JUDGE WILSON
: Drasak?
ADV. MTHEMBU: Blue drasak.
ADV. DE JAGER: Can you give us an indication of how far these two houses were. The one where the car was parked and the other one where the blue carry-bag with the goods mentioned in paragraph 20 was found. How far are these two houses from each other.
INSP. DE LA REY: Mr Chairperson, it is difficult to estimate the distance, they are in two different sections, Montebello(?) has numerous sections, D and E are basically next to each other, but if I have to guess it could be between 5 and 10 kilometres.
ADV. MTHEMBU: Inspector, Mr Leeuw says that the items mentioned in paragraph 20 were actually found at House No. 337 in the kitchen in a sink and that the grocery items mentioned in there were actually found in the boot of the car.
INSP. DE LA REY: Mr Chairperson, that is not correct. You will notice later on in my statement that I mention evidence which was found at 337 K and these items were found at House, the house of the grandmother and the common-law wife's mother. As I have made a note in my statement this is how the items were found. It was not at 337 K.
ADV. MTHEMBU: Amongst the items mentioned in paragraph 21, items No. 4 and 5. Were these also part of the articles that were removed from the deceased farm or not?
INSP. DE LA REY: No, Mr Chairperson, these were not part of it, it was the property of accused No. 4 according to his own version.
ADV. MTHEMBU: Inspector, did you not deem it or at the time deem it necessary to mention if an article belonged to the deceased or not that in the manner in which this letter has been compiled it is misleading. For instance, articles 21 (4) and (5) on reading your statement, one gets the impression that these also formed part of items removed from the deceased's farm.
INSP. DE LA REY: No, I cannot agree. A full list has been compiled. It was filed and it has been attached to the charge sheet because these persons appeared in court. There was property which was missing and there was property which was recovered, so I cannot agree that it is misleading because in the file and in the possession of the court and the documents which were handed in there, this list of property which was missing and recovered was given and all the evidence relevant to that matter was submitted in court and it was tabled there so in my opinion it is not misleading.