ADV BOOYENS
Yes, well, that was their version.   Mr Chairman, just one thing that I have forgotten to mention which springs to mind just now, is one of the aspects that were raised by my learned friend during cross-examination, which I would like to refer the Committee to, and that is that by consent the inquest record was handed in, including medical evidence.   We of course didn't have the advantage of hearing the medical evidence.   We know that some of the doctors are dead.   I think we should try prevent these hearings turning more and more into retrials, that's not what they're supposed to be.
       But the only fact which I want to point out is that there's a difference of view between the pathologists as to whether the four brain lesions could have been caused by one or more than one application of force.   The view of Professor Loubscher and that view  - sorry it was five brain lesions, it was not four - that view appears in the inquest records at page 1154, 1157, 1158, 1169 and pages 1215 to 1210.   Loubscher gives reasons for his view, that it could have been a single application because there were other views as well.   I do not really think that it even takes the matter much further, on the description given by the applicants of a scuffle going on and people falling about and blows with fists being hit, and so on.   There's probably room for both possibilities that there was a single application of force or more than one application of force to the head which could have caused injury.