NB Publishers believes that publication of the book The Lost Boys of Bird Island was justified and it was of great public interest that this story, which has been silenced for decades, be told. Mark Minnie was directly involved in the police investigation into the allegations and had personally interviewed several of the suspects and witnesses involved. During the course of her investigation, Chris Steyn spoke to at least 25 sources about various aspects of the story.
Minnie and Steyn have been following the story for 30 years and conducted extensive research on the matter for more than a year leading up to the publication of the book. At the time of publication and still today, NB Publishers regard the information contained in the book as credible and of public interest. Moreover, certain key parts of the investigation were confirmed post-publication by members of the media who independently investigated the claims in the book, as well as by numerous people who since came forward with valuable new information. The contact details of several people, some of whom claim to be victims themselves, have been passed on to the police, and it is believed that some of them have made statements.
We were always aware of the difficulty in not having access to documentary evidence contained in the docket, which was unlawfully removed from Minnie’s possession and is highly unlikely to ever be traced. We were also aware that it would be, 30 years later, very hard to find incontrovertible forensic evidence that supports all of the allegations made. Yet we were and still are convinced that the authors’ investigation was thorough, that the allegations are credible and that publication thereof is of public benefit. We strongly deny that NB Publishers fabricated any information or facts presented in the book.
Request for comment: The Lost Boys of Bird Island
We are in possession of an email sent by Mark Minnie to Chris Steyn and Maryna Lamprecht on 1 August 2018 shortly before the book was published, in which he states, “We have no concrete evidence to the effect that any of the three ministers sexually molested a victim. We need a victim to come forward and make and accusation followed by an identification”. It therefore appears that the book was published without sufficient concrete evidence against Malan, Du Plessis and Wiley, and that both authors and publisher were aware of this. What is your comment?
See our general statement above. In the book the authors make it very clear from the beginning that the evidence is not in their possession.
31 years ago, when Mark first investigated the case, he had physical evidence in the form of a police docket. This included the tape recording of Suzie telling him about the night the injured boy was dropped off at the hospital by helicopter. The docket, including the tape recording, was illegally removed from Mark’s office. According to a Rapport newspaper article (attached) PW Botha himself gave the order that the docket must be removed and delivered to his office.
The authors never profess to be able to tell the full story. For that very reason Minnie called for victims and persons with information on the allegations to come forward. That does not however mean that the parts of the story they were able to tell is unreliable.
We are in possession of an email sent by Mark Minnie to Maryna Lamprecht on 12 August 2018 (the night before he committed suicide), in which he says, “I'm not ready to do radio shows just yet. […] I'm busy assisting […] with an investigation into the blue Combi and a house in Witelsbos.” This raises two serious issues. Why, after 30 years, is Minnie still not ready to answer questions about his investigation? It also reveals that after the book was published, concrete evidence was still being sought. What is your comment?
Some of our comments above also apply to this question.
In addition, you will see that, in the same email to Lamprecht, Minnie says:
“Some ex- military guys have posted on social media that they're attempting to establish my whereabouts. They believe for the time being that I'm in China.”
The same day that Minnie sent this e-mail, he told Lamprecht telephonically that he feared that if he went on radio, people will be able to tell that he is in the country, either because the line would be clear, indicating that it is a local line or because the interviewer would ask him where he is.
Because he received threats in the days before his death, he purposefully kept a low profile and felt it was safer if very few people knew that he was in the country.
Why, if there was concrete evidence that Barend du Plessis was the third ‘uncle’, was his name not included in the book, yet the book was written in such a way that his identity is easily deduced? Was it because in fact Du Plessis is the only minister still alive to clear his name?
The decision not to name the third minister was a precautionary one, based on an assessment of the available evidence relating to the third minister’s alleged involvement, the ability to present proof to a court and the inherent risks in litigation. Journalistically, this is common practise.
We deny that the identity of the third minister was easily deduced. In fact, many people contacted the authors after publication to try and find out who he was.
We are in possession of an email sent by Maryna Lamprecht to Mark Minnie and Chris Steyn on 10 August 2018 (five days after the book was published), in which she writes, “If Mr X or some of the victims can identify the house and we can confirm the house belonged/still belongs to BdP by doing a deed search, then it points the finger directly at him.” From this correspondence, it is clear that the authors and publisher were still searching for concrete evidence to link Du Plessis to the ‘paedophile ring’ after publication. What is your comment?
See our comments above that also apply to this question.
In the book, Mark Minnie states that he left the police force to work under cover for the cops, and left the country to teach English overseas. We are in possession of evidence that in fact Minnie was involved in numerous crimes, one of which was running a brothel, and he fled the country after diamond deals went bad. We also have evidence that he forged his University of Cambridge ESOL Examination certificate and his daughter’s Matric certificate. The book therefore contains fabrications which cast doubt on the credibility of the text as a whole, as well as the integrity and credibility of one of the book’s authors. What is your comment?
On p.220 of the book, Minnie himself discloses that, while he was a registered informer for the police, he operated an escort agency and explains that it served as a front for the cops. On the same page, he makes it clear that he only left South Africa in 2007.
We were not aware of any allegation that he forged any qualifications as we do not ask authors for their academic records.
We don’t understand the final part of your question where you state “The book therefore contains fabrications which cast doubt on the credibility of the text as a whole…”
We are not aware of any fabrications contained in the book. See our comments above.
At a key point in the book, one of the victims who is called William Hart in the book tells Minnie that the boys and uncles reached Bird Island by “military helicopters and boats” (p136). When Hart was involved with Allen (between the ages of 15 and 18), Allen did not have the Bird Island concession. It would be impossible for Hart to have gone to Bird Island as a boy, and Hart clearly states he has never been to Bird Island. What is your comment on this falsification?
This is no falsification, it corresponds exactly with what is in the book. In the book William Hart is quoted as saying that he never went to Bird Island himself.
On page 124: ‘I knew Dave Allen pretty well,’ William continues. ‘He used to take me to Witelsbos. Other boys he would take to Bird Island . . .’
What he told Minnie, was that other boys were taken there and they were taken by “helicopters or boats”.
By 1987, when the book is set and when Allen did have a concession to Bird Island, ‘Hart’ (who was born in 1959) was 28 years old. Even if these events had happened a few years prior, he was an adult and the book clearly describes him as “a boy called William Hart” and “a lad” (p118). In an email to Chris Steyn, Minnie writes that he has changed the timelines but that the facts are true. This is clearly not the case. What is your comment?
In his chapters, Minnie often uses the word “lad” to describe men in their twenties, so this does not mean to imply that Hart was a minor in the 1980s. Minnie himself was about 27 years old during these events, yet the brigadier calls him a “lad” on p.51. Again he uses the word on p.224 in reference to Etienne Schmidt who was “about twenty years old”. On p.30-31 he once again refers to a grown man as a “lad”.
Minnie never alleges that Hart was sexually abused by the ministers or that it happened on Bird Island. According to the book it was always Dave Allen who abused William. This could have easily taken place during the 1970s before William turned 18.
According to the book (p.124) Dave Allen lost interest in Hart when he turned 18, but Hart admits that after he turned 18, he was still involved in the paedophile ring and recruited younger boys (p.124). Because of his continued involvement in the 1980s Hart still knew what was going on in the ring and was in regular contact with the younger boys who were allegedly abused in PE and on the island.
Minnie writes that William “swears to being at Witelsbos on numerous occasions and each time either Uncle Dave or one of the other uncles present had sex with him. The routine was simple. Once an uncle took a liking to a boy they would wander off to a secluded spot away from the braai area. The house offered the perfect haven. Money or bottles of liquor were exchanged for sex.” (p132) In our interview with Hart, he insists that he only ever had sex alone with Dave Allen at the Witelsbos house, which was owned by an old couple (who also owned a farm, which he visited with Allen to dive). The orgies described by Minnie never took place at Witelsbos with Hart present. Please comment on this falsification.
NB Publishers finds it strange that William Hart has changed his version in some respects since the release of the book. NB Publishers is in possession of a sound recording of one of the conversations between Minnie and Hart. In this conversation Hart confirms that he identified Dave Allen and some of the ministers, yet he recently seems to have denied this to a private investigator. This while Gordon Lamastra, former cop who worked with Minnie, confirmed to the media (Rapport) that he remembers very clearly how Hart identified the ministers as Minnie states in his book.
In the recording Hart also states that Magnus Malan was involved, yet he apparently now also denies any knowledge of Malan’s involvement.
NB Publishers is aware that, since the publication of the book, Hart allegedly indicated that he would be prepared to change his whole story and say the book is untrue for payment of R1 000. We do not know if anyone bribed him, but find it suspicious that he has suddenly changed his story.
An additional alleged victim, Mr X, has ‘come forward’, yet his identity was never revealed to the investigator, Wouter de Swart, during the course of his investigation. Why is this? Since the release of the book, have any other ‘victims’ come forward?
Mnr. X was interviewed by Die Burger. Neither Chris, nor the publisher know his true identity or whether he has decided to give a statement to the police or not. In addition, Chris Steyn has obtained the identities of a couple of other alleged victims following the publication of the book. NB Publishers is aware of the fact that De Swardt was in PE for only about 11 days and that he spoke to very few people before drawing his conclusions. He admitted to the media (Rapport article) that he did not even try to speak to Gordon Lamastra or the doctor who allegedly performed the operation on the injured boy. His report also contains many inaccuracies and we therefore do not regard it as credible. Despite De Swardt saying he doubted that the surgeon even existed, Chris Steyn has provided proof of her correspondence with him – and recently received corroborating information that the operation was in fact performed.
It is clear from the evidence we have cited that there is no concrete evidence for many of the allegations made in the book, and a great deal of this text is conjecture. Yet it is published as “a shocking exposé”. Does NB Publishers stand by its endorsement of this book as fact?
NB Publishers stands by the book and its authors. See our comments above.
Given the numerous very serious allegations above, do NB Publishers (as a respected publishing house), Mariann Thamm and Chris Steyn (as respected investigative journalists) feel that they have acted in good faith to both the public and the families of those implicated in the book, in publishing and publicizing these falsifications?
See our comments above that also apply to this question.