GEORGE BIZOS
Page 10
"That the presence of armed members of the ANC on the balcony of Shell House in King George Street was claimed invisible to persons in the position of the marchers."
And the answer to that is to be found on page 98.  They say that the objectors were not aware of the presence of armed members of the ANC on the balcony of Shell House until the shooting started.  We will have to live with that answer for the time being Mr Chairman.  
And paragraph 21:
"That after the groups of marchers had converged at the intersection of King George Street and De Villiers Street, they paused for a short while and then charged forward moving south into the portion of King George Street, directly adjacent to Shell House. The objectors denied that they ..."
Page 98, paragraph 114:
"The objectors deny that they charged forward south in the portion of King George Street directly adjacent to Shell House.  They merely marched in the direction of aforesaid, ...[indistinct] aforesaid the contents of this paragraph is admitted."
Now, and Mosselson says at page 118, paragraph 26:
"It is admitted that the number of marchers converged at the intersection of King George and De Villiers Streets prior to the shooting incident taken place.  The remainder of the contents of this paragraph is however not admitted."
And 22:
"That the marchers ignored the attempt by two uniformed members of the South African Police to stop and/or divert them, and that as they charged forward one of those policemen was struck and injured with a sharp instrument."
Dr van Wyk, page 98, paragraph 1.15:
"The objectors admit that the objectors ignored the attempt by the two members of the South African Police to stop them and/or divert, however, they deny that they charged forward and state that they merely marched forward, ...[indistinct] aforesaid, the objectors deny the contents of this paragraph."
And as far as Mosselsons are concerned, on page 119, paragraph 27:
"It is unknown at this stage whether the individual objectors were aware of the attempts by the persons mentioned in these paragraphs to either stop and/or divert the marchers."
Then in paragraph 23 on page 10:
"That the marchers ignored the attempt by a civilian, being Mr Ralph von Eggedy, to stop them and that as they charged forward he was struck a number of times by the marchers and knocked to the ground."
Now, if you would have a look at page 98, paragraph 1.16:
"The objectors admit that they ignored the attempt by Mr von Eggedy to stop them, however, they deny that they charged forward and state that they merely marched forward, sabres aforesaid, the objectors deny the contents of this paragraph."
And paragraph 24:
"That the marchers fired a number of shots with various firearms, including at least one AK47, in the direction of Shell House, on the security personnel of the ANC.  The objectors deny the contents of this paragraph."
Mr Chairman, you will have seen a reference to the evidence of Mr von Eggedy.  We have a situation in this instance Mr Chairman, where, and let me refer you Mr Chairman, to a statement made in heads of argument by Mr D F Dorfling, our colleague appearing for the objectors, at page 148 - the document is not before you, we can put the page before you if necessary but I want to read into the record what he said about Mr von Eggedy because we are going to ask you to accept the evidence of Mr von Eggedy and a copy of it has been inserted in the bundle.  And the reason why we believe that his evidence is to be treated differently and that it should go in as uncontested facts is because of the following, at page 85 of these arguments before the inquest, it is said,
the evidence of Mr Ralph von Eggedy, 6.1:
"It is submitted that the witness Von Eggedy is an independent witness who, on the evidence, has no motive to lie and/or falsely implicate any person or group.  As a result it follows that strong reliance can be placed on the evidence of this witness for purposes of the findings of this Honourable Court."
We agree, Mr Chairman, and because of that, in bundle B we have incorporated - if you have a look at bundle B at 110, you will see a drawing and a statement by Mr von Eggedy going on to page 113 and 114.  This statement came into - although made shortly after the event, Mr Chairman, was only brought forth by the police who had it for some time whilst the inquest was in motion. 	In the evidence led Mr Chairman, there was reference by our witnesses to a white person that tried to stop the marchers but we didn't know his identity.  However, the evidence on a video did show a person who did what we had said he had tried to do.  The learned Judge then called for this person to be found.  This was given publicity, and the person came forward and said: "This is me.  I made the statement shortly after the event".  The learned Judge then asked the Attorney-General's office to take a statement from him which you find at page 115 - 121, I beg your pardon, 122.  This was taken by one of the counsel in the Attorney-General's office Mr Chairman.  He was then asked questions by the learned Judge and his evidence is to be found at page 123 right up to 158.  Mr Chairman, we consider this evidence to be reliable and we may say Mr Chairman, that he was questioned by the learned Judge. He was not cross-examined in the true sense of the word by any of the persons there.  My learned friend Mr Tipp asked a few questions on page 148, 149, 150 and up to the top of page 152.  He was then asked questions, by our learned friend, Mr Dorfling, from page 152 - page 156, top of page 156, Mr Chairman.  
	Now, I want to read at the bottom of page 152.