MR HATTINGH
Well Mr Chairman, I suppose it could be argued that it could have been intended for all three, but is that clear?  Can you arrive at that conclusion without the evidence of Mr Nieuwoudt that he intended that to be payment in respect of this incident as well?  That is why I am saying you've got to be guided by the evidence.  There is no evidence that that payment was intended as payment in respect of all three incidents.  My Attorney draws my attention to the fact that on Mr De Kock's evidence, his understanding of that payment was that that payment was only in respect of the third consignment of arms, but there is certainly no evidence to the effect that that payment was payment in respect of this particular incident as well.  With respect Mr Chairman, you cannot draw the inference as an only reasonable inference that that money was paid in respect of all three transactions without any evidence to that effect.