MR PRIOR
No, just that he was emotional and he had come forward because he had heard that people or the press reports were saying that Mr Cerqueira had been shooting at the applicants and he felt strongly about that and he came to set the record straight.
	Whatever criticism one has against the powder residue, I submit it goes some way to support Mr Cerqueira.  There's no evidence before the Committee to indicate that the length of the time or the ...[indistinct] of time would destroy or hamper in anyway the test.  It would seem from Stoltz's affidavit that she - and from du Plessis affidavit, that the samples were taken, they were properly sealed and they were properly despatched and the were properly analysed.  
	The relevance of the criticism may be a good one except that in the criminal trial this was also not challenged to - Cerqueira's death was never challenged, so one doesn't really know why the State never led that evidence - maybe it was irrelevant. There's also a consideration with respect, is that if Cerqueira had been armed and he had seen the applicants coming away from Heidelberg Tavern where there had been an unlawful act, then he would have been entitled - possibly, to apprehend the applicants.
	We also had evidence from Brode which was corroborated to a large extent by Mr Cerqueira as well, that shots entered the Machado Restaurant and if they were being shot at then naturally they would have been justified in defending themselves.  So, on whatever basis Mr Cerqueira - maybe the first proposal that I made was to a larger extent than the last proposal that ii doesn't avail the applicants to rely heavily on the fact of his being armed.
	Because that brings into call Advocate Sandi's question: "Because the applicants have not properly canvassed, what political motivation or objective did they have in killing Mr Cerqueira"?