CHAIRPERSON
Well that's precisely the point.   The fact of the matter is, whether he was killed, the Youth League denies having killed Bulelwa, and so does the SDU, but the fact of the matter is, on a probability, is that the death of Bulelwa started the violence which led to the massacre.  It was at the beginning, it may well be that, as you submit, that there was someone who was aware of the growing conflict between the SDU and the ANC Youth League, and knew that the killing of Bulelwa might well provoke these two factions into an open war, which indeed it did, but what emerges, all I'm saying, all I'm trying to find out from you is that does it not emerge, from the evidence of Likana, that from the perspective at least of the Youth League, it was the killing of Bulelwa which provoked them into action, whereas from the perspective of the SDU, it was the killing of Blanko which provoked them into action, so that the killing of these two individuals led to the massacre, because as I understand the evidence of the applicants, all are saying the killing of Blanko, the killing of Blanko, and in fact the witnesses, they, Mr Motlokwa saw members of the Youth League and saw Mr Likana with an AK47 shooting at Blanko, so there's no question that they saw who killed Blanko, a member of the Youth League, but on the other hand, you had the Youth League members who suspected, there's no proof, they suspected that it is the SDU which was responsible, you know there was a rumour that Mr Motlokwa was responsible, but nothing turns on that, the fact of the matter is what you said, perception.    This seems to emerge from the evidence of Mr Likana as having provoked their action in killing Blanko.