CHAIRPERSON
It appears to me as if Mr Van Zyl in his evidence before the Court had said that he had indeed mentioned Pretoria in the places he pointed out because it appears as if from his evidence, the entry on page 78 opposite the time 19H50, is incomplete because there should also have been a reference to the trip to Pretoria.
	It appears as if during the trial he had said he had pointed it out, he had mentioned Pretoria to the police and he had pointed it out but the police had just not entered it correctly, recorded it correctly and on the basis of all of this, the Court decided that it must have been a figment of the imagination that they had visited Pretoria.
	There was no reference in the notes regarding what was pointed out to Pretoria, there was no reference to Pretoria and it seems as if there was a further complication in that regard in the sense that Mr Van Zyl says that he had indeed pointed out Pretoria to them, but they had just not written that down.
	That is the way I read it, but perhaps he could explain it to us exactly what had happened at the trial.  Did you listen to the discussion we had now Mr Van Zyl?