MS GABRIEL
I take that point Mr Chair, but on my submission it is highly unlikely that Taylor would confuse a group of three or four people with the very simple, very effective killing of one person.
	If I may move on.  So my submission is that the act of distinguishing this evidence, has been designed to protect them from answering any further questions.  Now I want to point out Mr Chairman that the applicants are bringing an application for amnesty for the killing of a citizen of this country.  There is no onus on the mother of that man, that deceased man, to convince you that the applicants are lying.  The onus is on the applicants to present a full disclosure so that the reasons for his death not just the manner of his death, are well understood.  
	The witnesses led by the family clearly establish that there were very solid grounds on which Mr Ninela could have been prosecuted.  Both with respect to the death of the Bengu, son of Bengu and secondly with respect to the presence of weapons at the house in Inanda.  That has never been a dispute and the witnesses led by the family were very very clear that he was implicated in that.  The problem is on the versions presented by the applicants, and that is, we were following orders, they do not come up to be challenged against that.  All we can do is perhaps now at this stage, to question Taylor who is dead.  That particular aspect can never be challenged.  So I would point out that the full disclosure emanates not so much from the fact that Mrs Ninela couldn't point to aspects of their evidence that were missing, but from the fact that at the earliest possible opportunity, they could not remember.  When they could remember, they remembered enough to distinguish and when they did remember it was a very selective disclosure.  They would reveal and did reveal no more than was necessary to support the version that they were carrying out orders.  Subsequently when the family had access to the amplified application and compared it with the first application, they realised that there was more than met the eye in these applications and on that basis went out and secured the further information, which then was presented to the applicants and suddenly they could remember.
	If I may just move through specific points in the evidence of the second and third applicants.  Apart from the obvious contradictions with Taylor, what I point out as significant and I submit is significance is this miraculous burst of memory in the intervening two and a half year period.  Minute details are recalled, such as the fact that he was apparently picked up with a limpet mine, they remember details of who shot and who blew him up, they remembered details of, Wasserman recalls details of what he was thinking at the time, he was thinking when du Preez blew him up that this is a good thing, because people then will not identify him and believe that he has gone to Swaziland.  How is it then that such minute detail can be recalled at this very, very late stage?
	In evidence and under cross-examination Wasserman says he did not talk to Taylor before preparing his first application.  Both of the first applications incorporate paragraphs from Taylor's application and I refer the Committee to pages 20 and 36 of the first bundle.  It is clear that these applications were made at the same time and in concert.