Item Belt 193c - MP3 - Lieutenant Pieter van Heerden, Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez, Detective Sergeant Dirk Francious van Zyl

Description

Proceedings
on this day began with one short police witness testimony in regard to an act
of sabotage in Johannesburg, which was followed by the last appearance of
handwriting expert D/Sgt Du Preez who was briefly cross-examined in relation to
the pocket book of D/Sgt van Zyl. Geoffrey Cox was one of a number of witnesses
recalled in regard to the case against Accused No.8, James Kantor. During the
cross-examination and re-examination of Geoffrey Cox on this day, Judge De Wet
displayed some obvious frustrations with the prosecution’s “norm theory” in
regard to James Kantor’s knowledge of and involvement in dubious and sinister
bookkeeping practices at the firm James Kantor and Partners.

Only a
small portion of W/O Dirker’s evidence was heard on this day, however, it
included and important claim made by the Warrant Officer which would receive
much attention from the defence council in cross-examination and by historians
dealing with the Rivonia Trial. This claim was that W/O Dirker had, during the
afternoon of the Rivonia Raid, opened the bonnet of, Accused No.6, Lionel
Bernstein’s car and found that the engine was cold – suggesting that the
vehicle and its owner had been parked on the farm for a long period of time.
The defence council would argue against this claim in cross-examination but,
during his examination-in-chief, this point was not given any particular
attention or significance by Dr Yutar.

Witnesses
Called

168th State Witness:
Lieutenant Pieter Van Heerden – SAP, Marshall Square.

Examination-in-chief
by Dr Yutar.

Lieut.
Van Heerden gave evidence in regard to Item No.27 of Annexure B. On the night
of 17th December, 1961, a chemical bomb was placed inside the Rissik
Street Post Office building in Johannesburg. Lieut. Van Heerden investigated
the scene the next day but said that as far as he was aware no arrests had been
made in connection with this act of sabotage.

Cross-examination
reserved.

18th State Witness:
Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes Du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).

Cross-examination
by Mr Berrange.

D/Sgt
Du Preez was recalled by the defence in order to give evidence in regard to
D/Sgt van Zyl’s pocket book. In particular D/Sgt Du Preez was asked to analyse
page 62 which he confirmed had been written in a different pen in comparison to
the other adjacent pages. Furthermore D/Sgt Du Preez said that the word Dennis
on top of page 76 was also in a different type of ink. However, D/Sgt Du Preez
could not compare the handwriting with that written in a different pen on page
62 but it looked similar to the writing on page 72.

At this
stage Mr Coaker was asked by Dr Yutar to make the admission in regard to this
witness’s identification of James Kantor’s handwriting on certain cheques. Mr
Coaker admitted that the signatures belonged to James Kantor but reminded Judge
De Wet that the word cash which the state alleged had been written by James
Kantor had not been proven as such by D/Sgt Du Preez.

No
re-examination.

134th State Witness:
Detective Sergeant Dirk Francious van Zyl – SAP, Cape Town. (Recalled).

Cross-examination
by Mr Berrange.

D/Sgt
van Zyl confirmed that it was common practice for a superior officer to inspect
the pocket books of officers and would initial and date the book once it had
been done. D/Sgt van Zyl said that his experience was that his station
commander used to inspect his pocket book every time he handed it in and went
off duty but could not say how often it actually was inspected.

D/Sgt
van Zyl admitted that he had not made the notes on page 62 at the time of the
occurrence of the conversation with Denis Goldberg and Solwandla Looksmart
Ngudle. The note had been made a while later back at the Charge Office. Mr
Berrange asked whose initials appeared immediately after the entry on page 62.
D/Sgt van Zyl said that it was not the initials of his superior and he could
not say how those initials came to be there. Mr Berrange said that, unless
D/Sgt van Zyl’s pocket book had been tampered with, someone had gone and put
these initials with the date 4/12 in it between 9:00pm and 9:10pm. D/Sgt van
Zyl could not say whose initials these were despite claiming to have been on
duty until 1:00pm with the pocket book in his possession. Mr Berrange repeated
that he could not understand how this could have happened if the book had been in
D/Sgt van Zyl’s possession.

D/Sgt
van Zyl said that the person who checked the visits in the Charge Office could
have initialled it but this was very unusual. D/Sgt van Zyl could not provide a
satisfactory explanation. Mr Berrange then asked why it was that the pen used
at 9:00pm was different from that used at 9:10pm and why there were different
pens used for the entries on pages 62 and 76. D/Sgt van Zyl said that he only
ever used one pen and could not provide an explanation for why three different
pens appeared in his pocket book. Furthermore, he claimed that the word Dennis
on top of page 76 was not written in his handwriting.

Mr
Berrange then asked why it was that D/Sgt van Zyl had written the name Goldberg
under a list of stolen cars in his pocket book. D/Sgt van Zyl explained that,
for no reason in particular, he started to write this particular entry into his
pocket book backwards. Thus the name Goldberg appeared on page 77 and the rest
of the entry then appeared on page 76. Furthermore, he could give no reason for
why page 76 was the only page on which an inscription had been made below the
last line. After much hesitation D/Sgt van Zyl said that he must have made the
inscription on the scene because he had considered it to be a detailed entry.
Mr Berrange noted that such a thing had never been done before and D/Sgt van
Zyl confirmed that nothing like that appeared anywhere else in this pocket
book.

Re-examination
by Dr Yutar.

Under
re-examination Dr Yutar asked D/Sgt van Zyl to confirm that he had made a
statement and not a report regarding this incident. D/Sgt van Zyl confirmed
that this was so and claimed that when he made his statement he had not yet
seen the police report which was made in this regard. Dr Yutar noted that the
only inconsistency he could see in D/Sgt van Zyl’s evidence was that he had
first recalled giving his statement a few days after the incident and only
later confirmed that his statement was given the very next day after the
incident.

Dr
Yutar then asked D/Sgt to read his statement out to the court. Thereafter, Dr
Yutar confirmed that all the vehicle registration numbers written down on pages
77, 78, and 79, of D/Sgt van Zyl’s pocket book were of suspicious vehicles.

D/Sgt
van Zyl’s pocket book was submitted to the court as Exhibit BF.

No
further cross-examination.

169th State Witness:
Detective Sergeant Johannes Frederick Saaiman [Saayman] [Simon] – Station
Commander, Rondebosch.

Examination-in-chief
by Dr Yutar.

D/Sgt
Saaiman was the Station Commander at Rondebosch charged with taking custody of
officer’s pocket books. D/Sgt Saaiman claimed that D/Sgt van Zyl’s pocket book
was in his custody and that as far as he knew nobody had made any amendments to
the pocket book.

Cross-examination
by Mr Berrange.

Under
cross-examination D/Sgt Saaiman suggested that the entries in D/Sgt van Zyl’s
pocket book on pages 77 and 76 were completely normal. Mr Berrange asked D/Sgt
Saaiman to account for the initials which appeared at various places in the
pocket book and D/Sgt Saaiman suggested that they belonged to the officers who
visited D/Sgt van Zyl.

Re-examination
by Dr Yutar.

Under
re-examination D/Sgt
Saaiman explained, once again, that the initials could be explained by the fact
that various offciers who visited D/Sgt van Zyl while he was on duty and
initialled his book.

No
further cross-examination.

167th State Witness:
Detective Sergeant Christiaan Petrus Kleingeld – SAP, Grays. (Recalled).

Cross-examination
by Mr Fischer.

D/Sgt
Kleingeld clarified under Mr Fischer’s direction that he had found Accused Nos.
2 and 5 on the road-side of Room One, the Thatched Cottage, during the raid of
Liliesleaf Farm. Additionally, D/Sgt Kleingeld stated that he had not been
involved in the search for documents at all.

No
re-examination.

133rd State Witness:
Geoffrey [Jeffrey] William Cox – Accountant, State Expert. (Recalled).

Further
cross-examination by Mr Coaker.

Mr
Coaker reminded Geoffrey Cox that they had left off last time with an analysis
of the account of Accused no.2, Walter Sisulu. Mr Coaker informed Geoffrey Cox
that he now wished to turn attention to the next individual account highlighted
by the state, that of J. Rosenburg. Geoffrey Cox argeed with Mr Coaker’s
observation that the account of J. Rosenburg appeared to be a sort of current
banking account like that of A. Letele. Thereafter focus was placed on the
Defence and Aid account. Mr Coaker confirmed that Geoffrey Cox felt that he had
a very small amount of experience dealing with the firms of attorneys but he
felt that the records of James Kantor and Partners seemed to him to be well
kept and up to date. The new mechanical system of bookkeeping was a sound
system, provided it was operated by a competent person.

Geoffrey
Cox said that he was not aware of the legal requirements attorneys’ firms
bookkeeping practices were but he knew that there had to be an audit or an
examination in regard to the Trust Account at least once a year. Mr Coaker said
that these requirements were put in place insure that no funds were stolen,
borrowed or anything else from the firm’s Trust Account and to discover any
shortfalls in the Trust Account at that stage of the audit. It is not designed
to cheque the transactions passing through the trust, only that the final
amount in the Trust Account was balanced.

Mr Coaker
then turned attention the cheques made payable to selves and asked Geoffrey Cox
if there was anything improper about using such cheques to put into the Trust
Account to balance it. Geoffrey Cox said that this was completely normal
practice. In regard to drawing cash cheques on the trust account Mr Coaker
argued that, although Geoffrey Cox said it would not be his preference, it was
not a breach of any law or by-law regarding the bookkeeping in an attorney’s
firm.

Mr
Coaker asked Geoffrey Cox about the finding of original receipts in file covers
and the observations he made in that regard. Geoffrey Cox said that he did not
know if receipts were in fact released and issued to a client and there may
have been many others which were just torn up. However, the bookkeeping system
required that a receipt must be issued for any money coming in so that an entry
could be made in the cash book. Geoffrey Cox he went on to say that the bunch
of fairly numerous receipts that he was shown, in which the original had not
been returned to the client, consisted mainly of payments made by cheque.
Geoffrey Cox stated that it was not uncommon for any business to have the
receipt printed on the back or foot of the cheque. Therefore, there were
instances in people or business did not want or require a receipt and that this
was not abnormal for any organisation.

In
closing Mr Coaker asked Geoffrey Cox to consider another batch of receipts
which had been extracted from the files of criminal cases in the firm. These
receipts were all in regard to bail bonds cashed in a variety of amounts.
Geoffrey Cox agreed that if a client had already paid money to the firm he or
she would have been issued a receipt then. This would explain why no receipt
was issued when the bail bond was cashed by the firm at a later stage. Geoffrey
Cox was asked to look at two groups of cheque and cash receipts, of various
amounts, and to say if there was any pattern discernible to the keeping of
these two types of receipts in the firm. Geoffrey Cox confirmed that there was
no obvious pattern between cash receipts and cheque receipts and there were
many reasons why some receipts were not issued to the clients, which was a norm
in the firm.

Re-examination
by Dr Yutar.

Dr
Yutar began by telling Judge De Wet that his intention was not to cross-examine
the witness, but he did want to go through some of the cheques and receipts
shown to Geoffrey Cox during cross-examination, starting from the tail end of
the collection. Dr Yutar then proceeded to question Geoffrey Cox in regard to
certain aspects of Vivian Ezra’s account and the account of Julius First. Judge
De Wet said at one stage, “Well I have some difficulty with some of these
files”. Referring to one file in particular Judge De Wet continued:

This
appears to be a case where we deal with No.8 Accused who is collecting
maintenance on behalf of a client. A number of letters were written and a
statement is taken. Now, can you give any idea how anybody except the man who
dealt with this matter, that is Wolpe, would be able to tell whether any fees
were chargeable or were not chargeable in connection, and what fees were
chargeable.

Geoffrey Cox said that he would not know and Judge De Wet told the
witness that, based on his own experience in attorneys’ offices, he would not
know if the firm could or could not charge fees in regard to that matter. Judge
De Wet insisted that Harold Wolpe would have been the only one with information
regarding fees in instances such as this one. This was just one of a
significant number of interjections made by Judge De Wet which obviously
favoured the defence’s case for James Kantor’s innocence.

Dr Yutar closed his re-examination at this stage by asking Geoffrey
Cox if he would give his professional opinion on the fact that, despite what he
had been told during cross-examination, a witness would be called by the state
who would say that Julius First had both an account in the name of Ruron (Pty)
Ltd and a private account at his bank. In light of this information Geoffrey
Cox said he could give no obvious reason why Julius Fist had made use of an
account of the firm James Kantor and Partners and not his own private banking
account.

141st
State Witness: Senior Inspector of Explosives Paul Hougard Cruywagen –
Explosives Expert. (Recalled).

Cross-examination
by Mr Chaskalson.

Mr Chaskalson
first asked Paul Cruywagen if he could explain, in regard to page 61 of Exhibit
R.2, if there was any reason for the inward angle on the top and the bottom of
the hand grenade as he assumed these would be the weakest points of the unit.
Paul Cruywagen explained that the sketch was for the use of a high-grade
explosive charge the nature of which rendered the actual shape of its container
of no importance.

In closing Paul
Cruywagen said that the three plans of bombs which he had handed in to the
court had not been prepared by him and had been given to him just before he
took the witness stand. He could not recall who had given the plans to him.

No
re-examination.

92nd State Witness: Harry Charles
Tribe – Accountant, Standard Bank, Johannesburg. (Recalled).

Further examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.

Harry Tribe was recalled in order for Dr Yutar to have it put on
record that Julius First had had a private account as well as an account for
Ruron (Pty) Ltd at the Standard Bank branch in Marshall Square. He confirmed
that Exhibit K.44 was a deposit slip detailing the deposit of an amount of
money from the firm James Kantor and Partners to Julius First’s Standard Bank
account on 8th March, 1962.

No cross-examination.

133rd State Witness:
Geoffrey [Jeffrey] William Cox – Accountant, State Expert. (Recalled).

Further
re-examination by Dr Yutar.

Dr
Yutar continued to press Geoffrey Cox for an indication that receipts in the
file of Julius First indicated a significant departure from the norm in terms
of the firm’s bookkeeping practices. Toward the end of Dr Yutar’s
re-examination at this stage Judge De Wet interrupted Dr Yutar and said:

You get
yourself very involved when you start with statistics, Mr Yutar. Now how many
of these were matters handled by Mr Wolpe and how many of these were matters
handled by the other partners? If you want statistics you must have your full
statistics, Mr Yutar. Were these Wolpe files, or Kantor files, or Makda files?

Dr
Yutar replied, somewhat timidly, that what he was trying to establish was what
the norm had been in regard to the issuing of cheques. As it was a norm which
he believed was in the knowledge of Accused No.8. Judge De Wet responded:

Yes
well I am not the least bit impressed with this norm theory, Mr Yutar, but you
can carry on if you like… I mean you have established that it is unusual not to
fill in the reason for a cheque but that’s as far as you can go. But from that
to argue that therefore, if it is not filled in there must be some sinister
motive behind it, that’s quite a different thing.

Dr
Yutar conceded that this was the case and proceeded with his re-examination of
Geoffrey Cox with regard to two further groups of cheques shown to the witness
during cross-examination.

Further
cross-examination by Mr Coaker.

Mr
Coaker asked Geoffrey Cox if he was correct in thinking that during the lunch
break he and Dr Yutar had met and conversed in the courtroom. Geoffrey Cox
answered that this was correct and that he and Dr Yutar had discussed the
evidence he had given.

No
further re-examination.

149th State Witness:
Detective Sergeant Karl Petrus Frederik Jansen Van Rensburg – Greys.
(Recalled).

Cross-examination
by Mr Coaker and Mr Berrange.

Mr
Coaker cross-examined D/Sgt Van Rensburg first in regard to the documents he
took possession of from the offices of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
D/Sgt Van Rensburg said that some of these documents had been returned. D/Sgt
Van Rensburg admitted that Harold Wolpe was already being held in custody at
the time when he conducted the first search on 6th August, 1963. Mr
Coaker then asked if when D/Sgt Van Rensburg arrived to search the offices,
James Kantor had made a joking comment to the effect that:

He
thought that the Special Branch would have been more intelligent than to wait
so long before they came to search Wolpe’s office. And that he said to you,
“what makes you sure I didn’t destroy all his papers?”

D/Sgt
Van Rensburg confirmed that James Kantor had said that to him in “a very
friendly and joking fashion”. Mr Coaker continued to suggest that D/Sgt Van
Rensburg had then replied, “Well, we know our customers and we know you
wouldn’t do a thing like that”, and D/Sgt Van Rensburg agreed that he had said
that. After this, Judge De Wet interrupted and told Mr Coaker that he would pay
no attention to casual conversations police witnesses claimed to have had with
the accused in his judgements, as was his standard practice in trials such as
this one. Mr Coaker said he understood but would still put certain questions to
this witness of this nature.

D/Sgt
Van Rensburg reiterated that the staff at the firm were extremely helpful in
the firm and that there was no evidence of any attempt to destroy or remove
files from the offices during or before the search. Mr Coaker put it to D/Sgt
Van Rensburg that either he or one of his colleagues told James Kantor when he
was arrested that if he told them where Harold Wolpe was (having recently
escaped) he could go free then and there. D/Sgt Van Rensburg said he could not
recall this but accepted the suggestion that James Kantor had told him that he
had made it his business not to know where Harold Wolpe and Arthur Goldreich
were; and that even if he did know he would not tell D/Sgt Van Rensburg.

Mr
Coaker accepted that his and D/Sgt Van Rensburg’s version of what was passed in
conversation between himself and James Kantor and his own version were very
similar. D/Sgt Van Rensburg told the court that he believed that there were no
hard feelings between himself and James Kantor and it appeared that James
Kantor felt the same way. D/Sgt Van Rensburg’s evidence suggested that he had
gained the impression that James Kantor had been detained because Harold Wolpe
and Arthur Goldreich had escaped. Mr Coaker then asked about the occasion on
which D/Sgt Van Rensburg went to James Kantor in Marshall Square and told him
about the report in the Star of the two escapees arriving in Lobatse. D/Sgt Van
Rensburg admitted that after hearing the report James Kantor had said something
to the effect of “Thank God, there is no reason why they should keep me in
custody now” – which he had left out of his evidence-in-chief.

In
regard to the discussion about Mr Greef, D/Sgt Van Rensburg recalled that James
Kantor had told him that if Harold Wolpe had promised the man money he would
definitely follow through with the payment. Mr Coaker suggested that this
indicated that James Kantor had believed his brother-in-law to be an honourable
man at the time of this conversation, and D/Sgt Van Rensburg agreed that this
seemed to be the case. D/Sgt Van Rensburg admitted that James Kantor expressed
ignorance in regard to the file covers of Letele and Ezra and James Kantor had
even suggested that the file cover of Ezra did not exist.

In
closing D/Sgt Van Rensburg said that he had taken possession of two letters
written by James Kantor to his wife in London which were handed to a
handwriting expert as samples. Mr Coaker asked D/Sgt Van Rensburg, rather
sharply, if he had believed that out of all the documents in James Kantor’s
writing which he had possessed, two private letters to his wife were the best
document to put forward for the purpose of handwriting identification. D/Sgt
Van Rensburg merely said that these documents were readily available and hence
handed over.

Judge
De Wet asked D/Sgt Van Rensburg if he had found files in the firm belonging to
any of the named co-accused and read through a list asking D/Sgt Van Rensburg
to identify them. Those named were Michael Harmel, Jack Hodgson, Ben Turok, and
Cecil Williams.

Mr
Berrange asked D/Sgt Van Rensburg if he had found any files in regard to
Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein. D/Sgt Van Rensburg said that he did recall such
a file but he could assume that if it had contained anything sinister he “would
have been waving it around”. Mr Berrange then asked about the five files of
Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, also dealing with legal matters. D/Sgt Van
Rensburg agreed that both files contained documents pertaining to matters
dealing with litigations.

No
re-examination.

170th State Witness: Warrant
Officer Karel Joseph Dirker – Security Branch, Grays.

Examination-in-chief
by Dr Yutar.

Dr
Yutar began, as was usual for police witnesses, by discussing the time and
location of W/O Dirker’s experience as a police officer. W/O Dirker said that
he had been in the service of the Security Branch in Johannesburg for 12 years
and had been a police officer for 25 years. The primary evidence given by W/O
Dirker was in relation the documents seized and placed in his possession during
the raids of the Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View properties. However, he
first gave evidence on this day of certain items he had taken possession of
from 2nd March, 1963. On this day W/O Dirker received instructions
to go to the Main Post Office in Johannesburg where he took possession of
certain items of post which had been addressed to Miss Tillie Julius at the
offices of Ruth First at the New Age.

W/O
Dirker claimed that Tillie Julius was the pseudonym used by Mathilda First who
was the wife of Julius First and mother of Ruth First. Furthermore, he
explained that Ruth First had been an editor at the New Age. The post W/O
Dirker took possession contained an issue of Assegai dated 1-1-63 which dealt
with the MK, revolutionary guerrilla warfare, unity in the struggle,
justifications for acts of sabotage, and other related issues.

Thereafter
W/O Dirker discussed the post of 11 people which he confiscated on 5th
August, 1963, from their post boxes at the Main Post Office in Johannesburg.
Bob Hepple and Tillie Julius were the only two of these 11 post boxes mentioned
by W/O Dirker. He claimed that these boxes both contained booklets which had
been sent from Malan, Italy. The books appeared to be famous novels by authors
such as Charles Dickens but, once opened, it was clear that these booklets were
issues of Assegai which had been disguised. These booklets discussed the issues
of African liberation, revolutionary warfare, and many other issues (Exhibits
DH and DJ).

Dr
Yutar then asked W/O Dirker to give evidence, in chronological order, of the
events which took place on the afternoon of 11th July, 1963.
According to W/O Dirker he was accompanied by a number of other police officers
to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia. Upon receiving orders from Lieut. Van Wyk, W/O
Dirker got out of the vehicle and began to walk in a westerly direction towards
the main house and he saw Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, sitting in the lounge
through the window. W/O Dirker entered the house through the kitchen where he
saw Solomon and Thomas. Solomon was busy working with an electric icecream
maker which he said he was preparing for Pedro which W/O Dirker claimed he
found out was actually Accused No.5, Amhed Kathrada. W/O Dirker then went back
to the van and saw Accused Nos. 6 and 4, Lionel Bernstein and Govan Mbeki, as
well as Bob Hepple standing there. Accused Nos.2 and 7, Walter Sisulu and
Raymond Mhlaba, were already in the van with some other farm workers.

W/O
Dirker claimed that both Walter Sisulu and Ahmed Kathrada had been well-known
to him since 1952. However, because of their disguised appearances he had found
it hard to recognise them on the day of the Rivonia raid. W/O Dirker had
personally searched Walter Sisulu and Lionel Bernstein. On Walter Sisulu he
found and took possession of Exhibit R.232 and claimed that when he searched
him Walter Sisulu said to him, “Well Mr Dirker, you have got all you are
looking for”. On Lionel Bernstein W/O Dirker had found some personal documents
and an amount of R232.00 in cash which he later handed over to the accused’s
wife, Hilda Bernstein.

W/O
Dirker then claimed to have gone around Rooms One, Two, Three, Four, and Five
and noticed that there were documents and other articles in the rooms. He then
went back to the van when the accused were being held and took some of them,
individually around these rooms. He started with Bob Hepple and, having taken
him to each of the five rooms, asked if he had any knowledge of their contents.
Bob Hepple told W/O Dirker that although he had been inside Room One when the
police arrive, he claimed to have no knowledge of any of the documents or
articles in any of the rooms. W/O Dirker told the court that he had made notes,
which were before him in the witness box, which detailed the answers given to
him by the accused during his various searches of the rooms.

W/O
Dirker thereafter gave evidence of his examination of the cars parked at
Liliesleaf Farm on the day of the raid. W/O Dirker claimed that he first went
over the car of Arthur Goldreich and, as he had been given the keys, he opened
the bonnet and felt that the engine was cold. W/O Dirker then claimed to have
examined the car of Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein, and claimed to have opened
the hood and found that this engine was cold as well. This was a significant
point which would be pick-up on extensively by the defence council in
cross-examination. After he had searched several other vehicles searched on the
property, W/O Dirker returned the van where the accused were being held.

After
W/O Dirker had taken Walter Sisulu and Raymond Mhlaba around the rooms he was
purportedly asked by Ahmed Kathrada for permission to put on a jacket which was
hanging up on the wall in Room One. W/O Dirker took Ahmed Kathrada into the
Thatched Cottage for him to gather the jacket and asked him if it belonged to
him. Ahmed Kathrada replied, “No, we are used to putting on anything in this
room”. W/O Dirker claimed that while Ahmed Kathrada was in Room One he began to
search the Room with W/O Kennedy. W/O Kennedy took possession of a number of
documents and handed them to W/O Dirker who had also taken possession of
certain documents. The documents handed to W/O Dirker by W/O Kennedy were in a
bag which was handed in as Exhibit R235 and W/O Dirker’s bag of documents
seized by himself was submitted as Exhibit R234.

The
documents which W/O Dirker took possession of were as follows: R.7, R.71,
R.168, R.169, R.170, R.171, R.180, and R.181. He also took possession of three
keys (Exhibit R.236) which he found on the bed in Room One. On 16th
October, 1963, W/O Dirker went to the Kriel’s house at Mountain View and found
that these keys unlocked of the kitchen door of the cottage and the door of a
built-in cupboard inside the cottage kitchen which contained sheets of black
material and men’s clothing. W/O Dirker then continued to list the various
articles he found and took possession of in the various rooms at Rivonia. These
included parts of a radio set found in Room Three (Exhibits R.28, R.29, and
R.30), a Roneo machine found in Room Seven (Exhibit R.239), as well as a number
of poles which had been erected outside the outbuilding and which held up
looping wires.

At this
stage court was adjourned until 10:00am the following morning.

Sources

Dictabelts:    (Vol.52/3B/193c)
(Vol.52/3B/194c) (Vol.52/7A/195c) (Vol.52/7A/196c) (Vol.52/7A/197c)
(Vol.52/7A/198c) (Vol.52/7A/199c) (Vol.52/7B/200c) (Vol.52/4A/1d).

Percy Yutar Papers:

Handwritten
notes from the prosecution for 25th February, 1964 (MS.385/36/7).

Evidence of
van Rensburg (MS.385/5).

Evidence of
GW Cox (MS.385/5).

Wits Historical Papers:

M1-M22
Notes of State Witnesses evidence (AD1844.A9.4).

O – O50
Notes of State Witnesses evidence (AD1844.A10).

Extract
of Evidence: KPF Jansen van Rensburg (AD1844.A17.11).

Key
Words

Sabotage, Handwriting, Police Pocket Book, Denis
Goldberg, Rivonia Raid, Liliesleaf Farm, James Kantor and Partners, Accounts,
Julius First, James Kantor, Harold Wolpe.