and 41 was silent on this topic. The respondents submit that it is relevant that the applicant himself said he had a stoppage in his account of the engagement outside W108, but it is not clear to me how this last point assists if the applicant's account is rejected. In any event, I consider that the difference is relatively minor and far outweighed by the essential similarities on the accounts.
798 The fifth difference is as to how many soldiers were seen in the vicinity at the time of the alleged execution of EKIA57. Person 14's evidence was that he could see three soldiers in the vicinity of EKIA57. Person 41 said he could see no-one other than the applicant. Person 24's evidence is to similar effect. Obviously this difference must be carefully considered. As I have said, it is possible Person 14's field of vision took in Persons 40 and 41. In any event, the similarities far outweigh this difference or, indeed, all of the differences.
799 The final difference is who said what to whom in the cordon as to what they saw. Person 14 recalled saying "What the hell was that?" to Person 73. Person 24 recalls asking "Did we just witness an execution?" to Person 14. Both those comments could have been made or alternatively, there are different recollections of what was said. Either way, this difference is not a reason for rejecting either witness' account generally.
800 I have mentioned the essential similarities in the evidence of Persons 14, 24 and 41. In summary, those similarities are as follows: (1) each of Persons 14, 24 and 41 observed a PUC being forcibly and aggressively moved in an area outside the north-western part of W108; (2) each of them heard, together with Person 40, an extended burst from a machine-gun; and (3) each of them witnessed a soldier fire a burst of machine-gun into the body of a human being outside the northwest corner of W108. Persons 41 and 24 identified the soldier as the applicant. Person 41 was independent and he had no obvious motive to fabricate the account he gave. There is no evidence of any collusion between Person 41 on the one hand, and Persons 14 and 24 on the other.
801 Before moving to aspects of the applicant's account and those of his witnesses, I will address briefly the move by the troop, or at least part of the troop, to W109.
Moving to W109
802 It seems that different elements of the troop moved to W109 at different times.
803 Person 18 said that the troop commander said that the troop was going to split and commence the assault on W109. Person 18 said that his team remained in W108 prior to the move.
