MR MARTINI
Now he went later - in answer to Mr Wessels, he said:  "Mr Wessels, 24 years".  ... triple convicted murderer.  Drug addict.  Alcoholic.  A person who deceived.  And let's stop there.  He has deceived Judges, he has deceived his own attorney, and I would venture to suggest he might have deceived certain members of the public too when he testified.  And it's my submission, this is not a stupid man, this is a very intelligent man who has been sitting in solitary confinement, plotting.  But let's go further.  A man who had no problem in describing how he bashed a Mr Francis's brains in that the brain exploded.
	A man who filed an application with this Committee and says to this Committee: "Hang on, up until this stage that my applications was filed, I have lied.  I've lied for 24 years of my life.  I've lied in every court.  I've lied to this Committee.  I've deceived my own attorney, because he's filed my application and what I've put in there are lies.  I deceived Judge Stegman."  What weight could any person of logic, intelligence and reason, place on this man's evidence?  
	It doesn't stop there Chairperson, because he has a motive.  What does he say?  "Mr van Zyl gave me 10 years."  He has a motive to lie against Mr van Zyl.  Very important.  And it's my submission Chairperson, to go further, that he lied at these hearings.  And I'll show as well - I don't believe I need to go as far as showing how improbable his version is.  He has done his own job, he has told this Committee: "I've lied everywhere".  
	Now, I'm criticised by my colleagues for not cross-examining him.  There's a reason.  I would not dignify that man with cross-examination, because all you'll get out of his mouth are lies.  How do you cross-examine a man who says to you: "I've lied for 24 years.  I've done crime every day of my life.  I've lied to this Committee.  I've lied to everybody"?  When do you believe you're going to get an honest answer out of this man?  Never, Chairperson, never.
	Now let's touch - in essence, the discrepancy between Mr van Zyl's evidence and Mr Barnard's evidence which was placed on record by myself and it was disputed, and on this instance you will recall Mr Bizos had placed on record that they reserved the right to possibly recall Mr van Zyl.  Mr van Zyl was never called.  Mr Barnard's version was never put to Mr van Zyl.  He sat here when Mr van Zyl gave evidence, his counsel sat here ...(intervention)