Steeped in Blood (38 page)

One day I took on a case
against
them where they had clearly screwed up badly and were attempting to dream up ways of repudiating a claim from a man in the Western Transvaal. Piet Sandberg’s house had burned down and he was left figuratively standing in his underwear for some months, on the profit-driven whim of the claims manager of Eagle at the time, one Wynand van Vuuren. [See
noses
61 & 62 about him.]

As a result, the semi-head honcho of Eagle, Dennis Burton, banned me from ever again being employed by the company.

But then, some months later, Eagle’s attorney in a matter where I had been the expert investigator, asked me to appear for Eagle in the case.

I called the local claims manager, Marius Kuhn, and told him, ‘Marius old darling, you have banned me and now you want to have me stand up as an independent witness at a trial for you.

‘I think not. I think I will stay banned.’

Faced with his apparent incomprehension, I presented him with an analogy. ‘Marius,’ I said, ‘You lot at Eagle remind me of the young man who for no good reason divorced his comely wife and shortly afterwards found himself in town alone and palely loitering. So he decided to call on the object of his late affections.

‘He knocked on the door and when the ex-wife opened, he asked her for a fuck. ‘Sure’ she said, ‘Fuck off’.’

Independence is the most valuable tool in the drawer. Let the attorneys be warned: The bank’s patronage is a poisoned chalice. Drink from it at your peril.

Banks and insurers, too, will soon enough discover that acting the bully on the block has only short term benefits. Long term it’s going to cost them bigtime. Ask Hitler.

Meanwhile, being banned is not so bad. In fact I’ve come to like it.

David Klatzow

Rondebosch

–
Noseweek
, February 2008

MISREPRESENTATION OF FORENSIC INFORMATION

53 Forensic information was misused in various ways. Some forensic pathologists omitted crucial information or falsified
post mortem
reports to cover up the cause of death. There were many cases where doctors misrepresented forensic evidence and findings in court in order to absolve the state of allegations of abuse or criminal activity. This required the collusion of police, lawyers, forensic experts, district surgeons and other health professionals and magistrates and judges. The misuse and manipulation of specialised knowledge is illustrated in a number of case studies selected from submissions to the Commission.

ACCIDENTAL OR DELIBERATE?

Ashley Kriel was shot in 1987 while allegedly resisting arrest and engaging in a scuffle with a security policeman. The police version of events was that, in the course of the arrest, Kriel produced a small .22 pistol. Captain Jeffrey Benzien, the senior police officer involved in the arrest, tried to take the gun away from him. A scuffle ensued during which Ashley Kriel was fatally injured by a bullet wound in the back, fired from his own pistol. The evidence presented by the state forensic experts supported this version of events.

On an examination of the facts, however, numerous inconsistencies are evident. These were not presented to the magistrate by the state witnesses, but were highlighted by the expert forensic witness testifying on behalf of Ashley Kriel’s family. The two assessors sitting with the magistrate, both of whom were forensic experts, also failed to point out the inconsistencies or take them into consideration. The outcome of the inquest was a ‘no blame’ verdict.

Some of the inconsistencies were:

•   
The marks around both of Ashley’s wrists indicated that he had been handcuffed before his death. If the handcuffs were removed, why was this done? If they were not, how could Ashley have engaged in a fight with Benzien, and how could he have shot himself in the back?

•   
The size and nature of the entrance wound in Ashley’s back was consistent with a direct contact wound; in fact, stigmata around the entrance to the wound indicated that the muzzle of the revolver was held directly against the skin. However, the size and nature of the holes in the clothing that he was wearing at the time (a T-shirt and track suit top) were inconsistent with a contact shot.

54 There are some well-known examples of cases where doctors reported false causes of death. These include the numerous detainees who supposedly died from such causes as slipping on a bar of soap, dying of an epileptic seizure where no prior history of epilepsy existed, having a heart attack without a history of heart disease, choking on food or suffocating or committing suicide. In addition, doctors were known to give expert advice on the mental health of deceased prisoners, or to conclude that someone had committed suicide because of mental instability, without ever having met the person involved. This type of evidence was advanced at the inquest into the death of Neil Aggett.

55 Expert forensic evidence of gun shot wounds was also used to determine the distance between the victim and the killer.

DETERMINING SHOOTING DISTANCE

In 1986, seven young men were killed in a police ambush in Gugulethu. The police evidence was that all seven were shot from some distance. No contrary evidence was produced by the state experts. Independent forensic experts, however, found evidence of very close range ‘finishing-off’ shots on the bodies
of many of the seven victims. One of the victims had, in fact, been shot in the jaw at such close range that there was almost no dispersal of the shotgun pellets, and the felt wad (which contains the pellets) was embedded in this brain. This evidence was presented at the second inquest into the deaths.

Hence, the police version that this person was shot from a distance of a few metres cannot be true. Again, however, a collusion of silence and a tacit agreement to turn a blind eye by lawyers, state forensic experts, police and the magistrate resulted in a ‘no blame’ verdict.

– Truth and Reconciliation of South Africa Report, Volume Four

COCKPIT TAPE REVEALS SECRET OF DOOMED HELDERBERG

‘MADNESS’ OF DEADLY CARGO

Startling evidence comes to light as new scientific technique assesses crew’s voices on flight recording

By Matthew Burbidge and Marvin Meintjies

Ghosts of the dead apparently speak about ‘the madness’ that allowed a ‘deadly cargo’ aboard the doomed Helderberg plane. They are heard in newly reconstructed flight recordings.

The Helderberg crashed into the Indian Ocean just 160km from Mauritius in 1987, killing all 159 passengers and crew.

The captain of the Helderberg was apparently aware that a ‘deadly cargo was being transported on the airplane’, before the worst air disaster in South Africa’s history unfolded,
Beeld
newspaper reports today.

These startling allegations have come to light following the reconstruction, by the American Forensic Audio Laboratory, of nine minutes of previously inaudible tape of the flight recorder. On it the voice of Captain Dawie Uys is resurrected to shed further light on the mystery that has surrounded the disaster.

Uys is heard to be telling his flight crew that a ‘dodelike vrag agter in die vliegtuig vervoer word’ (a deadly cargo is being transported in the back of the plane), while a member of the crew complains of ‘die gekheid’ (the madness) of the deadly cargo being transported on the SAA passenger jet.

Trevor Abrahams, chief executive officer of South Africa’s Civil Aviation Authority, said he received an e-mail yesterday from a South African [text missing]. An enhanced copy of the audio recording from the Helderberg’s voice recorder.

Abrahams said Van Wyk told him the M-Net magazine programme
Carte Blanche
had been supplied with a copy of the recording.

The CAA picked up the recording yesterday from
Carte Blanche
and then copied it on to a compact disc.

Abrahams said the recording on the CD was ‘very indistinct’ and he believed
Carte Blanche
staffers had also battled to make head or tail of it.

Abrahams said Van Wyk had transcribed the cockpit conversation, but there was no indication of where the aircraft was when it took place.

‘We now have to ascertain the authenticity of the CD, and try to link it to what we were given in the transcript.’

Abrahams said Van Wyk had apparently been given a copy of the cockpit recording by a former CAA investigator, Rennie van Zyl, who now works for the International Civil Aviation Organisation in Toronto. This was taken by Van Wyk to be enhanced by the American Forensic Audio Laboratory.

Abrahams said Van Wyk had apparently written to the former minister of transport, Mac Maharaj, requesting funds to undertake the enhancement.

Beeld
said the enhancement of the tape was funded by a British businessman, Richard Price in exchange for film and book rights …

–
Star
, 17 May 2000

HELDERBERG: ‘IT’S TIME FOR TRUTH’

Defence procurement agency Armscor’s desperation to help sustain apartheid led to the Helderberg air disaster, a closed inquiry into the crash heard in evidence released yesterday.

This was the real story behind the accident that claimed 159 lives in 1987, expert witness David Klatzow told the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 1998.

‘Armscor begged, borrowed and stole if necessary, any technology it deemed necessary to the continuation of their holy war.’

Klatzow contended that rocket fuel carried illegally by the Helderberg for Armscor spontaneously ignited, causing the aircraft to crash into the sea off the coast of Mauritius in November 1987.

Armscor, far from being the innovative giant that it claimed to have
been, was on the level of petty criminals when it came to stealing intellectual property.’

An inquiry headed by Mr Justice Cecil Margo found that there had been a fire in the forward hold of the aircraft. But he concluded there was no evidence of an illegal cargo on the plane.

The TRC in 1998 conducted a closed hearing in the accident at the request of relatives of those who died.

Releasing the 523-page transcript of the hearing, Transport Minister Dullah Omar told reporters in Pretoria: ‘It is in the best interests of our country … that the veil of secrecy be lifted.’

According to the document, Klatzow, a forensics expert and consultant, told the TRC that information on the accident pointed to an ‘untoward incident’ on the Helderberg.

‘More importantly, it points inexorably in the direction of a major cover-up on the part of the (Margo) commission, or at best stunning incompetency.’ …

– Sapa, 22 August 2000

I Lucas Johannes Meyer a male IDXXXXXXX, residing at 25 Sintra court, Horizon view, Cell XXXXXXX.

Declare under oath that a few days after the Helderberg crashed a few of my fellow workers and I stood in the smoke room of the Avionics building on the 1st floor. The point of discussion was the Helderberg. Colin Dick, who worked with us, introduced us to his son who just joined us. During the discussion Gavin Dick mentioned that they (ZUR the company frequency) were the last people to talk to the Helderberg. At that stage we only new that the Helderberg reported a smoke problem and then went down. Everybody was very eager to find out what happened and we then asked Gavin to tell us what happened. He told us that the Helderberg reported fire to them not long after they left Taiwan. I found this strange because it is the Captains decision to turn back or not. Gavin then said that they were instructed to tell the Helderberg to continue on course till they get permission from higher authority to turn back. He never said who the higher authority was.

Gavin said that a while later the Helderberg were told that permission has been denied to turn back and that they should continue to Mauritius. He did not give any more details about why the decision was made.

A few days later Gavin Dick again visited his father and again the discussion was around the Helderberg. I and some of the other people asked him about the previous comment about them talking to the Helderberg. He then denied that they talked to the Helderberg and said the Helderberg missed its compulsory contact and that they never spoke to them. He denied that he said that they were the last people to speak to the Helderberg.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE
HELDERBERG
CRASH

INTRODUCTION

1  On 28 October 1987, the SAA
Helderberg
, a Boeing 747, crashed into the sea off the coast of Mauritius. All 159 people on board died. Almost immediately after the incident, allegations of foul play were made. A year later, in January 1989, the South African government established a commission of enquiry headed by Justice Cecil Margo to determine the cause of the crash.

2  The Margo Commission found that the crash was caused by a fire on board, but that the cause of the fire was undetermined. Many people rejected this finding, including investigative journalists who insisted that there were strong indications that the fire was caused by dangerous substances on board. Allegations were made that South African Airways (SAA) passenger flights were used to courier arms components and explosives in sanctions-busting activities by the parastatal Armscor.

3  Whilst no hard evidence was provided to back these claims, journalists continued to find circumstantial evidence to suggest that the
Helderberg
could have been carrying such dangerous substances, and that these might have caused the fire on board, leading to the crash.

4  Former SAA employees came forward, often anonymously, to support the allegation that it was not unusual for passenger flights to carry dubious parcels destined, they presumed, for Armscor. Moreover, members of the Flight Engineers Association indicated that the Margo Commission had overlooked important information when investigating the incident. There were allegations of cover-ups by the Margo Commission and experts suggested that the fire might have been ‘self-promoted’ (with a self-generated oxygen source).