279 The respondents submit that the applicant did not expressly challenge either witness to the effect that the conversation or statement the witness related did not occur.
280 In the course of the applicant's evidence, he addressed the respondents' case concerning Person 4 and the execution of EKIA56 and he said that he never heard the use of the word "blooded" or "blooding the rookie" in relation to any of these actions. He said he had not heard the phrase used in the SASR until a few years ago when it was being bandied around.
281 Person 5 denied that when the troop was back at the Vehicle Drop-Off Point (VDOP), he had a conversation with the applicant in which they both said words to the effect of "we blooded the rookie" and he denied that he said to someone other than the applicant "I've finally blooded the rookie".
282 The applicant submits that I should reject the evidence of Person 18 about what was said at the VDOP because it is vague, uncorroborated and makes no sense in circumstances where Person 4 had participated in the killing of Objective Depth-Charger. I reject that submission. It is true that the evidence is general, but as I have said, I find Person 18 was an honest and reliable witness. I accept Person 18's evidence about what was said by the applicant and Person 5 at the VDOP immediately after the mission to W108. I reject the evidence of the applicant and Person 5.
283 I also accept Person 14's evidence of what he heard Person 5 say at the vehicle layup point (LUP). Person 14 did not suggest that the applicant or Person 18 were present during the conversation and Person 14's evidence is not corroborated by Person 18's evidence. I take into account the absence of corroboration and, as is the case with all the witnesses where relevant, the fact that the alleged conversation or statement occurred or was made approximately 13 years before Person 14 gave evidence. Nevertheless, I accept the evidence of Person 14 on this topic. I reject the evidence of Person 5.
284 There was evidence from some of the respondents' witnesses that "blooding" did not necessarily mean an unlawful killing and that it could mean a lawful killing in action. For example, there is evidence to that effect from Persons 14 and 24 and it is implicit in parts of Person 18's evidence. I accept that evidence and it follows that the meaning of the words depends on the circumstances and the particular context in which the words are used. To that extent, I accept the applicant's submission that the statements which I find were made do not of themselves amount to an admission of unlawful conduct by Person 5, let alone establishing
