MR JAMIE
Mr Chairperson, with great respect, if I can just respond to that.  The evidence is clearly, he did not say in terms and perhaps he is to be commended more than faulted for this, that he didn't say in terms the attackers called out, because that would perhaps have been a deduction and an inference, but my submission is that even though he did not say that, that is clearly the purport of his evidence, it's clearly the intention and it is clearly his understanding.  In the dark at a distance of 10 metres, you may well not be able to see the mouth of the person moving who is calling but you can certainly get an idea of the direction from which the calling is coming.  That was never suggested, that when they drove toward the killers, either Pro or Andile thought:  "Well, we're not driving toward the people who called."  Obviously and I say this as a matter not of evidence, but as a matter of logic again, the persons who called, the voices came from the side of the car in which they drove, so in other words it came from the right.  It couldn't have come from the left.  It would then be totally illogical that they reverse and drive to the right to go and respond to the call.  So the voices must have come, or the voice from the right.  Now if you accept that, Mr Chairperson, which in my submission it must be accepted, then it begs the question, if this was some other people unconnected with the killers, where were they?  Were they beyond the killers, in which event why would they have called and why would they have not gotten involved, or not seen what happened?  They obviously would have known Pro Jack, if they were calling him by name.  But all I'm saying, Mr Chairperson, is we're totally in the realm of speculation and there is simply no evidence and the crucial aspect upon which that entire conjecture falls down is that there are no other people.  It's not suggested by the applicant, or his attorney, or anyone else, who gave evidence in this matter, it certainly was not stated by Andile that there was anyone else on the scene.  Now if there was no-one else on the scene, the possibility that it could be someone else can't be excluded, you're quite correct, but that is not the test, Mr Chairperson, the test in this matter is whether you are satisfied and the correct standard of proof, in our submission, is a balance of probabilities and that is a balance that will be considered and the decision will be made on the evidence, not on speculation and although, if this was a criminal case and I was a prosecutor, it may be said that I have not proved my case beyond reasonable doubt, I would submit, Mr Chairperson, that if this was a civil trial and I was the plaintiff's attorney or advocate, I would have gone a long way to proving my case on a balance of probabilities because there is no contrary suggestion and there never was, but I think I've said what I can say on that topic unless there's something that you need to ask me.