MR MARTINI
A possibility.  But my submission is he's never had it, it was always in Peaches's possession, as per Mr van Zyl's evidence.  So coupled with what this man is with the inconsistencies, I say in answer to Mr Lax's earlier question, you cannot accept his evidence above that of Mr van Zyl, where it is in conflict with Mr van Zyl's evidence.
	But Chairperson, if the Committee wants to find, which I submit it cannot, and believe Barnard, then I say it's irrelevant.  If the Committee finds that Mr van Zyl did not disclose this fact, the Committee cannot state that he has failed to make a full disclosure of a relevant fact.  But the Committee will be hard pressed to accept Mr Barnard's evidence in that regard in the face of his admitted lies, doing crime every day.  I'm sure this Committee hasn't hear people testifying: "I've done crimes all my life".