MR LAX
Can I move onto a different issue, it's around the issue of full disclosure.  I accept what you say with regard to the way witnesses vary in their testimony, we've seen that on numerous occasions, but that's usually in the context where something happens very quickly and it's a traumatic event, that people then see the same thing differently and they see different people in different places and so on.
	With regard to what happened in the vehicle, both applicants were in the vehicle, driving the vehicle, one was a passenger, for a long period of time from the scene of this attack to where it happened, they would have had plenty of time to see what was happening.  You would expect there would be some consistency in their perception as to what had happened to Donne.
	Just to refer you for example, to the evidence or the application of Mr Kulman where for example at page 10 of the papers, if one read that paragraph, that's paragraph 9(a).4 but over the page on page 10 of the papers, he says:
"One was shot at the scene, the other was shot at Bashe River."
I think he's trying to say:
"Some distance was one kilometre from where the operation began."
Okay?  Now on that version alone Donne Meyers wasn't shot there at all.  That would explain why she was purportedly still alive at that point in time, forced to kneel down below the dashboard, as the testimony went, and why she was then shot later or killed later.  Now that version raises a whole set of probabilities diametrically opposed to the other version, how do we deal with those inconsistencies?   That is the one thing.  
	The other thing is this, that on your issue around the orders, they would carry much more weight for me as someone listening to this whole matter, if the commander wasn't present at all, but the commander was present in the most bizarre way, he keeps coming backwards and forwards into this matter.  
	Now what I find highly improbable is that the commander arrived at them long after this thing and then despatched Donne Meyers.  How on earth could they have connected in that way?  The probabilities make it so absolutely unlikely, to me anyway, that that could have happened.  That would be the only way to explain their conduct.  The commander wasn't there, they couldn't refer to anybody.  Maybe they didn't even have instructions, then their course of conduct seems explainable.  So can you just address those two issues?