CHAIRPERSON
I'm getting more confused, Mr Sambo.   Did you say what is contained in this judgment or did you not say so?    No, you ask me, I have asked the question.   You can ask me to simplify my question if you think it's that complex, and I will endeavour to do so.   I am here to assist you, you are here to assist me.   I will simplify my question.    You have been referred to a version you gave during your criminal trial which is encapsulated in the judgment of Judge Curlewis, as appearing on page 13 thereof, and I quote what the judge said you had said during your criminal trial.    He says you said the follwoing, now listen carefully, you thought that these two whites, and by these two whites Judge Curlewis was referring to the deceased, Mr Van der Spuy, and the person who's still living, Mr O'Farrell, you thought that the two whites were going to perhaps steal from your car, or look to see if they could steal from your car, and then come back that night, and this was in broad daylight in front of your brother.   I think there is a typing error there, it should have read as this was in broad daylight in front of your brother, that they couldn't have stolen during the day, but you thought they would come back and steal from your car at night, and that's why they came to see what is it that they could back and steal at night.   I am not saying that, it is Judge Curlewis saying, summarising your evidence.   Now you would want to have us believe that Judge Curlewis was summarising the evidence that never came from you, which would be highly improbable.