MR DREYER
Mr Chairman, if I may just in the correct perspective state the version of Mr Oelofse in respect of the ear.  That appears on page 662 which unfortunately is not part of the documents that I've prepared because I haven't cross-examined or used that but it's a short portion and I should like to just read it into the record.  That is also evident from the statement by the applicant which is also part of the documents before this Committee.  It is stated as such
" At home I went to sleep and early the next morning I went to General Oelofse's home.  I handed over the ear to him.  He said that he didn't want anything to do with the thing and that he didn't want to know anything"  then his advocate asks him "Could you please explain that a bit more?"  "Your honour, the big problem was that people had been shot and I was concerned regarding what I had to do.  I am not an operational person and then I said to the General 'here is the ear which was cut off at the scene - people were shot dead' and he said 'but your objective was to obtain arms and ammunition, what have you done now?' and I regarded myself as being scolded."
That is according to Oelofse, the correct facts, facts and it's also in accordance with this very witness's version of what the original order was and that was to get hold of weapons, ammunition for the purposes of the revolution that would follow.