e t o o m u c h d e t a i l but as
t h e r e w e r e - I p r e s u m e t h a t the t h i n g was put to you on the
b asis t h a t you s h o u l d h a v e f e e l i n g s of g u i l t , did a n y o n e
a c t u a l l y try to r e c r u i t you into the ANC Mr. van H e e r d e n ? 31
An a t t e m p t was m a d e at one stage.
By / . . . .
A u r e t Denis van H e e r d e n
By w h o m ? --- By - one a t t e m p t was m a d e by M a j o r C r aig
Willi a m s o n .
T h a n k you, t h a t is e n o u g h . Did the p o l i c e k n o w t h a t ? ■—
I i n f o r m e d t h e m of that, yes.
Did you r e j e c t the s u g g e s t i o n ? — I did, yes.
T h a n k you. M a j o r W i l l i a m s o n at t h a t s t a g e was not k n o w n
as M a j o r W i l l i a m s o n to y o u ? — No, yes t h a t is c o r r e c t .
He p u r p o r t e d to r e p r e s e n t the A f r i c a n N a t i o n a l C o n g r e s s ?
— That is c o r r e c t .
Now t h e n you say - the p o r t i o n t h a t was read out to you, 10
"I am w o r r i e d t h a t the o t h e r s m a y be a d m i t t i n g too m u c h t o o
soon, t i m e will t e l l . " W h a t did you m e a n by t h a t ? — I
f e a r e d t h a t t h e y h a v e g i v e n the d e t e n t i o n of a n u m b e r of p e o p l e
s even or e i g h t or nine, t h a t p e o p l e w o u l d be p l a y e d off a g a i n s t
off each o t h e r and t h a t p a r t i c u l a r l y p e o p l e w h o h a v e a t e n d e n c y
to try and e s t a b l i s h t h e i r own i n n o c e n c e and p o s s i b l y p r o j e c t
t h i n g s on t o o t h e r p e o p l e , and I saw it an u n f o r t u n a t e s i t u a t i o n
d e v e l o p i n g or I f e a r e d t h a t such a s i t u a t i o n w o u l d d e v e l o p .
Did you int e n d by t h e use of t h e s e w o r d s "I am w o r r i e d
t h a t o t h e r s may be a d m i t t i n g too m u c h t o o s o o n , " did you f e a r 20
t h a t you y o u r s e l f m a y be c o r r e c t l y i n v o l v e d by a n y b o d y ? ---
No, I did not.
Then on t h e f i f t h d a y you say; "Most of t h e d i s c u s s i o n s
seem to p o i n t to my i n n o c e n c e . " --- Th a t is c o r r e c t .
Yes, was t h a t y o u r f r a m e of m i n d and is t h a t how y o u f a c e d
y o u r d e t e n t i o n ? — Tha t is c o r r e c t .
Now you w e r e a s k e d a n u m b e r of q u e s t i o n s in r e l a t i o n to
the c o n d i t i o n of Dr. A g g e t t on the 4th F e b r u a r y and we k n o w
t h a t the - Dr. A g g e t t m a d e a s t a t e m e n t to S e r g e a n t B 1om on
th a t day, t h a t is the d a y on w h i c h you d e s c r i b e d him to h a v i n g 30
been r e d u c e d to a bad state, you used t h e w o r d t h a t he had beer,
a k i n / . ..
akin a Z o m b i e ? — Tha t is c o r r e c t .
You w e r e also a s ked w h e t h e r you c o u l d t h i n k of any r e a s o n
why the d e s c r i p t i o n t h a t he g a v e of the a s s a u l t s in the s t a t e
m e n t m a d e on the 4th, d i f f e r e d in some of the d e t a i l , we will
say th a t t h e r e are no c o n t r a d i c t i o n s but t h a t y o u r a t t e n t i o n
was d r a w n t h a t some t h i n g s w e r e said t h e r e w h i c h you did not
say, f r o m w h a t you saw of DR. A g g e t t on the 4th F e b r u a r y , w o u l d
you say t h a t he was to use a l e g a l i s t i c e x p r e s s i o n , "in his
s o und and s o b e r s e n s e s ? " --- No, I w o u l d not.
I w a n t to deal wi t h t h e q u e s t i o n of the m e a l s and a m e a l
book, and I w a n t to d r a w y o u r a t t e n t i o n to p a g e s 53, w h e r e it
is s h own in this cell r e g i s t e r , t h a t is s u p p o s e to c o r r e c t l y
r e c o r d w h a t h a p p e n e s to d e t a i n e e s , t h a t Dr. A g g e t t had t h r e e
m e a l s p r o v i d e d to him b e t w e e n the 28th and the 3 1 s t w h e n we
know t h a t he was on - t h r e e m e a l s on ea c h day, w h e n we k n o w
th a t he was on the 10th f l o o r . Now c o u l d you p l e a s e ju s t
have a look at t h e s e p a g e s and try and e x p l a i n if you can how
t h e s e t h i n g s w e r e f i l l e d in and w h e t h e r t h e y ha v e any r e l a t i o n
to r e a l i t y . Look at the b o t t o m t h e r e . Now do y o u r e c o g n i s e
th a t book, who w r i t e s t h a t up? --- It is w r i t t e n up p a r t l y by
t h e d e t a i n e e and p a r t l y by W a r r a n t O f f i c e r Me P h e r s o n .
Now t h o s e m e a l s the f a c t t h a t Dr. A g g e t t had t h r e e m e a l s
s u p p l i e d to him on the 28th - f r o m the 29 t h to t h e 31st, t h r e e
m e a l s e v e r y day but t h a t he did not h a v e his e x e r c i s e s , how
c o uld th a t ha v e been w r i t t e n t h e r e ? Do you k n o w ? --- W h a t
Neil w o u l d h a v e f i l l e d t h e s e in - .
S p e a k into the m i c r o p h o n e , look t o w a r d s His W o r s h i p p l e a s e .
— As I e x p l a i n e d e a r l i e r t h a t ymi w o u l d sign th i s b o o k f o r
e x a m p l e on a M o n d a y for t h e S a t e r d a y and the S u n d a y b e c a u s e on
the w e e k e n d W a r r a n t O f f i c e r Me P h e r s o n was g e n e r a l l y not on
and this book r e m a i n e d in his o f f i c e and so he w o u l d ask y o u on
M o n d a y / ....
2789 .Auret Denis van Heerden
Monday in fact to sign for Friday, S a t u r d a y and Sunday. So what
you would n o r m a l l y do is just w r i t e down in each column that you
had re c e i v e d three meals, that you had t h ree showers or w h a t e v e r
the case may b e .
And it was done as a m a t t e r of c o u r s e in that way? --- It
was a forma 1 i t y , y e s .
Now would you ple a s e have alook at page 169 and 170, that
is the meal book proper. No, the o t her way, f u r t h e r on, page
169 to 170. Now could you have a look when is the last e n t r y
on page 169, on what - ? --- It is the 27th January. 10
The 27th J a n uary and would you look at the next page, when
is the next - ? — On the 2nd February.
Who used to w r i t e in the fact that t h e s e meals were t a k e n ?
— I f you in fact r e c e i v e d a meal, you w r o t e it in. If the
meal was brou g h t to you, for e x a m p l e if you were on the 10th
f l oor and the p o l i c e m a n was given an i n s t r u c t i o n to send your
meal up there, he then w r o t e in the book that he had sent the
meal to the 10th floor.
Yes but t h ere is no entry t h e r e b e t ween the 28th and the
31st? — That is correct. 20
And the 31st would have been the S u n day? — That is
c o r r e c t .
Now t o w a r d s the end of January, did you see Dr. Aggett
every day or not? --- There was the o c c a s i o n w here - or t h e r e
may be an o c c a s i o n w h ere the S e c u r i t y - sorry, the g u ard who
brought the food in fact opened yo u r door, gave you the food
and locked the door again i m m e d i a t e l y and then went across the
pa s sage to give s o m e o n e else food. So t here were days when we
did not see each other.
Yes and would you be able to say w h ich t hose days were or 30
w h e t h e r there were one or two days in the last week or the last
ten / ... .
ten days of J a n u a r y t h a t you did not see h i m ? --- I c a n n o t
s p e c i f y .
A f t e r you had e s t a b l i s h e d th i s r e l a x e d r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t
t h e r e was b e t w e e n you and t h e p o l i c e , if you c o m p l a i n e d of any
pain to y o u r ribs or y o u r c h e s t or y o u r s t o m a c h or a n y o n e else,
w e r e you t a k e n to t h e d o c t o r f a i r l y w i t h a l a c r i t y ? --- U n d e r
n o r m a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s , yes.
Y e s . — I w a s .
You w e r e and I see in f a i r n e s s to Dr. J a c o b s o n you say
t h a t he is a kind man, r i q h t f r o m y o u r f i r s t c o n t a c t w i t h him,
yes. You say t h a t Dr. A g g e t t was p r e p a r i n g h i m s e l f or was
h o p i n g to w r i t e and e x a m i n a t i o n in M a r c h , had he d i s c u s s e d t h i s
w i t h y o u ? — He did.
Do you r e m e m b e r w h e t h e r it was g o i n g to be w r i t t e n in
M a r c h or so m e o t h e r m o n t h ? --- I s e e m to r e c a l l M a r c h .
You s e e m to r e c a l l M a r c h ? Did he h o p e to m a k e it, to be
f r e e by t h e n to w r i t e t h i s e x a m i n a t i o n ? --- He did.
Did he i n d i c a t e to y o u at w h i c h U n i v e r s i t y or o t h e r p l a c e
he h o p e d to w r i t e t h i s e x a m i n a t i o n ? --- No, he d i d not.
We are i n f o r m e d t h a t if he did m e n t i o n any e x a m i n a t i o n
t h a t it w o u l d h a v e be e n an e x a m i n a t i o n w r i t t e n , a p r i m a r y
e x a m i n a t i o n w r i t t e n in A p r i l at t h e U n i v e r s i t y of C a p e T o w n .
Do you k n o w a n y t h i n g a b o u t t h a t ? --- I do not.
Yo u r r e c o l l e c t i o n is t h a t he s p o k e of M a r c h ? — T h a t is
right.
Did it e v e r c o m e to y o u r n o t i c e w h e t h e r or not t h e r e was
any i n s t r u c t i o n by a n y b o d y to a n y b o d y e l s e a b o u t Dr. A g g e t t s
m e d i c a l t r e a t m e n t d u r i n g J a n u a r y ? --- Neil t o l d me t h a t w h e n
he was c o m p l a i n i n g to W a r r a n t O f f i c e r Me P h e r s o n a b o u t his
i n j u r y and r e q u e s t i n g to see t h e d o c t o r , t h a t W a r r a n t O f f i c e r
Me P h e r s o n ke p t g i v i n g e x c u s e s s a y i n g t h a t t h e y w o u l d t r y and
t a k e / ... .
A u r e t D e n i s van H e e r d e n
t a k e him but th a t t h e y coulci not do it at t h a t s t a g e but on one
e v e n i n g wh e n he was b e i n g b r o u g h t b a c k f r o m t h e 10th and was
b e i n g b o o k e d b a c k into t h e c e l l s , t h e S e c u r i t y P o l i c e m a n w h o
e s c o r t e d him down, h a n d e d a l e t t e r to t h e p o l i c e m a n on d u t y at
th e d e s k w h i c h was a p p a r e n t l y a d d r e s s e d to t h e C a p t a i n in
c h a r g e of the c e l l s and w h i c h Neil b e l i e v e d was an i n s t r u c t i o n
to the C a p t a i n to t h e e f f e c t t h a t he s h o u l d not be a l l o w e d
a c c e s s to a d o c t o r .
Now we k n o w t h e s e c o m p l a i n t s of pa i n a p p e a r on p a g e 51,
52 and 53 of t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e His W o r s h i p , f r o m t h e 4th to 8th,
now can vou p l e a s e - if you can tell us w h e t h e r y o u can r e l a t e
th e i n c i d e n t t h a t you h a v e j u s t d e s c r i b e d to us w i t h t h e d a t e s
and thy c o m p l a i n t s of Dr. A g g e t t of pain d u r i n g t h o s e d a y s ,
w h e t h e r it was b e f o r e or a f t e r or at a b o u t t h e s a m e t i m e or if
you c a n n o t say so p l e a s e say so? --- It was at t h e s a m e t i m e .
I w a n t to deal w i t h t h i s " d y n a m i c s " r e l a t i n g to t h e i n
t e r r o g a t i o n and in r e l a t i o n to it I w o u l d like y o u to p l e a s e
g i v e His W o r s h i p and t h e l e a r n e d a s s e s s o r so m e i n d i c a t i o n of
Dr. A g g e t t ' s p e r s o n a l i t y . W h a t can you tell us a b o u t Dr.
A g g e t t ' s a t t i t u d e to his i n t e r r o g a t o r s ? Was he p r e p a r e d to
f l a t t e r t h e m or to p l a y a l o n g w i t h t h e m , was he t h a t sort of a
p e r s o n ? --- Neil and I b o t h b e l i e v e d t h a t one s h o u l d h a v e a
c o r d i a l a t t i t u d e or r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h y o u r i n t e r r o g a t o r and
t h a t w h e r e p o s s i b l e one s h o u l d not a n t a g o n i z e t h e m on p e r s o n a l
g r o u n d s , so th a t o n e s h o u l d not be a r r o g a n t or c o n d e s c e n d i n g
t o w a r d s y o u r i n t e r r o g a t o r .
Did you d i s c u s s t h a t w i t h hi m ? — We did, yes.
Did you a g r e e t h a t t h i s was the w a y in w h i c h to deal w i t h
it? — We did, y e s .
From w h a t you k n e w of Dr. A g g e t t how w o u l d he r e a c t if he
was p e r s i s t e n t l y a c c u s e d of b e i n g u n t r u t h f u l ? — I t h i n k t h a t
A u r e t D e n i s van H e e r d e n
he w o u l d t r y and p e r s u a d e his i n t e r r o g a t o r s t h a t t h a t was an
i n c o r r e c t i m p r e s s i o n .
Now the c o n t e n t i o n of L i e u t e n a n t W h i t e h e a d and o t h e r s w h o
h a v e g i v e n e v i d e n c e b e f o r e His W o r s h i p , is t h a t Dr. A g g e t t h i m
self c o n s e n t e d if he did not i n s i g h t his i n t e r r o g a t o r s to t a k e
him for t h i s long s e s s i o n of s i x t y - t w o h o u r s to t h e 10th f l o o r
of John V o r s t e r S q u a r e . Now I do not w a n t y o u to e x p r e s s an
o p i n i o n , I w o u l d like you to tell His W o r s h i p w h a t f a c t s y o u
h a v e in r e l a t i o n to Dr. A g g e t t ' s s t a t e of m i n d p r i o r to t h e
28 t h a b o u t b e i n g t a k e n f o r i n t e r r o g a t i o n f o r l e n g t h y p e r i o d s ?
— Dr. A g g e t t was v e r y a p p r e h e n s i v e a b o u t t h a t . He had on a
n u m b e r of o c c a s i o n s a f t e r t h e a s s a u l t on t h e 4th J a n u a r y , be e n
t h r e a t e n e d t h a t if his s t a t e m e n t did not c o m e up to t h e e x p e c t a
t i o n s of his i n t e r r o g a t o r s , t h e y w o u l d b e g i n m o r e i n t e n s i v e
i n t e r r o g a t i o n and at one s t a g e Neil t o l d me t h a t L i e u t e n a n t
W h i t e h e a d had s p e c i f i c a l l y m e n t i o n e d to him t h a t he w o u l d f e t c h
him at n i g h t and t a k e him out and g i v e h i m a r o u g h t i m e .
W h a t was his r e a c t i o n a b o u t b e i n g in his i n t e r r o g a t o r s -
a p o s s i b i l i t y of b e i n g in his i n t e r r o g a t o r s p r e s e n c e d u r i n g t h e
n i g h t or n i g h t s ? — Fear.
Did you e v e r d i s c u s s t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of Dr. A g g e t t ' s
c o n d i t i o n w i t h Mr. Nee l s van d e r M e r w e ? — I did.
Now w h o is Mr. N e e l s van der M e r w e ? --- He is a l s o a
R a i l w a y ' s p o l i c e m a n w h o was s e c o n d e d to t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , he
is a c o l l e a g u e of S c h a l k van der M e r w e - s o r r y , S c h a l k van
S c h a l k w y k and he is a c o m m i t t e d C h r i s t i a n w h o on a n u m b e r of
o c c a s i o n s t o o k t h e o p p o r t u n i t y to s p e a k to m y s e l f and o t h e r
d e t a i n e e s and to try and o f f e r t h e m so m e s p i r i t u a l or m o r a l
s u s t e n a n c e , and in t h e w e e k a f t e r N e i l ' s d e a t h he t o l d me t h a t
on the T h u r s d a y b e f o r e Neil die d , he had g o n e into t h e o f f i c e
w h e r e Neil was w r i t i n g his s t a t e m e n t and had a t t e m p t e d to s p e a k
t o / ... .
Auret Denis van Heer d e n
to Neil but that as he a d d r e s s e d Neil, Neil's bottom lip began
to qu i v e r and that he could see that Neil was on the verge of
tears, and so he t h o u g h t it be t t e r - he t h o u g h t be t t e r of t a l k
ing to him.
When did he tell you that? --- In the week after Neil had
died.
You told us that Dr. Aggett had signed an indexed his
s t a t e m e n t in the first part of January, did he ever tell you
or o t h e r w i s e i ndicate to you as to w h e t h e r he at t a c h e d any
s i g n i f i c a n c e to this act of signing and index i n g ? --- He felt
that his i n v e s t i g a t i o n was d r a w i n g to a c l ose and that he was
hopeful that he would be released.
f l l lPFT FIFNIS VAN H F . E R D E N SWORN, STATES -
CV AM IN ATI ON BY ADV. B I Z O S : (C O N T , ) I w o u l d like to show
you a plan of the Tenth Floor, with which y ou are a p p a r e n t
ly familiar. whioh is Mr. Pitout's office? — 1015.
Do you kno w Mr. Mogoro's office? where is it?
Lt. Mogoro's office, do you know w h ic h one that is?
It is diagonally across the passage from Lt. Pitout's
office. It is 1012.
And who is the office 1011 us ed by? It is a
general office which has three desks and a bench in it, 1'
and it is used by members - by some of the Black Staff,
when they need access to a desk. Often when detainees
were being taken to the doctor or something, they might
be placed in that office while they are waiting.
Were you ever accused by anyone of smuggling a
note out whilst you were in detention? - Yes, one
morning whe n I was taken u pstairs to the 10th Floor, I was
called into M a j . Cronwright's office, and Maj. Cronwright
accused me - he asked me if I had heard the news that
morning on the radio, and I said that I had. A n d he said, 2
he accused me of having written and smuggled a note to
Mrs. Suzman concerning an assault on Meil. And he said
that I was the only person who could have w r i tt en that
note, because I was in the office opposite where Neil had
been. I then pointed out to h i m that the office in w hi ch I
was h ad painted windows, and that I w o u ld ni t have been able
to see across the passage, because of the painted windows.
And that it therefore could not have be en me who h ad writ-
ten that n o t e .
Did you,.during the course of your discussions
with Dr. Aggett, did you ever try to encourage him, or to /..
2795-
lift his spirits in any way? I did.
Now, Your Worship, I am sure, Sir, that as Your
Worship allowed me to cross-examine the wi tnesses - I do
not want to read it out, but merely to refer Your Worship
please put your affidavit away, Mr.. --- I don't have it.
You don't have it. Paragraph 25, the last se n
tence on that page, Sir, and the last couple of sentences
on Page 12. Your Worship allowed me to cross-examine on
t h i s , but I think it was introduced ...
BY THE COURT: Are you referring to a statement?
ADV. BIZOS: To the witness's statement, Your Worship.
BY THE C O U R T ; Paragraph 25?
ADV. BIZOS: Your Worship it is indicated that we must
stop at Paragraph 24. But I want to draw Your Wo rship's
attention, Sir, to the fourth line from the bottom, in
Paragraph 25, of Page 1 1 .
BY THE C O U R T : Of Page 11? You may, Mr. Bizos.
A DV. B I Z O S : Thank you, Your Worship.
T.XAMIHATION bY ADV. H I Z O S : (Cont-.)In this rela x ed atmosphere
that you had managed to get into with the security police,
were you ever offered any beer? I was, yes.
When was that? --- There were two occasions. The
one was on Christmas Eve.
Yes, stay there with that please. W ou ld you
please tell us where this was on Christmas Eve? — It was
in M a j . Cronwright's office. ______ _______
Yes? And what happened in M a j . Cronwright s
office? --- I had been typing my statement, and M a j .
Cronwright came in at around 12, and said that I should
stop typing and come to his office, because he w a nted to
i n t r o d u c e / ...
2796 .
introduce me to Adv. Swanepoel, who at that stage had an
office - was working in an office on the 10th Floor. And
we sat down in Maj. Cronwright's office, and Adv. Swanepoel
began speaking to me, and Maj. Cronwright sent Const.
Richards for - to get some beer, which he then brought.
Well, I want you to leave out the co nversations
with Adv. Swanepoel, because he is an Advocate, and a
potential witness, we don't want to hear anything about
that. But did you hear any conversation bet we en Maj.
Cronwright, and L t . Whitehead? --- Yes, at one stage, Lt.
Wh it ehead came and sat next to me. And he asked me
whether I did not think that Neil could have been an active
SACTO member. And I said I did not, and I began to give
reasons which was, only that if he was active in SACTO
or the SACP - South African Communist Party was the only
organisation that L t . Whi te h ea d suspected Neil may have
been involved in. And I said that I felt that had he been
active in any u n de rg r ou nd capacity, or any illegal c a p a
city, he would not have taken a high profile p o s i t io n in
a Trade Union, because it wo ul d have exposed h i m to too
much Security Police surveilance. And while my c o n v e r
sation with Lt. W hi tehead was taking place, Maj. Cronwright
overheard us, and he interrupted and said to L t . W hi te h e a d
that he should get the idea that Neil was involved in SACTO
out of his mind, because he h ad a list of Barbara Hogan's
on which she listed her comrades, and and_he noted which
of her comrades were working underground. And that Neil s
name on that list appeared in the category of purely above
ground activity. And that M a j . Cronwright e mp ha si ze d that
Barbara Hogan has not kn ow that he would find that list.
t Or / . ..
2797 .
Or that he would remove that list from her letterbox, and
he therefore took it to be an accurate reflect io n of Neil's
political activity.
You had seen this document, my learned friend
showed it to you right at the beginning - I don't k n ow
why, but he showed it - that is the document that was
being referred to? --- That is right.
An d you had seen it before? --- That is correct.
Do you recall whether L t . Wh i te he ad r es po nd ed to
this in any way? --- L t . Wh it e he ad did not look convinced.
Would you describe Dr. Aggett as a "loner or a
person who has become socially isolated? Neil was - he
worked very hard, he was a very busy person, and it meant
that his work commitments often occ up ie d him m the e v e n
ings, and so he did not m ix much socially.
Yes, but do. y ou equate a busy person wi t h a
person who is socially isolated? — No, his - his degree
of social isolation was not a matter of choice, it was b e
cause if his commitment to Union work.
Yes. Some reference has been made by my learned
friend whilst you were being questioned by h im about your
background. Perhaps just a couple of words. What are
you doing at the moment? — Busy with a Masters Degree at
W i t s .
In what? ——— Industrial Sociology.
And does that me an that you have an Honours degree
--- It d o e s , yes .
And what is your Honours Degree in? — Also in
Industrial Sociology.
Did your studies lead you to have anything in
c o m m o n / ...
common with Dr. Aggett? --- Yes, we shared a common interest
in labour matters.
And does Industrial Sociology deal with Trade Unions
and other matters? --- V e r y mu ch so.
Yes. Did you ever hear Dr. A ggett w h ilst you
were associated with him, calling himself a communist?
N o .
Or that he had .Communistic i d e a s ? --- No.
How does the word "Communistic" sound to your
e a r ? --- Fine.
What w ou ld you say, would it have been a word
which would have fallen easily from Dr. Aggett s lips?
--- No, I don't think any English speaking p e rs on w ou ld
refer to himself as "Communistic," - they w ou ld ..
Yes, did you ever hear him say that he b elieved
in the Marxist ideology? --- No.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
RE-EXAMINED BY ADV. DE V R I E S : The statement that was
handed to you by my learned friend, Mr. S c h a b o r t , do
you have that in front of you? Which one is that?
The first statement, the affidavit? --- I do.
I think it was handed to me by you.
Yes, is that the affidavit you origin al l y made
for use of the Inquest - or part of it? That's p a r a
graphs 1 to 24? --- It is difficult to tell the original
from a photostat. _____ ______
The original? Did you initial the three originals
---- I think it is yes.
Did you initial the pages at the bottom?
That is correct.
2799.
You confirm that statement that you had made it
and it was the original affidavit? --- That is correct.
You hand that in then as EXHIBIT J J J .
BY THE C O U R T : That of course, is excluding from p a r a
graph 25 onwards?
ADV. DE V R I E S : I think that is only par. 1 to 24 - the
rest of the pages - and portion of p a r . 25 - the rest of
the pages had been removed.
ADV. B I Z O S : And m ay I say, Sir, that pa ra gr a ph 28, which
was also possibly left out by oversight. But in any event
that was covered by my learned friend in cross-examination.
BY THE C O U R T : The information contained in that p a r a
graph is on the record, Mr. Bizos. I could not take it
piece by piece.
ADV. B I Z O S : As Your Worship pleases, but the information
is before Your Worship.
BY THE C O U R T : I consider it as far as par ag ra ph 24 to
be handed in.
ADV. S C H A B O R T : Your Worship, I want e d to - just on one
aspect, arising from my learned friend's q uestioning of
the witness, just put something to him, and that is this
alleged conversation involving M a j . Cronwright.
BY THE C O U R T : Yes?
ADV. S C H A B O R T : Where - I am not going to take up time
now, but my instructions from h im on this particular point
is that far from him having been of the vi ew that that
"Close C o m r a d e 's"-document e xculpated or e xc ul pa te d or
excluded Dr. Aggett from involvement in the ANC had the
contrary meaning, and that he didn't say this, what you
say, on that occasion? - I have just got to put that to
y o u / ...
2800.
you. He will come and give evidence p resumably along
these lines. Mr. Van Heerden, w ould you like to comment
on that? --- I have no comment to make on the evidence
that M a j . Cronwright might give.
Thank you, Sir.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
EXAMINED BY MR. S M I T H ; Mr. Van H e e r d e n , during the
course of your studies, could you indicate to us beside
your Industrial Psychology, what other subjects you
covered? --- I studies political science, Afr i ca n G o v e r n
ment? I studies legal theory; I studied Afrikaans;
Industrial Sociology - sociology, not psychology.
Sorry, Sociology. --- And I studied straight
psychology as well.
Could you give us in greater detail a de scription
of the injury that you described on Dr. A g g e t t 's arm, with
regard to its position, its shape, f r e s h n e s s ,■and all the
characteristics which you think could be appropriate to
this particular wound? --- Yes. It was on the evening of
the 4th, and Neil put his arms through the grill. His
grill was such that he would have been standing against
it looking at me, sitting where you are, roughly, and he
put his right arm through the grill like that. His sleeve
was rolled up. And I could see a red stripe, shall I
say, across his forearm, which appeared to be of about
2 cm in length. About an inch in l e n g t h y _ And it was
midw a y between his wrist and his elbow.
I seem to recall you used the word "linear?" ---
Ye s .
What did you mean to convey by the use of the
word / . . .
Historical Papers, Wits University
http://www.historicalpapers.wits.ac.za/admin/cms_header.php?pid=98[2013/03/12 07:52:17 AM]
Collection Number: AK2216 AGGETT, Dr Neil, Inquest, 1982 PUBLISHER:Publisher:- Historical Papers Research ArchiveLocation:- Johannesburg©2013
LEGAL NOTICES:
Copyright Notice: All materials on the Historical Papers website are protected by South African copyright law andmay not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, or otherwise published in any format, without the priorwritten permission of the copyright owner.
Disclaimer and Terms of Use: Provided that you maintain all copyright and other notices contained therein, youmay download material (one machine readable copy and one print copy per page) for your personal and/oreducational non-commercial use only.
People using these records relating to the archives of Historical Papers, The Library, University of the Witwatersrand,Johannesburg, are reminded that such records sometimes contain material which is uncorroborated, inaccurate,distorted or untrue. While these digital records are true facsimiles of paper documents and the information containedherein is obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, Historical Papers, University of the Witwatersrandhas not independently verified their content. Consequently, the University is not responsible for any errors oromissions and excludes any and all liability for any errors in or omissions from the information on the website or any relatedinformation on third party websites accessible from this website.
This document is part of a collection deposited at the Historical Papers Research Archive at The University of the Witwatersrand.