MR WEBSTER
Well, actually what I mean Mr Chairman, to stop the vehicle in order to effect an arrest, but in fact it could have been anything, but why obliterate them?  That, Mr Chairman, to my mind, is the basic argument.  We then have elaborations on that argument, for instance like the document, I think it's Exhibit B which though having been accepted at other hearings, to my mind is nothing further than a document composed by intellectuals.  It's not necessarily, does not necessarily reflect the views of the applicants and in fact it was so put to them, to the applicants, that it was not their views.  As I say, those are just ancillary to it.  We also have the criticism levelled at the virtual verbatim repetition of the applications, what each of these people say in their applications and also the criticism that they all got together because each one couldn't remember the incident.  They got together, worked out contributions by all of them and at the end of that exercise, they then drew a document.  Now I seem to think, if I recall you clearly, Mr Chairman, that if I'd had my witnesses all in one room before I called them to testify in a trial before you, not necessarily me but anybody or any practitioner who would have done that, I don't think would have received your blessings.  I think he might have had a very bruised ego after that, but we have people here who get together and actually compose the whole incident and not only that, they then come here and present it as the truth. How much weight can one attach to that?