UNKNOWN
I think Mr Visser, let us put it clearly, you are doing your cross-examination out of a document from the Commission, a TRC document and I think you're entitled to do that, it's been provided to you, it's not a document that you compiled yourself but I think that in all fairness, if one looks at the document it seems as if it's a summary of all the events regarding this witness and not only the hammer event or incident.  	So if the evidence of this witness regarding the incident in which he was involved where he was assaulted by four persons and he doesn't know who those four are, that is all evidence that he is giving us.  It is true that evidence, the applicants' evidence that there are some differences in their evidence.
	Is it not a question of further argument what deductions the Committee must make out of it or not and can we not on that basis, if we look at the evidence before you, can the proceedings not be shortened on that basis?  Can we go any further by doing cross-examination which is not already on record or can be argued?