MR BRINK
I will illustrate.  The bare bones of it are these - we know as a matter of fact that the police station at Bongweni outside Kokstad, or in the Kokstad district was approached by a number of people, I accept, the families accept that the applicants were among them, because it is inconceivable that they would have placed themselves on the scene, had they not been there.
	It is settled and beyond issue that there were two policemen on duty, the two deceased Sergeants, that they were coerced, they were abducted from the police station and that a number of police weapons were taken at the same time.
	It is further settled and beyond any issue that the two policemen were shot dead just along the road to Bizana, just off the turn off, just past the turn off.
	There is a great deal in common in this case, but there are crucial differences and I am going to, my argument is going to be directed at urging this Panel to find that the versions put up by the applicants are so shot through with improbabilities, that they are manifestly, that the versions are manifestly and palpably false and must be found to be such.
	I will start then with what appears to have taken place, what did indeed take place at the police station.  On the version of the applicants, the police after initially being approached with a single pistol and knives, succumbed and were persuaded that no harm was intended to them.
	They were persuaded to accompany the applicants and they all left peacefully.  Against that we have the objective evidence, the telephone wires were cut, the radio handset was cut from the main body of the machine, police uniform buttons, three were found just outside the charge office door and a spent 9 mm cartridge was found 30 metres, 30 paces from the charge office door.
	Now it is true, a button means nothing, anybody any policeman can lose a button from his tunic and it signifies nothing at all, but the presence of three buttons just outside the charge office door, can suggest just one thing on the probabilities, and that is that there was some form of struggle and in the course of wrenching, the tunic or the uniforms of the policemen concerned, buttons were stripped from the garment and fell to the ground.
	That objective, hard evidence negates the submission, the claims of the applicants to have left that police station peacefully with the unresisting acquiesence of the two policemen.
	On that first call, I submit that the evidence should be found to be false.
	Before I carry on, I would ask this Panel to find that all the evidence of the applicants, given by the first applicant in relation to the choice of the target, when it was surveyed and the reason for the attack if I may call it that, on the police station, should fall under the same pall of doubt that taints the rest of their evidence.  If they can't be believed on a central thrust of their evidence, I would ask this Panel to reject the woolly evidence given in regard to what went before the attack on the police station.
	According to the first applicant, the policemen were taken away assured they would come to no harm, and apparently believing this, and led to applicants' motor vehicle, a panel van, a kombi type vehicle.
	They were seated in the back of the vehicle, with the stolen guns at their feet.  Mr Chairman, Honourable members of the Panel, with respect, it is a manifestly untrue statement, it is so grossly improbable, that it can't possibly be believed.