CHAIRPERSON
But just on this question, Mr Martini, we here what you say, Mr Barnard hasn't got a good track record, there's no doubt about that and I don't think that's in issue, but he's come and he's given a version and he's explained why he's turned and why he's now decided to make a clean breast of things.  Now one's got to take a look at that.  Then we've got two conflicting versions between - relating to questions of fact, relating to certain details, particularly in the Omar incident.  Then we get for instance, the question of the Makarov pistol, now we've got two different versions, one from Mr van Zyl, one from Mr Barnard.  We've got two conflicting version as to why Mr Barnard was involved in that operation, one from Mr van Zyl who says he was there just to monitor and the other from Mr Barnard who said no, he was there to kill.  Two split versions on fact.  Now are you saying well, because of his bad track record, because of his being a self-confessed liar, a criminal, etcetera, we don't have to even go beyond that?  Because if one then starts looking at probabilities, or even possibilities if you want to go down that far, let's just take the question of the Makarov gun, what's more probable or possible?  That Mr van Zyl phoned Peaches and said: "Peaches, please get rid of that gun"?  And the silencer ...  What's more probably, that he was brought in to monitor and paid R7 000 to monitor, to sit in a motor car and look?  That sort of thing.  What I'm saying, are you saying we needn't get down to doing that exercise of determining who is giving the correct version?