MR VISSER IN REPLY
Chairperson, there is no onus of proof before you or any other Commission of Inquiry, we dealt with that issue.  I'm not going to go through it in detail, just to refer you to it, you will find it in the written Heads at page 47 and onwards where it was quite explicitly stated by the Appellate Division, there is no onus of proof where a Commission has to be satisfied.  It's a question of being satisfied on probabilities, it's not for the applicant to provide probabilities.  Of course we have to give you evidence which will make you satisfied, but that doesn't mean an onus of proof.  Chairperson, I'm not going to deal with all the issues.  The question of the injuries to which Botha would have conceded only related to one injury,
Chairperson.  You'll find that at page 581.  He didn't make a blank concession.  As far as the offence is concerned, Chairperson, on your questioning and again at page 592, he associated himself with what had happened there.  The moment he associated himself with planting those weapons, he associated himself with killing those people, whether he struck any of them or not and we know we've got in our law an offence such as culpable homicide.  I'd hate to have to defend Botha on a plea of not guilty on the charge of culpable homicide in this case on these facts, Chairperson, because he'll be convicted and dolus eventualis as you put to my learned friend Mr Webster during the hearing, what about dolus eventualis?  And then page 573, Chairperson, on a question of Mr Webster in the middle of the page:
"Mr Botha is it your evidence, as the Chairperson has summarised ..."
Perhaps I should just refer you to what the Chairperson said, it's just the previous paragraph.
"Just let's talk about the probabilities.  But you can't pin things down and come to definite final conclusions beyond a man saying:  "I fired at this vehicle.  I don't think that I shot anybody.  I don't think I shot anybody."
And that's as far as it goes.  
"