forward a proposition to me, that that was probably the most likely thing that happened.
But you have no recollection of that happening, do you?---No, I don't.
640 The applicant was questioned about whether he made a radio call reporting the engagement. He said that he did not recall making one, but he may have made a radio call. There was some fencing with the cross-examiner by the applicant about whether he made a radio call reporting the engagement. The applicant said it was "a matter for hindsight" as to whether he should have taken possession of the rifle before dragging back the body rather than the other way round.
641 The applicant agreed that he had cheered on other soldiers drinking from the prosthetic leg and that he is in photographs in which people are drinking from the prosthetic leg. He agreed that as a senior member of the troop, he encouraged and attributed to a culture within the troop in which it was acceptable to drink from the prosthetic leg.
642 The applicant agreed that the rifle carried by EKIA57 and the machine-gun carried by EKIA56 are shown in a photograph in the Exploitation Report (p 32). He disagreed with the suggestion that the weapons were part of a cache found in the north-eastern corner of W108 under a haystack and destroyed on target.
643 This then is the applicant's account of the engagements outside the compound which resulted in the deaths of EKIA56 and EKIA57.
644 The applicant submits that the Court should find that EKIA56 was engaged outside the tunnel courtyard on the north-western side of W108. The applicant submits that the contemporaneous reporting as to the location of the body of EKIA56 is inaccurate for the reasons which follow.
645 First, the applicant submits that none of his witnesses who were each present in the tunnel courtyard at the time of the discovery of the tunnel said that they saw an engagement in that courtyard or that they saw the body of EKIA56 in the courtyard. This is part of a key point made by the applicant and is related to Person 41's time-line of events.
646 Secondly, the applicant submits to the fact that none of Persons 40, 42 or 43, who were also present in the tunnel courtyard at the time of the discovery of the tunnel or shortly thereafter, gave evidence that they saw the body of EKIA56 in the tunnel courtyard. This again, is part of a key point made by the applicant relying on Person 41's time-line of events, but this time focussing on the evidence of Persons 40, 42 and 43.
