Now, I want to know, who is in charge of the dockets, who. brings the dockets to the Prosecutor? I do.

- 7189 - Always? Now, I want to know, who is in charge of the dockets, who brings the dockets to the Prosecutor? I do. Always? Never Sgt. Kruger? Well, once it is with the Prosecutor I am finished with it. And thereafter? Then I won't he able to say... Thereafter Mr, Kruger has access to the docket, and looks after the docket, does he not? He can see the docket. And he looks after the docket, after that? Yes, he is responsible for the docket. And as you have already told us, one of his functions is to assist in seeing to it that the necessary witnesses are brought to Court and are available from day to day? Now, I am again asking you the question; are you suggesting that Mr. Kruger in fact did know of this evidence, or are you suggesting that he didn't? I didn't tell him anything about this. You will agree, Mr. Von Papendorp, that the Defence are entitled to regard it as being somewhat extraordinary, that the one detective officer who has been in Court more than any other in these proceedings, knows nothing about the Cheesa Cheesa letter or the report of 1003? I will expect Sgt. Kruger to know about the Cheesa Cheesa Army letters. Who did you expect to know? I say I do expect Sgt. Kruger to know, Well, evidently he didn't. Nor did he know about the report. There is just one matter I would like you to clear up. What is the earliest Cheesa Cheesa letter that you have come to know about? The earliest Cheesa Cheesa Army letter» that I have received, through ordinary channels, was during March 1954-. This is what you said in your evidence: "Are there other

- 7190 - letters of whose existence you know of an earlier date than This is the one letter you didn't receive through the the11th March, 1954? Not that I know of." And also you said this: "I haven't got these letters before me :now, but what roughly speaking was the latest date amongst the letters that you handed in this morning? June 1955." "What was the earliest date amongst them? 7th March, 1954."? That is correct. So now, you are referring to the letters that you received? And those are all the letters that have been put before the Court as exhibits, with the exception of 1003? normal channels in the ordinary way? That is correct. But were there not some 30 or 40 other letters which you received at the time that you received this letter? No. You know nothing about them? No, 30 or 40 letters coming from Headquarters, Pretoria you know nothing about those? Not that I know of. I don't want to make the same comment about the right hand and the left hand of the Crown. When did you first see this letter 1003? I saw this letter in custody of Det. Hd, Constable Van Heerden. Did he not tell you where he had got this letter from? He told me he got it from Police headquarters. Pretoria? Did he tell you that he had only received this one letter from headquarters, Pretoria, or did he mention that he had received other letters from headquarters, Pretoria? No, he didn't tell me. Didn't tell you what? That he received others. He gave you to understand that he only received this one letter? Yes, that is what I understood.

- 7191 - That is what you understood from him? And although you are in charge of these investigations, you haven't seen any other letters, other than the ones that were posted to you direct, in terms of the instruction that was given, and this letter 1003, the Cheesa Cheesa letters? No, some letters circulating in the vicinity of Johannesburg I received by hand. Those are Johannesburg letters? I went to get them. You went to get them by hand? The position then is this, the bulk of the letters you received in a confidential envelope by post in terms of the instructions? That is correct. 1003, you saw in the possession of Mr. Van Heerden; that was never received by you in the ordinary way? Yes, that is correct. Nor was it received through the usual channels? Yes, Besides that, there were a few letters which you became aware of which were circulating in Johannesburg which you in the course of your investigations yourself went to collect? Correct. And those are the only letters that you have ever had in your possession or that you have ever seen Cheesa Cheesa letters? If Exhibit 1003 always remembering that you were in charge of this Cheesa Cheesa investigation if Exhibit 1003 had been one of some 30 or 40 other letters, would you have expected to have had those 30 or 40 other letters placed in your possession? But that wasn't done? No, I received just that single letter. But if this had been accompanied, as you say, by 30 or 40 other letters, you would have expected those 30 or 40 other

- 7192 - letters to have "been placed in your possession, or at least for them to have been shown to you, because you were in charge of these investigations? Unless they were handed to Head Const. Van Heerden. Who was in charge of the investigations, you or Van Heerden? All the letters were coming to me. Were you in charge of the investigation of Cheesa Cheesa is my question? I was in charge. That was a duty that was assigned to you? Correct. And in order efficiently to carry out those duties, all letters relating to Cheesa Cheesa should have been placed before you? I was expected to... You would have expected that?... to receive all letters. Relating to Cheesa Cheesa? You wouldn't have expected Mr. Yes, Van Heerden or anybody else to have kept any letters away from you? No, (No further questions) MR. COAKBR GRANTED LEAVE TO RESERVE CROSS-EXAMINATION: BY MR. SLOVO: Your Worship will recall that I commenced crossexamining this witness, I think it was last Wednesday, and asked him a few questions on Thursday morning, and then I applied to reserve the balance of my cross-examination. I now wish to put a further few questions to him, with the Court's permission. CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR. SLOVO: In your experience, when an article has been taken away from a suspect is lost, would you as a sergeant on your own have the right to take any decision as to whether he will be compensated for that article or not? No, I take it that if any such decision were to be taken, such decision would have to be taken by a superior officer? That is so.

- 7193 - I am going to ask you some questions relating to an aspect upon which I am going to ask you to express an opinion. The question I want to ask you, is whether it is not so, that some months hack there was talk amongst members of the Special Branch that this case is not going so well, that Mr. Berrange comes to Court everyday and buys himself Crown witnesses by the dozen; did you hear that talk? No, I have never heard that talk. Have you ever expressed that opinion? No, never. Did you ever hear it expressed in the Security Branch amongst them that this case started off with a blowing of trumpets by the Crown, and that it became obvious after a while that everything just fell flat; have you ever heard that view expressed I want you to be frank with me, I know you are in a difficult position? I have never heard that, I have never expressed that myself, and my opinion was just the opposite. Now, Sergeant, have you heard the view expressed that some other Counsel had been brought in for the purpose of taking the Crown in this matter? Nod. Have you heard that at all; have you heard that Mr. Pirow, people like that, who were supposed to be coming in and taking the trial over? BY THE P.P.; I wonder if I may intervene; how is this relevant? I challenge my learned friend to indicate the relevancy of this, whether it affects the guilt of the Accused or not, that surely should be the test, BY THE COURT: Let me hear the last question again, Mr. Slovo. BY MR. SLOVO: Have you ever heard that some other counsel, I mentioned Mr, Pirow, and others have been brought into this matter for the purpose of taking the trial. BY THE COURT: Taking the trial? BY MR. SLOVO: Taking the trial in the Supreme Court. BY THE COURT: You mean prosecuting?

- 7194 - BY MR. SLOVO; Yes, prosecuting. BY THE COURT; Could you indicate in what way this question is relevant. BY MR. SLOVO: Your Worship, in the absence of the witness I will indicate. Could the witness excuse himself for a minute or so. BY THE COURT: (Witness leaves Court.) BY MR. SLOVO: Your Worship, it has been my suggestion from the moment that this evidence was led, and from the moment that other evidence of a similar nature has been led in the past few months, where witnesses have conceded that the statements in connection with their evidence has only been taken recently, where it became obvious that the evidence of the violence and riots in places like Port Elizabeth, Kimberley, and now the evidence relating to the Cheesa Cheesa army, was certainly not contemplated as being the type of evidence which the Crown at the outset would embark upon. It is my suggestion, and I will indicate why, it is relevant to this enquiry, it is my suggestion that the Crown at the outset, having been faced with the difficulty of the four, five or six months of evidence which, to say the least of it, Sir, in relation to the drama created at the beginning fell absolutely flat, decided, and I shall indicate my own suspicions in that regard, which I wish to put to the witness, and he can deny or accept, decided that this preparatory examination to end from the Crown point of view in the way it started, it would be necessary in some form or another to try and link the Accused with acts of violence which were not contemplated at the outset; acts of violence, the riots at various centres, and the Cheesa Cheesa army. BY THE COURT: Yes, that point you have made, and it is a matter for criticism, but not at this stage, at any rate. I really don't know what that has to do with the question

- 7195 - BY MR. SLOVO: Now, Sir, if I might indicate with that as a "background, I have just said as a "background, it is going to he my suggestion, Sir, that the evidence relating to the Cheesa Cheesa Army, and Your Worship must hear in mind that the Defence has alleged that this is a conspiracy and it is a direct frame-up. BY THE COURT: Yes, I appreciate that. BY MR. SLOVO: In those circumstances, it will he extremely relevant if a couple of members of the Special Branch, or other persons associated with the Crown, having this view of the case, would have a greater motive, in my submission, in manufacturing evidence of this nature and attempting to link it with the Accused. And it is only from that point of view that it has some bearing on this present enquiry. BY THE COURT: But Mr. Slovo, I don't yet appreciate what the question you want to put has to do with all these... BY MR. SLOVO: Well, Sir, the question which I want to put BY THE COURT: Unless is that all you wanted to say about it? BY MR. SLOVO: No, Sir, I wish further to put to this witness the question. BY THE COURT: No, this particular question, which has now been objected to by the Crown. BY MR. SLOVO: Yes, I want to pursue it, Sir, in the following manner. I wish to put to the witness that...whether he has heard there was some suggestion from the counsel that I have mentioned, that have been engaged, one has heard, at any rate, from Press reports of this preparatory examination, that for the Crown to succeed in even attempting to indict the Accused for high treason some violence somewhere will have to be found. And that is the purpose of the questions I am putting to this : witness. If he says he has not heard that, then of course I will not take the matter any further, but the atmosphere which

- 7196 - I wish to create, will have a bearing on my ultimate submission that the Crown found itself in a position towards the closing stages of the enquiry, where it had arrested 156 persons on a serious charge of high treason, and after evidence had been led for a period of approximately 6 months, there appeared to be no indication that any Accused was in any way connected with any act of violence, that, Sir, taken together with the evidence which we now have on record, that the acts of violence, the evidence relating thereto, was only collected after the preparatory examination had been in existence for six months BY THE COURT: Yes, I understood all that, but what was the effect of the suggestion that the Grown proposed to introduce further counsel to do with this. I can't allow any further argument, because you haven't given any reason so far, and it seems to me, I don't like to use the word 'fantastic' that your argument is fantastic, but the question must be disallowed. GERHARDUS PAULUS VON PAPENDORP, still under oath: CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SLOVO CONTD.: Have you during the course of the past three or four months heard the view expressed, from any quarter,, that it was absolutely vital for the Crown to try in some form or another to link the Accused with acts of violence, arson have you heard that view expressed? I know that we were to prepare, to get evidence, of the burning of schools, etc. When were you instructed to get that evidence in connection with the burning of schools? I suppose that was about three months ago. What other evidence were you instructed to look for three months ago? You are not referring to Cheesa Cheesa now? Well, Cheesa Cheesa is another? Yes, in May I discussed it with Mr. Van Niekerk.

- 7197 - What other evidence, acts of violence and arson were you asked to look for three months ago? Burning of schools, burning of churches. I know about the...what happened at Kimberley, at East London, but I did not deal with that. But are you aware that other members of the Special Branch were given similar types of instructions to the one that you were given? No, not that I know of. And those instructions were given to you to find that type of evidence, after the preparatory examination had already proceeded for a period of five or six months? No, it was originally decided to produce this evidence in the investigation in the preparatory examination; it was not decided at what stage it would have been led. Can you personally give any explanation as to why school burning, riots at Kimberley, riots at Port Elizabeth, Cheesa Cheesa Army and evidence of that sort were not even mentioned in the Prosecutor's opening address can you give any explanation for that, have you any knowledge as to why? As far as I know the investigations were not complete. But you were told three months ago to investigate the question of burning of schools? Yes, to prepare the evidence. And the witnesses who have given evidence in connection with the burning of schools, indicated to the Court that their statements had only been taken in the last three months? Yes, that is correct. But before those three months were up, and before those statements were taken, you had no evidence from those witnesses? No, I called for the dockets,..,,,. Before the statements were taken from these witnesses, did you have any evidence from them, the witnesses from whom you took statements? I did not have it in my possession. And as far as your own part in the investigation is concerned, you took statements from witnesses for the first

- 7198 - time three months ago. Is that correct? From these witnesses that were called to give evidence in this court? I took verylittle statements myself. But you are aware that statements were taken from these witnesses in the last three months? (No further questions) FURTHER GROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRANGE: According to your evidence, Mr. Von Papendorp, when this typewriter arrived, it was left with Mr. Cromhout for a day or two? No. Kroukamp, I beg your pardon? And then it was taken over to Mr....,? To the S.A. Criminal Bureau at Pretoria. To who? It was handed there to Mr. Lubbe. Who by? It was Mr. Van Heerden, Sgt. Kroukamp and myself. We went to Pretoria, and the actual handing over was done by Mr. Van Heerden, the handing over to Lubbe. Did you say one word of this when you gave evidence on the first occasion, when you gave evidence after you volunteered that there was something that you desired to add to your evidence; did you say one word of this? No. Why not? (No reply) You see, you were specifically questioned about this, Mr. Von Papendorp? Yes, I was questioned... Why did you not give that evidence? I did say it was kept at the S.A.C.B. Pretoria. Yes, you said that, and you said it w s in the custody of Major Cromhout, and that you had seen it being locked up. Did you see it being locked up? No, I did not see it being locked up. All right, let me read you your evidence. 'You got it on the 19th of this month? No, I got it on the 2nd April.'

- 7199 - 'Of this year? Yes, and it was then locked up in the S.A.Criminal Bureau in Pretoria.' That is your reply.? That is my information, "but I did not see it locked up. Then I will read you the next question: 'Did you see to it that it was locked up? Yes, I had seen it being locked up,' Now, what do you say about that? No, I BY THE COURT: Was this under cross-examination by... by whom? BY MR. BERRANGE: Mr. Slovo. I have here not my own notes, but I have the Court record, from the machinej CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRANGE CONTD.: That is your evidence.? It must be wrong there. Well, who is wrong, the machine or you? No, me. That is why I am asking you, why is it on the last occasion when you were ^ecifically questioned about this, did you not say one single word of the machine having been taken over by you and Mr, Van Heerden, and it having been handed over to Mr. Lubbe. But so that there is no misunderstanding, I may be doing you an injustice, when you talk about Van Heerden and you going over to Pretoria and handing it over to Lubbe, are you talking about which occasion? The first occasion. In what month? In the end of March, April. Beginning of April. It couldn't have been the end of March? No, the end of March, April. Yes, you said you received it on the 2nd April from Kimberley? It was shortly after that, a day or two after that. That is the occasion you are referring to? Why, when you were specifically questioned about this did you not say one word about the machine being handed over to Mr. Lubbe? (No reply) No reply? If not, I'll go on? No, I can't explain

- 7200 - it. I have been making arrangements for the safe custody of the machine, and if I did say I saw it being locked up, that isn't correct. I did not see it being locked up. You are not answering my question. You have already told us that that evidence is wrong. What I want an answer to, is why did you not say one word about this machine being handed over to Mr. Lubbej why did you leave us with the impression that it was given to Major Cromhout and that you then saw it locked up. And you know what else you went on to say? You then say: 'It was locked up at whatever the Bureau is called in Pretoria? South African Criminal Bureau.' 'And you say it has been there ever since until you fetched it again on the 19th? Yes, on the 19th of this month, when it was then handed over to Mr. Lubbe.' That is the first time you speak about this machine being given to Mr, Lubbe? What is your answer to that? I could have stated that, The question was not put to me directly. You were asked what happened to this machine. There is a whole page of cross-examination as to what happened to this machine after you received it from Kimberley. And what you said was that it was taken to the S.A.Criminal Bureau in Pretoria, that Major Cromhout took charge of it, that you saw it locked up, that it remained there until}, the 19th of this month, when it was handed over to Mr. Lubbe. And then you went on to say: Question'Did you hand it to him? Yes,' 'Did you fetch it? Yes,' 'Prom Pretoria? ' 'And was it in the same place where you left it? Yes,' Produced this morning altogether 20 letters? In the same place I could only refer to the S.A.C.B., South African Criminal Bureau. I want to know from you Mr. Von Papendorp, when you were questioned with great detail and particularity, as to what happened to this machine after you received it from Kimberley, why did you not say then, * this machine was taken over to Pre-

Collection: 1956 Treason Trial Collection number: AD1812 PUBLISHER: Publisher:- Location:- 2011 Historical Papers, The Library, University of the Witwatersrand Johannesburg LEGAL NOTICES: Copyright Notice: All materials on the Historical Papers website are protected by South African copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, or otherwise published in any format, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. Disclaimer and Terms of Use: Provided that you maintain all copyright and other notices contained therein, you may download material (one machine readable copy and one print copy per page) for your personal and/or educational 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 contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, Historical Papers, University of the Witwatersrand has not independently verified their content. Consequently, the University is not responsible for any errors or omissions and excludes any and all liability for any errors in or omissions from the information on the website or any related information on third party websites accessible from this website.