1. W/O Bartholomew says no -- because it is a private document.No. 1 above is unlawful (I had it thoroughly checked). No. 2 contradicts the evidence (I was in fact charged). No. 3 contradicts no. 2 (Capt. Du Plessis says there was a case) -- and further the case had long been closed. No. 4 wasn't a serious excuse -- there was a stony silence when the docket reappeared. In fact the above all more or less contradict each other. OBSERVATION: These days judges, in their judgements, seem fond of expanding on the significance of such things. I shall say only: let the reader interpret.
2. Capt. Jefta says no -- because there was no case, therefore no information.
3. Capt. Du Plessis says no -- because the case is not closed, so this is classified.
4. And Capt. Scholtz says no -- because the docket has been removed.
POSTSCRIPT: On second thoughts, I shall comment. From the moment I was first released from custody, I walked into every meeting with the police "wired". I think it is true to say that not one recording of the police is not damning. My recordings, too, were seized in a raid -- but I still have the ones that matter. The above is a mere sample of the police's wheeling, and reveals I think that they know they can make any statement they like without consequence. They sacrifice the public for their own reputation, set the public at risk, and I myself have been (and think am) at risk.