MR BOOYENS
Mr de Lange, I'm just going to point out to you where Koole says that the name Niewoudt has been inserted incorrectly.  It is on page 2, paragraph 7, second line from the bottom
"Niewoudt does not belong there, it should be Venter"
Paragraph 8, the last line:
"Roelf Venter, Niewoudt and Beeslaar, instructions were given by Roelf Venter, Beeslaar and Niewoudt"
that instructions were not given by Niewoudt and Beeslaar, it was only given by Venter although Niewoudt was present.  
	At the top of page 3, the continuation of paragraph 8, the third line:  the Niewoudt which appears there, he says it's not Niewoudt who did the talking.
	In paragraph 11, it is not Niewoudt's name that belongs here.  
	He says that the contents, the whole content of paragraph 15 is incorrect because the assault which is described there did not take place, so by implication this is also an incorrect reference to Niewoudt.
	Paragraph 21 on page 5, Niewoudt took them to the cells, he says that this is not correct, the only thing that happened the next day is that an unknown man arrived there and brought him breakfast.  There is no story that Niewoudt took people to the cells. 
	I think these are the five cases which I can think of.  I find it extremely coincidental and perhaps you can tell us why there are so many references to Niewoudt in this statement which the witness denies having ever made and in the second place says that this statement is wrong and he has no reason to have any love for Niewoudt but in this statement Niewoudt is implicated more than the witness he ever did, do you have any explanation for this?