MR MARTINI
Well we don't know that there were 15.  If you accept the evidence there were 15, but I'm not going to dispute there was an injury, I'm dealing with the inference which the Respondents seek to draw and to say, 'you have not made a full disclosure because you didn't tell us you intended to kill'.  Chairperson, I'm not sure how far I must go, because every now and then when I stress it ... but no such inference can be drawn.  And one just has to look at the evidence, because another inference could be drawn.  Yes, they didn't want to kill, but look at the proven facts, factually nobody was killed.
	Now Mr Williams cross-examining Mr Hardien confirmed, yes Mr Hardien walked in and saw Mr Williams.  Now if Mr van Zyl, who had a remote control device, wanted to ensure that they killed the people, why not press the button then?  He's just been told: "I saw Mr Williams inside", kill him.  Why would Mr van Zyl run the risk of exposing himself.  He could have planted, for example, a bomb, a time-bomb and say look, 'I know the meeting's running from eight till nine, I let it explode at quarter past eight, guaranteed I'll kill them'.  Why didn't he do that?  Why does he take the risk to go there?