ADV BOOYENS
Mr  Chairman, yes, one can look at it that way, but then you are introducing another artificial point because this would not have happened if Siebert did not act the way he did.   It may even be debatable whether it can be said that in the circumstances - remember if I act unlawfully, I cannot rely on self- defence, and so I do not think the self-defence issue really came in here.   The whole tenure of the evidence, was "we grabbed him to subdue him, not so much because he attacked Siebert."  - remember his attack on Siebert was still a chair pushed in his direction and a mis-swing, I think.   That cannot stand loose from what happened subsequently once the man -  I think Reuben Marx put it very well.   He said when he wiped his hand over his eyes he could see now he is okay now he is sort of chained to the grille.   The whole purpose obviously is to subdue him.
      That the coincidence, you see we must be cautious, with respect Mr Chairman, to take an armchair attitude here and to say "but it could have been only this, it could have been only that."   I think there are a number of factors here that play a role at the same time, and which one of these was also to subdue him from attacking Siebert, but to subdue him to continue the interrogation comes in at the same time.   So I think we are moving into a very dangerous area of artificial distinction if we start doing that.   It's not necessarily self-defence.