MR LAX
Mr Cachalia, sorry.  You're saying the same thing over and over again.  The point that Advocate Sigodi is putting to you, and it's a point I made to you at the end of your first bit of cross-examination.  This is a material probability that you're putting to us in argument.  You didn't put it to a single witness.  That's what she's saying to you, and I alerted you to this problem that if you don't put a version you're going to have problems later.  I don't know what problems you may or may not have had in how you conducted your case, that's none of my business, all I'm saying is we're now left with a story where a material probability you're seeking to rely on, which you're asking us to draw a conclusion about, or an inference at best, was not put to the applicants.  How can we then draw such an inference other than on a purely speculative basis?