NEWS
SCHEDULES
COLUMNS
PREVIOUS TOURS
OTHER SPORTS
STATISTICS
INTERVIEWS
SLIDE SHOW
ARCHIVES

Cronje's June 22 testimony

MR CRONJE: That's why I'm saying to you, Ms Batohi, none of this makes sense to me and it sounds kind of kinky that Gibbs and myself would be playing with one another.

MS BATOHI: You see, Mr Cronjé, that's the problem that we have, because if - do you agree that if one reads that transcript, and if it is correct, then there must be another definition to the word 'playing', because then it doesn't make sense?

MR CRONJE: Could be, yes exactly.

MS BATOHI: In fact, as you read it, it would appear that playing would mean who is actually involved in this plan or this scheme. Do you agree with that?

COMMISSIONER: Playing along, in other words.

MR CRONJE: Playing along with what, Commissioner?

COMMISSIONER: Playing along with some attempt to influence the decision of the game, or aspects of it.

MR CRONJE: If you want to read it that way, then it could well be, yes.

MS BATOHI: Well, Mr Cronjé, you read that transcript and you're a fairly intelligent person, it's not a question of 'if you want to read it like that'. How would you see, if you read that entire conversation, what sort of meaning would you give to the word 'playing' in that context?

MR CRONJE: In that context, I would say, 'Is Strydom playing?', it means is he playing in a match.

MS BATOHI: I'd like you to read the whole conversation and tell me whether in that context you seriously think that the word playing means playing in a match.

MR CRONJE: Ms Batohi, I'm not trying to be against you, but if you take one word or one sentence in a book and put it together with another sentence it might mean a totally different meaning to what is actually in a conversation.

MS BATOHI: I hear exactly what you're saying, but you're not answering my questions. Let's just assume for a moment. You said you had a lot of conversations. This is one that could possibly have taken place.

MR CRONJE: That's correct.

MS BATOHI: And it's on that basis that I'm asking you these questions. If you read that entire conversation up until the two lines, could that word 'playing' ever mean playing in a game? Read the entire conversation and tell me whether you still have that view.

MR CRONJE: Ms Batohi, it doesn't matter how many times I read this, it means to me - 'Is Strydom playing?', it means is he playing in a match.

MS BATOHI: I don't want to labour this, Mr Cronjé. Let's forget about just Strydom. I've said to you if you look at the entire conversation up until the two lines, do you follow me?

MR CRONJE: Yeah, I follow.

MS BATOHI: In that context, could the word 'playing' mean playing in the game?

MR CRONJE: Exactly. That's what I mean.

MS BATOHI: So why do you then say - when he says - I'm just going to read you this portion from the middle of that conversation. Sanjay says: "Yeah, Boje is playing, and who is playing? Gibbs?"

MR WALLACE: I'm sorry, Mr Commissioner. This is most unfair. We don't know what was said before. I can think of several constructions of the conversation before this transcript started. There is an omission in that sentence, indicated by dots, we don't know what words should be in there, or whether that's a long extract. It all depends upon the whole thing. This is the problem we have with this. It's said to be a transcript of a conversation. Mr Cronjé says, 'well, look, I had conversations where I talked about these things.' But unless one sees the whole conversation and the whole context, with respect, to ask these questions is just unfair. Ms Batohi thinks it means one thing, the witness says it means something else. It's an impossible situation, with all due respect. And I must object to it.

COMMISSIONER: You've now placed another objection. What is the - what are you objecting to?

MR WALLACE: My objection is that what we have here is what purports to be five questions and answers out of a telephone conversation. We do not know what precede it, there's no greetings in this. It doesn't, on its face, purport to be a complete conversation, and the meaning to be attached to these particular lines will depend upon what has gone before. One can imagine a number of questions, which Sanjay might have asked ahead of that, just taking the line of cross-examination, which would properly generate the answer these are the people who are in the team for this particular match. Strydom's playing. For example, Mr Commissioner, Mr Cronjé has said in his evidence that he told Sanjay that he'd spoken to Gibbs and Boje and Strydom. That he has said in his evidence, and then in that context, a prior conversation, it's perfectly reasonable for Sanjay to be saying, 'Well, is Strydom playing?', meaning is he playing in a particular match. Has he been chosen for the team, and he's playing. 'Boje? Yes, Boje is playing. Gibbs? Gibbs and myself.' It's a perfectly reasonable explanation. It depends on what goes before and what goes afterwards, and the problem is my learned friend is attaching a particular meaning on the basis this is a complete transcript, which it doesn't even pretend to be.

COMMISSIONER: Mr Wallace, you've now told me twice what the basis is for your objection. What I want to know is what is the nature of the objection? Are you objecting to any questions being asked on this tape?

MR WALLACE: I'm objecting to the form of these questions, which assumes that this is a complete transcript of a conversation when it is not, and which assumes a meaning based upon that assumption. Those questions are unfair and misleading to the witness, and they are not based on any fact which is in evidence, or which indeed my learned friend at this stage is capable of proving.

Click here for more....